www.examiner.ie 24/02/03

IT isn’t very often that one is treated to a compelling documentary on RTE, but the True Lives series produced a gem on February 18 regarding Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and the attempted coup in April of last year.

Anyone who dismisses as a conspiracy the allegations of oil being a driving force behind US policy on Iraq would do well to look at the situation in Venezuela.

It is the third biggest supplier of oil to the US where the administration has openly admitted its interest in the strategic value of this country and its commodity.

Chavez's crime was to attempt to distribute the oil proceeds among his people. The coup was orchestrated by the disposed oil barons and compliant elements of the military. It failed when the people refused to accept the new regime. Most Venezuelans are convinced of CIA involvement, which the US denies. What the US cannot deny, however, is the peddling of lies on behalf of the plotters and their verbal support of a ‘regime change.’

In short, Chavez’s oil policy doesn’t suit the US. Therefore they see it as strategic imperative to secure their supply through whatever means are necessary. The US administration’s fundamentalist view of the world as good or evil is a nonsense. If you’re with them, your good; if you’re against them, you’re evil. Morals don’t come into it.

Cormac Cahill, 3, Eugene Drive, Grange Heights, Douglas, Cork.

www.guardian.co.uk Agencies in Caracas Monday February 24, 2003 The Guardian

The Caracas central court has put a leading opponent of President Hugo Chavez under house arrest on charges of civil rebellion and criminal instigation.

Carlos Fernandez, president of the Fedecameras, the chamber of commerce, was seized by the state security police during a midnight raid on a restaurant in the capital, Caracas, on Wednesday.

The court dismissed a charge of treason, and two other charges, during a 13-hour preliminary hearing which ended yesterday morning, and confined him to his home in Valencia, in west Venezuela.

The president's opponents linked it to the issuing of a warrant for the arrest of Carlos Ortega, another leader of the political strike intended to bring down the regime, described it as the beginning of a political witch hunt.

Mr Ortega, a trade union leader and one of the president's fiercest critics, has gone into hiding.

Mr Fernandez, 52, told Globovision television: "They treated me very well, they respected all my rights."

Applauding the judge's decision during his weekly television address, Mr Chavez described Mr Fernandez as "a terrorist and a coup-plotter".

"Let the decision be obeyed; it is the court's order. If it were up to me he wouldn't be at home, he would be behind bars," he added.

Julio Borges, of the Justice First party, said: This is like someone giving you a huge blow to the head and then handing out sweets, when they drop some of the charges and put you under house arrest. But the whole incident makes no legal sense; this is about politics."

The strike, which fizzled out in the first week of February, severely disrupted oil exports, which account for half Venezuela's state revenues.

But the state oil monopoly's headquarters is picketed by supporters of the president, some of them armed, and on Saturday night a group of policemen passing by on their way from a colleague's funeral came under fire. One was killed and five wounded, the head of the police motorcycle brigade, Miguel Pinto, said.

After a series of attacks on the police by Chavez supporters, the chief of police, Henry Vivas, ordered officers to stay away from the oil company offices to avoid clashes. But the funeral home is only a few hundred metres away.

"We never thought it would come to this," Mr Pinto said.

Mr Fernandez's arrest came a few days after the killing of three dissident soldiers and an anti-Chavez protester. The police are investigating the deaths, which relatives say were acts of political persecution.

lookbackinanger.blogspot.com

Anyone out there who has been giving the Chavez regime the benefit of the doubt - would you please explain this for me?

A leader of Venezuela's general strike was snatched out of a restaurant by secret police and faces charges of treason and instigating violence for his role in mass, anti-government protests that crippled the nation's economy...

Strike co-leader Carlos Ortega, of the Venezuelan Workers Confederation, was ordered to surrender, also on treason and instigating violence charges, said magistrate Maikel Jose Moreno.

And if that doesn't disturb your confidence in the honorable "democratic leader" - then explain this:

Venezuela was still reeling today after the weekend killings of three dissident soldiers and a protester opposed to President Hugo Chávez, and the police and grieving relatives split over whether the killings were politically motivated.

According to police investigations, about 12 armed men kidnapped the four victims on Saturday night as they were leaving a protest. They were bound and gagged, and some were tortured before the gunmen executed them, the police said.

The last two bodies, badly decomposed and showing signs of torture, were found on Tuesday on the outskirts of Caracas.

I'm finding it very difficult to keep level-headed with this post. This situation has gone far beyond intolerable. People ask me: "What is it with you and Venezuela?" And I say: "Have you ever noticed the disturbing historical frequency of Left-wing 'revolutions' led by charismatic, narcissistic leaders going very, very bad?" Things have been getting bad in Venezuela for a long time now. Hugo Chavez has promised a "revolutionary offensive" in the coming year. So far he has: purged the military and police forces, quashed popular referendums, had his security forces torture opposition protesters, had his security forces seize private property from opposition businesses, stacked the court system with friendly judges, threatened closure of opposition media outlets, begun enacting "content" laws that would make it illegal for the press to criticize the government...the list goes on and on and on. Now his secret police have seized and detained opposition leaders on the specious court order of a handpicked judge, formerly a lawyer who defended the accused Chavista gunmen responsible for a massacre of opposition protesters last April. And then there are the bodies: the dead opposition protesters found bound and gagged, tortured and shot to death on the outskirts of Caracas. Human Rights Watch is demanding an investigation - the police say "Nothing to see here, folks, move along."

There is a lot going on in the world these days: a lot of important developments to monitor, a multitude of arguments to be made. It's quite possible that Venezuela is entirely off your radar screen - the issues too complex, information too hard to come by. I'm asking you: make an effort. If you believe in democracy for Iraq, support democracy in Venezuela. Read Francisco Toro, read Miguel Octavio, check out Daniel's Venezuela News and Views, check the Americas section in the international news in the NY Times, or the Washington Post. If you have a blog - post about Venezuela; if you don't, talk about it with your friends. The defense and promotion of democracy and its institutions can't be arbitrary. It takes work, but it's worth it. Always.

UPDATE: Miguel Octavio reports: A Deputy from Chavez MVR party just said that the list of those that may be detained for their responsability in the General Strike has approximately 100 names in it (www.globovision.com). If there is any doubt where we are headed, this simply confirms it.

Octavio is keeping up to the minute on this story - you should check out his blog regularly if you're interested. posted by Robert Griffin at 8:34 AM

lookbackinanger.blogspot.com

One of the things that gets lost in the international press' coverage of the crisis in Venezuela is just how compromised the judiciary has become under Chavez. Take, for example the Fernandez/Ortega arrest warrants. Here's how Reuters reported the story:

A judge ordered Fernandez and union boss Carlos Ortega, who led a crippling two-month shutdown to oust Chavez, detained for rebellion against the state, sabotage and other charges.

Seems pretty straightforward - especially to readers here in the US who presume an impartial judiciary, at least on procedural issues like arrest warrants. We expect that if a warrant is issued, certain legal requirements must have been met. We also presume that if a judge does swear out an improper warrant, there are checks and oversights that will catch the mistake.

Now let's take a more detailed look at the circumstances surrounding the Fernandez/Ortega warrants - specifically, the judge who issued them. Miguel Octavio has posted an illuminating resume for Judge Maikel Moreno at his site. The run-down:

1987- As a member of the intelligence police he is found guilty of homicide and sent to jail.

1990- Released from jail

1990- Weeks after being released, he finds a position in a Court.

2002- Is seen with Chavista Deputies during the disturbances of April 11th.

May 2002- The Head of Chavez MVR in Caracas says the party will provide defense for the gunmen filmed shooting from Puente El Llaguno at the peaceful opposition march. Among the gunmen were an MVR City Councilman and two workers of the same municipality. Then lawyer Maikel Moreno is put in charge of their defense.

September 2002- He is appointed provisional Judge by a Government panel and ratified by the Supreme Court to the position. The law says to become a judge you need to have some form of postgraduate work which Judge Moreno does not have.

February 2003- He orders the two opposition leaders detained despite of the fact that one of the charges is not even in the criminal code. The charges are brought by a prosecutor who is the niece of the Attorney General (Chavez' first Vice-President) whose area of expertise is not even criminal law.

This information certainly puts the warrant process into question, though the Reuters story doesn't even hint at this. I've heard the international media criticized as being biased against Chavez and I've also heard it being accused of being pro-Chavez. It seems to me, neither characterization is true. The problem with the international media, especially the newswires, is two-fold: first, they lack the time and resources to research their stories in depth; and second, far from being biased one way or the other, they strive to be as apolitical as possible, whenever possible, in order to project the appearance of impartial reporting. Doesn't work - they still get criticized by both sides - but they have to try.

I've received some email criticizing me for using Francisco Toro and Miguel Ocatavio - two supporters of the anti-Chavez opposition - as sources for my posts on Venezuela. There's not much I can say in response to this: I do read the pro-Chavez stuff at Narco News and ZNET, too, but I don't find it compelling. Francisco Toro, in particular, is often critical of opposition leadership and strategy; I haven't read anything on Narco News or ZNET that is critical of Chavez - even in regards to his proposed "content" laws for media coverage, something you'd expect the Chomsky-ites at ZNET and free speech defenders at Narco News to jump on and throttle. But their silence on this and other issues is conspicuous. And I have to conclude that, unlike the newswires, lack of information, and the code of journalistic ethics, isn't to blame. posted by Robert Griffin at 1:57 PM

www.indianexpress.com R K Pachauri

The annual budget of any government is in some sense like a performance by the proverbial Indian juggler. It is not merely an exercise in balancing the annual revenue and expenditure of the government, but also a major effort in stimulating economic growth and development and maximising the country’s human welfare. Even more important, however, is the significance of the budget in highlighting and signalling policy directions that look beyond the year for which the budget is formulated. Within these objectives, the budget of the Government of India this year has also to contend with the reality of state elections scheduled this year and the parliamentary elections due in 2004.

It would be interesting to see how liberalisation is built into the coming budget, given that rapid efforts at opening up the Indian economy and pursuing a vigorous plan of disinvestment would have political repercussions. Yet, the creation of a bullish business climate and an upward trend in economic growth over the next eighteen months would actually provide the NDA Government with a political advantage. The budget must, therefore, take full advantage of the global flow of investments.

There are two major sets of global developments that should also guide the thrust and content of the annual budget. The first relates to the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, which came up with certain global targets and priorities, which India not only has to be seen as a part of, but should actually provide leadership to as a major developing country. The second set of global developments arises out of the situation in the Middle East, the threat of war in Iraq and the political turmoil in Venezuela, which have had a major impact on global oil prices. The fact that India has to be concerned about global oil market developments also highlights the need for an integrated long-term energy strategy for the country, which unfortunately has not even been enunciated, and therefore not implemented despite three decades having gone by since the first oil price shock of 1973-74.

First, let us deal with the WSSD. There is much in the Johannesburg agreements that are in accord with our own priorities and critical challenges. For instance, Johannesburg agreed that by 2015 all children should be able to complete a full course of primary schooling. It also targeted a reduction in mortality rates for infants and children under 5 by two-thirds and maternal mortality rates by three-quarters by the year 2015. Similarly, it was agreed that by 2015, the proportion of people without access to safedrinking water should be halved.

The year 2015 is not far away. If our Government does not wish to have this country remain a sad aberration on the global scene, we have to take action. What can India do to provide substance to the decisions taken at the WSSD? Perhaps the best course of action would be to live up to Gandhi’s advice: ‘‘Be the change you want to see in the world’’. This means that the budget must provide a powerful signal reaffirming the Government’s commitment to goals that the world has accepted as important to the principles of sustainable development.

Now, on the issue of energy security, recent developments in West Asia have only brought to the surface an uneasy truth that has remained hidden in the maze of short-term expediency in the energy sector. The reality of energy sector developments in India for several years now has been the existence of a fragmented approach.

Responding to a heightened perception of threat to energy security, the Government has, of course, pursued, investments in the Sakhalin oil field in Russia and oil reserves in Sudan, but the increase in demand for imported oil provides reason for concern. Energy security does not increase only through actions in the hydrocarbons sector. Much of our dependence on oil consumption and, therefore, on oil imports grows out of failures in supply of electric power for instance and the lack of adequate technological development in large-scale use of clean coal technologies. To what extent is the Government prepared to pursue a vigorous agenda with the states in restructuring the electricity supply industry? Can the budget restore the momentum through fiscal incentives and a more proactive role by the Finance Ministry, to resurrect the efforts of Suresh Prabhu when he was the Power Minister? Similarly, can the budget provide a combination of incentives and disincentives for metering of electricity supplies to the agricultural sector and pricing based on the quantity consumed?

A state of apathy seems to be in evidence as far as the electricity sector is concerned. Unless this is addressed effectively, GDP growth will suffer and there would be no improvements in the coal supply industry either. Similarly, given that the major consumer of natural gas in the country would be the power sector, there is little incentive for its exploration and production.

The country’s energy security naturally has to be seen both in a short-term context and in terms of a long-term strategy. In the immediate short-term, the oil companies and the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas are concerned over coping with threats to uninterrupted and adequate supply of petroleum products in the event of a war in Iraq. Oil prices have already reached levels above $30 a barrel, and while OPEC’s recent decision to increase production by about 1.5 million barrels a day would help in stabilisation of the oil market — unless there are prolonged hostilities in the Middle East — it would then have to be seen how OPEC reviews the situation and takes further decisions when it is due to meet on March 11.

India’s immediate concern is to ensure that it has enough stockpiles of petroleum products that would ensure continuity of supply. Given the fact that the Government’s Hydrocarbon Vision projects a demand at 276 million tonnes of oil equivalent of crude oil in the year 2025, the need for a strategic petroleum reserve (SPR) would become even more important in the future. The US, for instance, maintains an SPR of almost 700 million barrels at any point of time, which is essentially under some form of control by the US administration. The biggest danger of destabilisation of the global oil market for India is not so much in the nature of a physical disruption in supply, but essentially in the nature of an economic threat. An increase in oil prices, which, if maintained for anything beyond 10-12 weeks, would have a major inflationary impact on the Indian economy, and other adverse macroeconomic effects due to a substantial increase in foreign exchange outflows. In the short run, therefore, the Government would have very limited options to cushion the economy against an economic shock, which only lends further relevance to the need for an enlightened long-term energy strategy.

There are several elements that would define such a strategy. First, we need to enhance the supply of natural gas to India from neighbouring countries such as Iran, Bangladesh, Myanmar and possibly even Turkmenistan provided a proper route can be established through Afghanistan and Iran. On the supply side, India also has to exercise much bigger options for use of renewable forms of energy, resources for which are in abundance in this country. But there is also need to manage demand for energy effectively in the long run.

Going back to the issue of the annual budget, it is not clear how much the Finance Minister can really do to set the country on a course that helps to develop an integrated energy strategy and enhance security of supply. But given the fact that the Five Year plans, which were a major instrument for defining long-term policies in this country earlier, now have very limited value in setting new directions, the annual budget assumes much greater importance in serving the longer term interests of Indian society. One hopes that some of these issues will be considered and embedded in the annual budget this year. If not, then perhaps it would not be too late to start an exercise both for meeting the objectives of sustainable development as well as energy security by the time the monsoon session of Parliament begins.

(The writer is the director-general of TERI and chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)