icthewharf.icnetwork.co.uk Feb 13 2003

A VENEZUELAN man who tried to smuggle £50,000 worth of cocaine in his shoes into London City Airport, was jailed for six years this week.

Francisco Antonio Zambrano Moreno (26) was stopped at the entrance to the Customs Channels at the Docklands airport, after flying in from Caracas, Venezuela, on November 20 last year.

After carrying out a search, customs officers found brown and black tape wrapped packages, under the insoles of his shoes. The shoes were found to contain 694 grams cocaine with an estimated street value of approximately £50,000.

On Monday (February 10) Moreno was sentenced to six years in prison at Middlesex Guild hall Crown Court. Judge Matheson said "It is usual that the couriers are the ones caught smuggling and that real criminals behind the drugs trade are not caught. "

Customs spokesperson, Shona Lowe, said "This sentence should send a very strong message."

www.agi.it

(AGI) - Rome, Italy, Feb. 12 – The Italian community delegation from Venezuela met with Marina Sereni, Responsible for foreign policies in the DS (democratic left) and Gianni Pittella, DS Responsible for Italians in the World. The delegation, as stated by the DS, highlighted the political, economic and social crisis of the country as well as the terrible situation of the Italian community. After four years with the present government, which is recognized as having been legitimately elected, there is a great dissatisfaction in all of society". The delegation spoke of "perplexity concerning a lack of statements from Italy which becomes even more obvious when other countries are doing their best to find a solution to the serious crisis in Venezuela". The DS representatives agreed with the need for Italy to help find a peaceful and democratic solution to the Venezuelan crisis respecting human, political and economic rights while doing so. In the next few days the delegation will meet with the DS National Secretary, Piero Fassino. (AGI)

www.vcrisis.com by Manuel Acedo Sucre January 31, 2002.

One of the most troubling events of 2002 was the surprising upset of the traditional left by Jean Marie Le Pen's National Front in France's presidential elections. Even the French were stunned to see Le Pen carry 17% of the vote in the first round, eliminating the option of the socialist candidate, Lionel Jospin, for the runoff. Together with Bruno Megret's showing of 2.4%, the Le Pen vote meant that nearly a fifth of the French electorate had voted for the extreme right. But Le Pen is not your typical right-wing populist. He is part of a Europe-wide political movement that -at its redoubtable best- regards non-white immigration as the root of all economic, social and cultural evils in Europe, and -at its worst- is the expression of anti-Semitism, neo-Nazism and other forms of atavistic bigotry. This social phenomenon is no joke: racially motivated crimes against immigrant minorities have dramatically increased throughout Europe during the past decade, tragically becoming a routine news item.

Mainstream Europe has forcefully rejected what Le Pen represents. Perhaps what has most outraged a vast majority of Europeans is the apparition of hate language in the political scene. Language that originates in hatred and, in turn, translates into hatred; in this case, hatred directed against racial minorities. Language that not too long ago -when left unbound and allowed to explode and reach power- calcinated Europe.

Fortunately, present-day Europeans have managed to turn their outrage against this phenomenon into effective political action that has prevented its most extreme manifestations from reaching meaningful political force. French democracy managed this in the presidential runoff and, later, in legislative elections. But not all democracies are as resourceful. And the ones that are, sometimes tend to play down and disregard what they see elsewhere, but would never accept in their own turf.

Take the case of Venezuela. Venezuela is an almost 200-year old republic. During these 200 years it has only been ruled by civilians, under democratic rule, for 40 years (1958-98). This democracy gave voice and power to Hugo Chávez, a former lieutenant-colonel who had led a bloody army insurrection against one of the civilian Presidents in 1992. The same democracy, despite the many deaths caused by his coup attempt, later pardoned Chávez and allowed him to successfully run for President in 1998. Chávez introduced two new elements to the Venezuela of civilian rule: a return of the mechanisms that had allowed totalitarian rule for most of Venezuelan history, and an unprecedented use of hate language in his political discourse. The first element was achieved swiftly by discarding Venezuela's longest-lasting Constitution, including its provisions for constitutional change, and having a tailor-made Constitution approved with total disregard of the opposition, which at the time represented 40% of the population. The new Constitution restarted the presidential mandate (after 2 years had elapsed), extended it to 6 years and introduced reelection. A "transitory" regime allowed Chávez to obliterate the existing system of checks and balances between the different branches of power.

The unprecedented concentration of power in the President was very quickly matched and surpassed by his abusive use of that power. With the Supreme Tribunal and its Constitutional Chamber firmly under his control, and his minions strategically placed in each of the public institutions responsible for legally and constitutionally controlling presidential conduct, impunity has become the rule: legal transgressions have given way to constitutional violations and these, in turn, to outright criminal acts. And this is where hate language comes in -prominently- because unbound power, laced with hatred, is a deadly combination.

The language used by Chávez has always been violent. Very early in his campaign for the presidency he announced that he would "fry" the heads of the social democrats. References to rot, tumors, nausea and bodily excretions, used in connection with his political enemies, became common. A permanent feature of his discourse was and continues to be that his "revolution" will triumph at whatever cost, whether peacefully or through violence and blood. Anyone not with him was against him, and had to be crushed. At the beginning, the language employed by Chávez was politically received as just passionate rhetoric. It was the language of the fiery, inexperienced and rough presidential candidate, fighting the odds. But later the dark-horse candidate turned President. And the language continued. And the language zeroed in on anyone daring to express dissent. And the language moved mobs into violence. And the language and the mobs were protected, from above, by the most obscene impunity. So the language, now turned into a physical weapon, became an instrument of power. One that has allowed him to say, for example, that there are no journalists in jail.

But Chávez's treatment of journalists is particularly revealing. When Chávez became President, he enjoyed the typical honeymoon of the newly elected. This included all factors of power, and, among them, the media. Some important newspapers, television and radio stations had actually backed him as candidate, and continued to do so during the initial stages of his presidency. But as the honeymoon began to wear off and ordinary criticism of some government actions started to surface, Chávez began to systematically rail against the media. Media owners, as well as the journalists working for them, where singled out and called traitors and enemies of the people. Shortly afterward, organized mobs openly began to physically attack and injure reporters in the street. This happens now on a daily basis. Some reporters have been killed or maimed for life. No one has been arrested, let alone prosecuted, despite the fact that many of the attacks have been taped and shown on TV. Some of the televised gang leaders routinely appear with Chávez and his entourage during pro-government rallies.

The government's modus operandi was staged for all to see in early December 2002. On December 8, Chávez, during his weekly public address, stepped up his tirade against the media and called on his listeners not to accept the media "crimes" committed daily against the people and inciting them to act. On the early afternoon of December 9, the government withdrew the patrol cars that had been posted to protect private TV stations around the country. In the late afternoon government activists -some of them hooded- began surrounding the different private TV stations. As the crowds grew larger, some TV stations in Barquisimeto, Maracay, Maracaibo and San Cristóbal, as well as radio stations elsewhere, were invaded by gangs, and their equipment and installations destroyed. In Caracas, the government-sponsored mobs lay siege to the TV stations, not only threatening their employees but blocking access to and from the stations.

The government refused to intervene to restore order. The President, the Vice-president and the head of the National Guard had been called since early afternoon by media representatives, on and off the air, but they never responded the calls. Some of these calls had been franticly made, in the middle of the ransacking. The government's only reaction came at around 10:00pm of December 9: the Minister of the Interior went on national TV to say that the government was on the side of peace and that the people had a right to take street action to defend the Constitution. Needless to say, the rampaging continued unabated until the following day.

There have been more that 200 documented cases of attacks by government-sponsored mobs against journalists. Many of these have been duly noted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which has condemned them in no uncertain terms. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has ordered the government to stop the aggressions and take action to protect journalists. The government has ignored the Commission and the Court, and, if anything, has stepped up the attacks. Just last week, the government initiated administrative procedures to close down three TV and several radio stations, based on some obsolete regulations that are clearly unconstitutional and violate basic treaties on human rights. So Chávez is right, he has not directly jailed journalists; he has just unleashed his violent mobs against them. His language has provided the bite for his mobs; he only has had to ensure impunity for them.

Chávez's hate language has not been restricted to the press. Rival politicians, labor leaders, the Catholic Church, journalists, media owners and businessmen, have all been branded as enemies of the people or of his "revolution". Verbal attacks have systematically been followed by physical attacks against individuals and institutions -physical attacks carried out by mobs and armed gangs, sometimes by groups using home-made bombs or assault weapons and hand grenades with complete impunity. On-call mobs routinely attack peaceful demonstrations by the opposition. It is common to see these demonstrations end in bloodshed and death, as the attackers are protected and sometimes coordinated by pro-government police, the National Guard and the Army. The pattern is clear: hate language identifies the targets; the mobs follow.

The story of Chávez is the story of hate language. Language deliberately toned down in certain political circles, but allowed to explode into violent tirades among the disenfranchised. Language that, depending on the context, may be just simplistic, populist or xenophobic, but -when used in the streets or from a position of leadership- becomes literally incendiary. Language that exploits the frustrations of those who feel excluded from mainstream society, blaming their lot on false causes, while giving them a sense of empowerment. The same language that -when timidly used in Europe- has been checked by democratic institutions; but, with Chávez's rise to power, has burned and destroyed democratic institutions in Venezuela. Language that has become violence.

An overwhelming majority of Venezuelans are calling for elections as a means to rescue their democracy and end the violence. At least 70% of the population -including a majority of the poor and the disenfranchised- want Chávez out. 70% that desperately demand to, at least, have the chance to deal with Chávez as the French were allowed to deal with Le Pen: with true democracy. What is different in the case of Venezuela is that Chávez has confiscated democracy. Hitler and Mussolini did the same in Europe, when, riding on their own popularity, their hate language helped them crush democratic institutions. Of all people, Europeans should be able to read the language of Chávez.

www.vcrisis.com

Venezuela in 2003 will suffer the worst economic contraction any Latin American country has experienced in more than a century, Venezuelan and international economists say in the Miami daily El Nuevo Herald. According to the economists, the contraction can be attributed to a crippling two-month strike against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. They warn that Venezuela's economic implosion in 2003 will be so severe that the country risks a “social explosion” that Chavez might be unable to control -- even with the armed forces. Most economists agree that Venezuela's economy will contract by at least 25 percent in 2003, with unemployment ballooning to about 30 percent and inflation rising 100 percent. Moreover, experts studying Venezuela's economic collapse also agree that the Chavez government's recently announced exchange and price controls would only aggravate the country's crisis.

Chavez and the poor

Dr. Juan C. Nagel of the University of Michigan argues in a paper titled "Chavez and the Poor": "Not only has poverty increased during Chávez’s tenure, it is worsening rapidly. Macroeconomic conditions hurt the poor disproportionately relative to the rich, and there is no social safety net to speak of. The poor in Chavez’s world are on their own." The problem is that many poor don't know that. Because of terrible economic policies in the past, many of the country's poor were denied access to an education. When someone who uses their colloquialisms tells them that their economic woes are caused by the rich, by the strike, by the oligarchy, etc, many believe him. Later, when they see him handing out free land titles and Chinese tractors to people on television, their hopes rise. However, I have to highlight a couple issues here. First, most poor people will never own land or a Chinese tractor under Chavez. The poor are slowly waking up to this manipulation, as their lives get worse. Thousands are joining the opposition, and marching along with the middle and upper classes. Furthermore, the international media and human rights groups have done next to nothing to reveal Chavez's manipulation of the poor. Instead, they portray him as a "defender" of the poor, a "Robin Hood", when a quick surface scratch reveals that beneath that act is a man desperate for power and revenues. Why haven't the poor benefited by the tremendous windfall of dollars to due oil prices in the last two years? Where's the money in the FIEM? Hugo Chavez Frias is no Robin Hood. In a visit to the US this week, Ecuador's president Lucio Gutierrez said that he wants to be "a close ally of the United States". Obviously, even leftist former coup leaders don't want to follow the example of Chavez's failed policies.

www.vcrisis.com

Venezuela in 2003 will suffer the worst economic contraction any Latin American country has experienced in more than a century, Venezuelan and international economists say in the Miami daily El Nuevo Herald. According to the economists, the contraction can be attributed to a crippling two-month strike against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. They warn that Venezuela's economic implosion in 2003 will be so severe that the country risks a “social explosion” that Chavez might be unable to control -- even with the armed forces. Most economists agree that Venezuela's economy will contract by at least 25 percent in 2003, with unemployment ballooning to about 30 percent and inflation rising 100 percent. Moreover, experts studying Venezuela's economic collapse also agree that the Chavez government's recently announced exchange and price controls would only aggravate the country's crisis.

Chavez and the poor

Dr. Juan C. Nagel of the University of Michigan argues in a paper titled "Chavez and the Poor": "Not only has poverty increased during Chávez’s tenure, it is worsening rapidly. Macroeconomic conditions hurt the poor disproportionately relative to the rich, and there is no social safety net to speak of. The poor in Chavez’s world are on their own." The problem is that many poor don't know that. Because of terrible economic policies in the past, many of the country's poor were denied access to an education. When someone who uses their colloquialisms tells them that their economic woes are caused by the rich, by the strike, by the oligarchy, etc, many believe him. Later, when they see him handing out free land titles and Chinese tractors to people on television, their hopes rise. However, I have to highlight a couple issues here. First, most poor people will never own land or a Chinese tractor under Chavez. The poor are slowly waking up to this manipulation, as their lives get worse. Thousands are joining the opposition, and marching along with the middle and upper classes. Furthermore, the international media and human rights groups have done next to nothing to reveal Chavez's manipulation of the poor. Instead, they portray him as a "defender" of the poor, a "Robin Hood", when a quick surface scratch reveals that beneath that act is a man desperate for power and revenues. Why haven't the poor benefited by the tremendous windfall of dollars to due oil prices in the last two years? Where's the money in the FIEM? Hugo Chavez Frias is no Robin Hood. In a visit to the US this week, Ecuador's president Lucio Gutierrez said that he wants to be "a close ally of the United States". Obviously, even leftist former coup leaders don't want to follow the example of Chavez's failed policies.