Archive for the 'Venezuela' Category

Chavez’ Government in numbers.

January 9, 2003

From a recent presentation by the Democratic Coordinator, some numbers that show why Venezuelans are not too happy with the Hugo Chavez Government:


-Oil income in US$ in Chavez’s four years is 41% higher than in the previous four. Oil contribution to fiscal spending was also 39% higher.


-Public Debt as a percentage of GDP is up 28% from 1998, while spending is up by 46% in the last four years, compared to the previous four.


-Despite all of this, GDP per inhabitant in US$ is down 17% since Hugo Chavez took office.  


-Capital flight is up 950% over the last four years when compared to the previous four.


-The minimum salary in US$ is down 23% since Chavez took office despite the increase in oil income and spending. Meanwhile, unemployment is up 80% during the same period. Moreover, new workers have been unevenly incorporated into the work force.


-Finally, homicides have doubled in the last four years.

Banks will be closed two days as part of the strike

January 8, 2003

Banks will shutdown for two days Thursday and Friday as decided by the unions today. The Government ahd actually issued a decree earlier in the week forcing to have banks to their usual schedule, but so far banks have refused to on the grounds that only the ConsejoBancario has the power to establish schedules. Separately, supermarkets will also be closed on Thursday.


Separately teh Venezuelan currency jumped sharply today closing at Bs. 1510 per US$ a jump of Bs. 86, but it actually reached levels of Bs. 1650 per US$. There were two reasons for this, one that banks will be closed, the second one being rumors that the Government may rollover debt.

Venezuela: Just Imagine by Manuel Acedo Sucre

January 8, 2003

 

This analogy is very well written and thought out to attempt to convey to Americans, in their own terms, what is happening in Venezuela today:

 

Just imagine that Richard Nixon had used the majority he obtained in 1972 (he carried all the states except D.C. and Massachusetts) to change the U.S. Constitution. Let us say that rather than having it amended through the established constitutional procedures, he had called for a constitutional convention and that with 65% of the popular vote he had managed to get 95% of the delegates to the convention. Assume, further, that the convention had abolished Congress, extended the President’s term to six years (with the possibility of re-election) and established a transitory regime under which all the Supreme Court Justices, the Attorney General (as head of a new branch of government) and the national electoral authorities (as heads of another branch), were elected either by the convention or with complete disregard for the procedures and requirements established in the new Constitution, by a newly elected Congress, packed with Nixon supporters riding on Nixon’s post-electoral honeymoon. Not to strain too much your imagination, just assume that the convention decided to “clean up” the court system and substitute the existing judges by persons appointed by the Nixon-controlled majority, now following the dictates of Nixon’s new party, the “New Republicans”, again disregarding even the new Constitution. In comes Watergate. The “plumbers” are discovered and the Washington Post exposes the tapes and most of Nixon’s dirty tricks and cover ups. But the investigation is conducted by Mitchell, the Attorney General, and it fizzles out into nothing. The Supreme Court, packed with Nixon appointees, rules that there is no place for a special prosecutor: out goes Archibald Cox. And, under the new Constitution, the impeachment of the President must be cleared by the Supreme Court, after a formal accusation is lodged by the attorney General.


Ignoring the Washington Post and the national outrage, Mitchell does nothing while the Supreme Court uses every trick in the book to avoid having an independent investigation launched. At the same time, Woodward, Bernstein and the journalists who have denounced Nixon’s wrongdoings are verbally abused by the President, who accuses them of being criminals only  interested in unseating him, while government-sponsored mobs are sent to intimidate the media and destroy their property. The American people react. Huge demonstrations are staged against the President. The Media take issue and support the demonstrations. Nixon sends his mobs to sabotage and physically attack peaceful demonstrators. The authorities do nothing and are accused of having armed these mobs, who are openly self-described as cadres of New Republicans financed by the government and called Washingtonian Circles. But the protesters are not deterred, so Nixon, who by now has purged the armed forces from  law-abiding officers, sends in the National Guard to protect his mobs and repress the peaceful demonstrations. The situation becomes unbearable. Polls show that more than 70% of the population want Nixon to resign. Business and labor leaders, the  Democrats, the old Republicans, the now-battered media, human rights organizations, environmentalists, and most NGOs, call for the President’s resignation and/or new elections. The President refuses and, instead, steps up the repression. Peaceful demonstrators are killed by New Republican mobs, Washingtonian Circles and/or by members of the armed forces and the secret police. A national strike erupts.


Strikers manage to paralyze the economy and ask for Nixon’s resignation or the holding of anticipated elections. They base their action on a new constitutional provision that allows civil disobedience and the non recognition of any government or authority that violates the Constitution and abuses human rights. Nixon refuses the strikers’ demands. Taking advantage of the fact that his subservient Supreme Court has extended his mandate for one additional year beyond his original term, he says he would only accept to step down through a mid-term referendum that can only be feasibly held one year later, at the soonest. All other options are subversive and unconstitutional, including the holding of an earlier referendum asking the people whether they want him to resign, which has already been called following constitutional procedures. In response to the calling of the referendum, he states that he will not abide by its results and refuses to disburse the funds owed to the electoral authorities to
function. Not happy with this, he steps up repression and starts persecuting the strike leaders.

The imagination can only be stretched so far. But let us say that Nixon’s initial wrongdoings are not just limited to the Watergate affair. Let us assume that his New Republican majority has rewritten all the laws on public spending. And -unbelievable as it may seem- thousands of billions of dollars have been spent in violation of these very rules, and are unaccounted for. Nixon acknowledges the violations, which include raiding the Central Bank and grabbing funds elsewhere that have not been appropriated by Congress, and claims such funds have been used to pay for the government payroll and for public works, ignoring the fact that funding had already been given by Congress for these purposes. Mitchell, of course, does nothing, despite the President’s confession. In the meantime, Nixon refuses to release funds that constitutionally and legally must be transferred to state and local governments that are not controlled by the New Republicans. Please bear with me and imagine that all this happens at a time when there is an unprecedented bonanza in the price of a commodity whose production makes up for 50% of government income and for 80% of the country’s foreign exchange, allowing for one of the greatest increases in public spending in U.S history. And, finally, just imagine that in four years Nixon has managed to turn all this into an economic nightmare: a doubling of the unemployment rate to upward of 20%, a 10% decrease in  GDP for 2002, the highest inflation rate in the Americas (32%), an 80% depreciation of the U.S. dollar during that year and -unbelievably- one of the highest budget deficits in recorded history.

 

I will not further abuse your imagination to go into the issue of the unheard-of levels of corruption behind the Nixon Administration and the fact that not a single case of graft has been prosecuted by Mitchell (who has the monopoly of public prosecution under the new Constitution), despite the countless documented cases revealed by the media and formally brought before him and the Supreme Courts by private citizens, political parties and NGOs.

 

Now, stop imagining; start thinking. President Chávez in Venezuela is for real. The Nixon analogy, as outlined above, represents just a tame portrayal of what Chávez is doing to Venezuela. The real Nixon was responsible for Watergate but he was also responsible for the opening to China and the U.S.S.R. He had the decency to resign when he realized that dragging his country through an impeachment process would prove disastrous to the U.S. Chávez is banking on his country’s destruction to remain in power and rule unopposed as a despot. Venezuela is not a banana republic. Venezuelans constitute a peace-loving people, that have never gone to war, that have managed to maintain a democratic system for more that 50 years, and that refuse to see their democracy perish. The way that Venezuelans are responding to the abuses of the Chávez regime are nothing short of heroic, and should be understood as such by anyone taking the trouble to look closely at what is going on in the country. Start thinking; and think right. Even if you do not care about Venezuelans, think about yourselves. It is no secret that Chávez’s closest ally is Fidel Castro. Chavez’s sympathies with Saddam Hussein and noted terrorists, such as El Chacal and the Colombian guerrilla movement, are well documented. His open and blunt criticism against the U.S. For attacking Afghanistan -labeling this action as an act of terrorism, while showing propaganda pictures of slain Afghan Children in national TV- is no act of the imagination. Think, think again, think anew. Chávez is a curse and not just for Venezuelans.

Manuel Acedo Sucre
January 4, 2003.

Any more evidence that we live in a dictatorship?

January 7, 2003

On December 18th.,  the Venezuelan Supreme Court ruled that the intervention of the Metropolitan police was illegal and the police should be returned to its rightful authorities, the Mayor of the Metropolitan area of Caracas. The Court gave the Government fifteen days to do it. Well, today the Vice-Minister for citizen Security announced that the Government had decided to “reintervene” the motorized unit of the Metropolitan police. Thus I ask anybody, what would happen in any country of the world if a Supreme Court decision like this one was not followed by a Government? What is the name of a country where the Government does whatever it wants? I think it is evident, don’t you? It is certainly not a democracy……

The folly of the academic priviliged by Alfredo Octavio

January 7, 2003

My brother the Tyromaniac wrote this in response to the New York Times Editorial, The Power of the Priviliged, by so-called Law Professor (only Visiting…) Amy Chua, of Yale University whose research abilities leave a lot to be desired given what she wrote today, in which simply appears to be trying to fit our rebellion against the outlaw Government of Hugo Chavez into her theories of the world.  I could not have said it better, least of all in such a short space:


Dear Editor,

 It is dreadful that people like Prof. Amy Chua can’t get rid of their
 own brand of prejudice. The current confrontation in Venezuela isn’t
 white against black or poor against rich, but most of the population
 against a corrupt and inefficient government that has broken its
 promises and the law.

 Chávez isn’t black, nor poor. He grew up middle class, but his current
 clothes, watches and privileges indicate his lust for wealth. He
 doesn’t care about the poor, only about himself.

 According to the latest polls more that 70% of Venezuelans are against
 Chávez. In a country with poverty reaching 68% of the population and
 with a high percentage of mixed raced, this clearly indicate that a lot
 of the poor and the “pardos” are against Chávez.

 Failure to understand the process of civil rebellion we are living in
 Venezuela by first world intellectuals, won’t prevent its extension to
 other countries in the future.

Gaviria and impunity

January 6, 2003

As a mediator, OAS Secreatry General Cesar Gaviria has to be diplomatic. Thus, it came as a surprise when he said tonight “In the country a certain impunity has been prospering and this does a lot of damage to demoractic institutions”. Then he said :'(Since April 11th.) No mechanism has been found to carry out a comple and exhaustive investigation, neither ahs happened in subsequent events where some other Venezuelans died”. Given that the Government is in charge of law and order, Mr. Gaviria confirmed what I have been saying all along, this Government only looks into what it wants and there are no civil or human rights for anyone, Pro- or against Chavez. If he is saying this openly in public, imagine what he is saying in private!

No quorum for Assembly election

January 6, 2003

The National Assembly was not able to elect its leadership for the year 2003 due to a lack of quorum. There are two theories floating around. One, not all members of Chavez’ MVR party agree with the new leaders “chosen” and thus refused to go. The second theory is that some Deputies who have voted for Chavez’ MVR in the past are ready to negotiate with the opposition and elect an alternate group to lead the Assembly. Interesting….

The Perverse Revolution by Ana Fabregas de Sucre

January 6, 2003

Ana Fabregas de Sucre has written this article to try to tell the world about what is going on in Venezuela. Ana is not an innocent bystander, her husband Miguel Eduardo was savagely beaten and shot at by the National Guard on Dec. 3d. The beating was caught on video by an amateur. You can see pictures of what they did to him here.


 


THE PERVERSE REVOLUTION


 


 


The deep and extremely critical political crisis that Venezuela is undergoing needs urgent attention and must be taken seriously by the international community.   After 4 years of the most incompetent and ominous government in our history, Venezuela is immersed in the worst political, economic, social and institutional crisis ever.   And time is running out: we’re at the brink of loosing our democracy to the hands of the autocratic Chavez.  The international response has been discouraging so far.


The international media has the great responsibility to FULLY UNMASK to the world what Chavez’s “revolution” is REALLY about.   The complexity and the many factors involved in this crisis along with the lack of understanding and narrow minded vision portrayed by many international correspondents have generated in most instances, superficial, inaccurate, uninformed and/or distorted depictions of present day Venezuela.  With some exceptions, their accounts and irresponsible conclusions represent another stumbling block to the overwhelming peaceful struggle of the majority of Venezuelans to consolidate democracy. 


Venezuela became front-page news only when PDVSA´s management and employees (around 35,000 out of 40,000) walked out and joined a nationwide strike in favor of democracy bringing the country’s oil production to a standstill.  The serious disruption of Venezuela‘s oil supplies affects not only the country but the United States and its interests.  However, what must be front-page news and what must be emphasized repeatedly is the fact that a democratically elected president systematically violates the Constitution and in his obsession to keep himself in power he is destroying the country; therefore he shall be removed from office.  The majority of Venezuelans today (80% according to polls) are willing to pay the ultimate price in order to achieve this goal peacefully within a democratic framework.


Given the enormous amount of evidence available it is hard to understand why most of the international media give more coverage to the symptoms than to the problem itself.  Moreover, it is appalling and disgusting how many international correspondents do not verify the veracity of the information presented to them by the government.  It is clear for Venezuelans that Chavez, under the disguise of legality, is in the final stage of imposing a Marxist-Leninist regime and declaring himself dictator in the same fashion as Fidel Castro.  Chavez´s “revolution” which is ideological and political and lacks real substance, has certainly done very little for the country but impoverishing its citizens, instigating hate and division and creating great inequality.  Its main objective -as that of any totalitarian regime- has been the concentration of power at any cost by using the tactics of destruction, intimidation, threats, lies and violence.  In this sense, it is the revolution of deceit, because Chavez and his circle have demonstrated to be impostors who use all kinds of artifices to mislead Venezuelans by the use of false information, by the practice of cheating, bribery and dishonesty.   As a result this government is characterized: first, by its arbitrariness, for its open disrespect for the law and the undemocratic capricious conduct of its leaders.  Second, by its mediocrity for the precarious intellectual level, ineptitude and negligence to generate constructive and concrete policies; and because it rewards not education and decency, competence and efficiency but meanness and vulgarity.  As a well respected Venezuelan intellectual and humorist Pedro Leon Zapata put it recently: “in this government one is forbidden to be intelligent.”  


Chavez represents a dangerous combination of fierce populist, demagogue, snake charmer, charismatic tele-evangelist preacher, megalomaniac, ultimate judge of good and evil and a farce.  It is surprising how many educated people have been fooled by Chavez´s demagogic rhetoric.  In this sense, the international media must pay special attention to his double discourse and multiple faces; what he preaches and what he does. 


Chavez´s conscious use of language with the purpose of annihilation is part of his totalitarian project.  His most dangerous weapon is his rhetoric of hate, of division, of social resentment, of no tolerance and of violence.  In his strategy to eliminate the adversary, he dismisses and debases everyone who dissents from him and his followers as “oligarch,” “squalid,” “terrorist,” “fascist,” “conspirator,” “traitor” who must be eradicated from society to purify it.  He’s been successful in manipulating and exploiting the sentiments and needs of the poor and modeling their perceptions to the extent of negating reality.  All this has resulted in the unfortunate polarization of society.


On the other hand, Chavez’s verbal attacks, insults and menaces, disrespect and cynicism have made him enemies with many factors of society.  Many of his former close allies are now his strongest opponents.  Moreover, he even has made enemies with the intelligentsia, university students and artists who traditionally are against the status quo and generally share leftist tendencies.  He has antagonized the Church (“a tumor which has to be eradicated”), the media (“garbage,” “conspirators”), the federation of chambers of commerce, the largest labor union, the oil industry and some sectors of the Armed Forces; he has tried to enlist the last two into his leftist program by firing respected oil executives indiscriminately and appointing his cronies.  


As part of the government’s propaganda and lobbying Chavez has been careful to portray a very different image abroad.  With the appointment of the moderate and elegant Roy Chaderton -a respected career diplomat- as his Foreign Minister the government has tried to put on a face of not having authoritarian tendencies.  It is important to mention that the lobbying has apparently reached many international media organizations.


Chavez represented the hope for profound changes for those who voted for him in 1998.  He symbolized the rise of a new beginning which would make a tabula rasa of the past.  He campaigned on two premises:  his government was to represent the interests of the poor and those alienated by previous governments, and he was to eradicate corruption.  All the conditions were set up in place for Chavez:  he enjoyed 80% of popularity at the beginning of his government together with high oil prices that generated huge earnings; his political party had won the majority of seats in the National Assembly, and with the approval of a new custom-made Constitution, that increased the president’s powers he appointed at his will his closest allies to the most important posts and without the approval of the National Assembly.  Moreover, he virtually dissolved the two strongest Venezuelan political parties.  Four years later, see for your self.


Chavez has failed in his promises and betrayed his voters.  According to polls, his former popularity has vertiginously dropped to around 20 % today.  The economy is in ruins; corruption is grotesque and rampant, and the worst ever (earnings of $120 billion have evaporated).  Unemployment, poverty and misery have increased dramatically (according to the economist Francisco Vivancos, this government has become a “poverty manufacturer”).  The government’s subsidies for highly successful Church-run social development programs were eliminated; and the new ones have been unsuccessful, like the “Plan Bolivar 2000” which has been disastrous.  Public healthcare has virtually collapsed.  Burglaries, assaults and street violence have increased alarmingly. 


As pointed out before, the worst of all is that this government violates the Constitution on a constant basis and manipulates it according to its will.  Chavez himself committed one of the most flagrant violations of the democratic principles:  in his TV monologue Alo Presidente of 12/15/02 he brazenly instigated members of the Armed Forces to disobey judicial orders.  When a President believes he can go beyond the law and the Constitution he becomes a Dictator.


In Venezuela today the judicial system is falling apart under Chavez’s grip and as a result the rule of law has deteriorated dramatically.  This government has politicized all aspects of society to the point where the different branches of government lack independence and reliability and serve only the interests of Chavez´s revolution.  We are living under a regime which can arbitrarily suspend the inalienable rights of every citizen. 


Furthermore, Chavez has begun to militarize Caracas and other parts of the country.  This is another evidence of the government’s interference with the Venezuelan democracy (the seizure of the Metropolitan Police is an example).  Moreover, a sector of the Armed Forces has become Chavez’s praetorian army used for intimidation and repression.  Many politicians, journalists and innocent civilians have suffered the excessive use of force in recent months.  This regime is becoming one of terror in which the so-called “Bolivarian Circles” –commonly known as circles of violence (in reality government sponsored armed street gangs led by Chavez’s political cronies) serve as the defendants of the “revolution” along with loyal officers of the military and the political police.   To illustrate the promotion of violence Chavez, in a public appearance on 10/4/01 said the following:  “…this is a peaceful revolution but it is not disarmed…when I say arms I am not referring only to words but to fusils, tanks…”


This government has also been repeatedly accused of violating Human Rights.  According to Liliana Ortega, head of Cofavic (an organization for the defense of human rights) and who in 1999 was recognized by TIME Magazine as one of Latin America’s leaders for the new millennium, more than 120 claims of “extremely serious” violations to human rights have been received by the institution this year alone.  Cofavic has also accused the government for the “non-fulfillment of the cautionary measures and other decisions dictated by both the Inter-American Commission and Inter-American Court of Human Rights respectively.”


During this government many crimes have not been formally investigated and the material authors remain at large.  More than eight months have passed since the massacre of April 11, 2002 in which dozens of innocent civilians in a peaceful march were killed and wounded by snipers and gunmen from what is strongly believed to be government-related circles of violence.  The Venezuelan journalist who recorded the video showing the identified gunmen in action will receive the King of Spain prize of journalism.  Chavez himself publicly defended these criminals on TV with great cynicism, a scene which was repeated this time with the man he called “a gentleman” who killed 3 and wounded near 30 peaceful demonstrators in the Plaza Altamira on Dec. 6, 2002.  This criminal was caught in fragranti and confessed of his crime on TV. 


I am a witness of the brutal repression against innocent civilians near one of PDVSA’s main buildings in Chuao, a suburb of Caracas in which my husband was a victim. On December 3, 2002 a group of national guardsmen savagely attacked a small group of people.  I was able to run for my life but my husband was ambushed by four guardsmen and was brutally attacked once he had fallen on the floor.  The guardsmen kicked him and shot him with pellets at a very short range that badly injured his face, chest, arms and hands; afterwards he was hit on his back.  An amateur video recorded the complete aggression, which has been endlessly shown on TV and newspapers as evidence of this government’s repression. (Some photos are here)


The government’s recklessness have unified the majority of society (approximately 80% according to polls) against it, from the rich, to the middle-class, to the poor.   Chavez is certainly not connected with the people anymore because he has demonstrated to be intransigent and a man without sensibility who is determined to impose his “revolution” against the will of the majority.  Chavez repeatedly ridicules, humiliates and despises Venezuelans by ignoring the overwhelming opposition and their call for his resignation and elections.  He cannot see that he is the obstacle for democracy, for progress, and for peace.  He cannot understand that he and his “revolution” represent a terrible accident in contemporary Venezuelan political history.


Although the general strike is partial, what is not partial is the widespread social mobilization in every city.  The general strike has evolved into an active, voluntary and spontaneous civic resistance of thousands of people on the streets that is increasing on a daily basis.  On Dec.15, 2002 and according to newspapers, 1.5 million people in Caracas alone took to the streets in a monumental peaceful march that symbolized the overwhelming resistance that the government faces. 


We are running out of gas in the country.  This is a serious situation that will create a highly volatile climate but it’s the ultimate pressure for a government that is deaf and blind, to negotiate its exit.  But in reality, Chavez’s obstinate, intolerant authoritarian behavior and little political create a barrier for responsible constructing debate to reach an agreement with all parties involved.  Chavez himself said recently that “the revolution is inflexible” which corroborates the military-like scheme of force and resistance that the government is using to deal with this extremely serious crisis.


The O.A.S. Secretary General, Cesar Gaviria came to Venezuela to install a Table of Negotiation and Agreements between the government and the opposition in order to diffuse the present day crisis.  It has been more than four weeks since these rounds of talks have begun with no apparent results.  It seems evident that the government is cheating and sabotaging the talks because a Dictator does not negotiate.  Meanwhile, the government is consciously and irresponsibly buying time, giving that their strategy is aimed for the opposition to chicken out.  The government is playing an extremely dangerous game because they are bidding for violence and chaos. 


Venezuelans want a democratic solution, not a coup d’état.  Venezuelans want a country united and free.  Venezuelans want peace.  Venezuelans don’t want violence.  Venezuelans want elections as soon as possible.  To that effect on November 4, 2002 all the opposition groups introduced the required signatures needed to initiate a consultative referendum.  This referendum has been set to take place on February 2, 2003 but as one can expect of this government they have and will try by all means to boycott this referendum from taking place.


 


 


 


Ana Teresa Fábregas de Sucre


Caracas-Venezuela


Chavez adresses the nation, nothing new

January 6, 2003

Chavez spoke on TV for two hours tonight. He tried to project the image that the oil industry is not functioning beacuse of sabotage, rather than the reality taht there aren’t enough skilled workers to run it. He gave numbers that are very high compqred with what the striking oil workers are saying. So far, the predictions of the oil worrkers have been more real than those of the Government. It is clear that the new strategy is to blame everything on “sabotage”, he also threatened to bring to trial all those responsible of the sabotage for their crimes, however, I know for a fact that no plant was transferred to the new managers of PDVSA without a detailed description signed by both parts of the status of operation, shutdown, etc..Chavez threatened with the state of emergency but didn’t announce it.

Pot banging dispersed with tear gas in San Tome

January 5, 2003

Tonight the families of the San Tome oil field were performing a pot-banging demonstration when the Army and the National Guard used tear gas to disperse them because it is an “illegal” activity. All those people that write in the comments. Do these people have rights or not? Is this legal or not? This is another FACIST and Dictatorial act by the outlaw Government of Hugo Chavez.