Archive for January, 2009

Legal Alibis

January 16, 2009

On December 2, 2007, the people of Venezuela  rejected  the  indefinite reelection of the President in  a Constitutional Reform referendum. However, a year after the defeat of his proposal, President Chavez is pushing again for a constitutional amendment to reintroduce indefinite reelection. Following the presidential announcement, politicians, lawyers and figures of supposedly independent public powers have rushed to give us legal opinions to make us understand that there is nothing wrong, legally speaking, with the new proposal.

The legal contortions are not simple and present diverging strategies depending on each case: some concepts of the Constitution are interpreted with wide latitude, stretching to the maximum its possible meaning, while others are a narrow, myopic and literal reading of the Constitution, which completely ignores the spirit of the law.

The result is a silly putty Constitution whose interpretation is stretched or hardened so that it tailors to the desires of the caudillistic President.

In what follows, I analyze the different types of “alibis”  that I have heard or read about with regards to the legality of the constitutional amendment.

1 .- Broad Interpretation Alibis

1.1.-The Potential Alternability

Alternability is a major hurdle for the amendment since Article 6 of the Constitution clearly declares it as a fundamental principle. Therefore, a reform that would involve touching this principle would be modifying the Constitution and would require the approval of a Constituent Assembly.

To bypass this major legal obstacle, a much broader interpretation has been given recently: Since there exist elections  recall referenda procedures, the notion of Alternability  contained in the fundamental principles of the Constitution would not be affected as long as the people have the power to decide whether the President stays or leaves.

In other words, Alternability would be interpreted as the potential to have a different President rather than the certainty of having him.
I disagree with that interpretation.

In fact, if Venezuelans awaken in twenty years with an elected President who has been in power for 30 years, one can not say that there was during  that time alternability of power, even if elections have been impeccable.

Until a few days ago, the new definition of Alternability meant imposing a  legal hurdle not easy to overcome: if the Presidential alternability  were interpreted as a potential for alternating governments, the same definition should have been applied to the other elected positions which have the possibility of recall. Otherwise, Alternability would have been interpreted in one way for the President and in another way for other elected officials.

That two-headed definition is not recognized in the fundamental principles of the Constitution. Therefore to insert it would have implied a fundamental change and would have needed a Constituent Assembly.

Therefore,  I suspect that those who devote themselves to making up legal alibis for the President warned him of this obvious duality, which is why the indefinite re-election proposal was unexpectedly extended to other elected officials.

1.2-Restrictiveness of Article 230

Another argument I have heard to support indefinite re-election is that Article 230, which stipulates that the President may be reelected only once, restricts the choice of the people and therefore it would be anti-democratic. In this case, the restrictiveness of Article 230 was precisely imposed by legislators to insure a solid democracy which would endure in time.

In fact, it was clear to lawmakers that there was the need to avoid the temptations that the archaic currents of caudillismo still present in the Venezuelan spirit would prevail. That is why the 1961 Constitution restricts reelection and that such a limitation persists in that of 1999.

Therefore, and because the restriction exists in explicit fashion , trying  to change it is not a trivial matter because it goes against the fundamental spirit of the Constitution and would require the endorsement of a Constituent Assembly.

1.3-Great democracies of the world  do not put an end to Presidential mandates.

In various occasions, I have heard as an argument the fact that the great democracies of the world do not impose term limits to mandates. This happens to be “a wide interpretation alibi” because the majority of the countries that are mentioned have parliamentary systems.

This is not a casual fact. Presidential systems give enormous amounts of power to the current President. Therefore, term limits are used to slow contain them. In fact, I know of no solid democracy with presidential systems without term limits. The example of France, which is commonly cited, not only ignores the fact that France has a mixed system (parliamentary and presidential) but also that recently a law was approved to restrict the terms of the President, so that indefinite reelection is no longer a French phenomenom.

The opposite is also true: the examples of presidential systems without term limits are not particularly representative of great democracies. Such is the case of Cuba, Zimbabwe and Bieloruss.

Parliamentary systems, on the contrary, not only are less focused on the individual, but they have a series of internal controls which automatically limit power and force the President to constantly give account of his actions and decisions. In fact, it is not the Head of State who governs, but the party. In the British system the head of the opposition even is part of the Government, with a budget, space and his own perks. His role is to question the Prime Minister and his Ministers daily about what they are doing. In other words, the opposition and the Government’s party have a key role to counteract any abuse of power by the Prime Minister.

As an example, in a parliamentary system like that of Canada, the Prime Minister asks for permission to have half an hour a year to talk to the Nation. The message is previously sent to the media and systematically, the Head of the opposition receives exactly the same space and speaks immediately afterwards in order to preserve a balance with the Government.

Very little to do with the weekly five hours of Alo Presidente, nor the continuos nationwide addresess (cadenas) of indeterminate length that exist in Venezuela.

1.4 The concept of a recall referendum is guarantee of Alternability

To those that support indefinite reelection, the recall referendum is the guarantee of democratic alternability.

It is a pretty alibi of legality since, in theory, the people have the power to freely revoke any mandate in the middle of the term.

That is the theory. Sadly, in the recent history of Venezuela, the petition to request the recall referendum against President Chavez was turned into a systematic instrument of discrimination and coercion in such a way that the Venezuelan people will never again dare to sign a petition to revoke anyone with true power.

Therefore, even if the recall referendum could have been an instrument to counteract the unlimited power of a President with caudillo aspirations, in practice, it not only has been a failure, since never modern Venezuela had been so dependent on the Caudillo, but it represented an instrument of division of the population and of limiting individual rights.

In conclusion, one can not use a legal concept whose applicability has been extremely harmful to both human rights as well as the democratic well being of the country as an agument to counteract the enormous danger that the introduction of indefinite reelection would represent.

2.-Narrow interpretation alibis

Those that back with legal arguments the indefinite election skip over the fact that there already was in Venezuela a referendum about a reform and one of points of that reform, the most important one, was precisely, that of the indefinite reelection.

But when they are asked about that important detail, those that on other points argue for the widest range of interpretation, turn then towards a literal and obtuse interpretation of the Constitution.

2.1 Article 345 of the Constitution states that a reform can not be voted twice within the same Constitutional period. The alibi used by the legal spokesmen of the President is that an amendment is not the same as a reform and that we would be voting on two completely different things.

There are two arguments, one literal, the words “amendment” and “reform” are different and another one to the heart of the matter, the reform of 2007 dealt with a group of changes while the 2009 amendment would deal with a very precise modification.

Let’s begin by analyzing the second argument according to which Article 345 of the Constitution would not apply because Venezuelans would be voting on two different proposals.

Article 344 of the 1999 Constitution establishes that the referendum for the reform can be voted separately. President Chavez was told to make use of the prerogative and he did not want to: He opted for inserting the indefinite reelection within a group of articles and ask that they be voted as a block. Thus, had the reform been approved, the indefinite reelection, and all of the changes the President had proposed would have been approved, even if the voter had disagreed with sme of them.

That was not the case: The president lost, which is why the indefinite reelection and all of the other articles proposed were rejected. In a few words, the indefinite reelection was voted on and rejected by the voters.

Let us now go to the literal argument according to which Article 345 does not apply because the amendment and the reform are two different concepts and 345 uses the word “reform”.

An amendment fits within the spirit of Article 345, despite what the defenders of the proposal want us to believe, because if you allow President Chavez to come back via an amendment to vote on a point that the people rejected already, nothing will stop a President, whether this one or any other one, to subject the country until they are worn out, to constant referenda on the same subject happily going from a reform to an amendment. The opposite would also be true: Nothing would stop the opponents from proposing the opposite point until it is approved.

That is why Article 345 exists, to avoid such a circumnstance. In conclusion, to legally accept that you can vote on an amendment over a subject that was already voted and rejected via reform or even, via a prior amendment is to open a Pandora’d Box that could be very costly for the country in terms of peace and democratic stability and a clear violation of the law.

2.2.-New Alibis

The New Year brought us a surprise: The President and his supporters, which up to a few days earlier fervently defended without any hesitation that only the President should be reelected indefinitely, made a spectacular about face. Whether for reasons related to the lack of popularity of the proposal or because the alibi of alternability would fit better from a legal point of  view, it is now proposed that all popularly elected positions be allowed to have an indefinite reelection.

The problem is that the argument of the amendment was simply to erase a phrase to one of the article is not longer true, since now a number of articles need to be modified. One could ask if now the amendment which was not a reform is being transformed in a reform which is an amendment.

In the face of such an argument, the alibi makers tell us that Artile 340 states that the amendment has as its objective adding or modifying one or more articles of the Constitution.

That is in fact the case, except that the article adds at the end “without altering its fundamental structure”.

In other words, if the amendment of an article was illegal, so will be one on many articles since it is based on a new interpretation of what alternate mandates are and above all, it completely ignores the fact that the indefinite reelection was already voted on.

In any case, despite all of the legal intricacies that they want to sell us, we all know what is happening: The Constitutional changes obey only to the desires of a Caudillo to remain in power eternally and are possible only because of the huge vacuum of democratic institutionality in which the President and his alibi makers, have led Venezuela into.

Hugo Chavez and his referendum: It’s all lies and provocations

January 15, 2009

If it ever was difficult to understand what is going on in Venezuela it is now. In the face of adverse polls that suggest he will lose an illegal second referendum that would eventually allow him to be reelected, Hugo Chavez changes his tune, allowing other elected officials into the package and begins provoking, lying and using silly charegs of treason against some members of the opposition as if plotting a strategy and meeting with experts in an election was somehow illegal.

So, we may ask, what is the point?

Because time seems to be too short to overcome the difference in the polls. Even the absurd question that will be asked in the ballot at the referendum is so bizarre, obtuse, absurd and unintelligible, that at times, it seems to me as if the strategy is actually not to hold the referendum.

But is it? I just can’t tell. In some sense the Obama inauguration limits Chavez’ ability to do something dramatic against the US, it would have no justification. Gaza seemed like a good topic, but while the opposition did not say much on it, it did not attack Chavez’ decision frontally either, so it was hard to use that as an excuse.

So, start provoking the students and make up silly emails against opposition figures, who seem to use code for some characters in their emails, but make sure that others are easily identifiable. To top it all off, they use company emails in a world where it is trivial to open dozens of fake email accounts all over the place.

Then, get up and state with a straight face, that there are no longer street kids in Venezuela, because Chavez actually solved that problem. Or that food inflation is zero (yes he said zero, cero) for those that buy in Mercal, as if the Government did not approve dozens of price increases in 2008 and the Venezuelan people were dumb enough to believe what he says.

Of course, there is no mention of crime and the daily threat it represents to the average poor Venezuelan, or that poverty is now measured differently to improve results and is nowhere near the lows in the much maligned and ever reivindicated IVth. Republic, when oil revenues per capita were not what they are today.

So, what is the intention? Provoke to divide? Provoke to delay? Lie to convince? Pulling all the stops to overcome the deficit?

Maybe it is just all of the above…

Chavez knows he is behind and the difference may be unsurmountable, but…

If he provokes, divides, lies, buys votes and cheats..maybe, just maybe, the inevitable can somehow be avoided.

And if not, maybe we can postpone too…If we can show the opposition is conspiring because they are trying to beat Chavez, the students are just pro-US pitiyankees and Chavez has saved us all, maybe we can make it close enough for the CNE to save the day.

It is just like the way they are managing the economy. It is a huge Hail Mary pass to try to save it all in one try. For the economy, it is oil, if oil recovers before June, the revolution is saved. If not it is in huge trouble. For the election if they can close the gap, maybe Rafael Ramirez can go spend PDVSA money and buy votes nationwide rather than just in Sucre State, the CNE can swing some votes or stop counting and we can get our hands in enough refrigerators to give away and save the day.

The whole thing is simply too bizarre  for someone confident that he even has a chance. Thus, the strategy is surprise, confront, provoke and hope for the best. Don’t let the opposition develop a strategy, keep them off balance. Cheat, lie, deceive and do whatever is necessary.

Which is what worries me. Chavez and his Government have proven to have no scruples in all this. Violate the Constitution, change your mind, violate the law, violate people’s rights, accelerate the process, don’t let anyone new register to vote, forget about doing anything about the economy until the vote is over.

What else will hapen in the next four weeks? What new suprises, rabit out of the hat, challenges and lies are we going to see before February 15th.?

Scary, isn’t it?

January 15, 2009

  

   

   

This is the referendum question

January 14, 2009

And this will be the rather obtuse question that Venezuelans will vote in the upcoming referendum:

Do you approve of the widening of the political rights of Venezuelans in the terms contemplated in the amendment to articles 230, 160, 174, 192 and 162 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, processed by the National Assembly, which allows people to run for all positions of popular election in such a way that their election will be the exclusive expression of the vote of the people?

which is a loose translation of:

¿Aprueba usted la ampliación de los derechos políticos de las venezolanas y los venezolanos en los términos contemplados en la enmienda de los artículos 230, 160, 174, 192 y 162 de la Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, tramitada por la Asamblea Nacional, al permitirse la postulación para todos los cargos de elección popular de modo que su elección sea expresión exclusiva del voto del pueblo?

The many tricks of CADIVI corruption in the Chavez revolution

January 13, 2009

Every exchange control system has led to huge levels of corruption in Venezuela. CADIVI is no different. What is different this time around is the lack of checks and balances and fear. With other Governments in the past, reporters would denounce graft, an investigation would be opened and even if those responsible were not punished, those involved in the graft would stop doing it or try to hide it even more. This is no longer the case. Under Chavez, few things are ever investigated and the media is afraid to report things. Moreover, even if you knew all the details, who would you go to? The Prosecutor? The Comptroller? There really is nobody to go to as everything gets covered up even when Chavez and his Government know things are going on. In fact, Chavez has removed people from CADIVI, but quietly. He has also gone after one case, the infamous Microstar case, but this seems to be more about getting someone out of the way, rather than corruption.

So, without much further ado, here is a guide to CADIVI corruption:

  • The Straight Bribe: This is the most common case. Want to accelerate your CADIVI request? Maybe a payment of Bs. 0.15 to Bs. 0.3 will speed it up dramatically. As someone I know told me: There is a CADIVI guy with a very fancy car and a nice house in Florida and I paid for most of it. Except for food and medicines, if you don’t go the straight bribe way, you are likely to see huge delays.
  • The Inflated Invoice: Import something, but have your supplier inflate the price, without overdoing it. Then have your supplier keep the difference abroad and you can either keep that or bring it back at the swap exchange rate thus reducing the costs. You can avoid this hiring specialized companies, but most of them are American and we want no official dealings with pitiyankee companies, so we don’t use them. This is a revolution.
  • The Forgotten Debt: In contrast to all previous exchange controls, this Government has given out foreign currency to pay debt. Find a business that is bankrupt or under impossible conditions to pay back the debt, buy the debt for ten or twenty cents on the dollar and then go to CADIVI and ask that you get paid the dollars at Bs. 2.15 per dollar. You will have to pay a little for this, but the margin s so huge it is worth it. This mechanism is practically exhausted as most of the debt available has been found and paid for at a huge profit.
  • The Official Export: Find something you can get the Government to sell to you, say a Diesel tanker, an iron ore barge or a steel products, but pay them at international prices, but at the official rate of exchange. Turn around and sell the goods abroad in exchange for US dollars and turn around and sell the dolars in the swap market. Huge profits, just need the contact at the appropriate Government industry. CADIVI does not even have to get involved as long as you can get the export permit.
  • The Carousel: Find something innocuous to import from Colombia, let’s say school notebooks, not food or anything that will get custom officials suspicious. Import it form Colombia at the official exchange rate of Bs. 2.15 per US$ and ship with a truck via one Colombian border point and immediately send it back to Colombia via another. Start the process again, getting import permits to bring the trick back. Same stuff, you just never sell it, just recycle it and move it around like a carousel.
  • The Phantom Container: Set up a company in Panama that sells widgets. Get a permit to buy a couple of million dollars of widgets from it. Bring in a container full of boxes of widgets, but just fill the outside boxes with widgets, the rest are empty boxes. You get a couple of million to bring a few thousand dollars of widgets. The rest is pure profit.
  • The Nouveau Travel Agent: Set up or buy a travel agency. Find people who have credit cards but cant afford US$ 5,000 for travel (plus a cash advance of US$ 500). Promise to take them to Panama, Aruba and the like, pay their hotels for a couple of nights and arrange a way to get them all of their quota. You pay their expenses, give them some cash and you keep 60-70% of the dollars purchased at Bs. 2.15 per US$, which you sell at the swap rate which is almost triple that.
  • The Software Reset: I am told this is no longer being offered as new software is in place. But it used yo be very simple:You would pay somebody a fee to reset your quota so that it appears as if you have yet to spend your foreign currency. You can then travel again and take advantage of the Government’s largesse.

Have a different one that you know about first hand? Let me know…but you can see how huge fortunes have been made in the name of the revolution, but there is nobody to keep it in check.

Carta abierta a los críticos del informe de HRW sobre Venezuela

January 12, 2009

Carta abierta a los más de 100 “expertos” de América Latina, que criticaron el informe sobre Venezuela de Human Rights Watch.

Estimados Señores:

Hemos leído su carta criticando el informe Una década de Chávez: intolerancia política y oportunidades perdidas para la Promoción de los Derechos Humanos en Venezuela por la organización Human Rights Watch, y estamos atónitos por su superficialidad y la falta de rigor académico que ustedes injustamente le reclaman a HRW.

De hecho, el título por sí solo es bastante engañoso ya que algunos de los firmantes de la carta apenas califican como “expertos” en América Latina y es evidente que el vínculo común de quienes firman la carta es simplemente un apoyo ciego a Hugo Chávez y a su falsa pseudo revolución. No esta basado en un conocimiento concreto de lo que está ocurriendo en Venezuela y lo que critican del citado informe.

En cuanto a la la discriminación por motivos políticos, están, por supuesto, refiriéndose a la infame lista Tascón / Chávez, una perversa base de datos de aquellos que firmaron una petición para revocar el mandato de Hugo Chávez, que ha sido ampliamente utilizada para discriminar en el empleo y/o en la prestación de servicios a los ciudadanos venezolanos. Ustedes cuestionan la veracidad de esta discriminación, la cual Teodoro Petkoff ha calificado como una lista “apartheid”, pero quizás debería HRW haberla vinculado con este vídeo del documental “La Lista” (Para un resumen escrito de “La Lista”, léase aquí) donde en el minuto 0:49, Hugo Chávez, dice: “El que firme contra Chávez, ahí quedará su nombre registrado para la historia”. Más adelante, en el minuto 2:17 el presidente Chávez, en su show de variedades dominical Alo Presidente (# 214) bromea acerca de la lista Tascón y el miedo que tiene la gente de estar en ella. Finalmente, en el minuto 3:08, en una reunión de Gabinete, Hugo Chávez dice: “La famosa lista de Tascón nostros debemos archivarla ya. Eso ya paso. Entierrese la lista de Luis Tascon, Seguramente cumplio un papel importante en un momento determinado, pero ya eso paso.”

¿Qué habría querido decir el presidente de Venezuela, cuando ordenó públicamente “archivarla ya” y el “entierro” de la lista? Enterrarla, tenía un significado muy claro: Chávez sabía de la lista y la respaldó por un largo tiempo, nunca la condenó y entonces pidió que ya no se utilizara. Ordenó que la enterraran ya que la prensa local comenzó la impresión diaria de decenas de casos de discriminación y despidos, mediante el uso de la lista Tascón / Chávez. Muchos de estos casos están bien documentados en “La Lista”.

Pero en el nombre de la precisión y el rigor, tal vez podrían ustedes haberse simplemente tomado el tiempo de descargar la base de datos de la lista Tascón / Chávez, y estudiarla un poco. Esta representa un uso perverso de la tecnología, y es un abominable ejemplo de lo que puede hacer la humanidad en el nombre de la ideología y la política. Clasifica a millones de venezolanos a favor o en contra de Hugo Chávez. Sus partidarios, son llamados “Patriotas”, por supuesto, y para asegurarse que la presión apropiada pueda ejercerse sobre aquellos que están en contra de esta revolución vacía, se incluye su dirección personal y la de de su centro de votación, asi como un poderoso motor de búsqueda.

Imaginanensecon la lista se puede espiar a su familia y vecinos, desde la comodidad de su computadora portátil y saber si firmaron contra Chávez (si usted está en contra de él); o si se han beneficiado o no de los programas de asistencia del Gobierno (si usted lo apoya), creando así un instrumento de división y odio para todos los venezolanos

Sólo su existencia y elaboración, por parte un Gobierno que pretende ser democrático, es una violación de los derechos otorgados por la Constitución de Venezuela, así como del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos y la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos. Y recuerde, Chávez ordenó que fuera enterrada, pero nunca la condenó.

Sí, en efecto, Venezuela no es un modelo político para nadie, como claramente lo exponen HRW y José Miguel Vivancos. El país es signatario de estos acuerdos y declaraciones internacionales, los cuales ustedes no tomaron en cuenta en su carta. El hecho de desconocerlos no es ninguna excusa, especialmente cuando están reclamando el rigor académico que un proceso de revisio por pares debe tener.

Y sí, en la mayoría de los casos no se puede probar que hubo discriminación. Cuando a uno de nosotros se le negó un pasaporte, no se le dio un trozo de papel indicando que era porque había firmado contra Chávez, pues sólo se le dijo verbalmente que ésa era la verdadera razón. Esto sucedió a miles de venezolanos que no pudieron obtener un pasaporte o una cédula de identidad durante meses después del referendo revocatorio de 2004.

En cuanto a los empleos o contratos con el Gobierno, incluso después de que Chávez pidió que la lista fuese enterrada; se utilizó para deshacerse de los enemigos del Estado que trabajaban en la empresa petrolera Sincor, cuando el Gobierno la nacionalizó. El recién nombrado presidente de esa compañía no dejó dudas al respecto: “Esta es una cuestión de Estado. Hay una lista que se distribuyó en la prensa y que es real. Salió de aquí, estamos investigando y quien la filtró irá a la cárcel. Se aplicará a personal clave que se encuentra dentro o fuera de la empresa”. Y sí, las personas fueron despedidas, no son tantas las inexactitudes y rumores, ¿verdad?

Y está el caso de Rocío San Miguel y otros dos abogados (que se muestra en “La Lista”) que trabajaban en el Consejo de Fronteras, quienes grabaron 55 minutos de conversaciones telefónicas con sus superiores; quienes les explicaron que fueron despedidos por firmar en contra de Hugo Chávez y que el Vicepresidente de Venezuela directamente lo había aprobado. Este caso está ahora en la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos.

Mientras que ustedes dicen que el Gobierno tenia el derecho de despedir a los trabajadores petroleros por irse a la huelga, omiten el no tan irrelevante hecho de que no sólo fue ilegal, -haciendo caso omiso a la estricta legislación de Venezuela-, sino que les confiscaron sus prestaciones sociales (también ilegal bajo la ley venezolana), así como las contribuciones voluntarias al fondo de pensiones y los ahorros de todos los trabajadores, sin ninguna orden judicial que lo autorizara. Estos trabajadores, iban desde mensajeros y secretarias, hasta de hecho, ejecutivos de alto nivel. Los Tribunales del Trabajo de Venezuela no han procesado ni uno solo de estos casos desde 2003. Si eso no es una discriminación y la violación del debido proceso y el Esatdo de Derecho, ¿entonces qué es?

En cuanto a la autocensura, -la cual ustedes desdeñan sin ningún rigor- fallan al no tomar en cuenta las decenas de periodistas cuyos programas han sido cancelados en los medios de comunicación que decidieron “seguir las órdenes” del Gobierno; en contraste con la terminación ilegal de la licencia de radiodifusión y la incautación de los bienes de la cadena de televisión RCTV, la cual se negó a obedecer las órdenes de los más altos niveles del poder en Venezuela.

Y es absolutamente ridículo cuando dicen que “En el informe se utilizan incluso insinuaciones queriendo dar a entender que el Gobierno es el culpable de ataques contra periodistas”; cuando el Gobierno de Venezuela no ha proporcionado protección a más de 250 periodistas, de acuerdo con lo solicitado por la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, en el marco de los tratados de los cuales Venezuela es signataria.

Finalmente, cuestionan que HRW haya usado un informe de un “blogger de oposición”, llamándolo ‘inestable mental’, de lo cual no tienen ninguna prueba, ya que ningún profesional lo ha examinado en este aspecto, y sin embargo no contradicen ni cuestionan ni un solo aspecto del trabajo de este blogger citado por HRW. Claro, esto seria muy difícil de hacer, puesto que la citada referencia es una descripción fáctual de la lista Tascón / Chávez y prueba de que el Consejo Nacional Electoral fue quien autorizó la liberación de la copia de todas las firmas al Diputado (pro-Chávez) Luis Tascón.

Y econtramos sorprendente, que utilicen como prueba el hecho de que algunas personas han llamado al derrocamiento violento del gobierno venezolano presidido por Hugo Chávez; quien apoyó dos intentos de golpe, violentos ambos por cierto, y uno de ellos dejó a más de 200 los venezolanos muertos en las calles, incluidos niños. Un interesante doble estándar, que tienen ustedes para la defensa de los derechos humanos, por decir lo menos.

Finalmente, su carta es un pésimo intento de desacreditar a HRW, -quienes curiosamente defendieron al Sr. Chávez en el año 2002- a pesar de las muertes inducidas por el Presidente venezolano contra una marcha pacífica. Su carta fracasa precisamente donde intentan encontrar fallas en el informe de HRW, carece de rigor, es superficial y representa el terrible error de firmar un documento tan parcializado.

Mientras tanto, en Venezuela, Hugo Chávez busca su reelección indefinida, a pesar de que un referéndum en 2007 le negó esa posibilidad, y en contra de la prohibición expresa de la Constitución de Venezuela (Título IX), de considerar la misma pregunta dos veces en un solo período constitucional. Por otra parte, Hugo Chávez emitió 26 proyectos de ley en julio de 2008, las cuales contienen disposiciones que también fueron rechazadas en ese mismo referéndum.

Esta es la mayor violación de los derechos democráticos de la mayoría de los venezolanos que votaron en contra de tales disposiciones, en diciembre de 2007.

Ya tenemos 10 años de esta revolución chavista sin contenido alguno. Venezuela ha tenido ingresos por más de 800 millones de dólares, cantidad comparable al paquete de rescate del sistema financiero de los EE.UU. A pesar de esta bonanza, los índices de pobreza apenas han mejorado, los de nutrición y salud han bajado, el sistema hospitalario venezolano está en ruinas y la delincuencia se ha triplicado bajo el régimen de Chávez. Pero sin duda, el país tiene un arsenal de modernas armas militares, y Chávez amenaza regularmente a la oposición con el hecho de que su revolución “está armada”; mientras que la corrupción es tan rampante que maletas llenas de dinero en efectivo son transportadas en los vuelos oficiales del Gobierno y los que fueron sorprendidos en posesión de este dinero, describen sin pudor la forma en que ganaron cientos de millones de dólares gracias a su estrecha relación con funcionarios del Gobierno venezolano bajo Chávez. Y Hugo Chávez y su Gobierno, abiertamente apoyan la guerrilla colombiana.

Sorprendentemente, hay todavía “expertos” como ustedes que apenas han examinado la superficie de lo que está ocurriendo en nuestro atribulado país, y siguen defendiendo lo indefendible; continúan apoyando a un gobierno que está al margen de la ley, a un gobierno que carece del apoyo de los círculos académicos y de los estudiantes universitarios venezolanos, y Uds. ni siquiera se preguntan el por qué ello.

Irónicamente, mientras ustedes se sientan cómodamente en el confort de sus oficinas, trabajando en sus proyectos académicos y dándole el apoyo a la revolución chavista; sus colegas de las ciencias sociales en Venezuela reciben escaso financiamiento y el premio de ciencias sociales, no ha sido otorgado en los últimos dos años.

Es verdaderamente triste cuando en el nombre de la academia, una muy respetable y seria institución dedicada, a la defensa de los derechos humanos es atacada con fines políticos, de manera tan deficiente y superficial. Pero es aún más triste y una vergüenza, cuando la sistemática y bien organizada violación de los derechos humanos por el Gobierno venezolano presidido por Hugo Chávez; es ignorada por los que afirman que suenan y creen en la dignidad básica y los derechos de todos los seres humanos.

Miguel Octavio, Daniel Duquenal and Alek Boyd, bloggers

Felix J. Tapia, Professor-Reseracher, Universidad Central de Venezuela
Kensey Amaya, Ph.D. Candidate, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Benjamin Scharifker, Professor of Chemistry, Universidad Simon Bolivar, Member, Academia de Ciencias Fisicas, Matematicas y Naturales
Diego Arria
Maria J. Gonzaez Associate Professor, Department of Zoology, Miami University, Oxford Ohio
Gioconda San-Blas, Individuo de Numero de la Academia de Ciencias Fisicas, Matematicas y Naturales
Jaime Requena, Miembro de la Academia de Ciencias Fisicas, Matematicas y Naturales
Claudio Bifano, Presidente de la Academia de Ciencias Fisicas, Matematicas y Naturales
Luiz Gomez C. Investigador, Cendes, Universidad Central de Venezuela
Gustavo Coronel
Balvant Rajani, Principal Research Officer, National Research Council Canada
Alpha http://free-opinion-venezuela.blogspot.com/
Kate http://rolita816.blogspot.com
Iruna Urruticoechea, Periodista
Carlos Armando Figueredo, Profesor Postgrado en Derechos Humanos,Universidad Central de Venezuela
Julia The end of Venezuela as I know it http://antipatrioticvenezuelan.blogspot.com
Carlo Caputo, Investigador Titular Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Cientificas
Grupo 400+ http://g400mas.blogspot.com
Heinz R. Sonntag, Emeritus Prof. of Sociology, Reserach Fellow and Professor of CENDES-UCV, Universidad Central de Venezuela.
Silvya de Puki, Interpreter, Translator, RECIVEX Denver
Ignacio Iribarren, Miembro de la Academia de Ciencias Fisicas, Matematicas y Naturales
Humberto La Roche
Nora Palacios, Systems Analyst, Department of Education, Victoria, Canad
Dorindo Burgo, Hermano Marista
Jose Felix Oletta, Profesor Jubilado, Escuale de Medicina, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Central de Venezuela
Carlos Walter, Investigador CENDES, Universidad Central de Venezuela
Rafael Hidalgo, The Open University, UK
Alvaro Rotondaro Gomez, Abogado
Werner Corrales Leal, former ambassador to the UN and the WTO in Geneva; former professor at the Center for Development Studies (CENDES) in Caracas; Senior Fellow at the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva
Tanya Miquilena; development specialist in andean countries
Cheryl Riera
Isaac Nahon Serfaty, Professor, Department of Communications, University of Otawa, Canada
Barbara Bessone
Hayde Deutsch,Abogada, Mcs en Seguridad Social, Docente Universitaria, Presidenta de Fuerza Liberal
Carlos Alberto Moros Ghersi, Medico, Profesor UCV, ex-Rector Universidad Central de Venezuela
Jackie Hines
J. Scott Barnard, blogger
Rachel Chonchol, another Venezuelan Citizen
Jorge Mostany, Profesor Titular del Departamento de Quimica, Universidad Simon Bolivar, Miembro de la Academia de Ciencias Fisicas, Matematicas y Naturales
Rosalba Guerra, Ingeniero
Robert Bottome, Editor, Veneconomy
Nathalie Brogan
Soledad Gutierrez, Comunicador Social
Adele Mondolfi, Abogado, Investigadora Artes Plasticas, UCV
Luis Felipe Cabana, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Maria J. Diaz M.
Clemy Machado de Acedo, Profesora Jubilada UCV
Pedro Vaca Gonzalez, Ingeniero de yacimientos, ex-investigador de PDVSA-Intevep (despedido por razones politicasticas).
Rosalba Guerra
V. J. Los Arcos Ayape, Journalist
Mercedes H. Rosas, Investigador Ramon y Cajal, Universidad de Sevilla
Miguel Albujas Dorta, Profesor-Investigador del Instituto de Filosofia de la Universidad Central de Venezuela
Paul Esqueda, Prof, of Engineering Penn State University
Dorian Dyer
Duke Banks Romero, Public Administration Specialist
Andres Dominguez Burgos
Roberto Rodriguez Abreu, Fundacion Jardin Botanico, Merida
Daphne Paul, writer
Jerry Diaz
Tomas Paez, Profesor Titular Universidad Central de Venezuela, Coordinador Observatorio PYME de Venezuela
Pura Bolanos, Profesional Asociado a la Investigacion IVIC
Mike M.

Economic tidbits from the Chavez revolution

January 11, 2009
  • Between Dec. 29th. and Dec. 30th. Venezuela’s International Reserves went up by US$ 5 billion, which remains largely unexplained until today. Obviously, this was some last minute manipulation by the Government. In the old days, PDVSA was obligated to turn over to the Venezuelan Central Bank all of its foreign currency, except what it needed for expenses. This is no longer the case, so there is little transparency as to what the numbers mean.  My theory is that this was done in order increase reserves so that Chavez can get away with withdrawing this month US$ 7 billion from reserves and give it to development fund Fonden and today El Nacional gives a very confusing story that seems to confirm my theory. The story says PDVSA owed the Government a dividend from 2007 and some of the money came from Fonden.
  • Inflation for the year did indeed close above 30% whether you used the new and improved national index the INPC, up 30.9%, or the old Caracas CPI, up 31.9%, a little bit off the initial Government target of 11% last January (Cabezas even talked about 3% at one point), 18% in June and 27% in September. More ominously, Food and Beverage prices were up 41.6% according to the INPC or 46.7% according to the Caracas CPI. Of course, the Minister of Light Industries and Commerce came in with his revolutionary and idiotic theory that the poor are not affected by inflation as much as the rich because the poor purchase their goods at Mercal, as if controlled goods were not at the heart of the measure of the CPI. (Which ean inflation is higher) Moreover, the fraction of a household budget spent on food is much higher for the poor than for the better to do. This shows how indolent and ignorant these officials are.
  • And PDVSA announced that it will cut 189,000 barrels a day of production in January to comply with OPEC’s cuts. However it said it had cut in October and November, 46,000 and 129,000 barrels a day, but the November and December OPEC reports showed cuts of only 29,000 and 20,000 barrels a day. Moreover, the cuts seem to have been imposed on the joint partners projects which are being asked to cut 20% of their production. The good news is that if OPEC keeps cutting, PDVSA and the Government will have to stop lying as their virtual production, now at 3.1 million barrels of oil a day, will converge to the real production of around 2.4 million barrels of oil a day.
  • And funny man Juan Barreto, the former Metropolitan Mayor of Caracas, authorized additional expenditures for US$ 87 million in the week after his party lost the election. I wonder if the Comptroller will ban him from running for office in the future. The new administrators also found more than 500 phantom workers in the Metropolitan mayors office. These workers had no formal functions except to be ready to receive orders from three Deputies of the National Assembly to mobilize for spontaneous protests as well as providing protection for political figures.
  • And monetary liquidity, M2, the measure of how many Bolivars are out in the Venezuelan economy closed the year at US$ 89 billion, up from US$ 71 billion on January 1st. 2008, or an increase of 25.2% for the year. In order to attempt to sterilize this, the Central Bank had issued by the end of the year a total of US$ 24.7 billion in short term CD’s to the banking system. And the Government wonders why there is so much inflation…

Lots of species, one borrowed

January 11, 2009

   

Sophronitis Coccinea Aurea on the left, this plant flowered three times in 2008. On the right, Pablo Figueredo sent this Shomburgkia Undulata Marisabel de Las Casas.

   

Had troubles getting this Comparettia Falcata all in focus.

   

On the left a close up of Dendrochilum Glumaceum. On the right Cattleya Lueddemanniana Maruja x Pto. Cruz

   

This is the first flowering of this Cattleya Jenmanii Gerd x Claudia. Coerulea Jenmanii tend to have a horrible shape, but this one is not so bad.

   

Two Cattleya Walkeriana. The Corulea on the right is called Manhattan Blue, it is not great, but the plant grows a lot, this was part of six flowers the plant had this time around.

CNE illegally approves Electoral Registry for a referendum that has yet to be requested

January 9, 2009

In order to leave no doubt that Venezuela is living in an autocracy, the Venezuelan Electoral Board (CNE) today approved which Electoral Registry will be used in a future referendum that has yet to be approved and/or requested by the Venezuelan National Assembly. Of course the request  is coming, but the problem is that if Chavez is to get his illegal way and hold the referendum on February 15th. , everything has to be accelerated. Thus, the CNE approved that the Registry that will be used if/when/whenever this referendum occurs will be the Dec. 11th. Registry.

Which of course is absolutely unconstitutional…

Because Art. 64 of the Bolivarian Constitution of Venezuela says that any citizen eighteen years of age has the right to vote. This has always been interpreted as anyone who is 18 on the date of the vote, can register to vote and will vote in that election. Not doing this violates their rights.

Except for this referendum, because Chavez is above the law and the Constitution and his whim has to be satisfied.

Legality can only be complied with by opening the registry so that everyone who turns 18 by the date of the vote may register. But the regulations say that the registry has to be open for at least 30 days and the vote has to take place 90 days after the Registry has been closed so that people can check and change any errors or omissions in the new registry.

Except this time. I guess article 1 of the Bolivarian Constitution approved in 2000 should have said: Anything in this document can be violated if the autocrat so desires.

There is no way around this one, the CNE is violating the rights of everyone who turned 18 between the last vote and whatever date is estabished for the referendum. Their political rights are not being respected.

This represents the first formal violation of the laws and the Constitution in order to hold the referendum to allow for the indefinite reelection of autocrat Hugo Chavez.

Government reduces travel quotas for Venezuelan residents

January 8, 2009

Right before the end of the year, the Government made the decision to cut in half the travel quota for foreign currency given to Venezuelan residents to travel abroad. The quota was reduced from US$ 5,000 for credit card use to US$ 2,500 and the cash advance was reduced from US$ 500 to US$ 400.

The decision makes sense. Last year the Government gave out almost US$ 5 billion (US$ 4.76 billion to be precise). Thus, by reducing the allocation in half the Government should save at least US$ 2.4 billion, more than ten percent of what I estimate the Government will receive in foreign currency in 2009 if oil prices stay at current levels.

But the savings are likely to be much larger than that. First of all, the Government also gave out US$ 1 billion for airfares, which is likely to be reduced significantly as people travel less or closer, given that they have less money to spend using this subsidy to the rich.

But beyond that, the reduction also limits arbitrage opportunities which I mocked in my Oligarco Burguesito post a year and a half ago. In fact, the Government has wasted huge amounts of money by financing people who take travelers to Central America and the Caribbean for a weekend, all expenses paid, in exchange for a fraction of the quota. The organizers of these trips would then sell the dollars obtained in this way and sell them in the parallel swap market at the prevailing rate, which today stands at more than twice the value of the official rate.  Since the total amount is now smaller, profits will be reduced significantly and the business is likely to be quite limited in 2009. Thus, the Government will probably save much more than 50% of the amount given last year.

The fact that this was the first measure by the Government to save foreign currency in 2009, indicates that there are no plans to devalue the currency so far, since reducing the gap between the fficial and the swap rate would have generated savings in itself.

Of course, the Government is simply reducing a distortion introduced by the Government itself. Besides the waste in the arbitrage created, the quota represents a perverse and silly subsidy to those that are better off and certainly makes little sense economically and least of all for a Government that calls itself revolutionary.

The decision to cut the quota also indicates that the Government has given up on trying to attract the middle class which was the main beneficiary of the subsidy and is likely o reduce the Government’s popularity within that strata of the population.

In fact, I have been amazed at how unpopular the measure has been, with groups going to the Supreme Court to argue that this was somehow a right that the Government could not take away as it represents a limitation on the freedom of movement.

Of course, what is perverse and incredible is that while Venezuelans are restricted in this way, the oil subsidies to Cuba, the Caribbean, Argentina, Central America and yes, the US, as in the previous post, continue in earnest. Venezuelans are indeed second class citizens for the robolution. Politics rules and Venezuelans be damned!!!

Those that can afford it will continue traveling by going to the parallel market, which will see more pressure in 2009, as the Government has moved many items off the CADIVI list. It is in some sense a stealth devaluation as more goods have to be purcahsed at the higher rate and it is the Government that sells foreign currency in the swap market to get Bolivars at the higher rate.

Quite a convoluted and distorted economic framework which Chavez still dares call as being part of the robust economy he has created.

Nothing robust about it, as we are likely to learn slowly over the next few months.