www.voanews.com VOA News 26 Jan 2003, 01:55 UTC

At least 100-thousand opponents of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez have jammed a major highway in Caracas to back a 55-day opposition strike that has crippled the nation's economy.

Protesters flooded the highway Saturday chanting anti-Chavez slogans and waving Venezuelan flags. Many of them brought tents and sleeping bags, vowing to spend the night to press their demand that the president step down.

The massive street demonstration follows a recent Supreme Court ruling that suspended a referendum scheduled for February second that would have been a non-binding vote on the president's rule.

Opposition leaders are now concentrating on collecting signatures for a new petition for a constitutional amendment that could cut the president's six-year term to four.

Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter proposed a similar plan while attending negotiations between the government and opposition last week. The former president's Atlanta-based Carter Center, along with the United Nations and the Organization of American States are co-sponsoring the talks.

President Chavez, in an interview published Saturday in a Canadian newspaper, La Presse of Montreal, called the Carter proposals "interesting" but not necessarily new ideas that should be discussed with the democratic opposition.

With Venezuela's petroleum output severely slashed by a general strike begun by oil industry workers, the international community has stepped up efforts to end the political deadlock.

Officials from six nations, the recently-formed "Group of Friends" of Venezuela, met in Washington on Friday. The group is expected to send a high-level team to Caracas next week to help find ways to break the political impasse. The six-nation group brings together the United States, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Portugal and Spain. Opposition leaders blame the country's worsening economic woes on Chavez policies and remain determined to see him leave office. The strike has paralyzed Venezuela's oil production, the mainstay of its economy, and pushed up global oil prices.

Some information for this report provided by AP and Reuters.

www.morningstar.ca 25 Jan 03(8:14 PM) | E-mail Article to a Friend

By Pierre Belec

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The question du jour in the crawl toward war against Iraq: How will stocks behave after the United States leads another war on the oil-rich country?

Investors are crossing their fingers, hoping that if there is a war, it will a short one. But few people are willing to bet the ranch on how things will turn out because the economy is fragile and the stock market is not in great shape.

A long-lasting war could wreak havoc on both.

The price of energy will be the biggest factor. If oil prices spike up at this stage of the current economic down cycle, growth in the United States and the rest of the world could grind to a virtual halt.

Wartime history won't be of much help in anticipating the market's response to fighting in the Gulf.

The run-up to war has traditionally caused stocks to drop and stay weak until the United States takes military action.

That is how things played out ahead of both World War Two and the last Gulf War, 12 years ago. Back then, stocks fell to levels that were judged to be undervalued and the market had an easy time rallying.

This time around, things are different. The U.S. economy is not back on its feet after sliding into recession in 2001 and it is more vulnerable to a destabilizing shock. Just as important, the global economy is wobbly .

Stock investors are eager to put more money on the table but the experts warn that the threat of another terrorist attack on the United States will be the wild card. The horrors of Sept. 11 kicked up the risk.

PEP TALK

The nation's brokerage houses are doing a lot of hand holding. They're laying out possible outcomes. Most are putting a positive spin on the war story, trying to soothe investors' worries.

Stock salesman are reminding their clients that the market didn't crash after the Gulf War began on Jan. 17, 1991.

One brokerage house offers "Ammunition when clients say they are afraid to buy anything because we may be going to war soon" in a pep talk to its sales force.

"For those who were in the business back during the Gulf War, I'm sure you remember the market was dismal between the time Iraq invaded Kuwait and when we started shooting," the internal memo says, adding that stocks performed superbly during Desert Storm.

Indeed, the market was fired up. The Dow Jones industrial average initially surged 115 points or 4.6 percent. Three months later, the Dow was up some 500 points or 19.7 percent. One year later, the blue-chip index had climbed an impressive 756 points, or 30.1 percent.

Crude oil soared in the months leading up to the Gulf War. In today's prices, adjusted for inflation, oil climbed from $23 a barrel to $47 by October of 1990. Days after the first bomb was dropped on Baghdad, oil slid to $25.

Fast forward to 2003. Oil hovers at a 26-month high around $32 a barrel, up from $20 in 2002, fueled in part by unrest in Venezuela, a big supplier to the United States. Whether oil prices will continue to increase in the event of a war is the big unknown for the world economy and for stocks.

After a strong start in the first week of 2003, the stock market is now dead in the water, with the Dow having lost all of the year's gains, and then some.

The Dow Jones industrial average fell 238.46 points on Friday, or 2.85 percent, to 8,131.01. The Standard & Poor's 500 index slumped 25.94 points, or 2.92 percent, to 861.40. Both indexes hit their lowest since Oct. 17. The Nasdaq Composite Index dropped 46.14 points, or 3.32 percent, to 1,342.13.

For the week, the Dow tumbled 5.3 percent, the S&P 500 4.5 percent and the Nasdaq 2.5 percent. The Dow and S&P 500 are in negative ground for the year despite an early January rally.

SMARTING INVESTORS

Clearly investors are scared stiff. Few are making bets that the next military strike against Iraq will be a cakewalk or that oil prices will collapse. Only the brave are getting flashbacks to the glory days of the Gulf War.

Average investors have gotten smart after $8 trillion in market wealth went up in smoke over the past three years. They've learned that Wall Street is a risky place.

The smart money says: Wait until the geopolitical script plays itself out and then make decisions with all the facts in hand.

"Any kind of surprise terrorist event or war, could send the market into a free-fall crash," writes James Dines, editor of the Dines Letter. "What I find especially disturbing is the very urgency of President Bush's demand that Iraq be attacked immediately before Saddam Hussein 'develops weapons of mass destruction.' Why the hurry?. I can only wonder whether Bush knows something that he has not chosen to disclose."

Bush again this week beat the war drums, saying that Hussein is not disarming but is "delaying and deceiving." But opposition to the U.S. stand has mounted, with China and Russia joining France, Germany and Canada on Thursday in urging that U.N. weapons inspectors be given more time in Iraq.

Iraq said it would expand its cooperation with United Nations weapons inspectors but said it was convinced the United States will attack despite efforts aimed at resolution. A Russian military source said this week the Washington and its allies planned an attack in the second half of February.

Yet some people reckon history is on the side of investors.

"The market loves action," says Kent Engelke, capital markets strategist for Anderson & Strudwick Inc., "I arrogantly and naively believe the market will follow a similar course as in 1991 once we start bombing Iraq. It will again be a no-contest."

Dines says the market is too risky and only the most aggressive traders should venture into stocks at this time. The average investor should sit on the sidelines.

"Nobody knows for sure where the markets are going next in these dangerous times," Dines says.

www.vcrisis.com  

Author: Emilio Figueredo Emilio is Editor of Analitica.com Article: Notes to the international press interested in Venezuelan events

Author: Moises Naim Moises is Editor of Foreign Policy Magazine and was Venezuela's Minister of Trade and Industry from 1989 to 1990. Article: The Venezuelan Story: Revisiting the Conventional Wisdom Article: Democracy Dictates Latin America's Future

Author: Antonio Guzman-Blanco Former Manager at a major international bank doing business in Venezuela Article: President Hugo Chavez' ties to terrorism

Author: Francisco Castillo Francisco is attorney at Hoet Pelaez Castillo & Duque, one of Venezuela's most prestigious law firms. Article: Chavez and Terrorism

Author: Antonio A. Herrera-Vaillant Antonio is Editor in Chief, "Business Venezuela" Vice president / General Manager VENAMCHAM Article: I got my job through the New York Times

Author: Priscilla West Priscilla is a former PDVSA employee Article: Venezuelan Crisis - It's Not An "Oil Workers Strike!"

Author: J.M. Barrionuevo Director of EM Strategy at Barclays Capital Article: The Crisis Article: Venezuela’s Unfolding Scenario Article: The President’s Freefall Begins Article: Venezuela’s Gathering Tempest

Author: Martin Arostegui Martin is a free-lance writer for Insight magazine Article: Chavez Plans for Terrorist Regime

www.vcrisis.com

In view of the recent articles posted in the international news agencies, I consider necessary for objectivity's sake to stop the ignorant and irresponsible attitude of portraying the conflict as an oil workers strike or even worse, as a clash between classes.

It should not be forgotten that the oil strike commenced after the national strike began, due to the violent attacks perpetrated on Juan Fernandez's house - Manager of the company -, followed by the aggressive dissolution by the army of a peaceful demonstrations outside one of PDVSA's buildings in Chuao, Caracas. This act left journalists, police officers and demonstrators wounded.

Thanks to Chavez's wicked ability at the helm of the economy ( preliminary data from the Venezuelan Central Bank shows that the country's economy contracted by an estimated 10 percent to 12 percent in the fourth quarter of 2002, the largest quarterly drop in the past 50 years ), in Venezuela there are only two social status; a shrinking middle class and the poor. Only 2% of the country's population earns more than 1500 US dollars/month.

In the last survey:

• 58% of Venezuelans blamed Chavez for the disastrous state of the country,
• 68% doubted that the government is willing to negotiate,
• 68% thought the strike should continue until Chavez resigns,
• 93% expressed that the government must negotiate the solution of the conflict,
• 63% wanted the president's immediate resignation. The results are quite clear, perhaps some A-levels in maths will help overcome the press' inability to understand the numbers.

Country's population: 24 million PDVSA's workforce: 36.000 people

This web site was launched exactly 43 days ago. In this period I have been scrutinizing the major international news agencies in search for articles regarding Venezuela's crisis, in an attempt to provide credible information to whomever may be interested. To my surprise, the "trustworthy" sources of information have been producing the most staggering collection of misleading articles about the conflict, not facilitating the formation of a true picture of the events in the country to the general public, and more importantly failing in their commitment to inform. They have flirted with concepts such as "clash between rich and poor" or "the oil workers strike". What I believe constitute the biggest damage to all the sectors involved in this drama, is the constant and repetitive argument of Chavez having been democratically elected. Let us imagine this scenario for one moment: roughly 10% of Americans taking voluntarily and spontaneously to the streets of Washington to demand Bush's resignation - same could apply to Englishmen and Blair, Frenchmen and Chirac, etc.- and their presidents reactions to these events being , " demonstrations? What demonstrations?". Of course it should be added the speech on national TV by the president, urging army commanders to disobey the rulings of the Supreme Court, and I will not continue depicting examples of Chavez democratic behavior for I do not want to appear "biased", the examples are there for anyone to see. Hence my conviction that the international media covers and publishes only what they want and not the true facts. At stake is the freedom and welfare of an entire nation and not just the survival of elitists groups, therefore the significance of providing proper comments on this topic. I have been repeatedly accused of being partisan, in this respect I can only say that there are enough links to CNN in this site to prove the contrary. I really doubt about the skills and education of the journalists in charge of covering these events. I am only a doorman in a foreign country - no journalism background or experience in these matters whatsoever - however, I honestly think that as far as providing veritable information about Venezuela is concerned, I could easily lecture them. The realities reflected in the Venezuelan media and feedback received from family, friends, and people in general are completely divorced from what I gather daily from the international media. Perhaps now that the Americans are going to start to feel the consequences of this issue where it hurts the most - i.e. their pockets -, some questions will be raised and some sort of condemnation towards Chavez will follow. In view of this precedent, who will believe these "journalists"? Most certainly not me..

Aleksander Boyd editor@vcrisis.com

blogs.salon.com   I have said little here about the recent decision by the Venezuelan Supreme Court on the consultative referendum. There are many reasons for this. Outrage was one. A second one was that the story can only be told in context. Each decision in Venezuela recently may appear to be reasonable, but they are not when they are viewed in context. In this essay I attempt to provide the full context of the Supreme Court, the Electoral Board and referenda in the last four years. Those that argue the simplistic argument:- Why can’t you wait a few months? – should read it carefully, the answer is clear, for the same reason Chavez could not wait a few months. Except in our case, it is legal, which was not tru for him! But in his case, it did not seem to matter, while we get nothing. Sorry for the length, could not shorten it!   A story of pilferage (or is it rape?)               When Hugo Chavez was elected President, one of his first acts was to call for a referendum to ask the people on whether they wanted or not to have a Constituent Assembly. Such a referenda was not contemplated in the Constitution of 1961. In fact, only Congress could change that Constitution according to the mechanisms of protection it contained. But the Supreme Court of the pre-Chavez era ruled that power resided in the people and thus, if the people approved the Constituent Assembly in a referendum, then it was legal.

            In the same act, the “people” gave the Government the power to set up the electoral rules for the elections to the Constituent Assembly. The 1961 Constitution guaranteed the principle of proportional participation (as does the 1999 one) to protect the rights of the minorities. However, the rules made up by Chavez and his collaborators were such that despite the fact that they received only 67% of the vote, they had 96% of the representatives, but no matter.

            The Constituent Assembly rewrote the Constitution, approved it and on that fateful day in December of 1999 it (thousands died due to flooding) was approved by less than 36% of the registered voters. In the next few weeks, three different versions of the Constitution were published, none of which agreed with the version approved by either the Assembly or the people. But no matter.

            In January 2000, Hugo Chavez, in a preview of the famous words he said in 2001 “I am the law, I am the State”, decided that all electoral positions had to be reelected, that he would remain in his post, but everyone else would be removed immediately. There was one problem though. Who would legislate in the time between his decision and the rightful elections of the new National Assembly? The solution was simple, a “transient” body called the “ Congresillo”, which had no legal bases was created and Venezuela was run and ruled by such an undemocratic, lawless body for 6 months. The members of this body were appointed by the Chavez Government and even though I recall Chavez saying that “all” were elected members of the Constituent Assembly and thus were elected by the people to represent them, this was incorrect as an acquaintance of mine, Nelson Merentes, was part of the Congresillo but was not elected to the Constituent Assembly. But no matter.

            The “Congresillo” ran onto another problem. What to do until the National Assembly was elected with important positions like the members of the Supreme Court, the Electoral Board, the Attorney General and The people’s defender? All of these had been forced to resign except for the People’s Defender which did not exist. Once again the powerful concept of “transitivity” was invoked and the lawless Congresillo selected and elected all of these positions. This is the origin of the current Supreme Court and Electoral Board that so irk the Chavez administration. Moreover, the current Attorney General was Chavez’ first Vice-President. You can see how this is a tale of pilferage and some rape. By piling one illegality on top of each other, Chavez managed to personally select the Supreme Court without the participation of the opposition as well as the Electoral Board. And this was a “new” democracy. But no matter.

            Roughly speaking, because it can’t be proven, the Supreme Court was composed of roughly a third chosen from loyal lawyers to the “cause”, another third from corporate lawyers associated with Chavez’ biggest fundraiser and one third by academic sympathizers. The Electoral Board was composed roughly half by Chavez’ loyalists and the other half by independents with no evident political affiliation. The Court ruled along the Government party line up to April of last year. Since then, the Court has rebelled against Government pressure, becoming more independent. In fact, in December eight of the twenty Justices said they were declaring a work stoppage to protest the Government’s pressure and persecution.

            The Electoral Board was a different matter. While in the limelight when elections take place, the Board has little political “glamour” in between elections. Thus, many of its members, particularly the Chavistas, began looking for greener pastures (no pun intended!). On Nov. 4th., only four of its ten members remained in their jobs and the National Assembly had not only failed to take actions in naming replacements to those that had resigned, but it had failed to even formally accept the resignations of three of them, as required by law.

            On Nov. 4th. over two million signatures were submitted to the Electoral Board asking for a referendum to ask the question: “Do you want Hugo Chavez to voluntarily resign from his position?”. The first attempt to block the referendum took place that day, when the path of the march/caravan carrying the boxes with the petitions was violently blocked by Chavez’ supporters led by Chavez’ well-known associate Lina Ron. The National Guard intervened, everybody was sprayed with tear gas but the petition was somehow handed in.

            Later that same month, Hugo Chavez asked the Supreme Court to rule that some of the articles of the new Electoral Power Bill approved by the National Assembly were unconstitutional in an attempt to stop the referendum. The Court ruled they were not and Hugo Chavez sent it back to the National Assembly. However, the Venezuelan Constitution says that the President can do one or the other, but not both and the Supreme Court ordered the President to decree the new bill, as it was.

            By then the Electoral Board had approved the referendum and its legality and scheduled it by a vote of three to one to take place on Feb. 2nd.. But the Supreme Court issued a ruling saying that any decision had to be made by a majority of four, which at the time meant it had to be unanimous, since six members of the Board had resigned, even if only three of these resignations had been formally accepted by the National Assembly. Roughly at the same time, the Court rejected an injunction to declare the question illegal.

            At this point, one of the members of the Board who had resigned announced that he was withdrawing his resignation and would join the Board. A pro-Chavez member of the Board said she would do the same, but her resignation was indeed legal as she had held another Government post since. All votes of the Electoral Board were recast with the extra member and decisions approved as required by the Supreme Court. At this point the Chavez administration said that it considered the referendum illegal, had no money for it, would provide no military security on the day of the vote and would not allow the use of public schools to hold the vote as it is customary.

            Chavez’ supporters introduced then two injunctions, one to declare the question illegal and another one to declare the participation of the additional member illegal. The Electoral Board proceeded making plans for the referendum Feb. 2nd. asking the public to donate the funds and the private sector the material for the ballots. With only thirteen days to go, the Electoral Hall issued this week an injunction suspending the referendum until the full Court decides on whether the new member was or not a legitimate part of it, and ordering the Board not to carry out any electoral activity until the issue is resolved. According to Venezuela’s laws there is no time limit on how long this may take. Thus, not only was the referendum suspended but, at this time, no election is possible in Venezuela, until the Electoral Hall allows it!

            This is the context of this week’s decision which was reported by the New York Times as “High Court suspends referendum” but within the text of the news it quotes Chavez and its supporters saying they consider it illegal, but no mention is made of the fact that the suspension was made simply on a technicality and not on the illegality of the referendum. In fact, that same day The Constitutional Hall ruled, once again, that the question, and thus the referendum itself was legal.

            The sad truth is that the referendum was not only the origin of the current general strike, but that it would have provided a relief valve for the current crisis. A resounding defeat by Chavez would have removed the “mandate” he claims to have for his revolution and forced him to negotiate an electoral solution ahead of the recall referendum in August. The High Court may yet give us another surprise. There are two “revision” requests introduced in the Constitutional Hall of the Supreme Court. While many believe that there is little chance that the decision by the Electoral Hall will be overturned, I would not dare predict it will not happen. By now, the ways of the Court are highly mysterious as it distances itself from Chavez and its administration.

            What is most remarkable about this story is how the unwritten “power resides in the people” allowed the 1998 referendum, but its presence in the new Constitution has simply been immaterial. Some call it pilferage; I prefer to call it rape.

An interesting piece. Actually, it wasn't too long, it was too short which is why it was a little hard to follow.

A quick comment before I get to the main point. It would seem to me from this that your main beef should be with the Supreme court, not Chavez. According to you the referendum on the Consituent Assembly was clearly unconstitutional at the time. But the Supreme Court ruled it legal. The Supreme Court was not out of line because was they did was interpret the law at the time which is precisely the role of courts - legislators make laws, executives enforce them, and the courts interpret them. Now you may think the decision was completely wrong but nevertheless that is what they ruled. Now with the ruling a couple of days ago you didn't like the courts ruling but again that is the court. I can't make heads or tails of anything they do but that is the system and you have to follow it wether you like it or not. So I really think your comlaint is more with the rulings of the courts then Chavez. (BTW, if you like places where the constitution is ignored you ought to hang out in the U.S. were wars are started all the time with no declaration of war from Congress as clearly written in the U.S. constitution. The U.S. Supreme court of course does nothing which shows Venezuela is not the only country with inept courts).

Anyways, there is really one sentence in your article that cuts to the heart of the whole dissagreement between us. You wrote: " A resounding defeat by Chavez would have removed the 'mandate' he claims to have for his revolution and forced him to negotiate an electoral solution ahead of the recall referendum in August". This is precisely what I disagree with.

In my opinion what that will lead to is government by opinion poll. No president will ever be able to make any decision which may adversely effect any significant segment of society for fear of having these referendums which will then undercut them and force them to resign. This is totally against the concept of what a republic is. In a republic (which is what Venezuela and all countries in the free world are) decisions regarding what the government does are made not by the "people" but by the elected representatives of the people who are elected in regularly scheduled elections. Any elected office holder has a complete mandate from their election until the next scheduled election irrespective of what any popularity polls indicate. Your proposed system of having votes at any time to determine wether or not the presidents mandate still exists or not would completely subvert this.

The effect of this would be to completely emmasculate and render impotent the executive branch of government. The executive branch would only then make decisions that would ensure its continued popularity irrespective of the long term harm those decisions may have on the countries welfare and would avoid unpopular actions even though they may be in the countres best interest. In my view any competent Supreme Court would take that into account in rendering a decision on this subject and therefore decide not to interpret the constitution in a manner that would allow these type of referendums to be held (and yes, courts always take into account the effects of their decisions on other branches of government and their ability to function - an example of the above is the U.S. Supreme court allowing the President to go to war without Congress declaring it).

Just one example of this would have been President Reagen in the U.S. When first elected he took actions which pushed the U.S. into its most severe recession since the great deppresion. That lasted for about two years and due to high unemployment he was very unpopular - I believe he was about 20% in the polls for a long time. Then the economy turned around and he became popular again and everntually won re-election by a huge landslide. I personally couldn't stand him but many conservatives consider him one of the greatest presidents ever - and under your method of doing things he would have been driven from office as a complete failure after a couple of years. (another little aside - you mention that the Constitution was only approved by 36% of the total electorate as if that undermines its legitimacy - it does not - Bush was elected U.S. president with less than 25% of the total electorates vote - if you don't bother to vote then you don't count.)

So this is why I consider all of the opinion polls irrelevant (as the saying goes - the only poll that counts is the one on election day). Obviously, the supreme court has to decide ultimately what it thinks is the correct interpretation of the constitution but this is certainly what I would recomment they decide. I think this is really the central, and very key, difference in our points of view. And everything else follows from that difference.

Further, even if you believe these referendums are allowed under the Venezuelan consitution I don't believe that justifies illegal strikes (such as the one at PDVSA) that have as their aim deabilitating the economy and government revenue to the point that the government collapses or it leaders are driven from power. It doesn't justify the mass media becoming seditious and it certainly doesn't justify threats against the presidents life.

BTW I'm sure you enjoyed the Americas column in the WSJ today by Mary O'Grady - I'm surprised you didn't post it verbatim on your website :) As much as a lunatic as I think she is at least the Journal keeps this stuff on the editorial and opinion pages which is more than anyone in Venezuela does.

Take care. Dan [dburnett@nyc.rr.com] • 1/24/03; 7:44:38 PM

Did you understand the article: The court says it is legal. Miguel Octavio [moctavio@bbo.com.ve] • 1/24/03; 8:22:23 PM

Dan, Go to Venezuela, experience the day to day in a conflict country, and then you can start your critics to Miguel's comments. It is very easy to see things from far and criticize but is very hard to live it day by day. What you family tells you can be true, but listening to it and living it are two different things... Gabriela y Juan Borges [gprietor@alumni.brandeis.edu] • 1/24/03; 8:41:07 PM

It is totally incredible how these people have destroyed our Country. It is just amazing... Afrael [afrael@yahoo.com] • 1/24/03; 9:31:19 PM

Miguel, no I didn't understand that they had made a definitive ruling on it that it was legal. If that is what they decided then that is what we have to go by. But it doesn't change any of what I said except to say that instead of potentially making a bad decision appearently they have already made a bad decision. That is very bad for the future. It is one thing to occasionally have bad presidents, it is another, and much worse, to permanently have a bad system of governence. Venezuela will never develope and will be mired in the same mediocrity and poverty for the next 200 years that it has been in the for the last 200.

Mr. Borges: I travel to Venezuela 4 to 5 times a year - I was there for most all of December. I'll probably be back in April. We'll see what is left of it by then. Dan [dburnett@nyc.rr.com] • 1/25/03; 7:38:23 AM

On the same day that one Hall ruled that theat member of teh Board may be illegal, the Constitutional Hall ruled (for the second time!) that the question of the refeendum is legal. Also, it is not a matter of whether you like it or not, it is in the Constitution and is what Chavez said he would do, ask "the people" about everything. It is crazy, but it is the law. Miguel Octavio [moctavio@bbo.com.ve] • 1/25/03; 8:25:04 AM

That?s the point, the law is enforced by Chavez? supporters when they like to. And when it could come against them, then the law does not exist. Guillermo [guillo@mac.com] • 1/25/03; 8:30:59 AM