www.proveo.org

Amigos!

En Venezuela y fuera de ella, se esta hablando hasta el cansancio de la necesidad de un programa politico y candidato unico de la oposicion. Oposicion...Que oposicion? Se refieren al conglomerado espontaneo de varios sectores de la sociedad civil?

Sin duda, la Coordinadora Democratica ha sentado las bases de una oposicion posible; democratica, unificadora, de alto contenido patrio. Por ende, estamos experimentando el resurgimiento del sentir popular, nacido del sacrificio de un pueblo engrandecido en las batallas libradas en las calles y plazas de todas las ciudades de Venezuela por un solo objetivo comun: salvaguardar la patria para todos.

Se ha caminado mucho, pero el camino nos llevo a una calle sin salida. Nadie ha tenido la culpa. Simplemente, existen otras vias y debemos explorarlas, sin perder el animo. Pero antes, debemos ordenar la casa: la fuerza civica descomunal pero amorfa hasta el presente (totalmente emocional, producto de la desesperacion, indignacion y amargura), debe ser canalizada lo antes posible, conformada en una organización politica, con oferta contundente. El tiempo nos acosa: vivimos un momento historico; seria un craso error ignorar la voz del pueblo que demanda, que pide a gritos ser escuchado. Un pueblo que ansia y merece ser reconocido y respetado a niveles nacionales e internacionales.

Es nuestra conviccion que, solo un PARTIDO POLITICO NUEVO, totalmente desligado del pasado y presente podria enfrentarse con el futuro. Un partido grande, de amplias bases, incluyente, venezolanista, capaz de interpretar y representar las aspiraciones de la Venezuela de hoy.

El nombre? Que tal: Union Pro Venezuela ? (La creatividad criolla sin duda producira mas y mejores alternativas.) El 2003 es importante. Es el año de los mas profundos cambios politicos desde 1958.

Todo se hundio, todo renacio en otra forma. Lo poco que queda de los grandes partidos democraticos es una colección de malos recuerdos manchados con traicion y oportunismo; politica y politicos desacredidatos tratando de camuflar la perdida de sus raices y su soledad penosa en este mundo tan cambiado. Los partidos de la vieja izquierda que siguen insistiendo en el camino al socialismo con cara amable, estan totalmente caducos. Los esfuerzos de la nueva generacion de democratas progresistas y politicos de laboratorio es notable y esperanzadora; pero no tienen suficiente peso, experiencia y fuerza para convencer a la masa heterogenea de los Venezolanos de hoy. Y la gente ya no cree en la "Revolucion Bonita" de Chavez. El 80% de los Venezolanos esta consciente que un sistema basado en el odio y guerra de las clases, jamas sera capaz de crear bienestar y desarrollo para el pais.

La Coordinadora, por su parte, cumplio su papel para despertar al pais, pero ha llegado a sus limites. Estamos entrando en una epoca nueva, con nuevas perspectivas.

Hay un vacio, amigos. Enorme, peligroso, desesperante. El crater de un volcan ardiente, de profundidades inimaginables. Es la ultima oportunidad; o surgimos triunfantes, depurados por el fuego, o nos enterramos en las llamas devastadoras. Sera el "sepulcro comun de pueblo, pais, decencia y libertad".

Es hora de actuar, Señores. El momento es inmejorable. La gente invadida por dolor y asco, esta a la espera. La conciencia colectiva llego a su nivel mas alto posible, lista para enfrentar cualquier sacrificio con valor y dignidad y ponerle paro a la infamia.

El pueblo ha aprendido una leccion dura; se derrumbo el mito y credibilidad de los populistas. Se impuso el valor de nuevos lideres con capacidad, educacion, preparacion tecnica, economica y cultural. Salvo unos pocos politicos honestos,el resto de politicuchos (gallitos con plumas descoloradas cacareando sobre las ruinas del gallinero derrumbado), no han tenido ningun papel o peso en el despertar de Venezuela. Pateticos. En cambio se ha puesto de manifiesto la fuerza convocatoria de la sociedad civil, de la gente del petroleo, la confederacion de los trabajadores y empresarios y las organizaciones de gente comun, los vecinos. La GENTE QUE TRABAJA. La GENTE CONCRETA, que produce, que crea riqueza y puede mejorar las condiciones de vida para todos.

Ha pasado algo insolito, un fenomeno sorprendente: surgieron nuevas figuras con talla de heroes inconfundibles; gente comun sin afiliacion politica, desconocidos que se convirtieron de un dia a otro en protagonistas de la lucha sin tregua, armados solo con valor y dignidad. Han llegado de todas partes; de los puestos de trabajo, de los escritorios, de las plantas industriales, de los campos petroleros, de mar y tierra, de establecimientos comerciales, de las univesidades, de los destacamentos militares y fuerzas policiales. Los politicos de poca monta (ya comenzaron a preocuparse por la presencia de los uniformados), que estupidez, no sean mezquinos, por Dios, hay que maximizar su valentia, su sacrificio... que sean bienvenidos ya que Venezuela somos todos!

Pido campo abierto a nuestros heroes, los protagonistas de nuestra historia reciente. Son de la sociedad civil, apoyados por la sociedad civil. Son la fuerza forjadora primaria, capaz de aglutinarnos a todos en un partido nuevo, de la nueva Venezuela.

En lo practico, que yo sepa no hay restricciones para inscribir un nuevo partido en Venezuela, todavia. El regimen jamas ha esperado semejante posibilidad. Recoger firmas de inscripcion, emitir carnets de miembros es pan comido; contamos con la experiencia increible del Firmazo! El nuevo partido puede ser el mas poderoso de toda la historia venezolana; con masas de militantes inscritos en numeros jamas visto, uniendo a los Venezolanos en el pais y allende sus fronteras.

Los partidos existentes? Que recojan sus firmas tambien. Pero esta vez, tendran que demostrar que tienen el derecho de existir todavia. (Sera dificil). Union Pro Venezuela va a arrasar. El pais esta listo para unirse bajo una sola bandera.

La elaboracion de un programa politico contundente es esencial y urgente. No se puede dejar en manos de politicos oportunistas. La gente que trabaja (heroes y protagonistas) debe y puede hacer la tarea. Es muy posible que por primera vez en la historia, el programa politico/economico sea elaborado por especialistas, no por politicos trasnochados con tendencia a copiar sistemas fracasados y desacreditados hace tiempo. Tenemos la gente mas capaz y mas adelantada de America Latina; somos el Norte del Sur, recuerdan?

En cuanto a la reaccion internacional: opino que seria inmediata y favorable. La palabras magicas son: partido, democratico, programa, candidato. La oposicion en Venezuela perdio credibilidad por no poder demostrar significante organización politica y unidad frente al Chavismo.

Y si Chavez decide declararse dictador, gobernando con un solo partido al estilo cubano, el partido, nuestro partido de la Venezuela verdadera sobrevivira.

En libertad o en clandestinidad, su fuerza sera incontenible; crecera y se fortalecera y estara preparado para surgir en el momento oportuno.

Pienso tambien, que la mera existencia de un partido de oposicion de peso y poder, con un numero de militantes inscritos que sobrepase de manera arrollante los votos recibidos por Chavez en todas las elecciones anteriores, va a cambiar los vientos que soplan y la actitud de la mayoria comprometida con el gobierno, empezando con las fuerzas armadas.

Tengo una vision de Venezuela, una Venezuela posible. Nada tenemos que perder y todo tenemos por ganar. Vale la pena intentarlo. Porque no le preguntamos al pueblo? No conozco mejor consigna para animarlos:

MANOS A LA OBRA VENEZOLANOS!!

Caracas 5 de Marzo, 2003

Esta propuesta fue enviada desde Venezuela por una de esas personas que luchan dia a dia por el pais. Su caracter democratico es evidente, si tienen alguna sugerencia por favor envienla a solution@proveo.org  Les agradeceria que trataran de mantener sus sugerencias al respecto lo mas concisas posible y que mencionen si desean que sus nombres sean publicados. Nota: esta iniciativa nada tiene que ver con la actitud de Salas Romer y es tan solo una propuesta. Proveo en su afan por promover la busqueda de soluciones y alternativas a la crisis venezolana esta tan solo facilitando la divulgacion de ideas. Todas las ideas son bienvenidas y seran publicadas.

Lean las respuestas a este Manifesto aqui.

www.softwaretimes.com January 25, 2003

The Marxist regime of Hugo Chavez Frias has orchestrated a huge disinformation campaign in the international press. To illustrate I have included a letter to the editor of The Enterprise , a Massachusetts newspaper, supposedly written by an American citizen outraged by the Venezuelan opposition to Chavez.

The letter was sent to me by a fellow poster at The Motley Fools message boards asking my opinion of the letter. After reproducing the letter in its entirety, I go into the analysis followed by additional comments by an American Attorney at Law who is also a frequent poster at TMF.

Hi Denny,

I would like to hear your opinion regarding a "Letter to the Editor" that I read in our local newspaper the other day. I do not know the author's background, but he seems to paint a different picture of what I thought was going on in Venezuela - and I would like to hear what you have to say about it. I searched for a link to the clip on the local paper's website, but came up empty. It follows:

To the editor of The Enterprise:

With the smoke screen of Iraq and North Korea in full effect, the White House has been plotting another regime change on the down low.

The bourgeoisie opposition-led strike in Venezuela, which most of the country does not support, has paralyzed their economy and taken the lives to two pro-government supporters. Most of us will never know the real deal, because the private elite-owned media that dominates Venezuelan television has been running opposition "infomercials" instead of advertisements, on top of the continuous slanted coverage of the protest. They are attempting to overthrow the two-time, popularly, and democratically elected president, Hugo Chavez, with the help of our American tax dollars.

According to the Center for Economic and Policy research, just before the Aprill 11 coup, the U.S. national endowment for democracy increased its funding six times for the opposition groups, including money funneled through the International Republican Institute. This is nothing new; in Guatemala, Nicaragua and Chile, just to name a few, Washington has instigated regime change when it simply didn't approve of the voters choice at the polls.

So predictably the Bush administration has sided with the opposition, demanding early elections, even when Venezuelan constitution specifies that a binding referendum of no-confidence cannot be held until August. President Chavez is accused of using "dictorial" powers for sending the military to recover oil tankers seized by striking capitans. But had U.S. strikers hijaked an oil tanker from Exxon Mobil here, they would all be facing hard jail time, in fact, American government workers are not allowed to strike at all, as Ronald Regan demonstrated when he fired 12,000 air traffic controllers in 1981, who were striking for better working conditions. Even American private sector workers can't strike for political demands, and if so, courts would issue injunctions against the strike and union money would be seized and leaders arrested. Employees of the state-owned oil company in Venezuela - mostly managers - will likely benefit in the event of a regime change.

This is clearly a strike of the privileged in a nation where 80 percent of the people live in deep poverty and inequity, which happens to be the top crude supplier to the United States.

What is needed is for our government to stop talking out of both sides of it's mouth with regard to "respect for the rule of law, accountability, human rights and democracy" when the only real interests being served are those of the corporate fat cats.

Michael Miguel Brockton

Thoughts? '38Packard

38Packard:

Thoughts?

This supposed American citizen does not know how to spell the last name president Reagan.

The bourgeoisie opposition-led strike in Venezuela,

The second word is the code word that gives the author of the letter away. Who but a communist would use such a word? An average American might use "conservative," "right wing," or even "reactionary" but never "bourgeoisie."

The Venezuelan labor movement, hardly a bourgeoisie organization, is solidly behind the strike. Approximately 85% of the oil workers back the strike. Roughnecks seldom form part of the bourgeoisie.

I realize that he is accusing only the leaders of being bourgeoisie but he never explains why the proletariat has joined the bourgeoisie against the tyrant. You should ask him that question.

which most of the country does not support

According to recent polls more than half the people want early elections.

has paralyzed their economy and taken the lives to two pro-government supporters.

There are close to 50 dead already. I guess the other 48 don't matter to the writer, they must be bourgeoisie opposition, hence worthless.

because the private elite-owned media that dominates Venezuelan television has been running opposition "infomercials" instead of advertisements, on top of the continuous slanted coverage of the protest.

There is state run radio and TV that are not controlled by the opposition. The reason why there are no commercials is because the media is on strike as well. They have cut all programming except for news coverage, interviews and editorials. The private sector is losing money hand over fist in this strike.

the U.S. national endowment for democracy increased its funding six times for the opposition groups, including money funneled through the International Republican Institute.

I have no idea if this is true or not. I have never heard of the International Republican Institute.

This is nothing new; in Guatemala, Nicaragua and Chile, just to name a few, Washington has instigated regime change when it simply didn't approve of the voters choice at the polls.

Probably true but I'm not sure how much bearing it has on Venezuela. It does seem that during the events of April 11, 2002 the Americans were openly in favor of a regime change. Unfortunately, the people who took over the government that day for a few hours were a total disaster. They betrayed the opposition as much as they overthrew Chavez. These people have since fled Venezuela.

My neighbor is a keen observer of the political situation and back then he commented that the leader of our labor movement, Carlos Ortega, was not to be seen with the Carmona people anywhere. This raised a red flag for him. Clearly Ortega recognized early the betrayal of Carmona and his boss whose name I don't recall at this time (Corao?).

So predictably the Bush administration has sided with the opposition, demanding early elections, even when Venezuelan constitution specifies that a binding referendum of no-confidence cannot be held until August.

The American Ambassador has stated that Venezuelans must resolve their own problems. This is hardly siding with the opposition. On an ideological level, clearly not just Bush but most Americans would side against a dictator who accused America of being the real terrorist back on 9/11. The Americans would not back a buddy of Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein.

President Chavez is accused of using "dictatorial" powers for sending the military to recover oil tankers seized by striking captains. But had U.S. strikers hijaked an oil tanker from Exxon Mobil here, they would all be facing hard jail time, in fact, American government workers are not allowed to strike at all, as Ronald Regan demonstrated when he fired 12,000 air traffic controllers in 1981, who were striking for better working conditions.

This is a clever twisting of the facts.

First.- In theory PDVSA is NOT a government office but a public company owned by the government. This was an effort to keep politics out of the oil business. This means that PDVSA employees are not government workers as were the air traffic controllers.

Second.- The striking workers did not hijack the ships. They anchored the ships and they offered to turn them over to properly qualified personnel when requested to do so by the ship owners. This was a clever game of cat and mouse. They knew full well that there are no such people available because not only did the law require the certified people to be technically proficient but they also had to be Venezuelan nationals. Chavez could not bring in foreign workers to take over the ships without breaking or changing the law.

Third.- There is no law that can force a person to work if the person does not wish to work. Forced labor is anticonstitutional. You can fire a person for not working but slave labor is not legal.

Fourth.- The opposition bases its activities on article 350 of the constitution which I have not read but which authorizes civil disobedience under certain circumstances.

Even American private sector workers can't strike for political demands, and if so, courts would issue injunctions against the strike and union money would be seized and leaders arrested.

You are going to have to ask an American lawyer if this is true or not.

Employees of the state-owned oil company in Venezuela - mostly managers - will likely benefit in the event of a regime change.

That may or may not be so but it is irrelevant as to the legality of the strike

This is clearly a strike of the privileged in a nation where 80 percent of the people live in deep poverty and inequity, which happens to be the top crude supplier to the United States.

This is a bunch of bull. The great majority of Venezuelans are on strike and we are not all privileged. If 80% of us are poor, why has Chavez not solved the problem during his three years in government. He has visited half the world. He bought himself a brand new presidential plane. He changed the constitution and even changed the name of the country.

He has not repaired the damage from the torrential rains that fell while he was being elected. He has not solved a single problem in Venezuela. He has brough in Cuban advisor that we don't need or want.

He sells cheap oil to Cuba and Caricom when we need those funds to feed our 80% poor. If this were such a paradise there would be no general strike. We are used to bad government but this disaster is more than we are willing to live with.

What is needed is for our government to stop talking out of both sides of it's mouth with regard to "respect for the rule of law, accountability, human rights and democracy" when the only real interests being served are those of the corporate fat cats.

I'll leave this point for you guys to decide.

Denny Schlesinger Caracas - Venezuela denny@softwaretimes.com

Hi Denny,

Thanks for your response and your "on the ground" reporting. The most critical portion of your response to me was:

This is clearly a strike of the privileged in a nation where 80 percent of the people live in deep poverty and inequity, which happens to be the top crude supplier to the United States.

This is a bunch of bull. The great majority of Venezuelans are on strike and we are not all privileged.

My impressions are that Chavez has completely mismanaged the government and this has affected all Venezualians - not just the priviledged. That is why there are such large demonstrations in the streets.

According to recent polls more than half the people want early elections.

This confirms my understanding of the situation. I was not aware that the PDVSA was a private company owned by the government - a wise decision.

Thanks again for our response. I may just write to the editor of the local paper and challenge this person's editorial.

Be Safe! '38Packard

What follows is the opinion of TinkerShaw, an American Attorney at Law and a frequent poster at TMF

Even American private sector workers can't strike for political demands, and if so, courts would issue injunctions against the strike and union money would be seized and leaders arrested.

Hey Denny,

As you so well surmise, this is a bogus letter. The above quote is so flagrantly erroneous to be nothing but a propoganda letter.

Labor law in the U.S. provides striking workers protection from retaliation, such as being fired, if the strike is a legal strike. It does not forbid people to strike in ways not protected by the labor laws, and it does not make it illegal to strike in ways that are not protected by labor law. It just simply means, if you strike in a manner that is outside the protection of America's labor laws, your employer can fire you without violating the law. You are still free to strike, and no one is going to arrest someone for refusing to work. They might get arrested for trespassing if they picket inappropriately, or damage property, et al., but not for refusing to work.

And btw, union money would never be seized and union leaders would not be arrested for an "illegal strike." America is not Cuba, we are free to choose not to work and no one can force us to work. If we choose to strike, and do so in a manner not protected by labor law, you can be fired, PERIOD.

It takes someone who thinks that the U.S. is a police state to assume that "union money would be seized and leaders arrested."

No, that is what happens in Marxist and fascist states.

Tinker

Tinker:

Thank you for your input. If you have no objections, I will use your post at Software Times where I will expose the Chavez disinformation campaign.

Denny Schlesinger Caracas - Venezuela denny@softwaretimes.com

www.vheadline.com Posted: Saturday, March 15, 2003 By: Roy S. Carson

Costa Rican government official Miguel Diaz has confirmed that fugitive Venezuelan Confederation of Trade Unions (CTV) president Carlos Ortega has been afforded "diplomatic asylum" in the tiny central American state of Costa Rica.  The news comes as Accion Democratica (AD) said they had appointed Ortega as "honorary president" of the discredited political party which is largely responsible for Venezuela's international image as a corrupt backwater of Latin America.

Interior & Justice (MIJ) Minister Lucas Rincon Romro says the government is so glad to get rid of Ortega that it will more than willingly issue a 'safe conduct' for Ortega to travel to Caracas (Simon Bolivar) international airport at Maiquetia to go into self-imposed exile.

Just  weeks ago, Ortega (who had evacuated his family to the Dutch Antilles island of Aruba), had gone underground emphatically stating that he would never abandon Venezuela or his fight to remove democratically-elected President Hugo Chavez Frias.

Costa Rican ambassador Ricardo Lizano has been less than forthcoming about his temporary guest at the embassy in Caracas, but Costa Rican Foreign Minister Roberto Tovar says his country is extending asylum privileges to Ortega "for humanitarian reasons." and he will remain at the Embassy as a guest  until such times as the necessary documents have been prepared for his safe removal from Caracas to San Jose."

Ortega fled to the safety of the Costa Rican Embassy in Caracas last Thursday (March  13) claiming he was afraid for his personal security as Venezuelan security agencies closed in on his hideaway.  Questions have been raised as to why Ortega had not been arrested earlier, but a government official simply said he was not considered important enough and that "things will take their natural course!"

Earlier there had been several calls for Ortega to give himself up and face justice.  Fellow anti-government rebel Fedecamaras president Carlos Fernandez was arrested just two weeks ago while feasting at a luxury restaurant in Las Mercedes and is currently languishing in luxury house arrest at his $-million villa near Valencia (Carabobo State) where he was taken by helicopter after a Caracas judge allowed him the unusual privilege on claims that a high blood pressure condition made his incarceration a risk to his physical well-being.

www.bayarea.com Posted on Sat, Mar. 15, 2003 By Dennis Rockstroh Mercury News

I asked my pal Ray Olyaie, proprietor of the gas station at Fremont's busiest intersection and victor in a long battle again his nemesis, Exxon, for overcharging.

$$$$$.99,'' he said, or something like that. Because they can. When the war starts, I expect gasoline to cost at least $3.''

Already, prices at the pump have shot to all-time highs in 16 states.

Why?

Profit. Moolah. Money. Bread. Dough. Coin. Cash. $$$$.99.

I read to you from the Wall Street Journal, the newspaper of capitalism: ``Worries over a war in Iraq, a cold winter, the lingering effects of a recent labor strike in oil-producing Venezuela and complications in the increasingly lucrative oil-refining business are having potential effects on gasoline supply.

``One result: For some big oil companies, the profits could be huge.''

And why is California leading the drive upward?

Again the WSJ: ``One reason may be that California refining companies are currently reaping profit margins that are as much as 21 percent above the average for the past seven years.''

Laws favor companies

This strikes some people as wrong, possibly illegal. But they forget who writes the laws. And I don't have to tell you that some oilmen have been very successful in politics.

The governor wants an investigation, and two Bay Area legislators are calling for federal action.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., has asked the General Accounting Office, Congress' investigative arm, to inquire into gasoline prices here.

Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, has introduced legislation to prohibit the practice of manipulating prices and preventing wholesalers from selling gasoline more cheaply to independent stations. Of the 8,500 gas stations in California, 6,500 are independently owned.

It is possible to beat Big Oil.

But don't hold your breath.

It takes courage and an iron will.

Like that of Olyaie, who waged a decadelong war with Exxon. And won.

In essence, he alleged that Exxon was overcharging all of its directly served dealers and prohibiting them from buying the same gas at a cheaper price from wholesalers.

Today, Olyaie's gasoline station is a Valero. But in the old days, it was an Exxon.

Over the years, while his battle raged with Exxon, Olyaie staged special gasoline sales to make his point.

The battle lines

Once, he gave gasoline away for one day to attract attention.

Another time he sold it for 99 cents a gallon, telling everyone that that was what the proper price should be if Exxon wasn't overcharging.

Exxon fought back.

The company even declared victory and scheduled Olyaie's surrender at high noon.

Wrote Exxon's E. Lee Curry to the combative Olyaie: ``Please arrange to be at the station at 12 o'clock noon on or before Nov. 01, 1994 to meet with your territory manager to surrender the premises and take the necessary steps to accomplish an orderly termination of our relationship.''

Olyaie told Exxon in so many words to go take a flying leap.

Olyaie is still at Fremont Boulevard and Mowry Avenue. Exxon is not.

In 1991, Olyaie joined a group of current and former Exxon independent dealers in suing Exxon for overcharging.

In 2001 a jury returned a verdict in favor of the dealers. The jury found that beginning on March 1, 1983, until Aug. 28, 1994, Exxon had overcharged its dealers approximately 1.3 cents per gallon. During that time, Exxon sold more than 40 billion gallons of motor fuel.

Exxon will have to repay the money if it loses its appeal. Olyaie's share would be about $230,000.

Now that's $$$$.99.

Contact Dennis Rockstroh at drockstroh@sjmercury.com.

www.scoop.co.nz Saturday, 15 March 2003, 11:11 pm Article: Council on Hemispheric Affairs www.coha.org coha@coha.org March 14, 2003

For Immediate Release Memorandum to the Press 03.11

Aznar's Courtship of Bush Regarding Iraq Could Cost Spain the Fruit of its Return to Latin America

• Sunday's Azores meeting likely to mean more of the same
• Survival of Ibero-American Summit could be jeopardized
• Aznar's delusion of grandeur soars as his popularity in Spain and Latin America falls to new lows
• A vain man, he now sees himself as a member of The Big Three on Iraq, with Bulgaria as his competitor
• Spanish leader turns his back on Mexico and Chile
• Felipe Gonzalez and the King Juan Carlos' good work in replacing the negative legacy of the Spanish Conquest and the cruelty of colonial rule, has largely been dissipated by Aznar's craving to be among the powerful

Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's total dedication to President Bush's imperious strategy regarding Iraq could cost Spain dearly in Latin America. In racing to keep up with the U.S. and British-generated Iraqi policy, the Spanish prime minister has turned his back on Latin America, as well as most of his country's traditional, continental allies for the uncertain reward of being pictured in photo-ops with President Bush and Britain's Prime Minister Blair, and in being invited to the presidential ranch.

But Aznar's celebrity status has cost his nation and Latin America dearly. Nor will this Sunday's hastily called meeting on Iraq in the Azores with Bush and Blair be likely to change his domestic isolation.

Spain's position on the UN's dealings with Iraq equates to Aznar stabbing Chile and Mexico in the back and leaving these two UN Security Council Members vulnerable to retaliation from Washington-if they continue to thwart U.S. policy by refusing to sanction an early military attack without allowing additional time for inspections.

Rather than publicly insist that whatever the outcome, the two governments' decisions should be respected, Aznar instead has dutifully aped the language uttered by White House speechwriters. On the surface, Spain would seem to have very little to gain from Aznar's unabashed assumption of Washington's position aside from some modest U.S. handouts and encouraging words about the need to fight Basque terrorists. However, Spain may lose considerably more than it ever had to gain. Firstly, Aznar has triggered what could become the worst crisis in the Ibero-American Summit since its founding. This essentially sentimental rather than functional organization has had as its two European representatives, the very conservative leaders of Portugal and Spain. Both men are woefully out of sync with the present populist direction in which Latin America is now heading. However, Aznar and his Portuguese counterpart have truly failed to take advantage of, or even acknowledge, this powerful and growing trend. Aznar has gone a long way toward undermining Spain's strong identification with the tough human rights and anti-dictatorial standards championed by former Spanish Prime Minister Felipe Gonzales and King Juan Carlos. The effort of Gonzales and the King allowed Spain to "return" to Latin America in spite of its bitter heritage of conquest and cruelty afflicted on the region during the period of colonial rule.

Aznar's Flawed Past

Aznar's choice to back the U.S. rather than the kindred nations of Chile and Mexico deserves to be viewed as no less than an act of treachery. It is but the latest chapter in Aznar's misbegotten tour of government that has included the botched salvage effort of an oil tanker in November 2002 (leading to a huge oil spill and causing irreparable damage to the Spanish coastline), his attempts to hobble the efforts of a Spanish judge seeking toextradite General Pinochet from Great Britain for human rights derelictions, and an unseemly squabble with Fidel Castro that he ignited at an Ibero-American Summit gathering.

Two years ago, Aznar exhibited his ego and his lust for self-importance by exclaiming to the International Herald Tribune, that Spain is "one of the big guys now," proffering his belief that he has led his country to equal standing with continental giants France and Germany. On its path to international recognition, Spain surpassed the United States as the largest foreign investor in Latin America, even though in recent months, aid to the region has dropped significantly. Aznar made a concerted effort to push his paternalistic sentiments onto needy Central and South America, hoping to become the leading advocate for the Western Hemisphere's 400 million Spanish-speakers. It is this newfound camaraderie that is now in jeopardy and could come to a crashing end as both Spain and Latin America choose sides in the Iraq crisis.

Friendship on the Hoof

President George W. Bush could not have found a more eager or vocal ally in continental Europe than Spain's Aznar. A longtime buddy of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Aznar has been unfailing in his support for Bush's plans to disarm Iraq, forcibly if need be, and with or without the UN's imprimatur. This is a surprising level of harmony from a man who originally felt snubbed by Bush when the newly elected U.S. president butchered his name during a formal television interview, referring to him as "Anzar." Equally at risk is the chilled distance that now fills the void previously warmed by Bush's former rapport with Mexican President Vicente Fox. The new Mexican leader had found his U.S. counterpart so engaging that their personal and political futures appeared inseparable-Fox even brought Bush home to meet his mother. The burgeoning friendship has now been stunted, with Fox canceling a visit to President Bush's Texas ranch because of Bush's outright refusal to stay the execution of a Mexican national. As Bush turned east and west for allies in his War on Terror, he has all but ignored his friends in Latin and South America, replacing them with Blair and Aznar. Bush has also successively named two right-wing ideologues-Otto Reich and Roger Noriega-to be Assistant Secretaries of State for Latin America. As for the visit to the ranch, Fox's designated, but declined, bedroom was now assigned to Aznar.

Mexico Resists the Spanish Temptation

The once promising Bush relationship Bush with Latin America has all but disappeared, as U.S. diplomats sadly discovered that Mexico and Chile, in spite of subtle and not so subtle badgering, would not provide the "easy votes" needed for the U.S. president's UN resolution on Iraq. Spain's vote, however, has been cost-free, despite the barrage of anti-war and anti-U.S. protests that Aznar faces daily. Staunchly anti-war, nearly 80 percent of Spaniards are against joining the U.S. in a non-UN-sanctioned conflict with Iraq. Aznar, however, has chosen not to bow to public opinion by continuing his unflagging support for the U.S. Fox, on the other hand, has remained somewhat steadfast in his call for a peaceful solution to the Iraq crisis, although conceivably he might finally buckle out of a sense of pragmatism. On his way to a powwow at Bush's Crawford, TX ranch, Aznar made a crucial stop in Mexico. Perhaps Washington was hoping that Aznar's fluent language skills might be more convincing than Bush's much-touted, yet significantly inferior Spanish. While his visit did nothing to bring Mexico closer to supporting Spain's pro-war position on Iraq, Aznar left Fox claiming he would not dream of attempting to extort Fox or twist his arm into agreement, "President Fox would not tolerate such pressure, as would be natural, nor would it ever occur to me" to employ such strong-arm tactics.

Demonstrations in Venezuela

Mexicans have shown themselves to be adamantly opposed to a military conflict in Iraq. Protest marches have been staged in downtown Mexico City, at the U.S. Embassy, in addition to Mexicans gathering outside the Spanish Embassy to protest Aznar's arrival. The demonstrators held signs saying, "Aznar is not welcome in Mexico" or labeling Aznar as the "European Judas." Fox and the Mexicans are not alone. Throughout Latin America, protests have been staged. Even in embattled Venezuela, where the country appears to be ripping apart over domestic issues, citizens of all political hues have managed to muster a significant anti-war voice. Entangled in anti-Chavez protests, violent strikes, and political upheaval, Venezuelans marched on February 16 in favor of peace. Venezuelan Congressman Dario Vivas participated in the downtown Caracas protest, where he commented, "This is the support for a people that need solidarity." Many Venezuelans are all too aware of what "regime change" means; the U.S. was strongly implicated in the attempt to depose President Hugo Chavez in the failed April 2002 coup attempt. If the U.S. would support the regime change of a democratically-elected, albeit now unpopular, president, what wouldn't the U.S. think to rain down upon an entrenched and madden anti-U.S. dictator? Clearly, Venezuela's show of support is not for the person of Saddam Hussein, rather it is a demonstration of solidarity for the people of Iraq.

Instead of playing the supportive role he has claimed for backing Latin American democratization, Aznar was barely lukewarm in his congratulations to Chavez on regaining executive power. Neither was he outspoken in denouncing the deposition of Chavez in the first place. It appears that Venezuela under Chavez and Spain under Aznar will never be close; too much hostility has been generated by Spain's diplomatic snubbing of Chavez and Venezuela's prickly attitude towards the extradition of resident ETA members whose refuge in Venezuela was negotiated at the time of the Felipe Gonzalez government.

The Rest of Latin America Weighs In

Despite hefty American influence and tight economic ties, Puerto Rican Islanders gathered en masse to protest a U.S.-led war on Iraq. They raised placards calling the United States "the most terrorist country," and waived banners reading "No War for Oil!" Puerto Rico, more than other Latin American countries, has a vested interest in any U.S.-Iraq conflict. As a U.S. commonwealth, the island's National Guard is subject to a U.S. military call-up-the Associated Press reports over 40 percent of the Guard complement has already been called up to serve in the Persian Gulf.

Large anti-U.S. protests occurred in the more industrialized regional nations of Brazil, Argentina, and Chile. Nearly 5,000 Brazilians protested on the Copacabana beach and in Sao Paolo. About 8,000 Argentines marched through Buenos Aires up to the gates of the U.S. Embassy on February 15. Chile continues to nurse sore wounds. The Sunday Times reported one Chilean official as saying, "We know very well in Latin America that if the Americans want a regime change, they can do it without resorting to bombing cities." Perhaps the proposed regime change in Iraq is too close for comfort when recalling the U.S.-partially-scripted coup d'etat that deposed democratically-elected Salvador Allende. In his stead, U.S.-backed Augusto Pinochet was installed and went on to become a human rights abuser of such nefarious rank that his reign was in the same league as that of Saddam Hussein. Needless to say, Chile is skeptical of any U.S.-led military confrontation that doesn't have the sanction of the UN. Subsequently, that skepticism would largely color the budding relationship that Spain had hoped to nurture with Chile.

Will Economic Ties Keep Them Bound or Rip Them Apart?

Not even a year ago, Aznar and Latin American leaders met in Madrid, at the EU summit of Latin America and the Caribbean, where they helped to plan new economic developments aimed at strengthening bilateral ties. Commissioner of Economic Affairs for the EU, Pedro Solbes, warned that prompt debt repayments and fiscal discipline were crucial to better trade relations. Mexico's Fox claimed "our relationship with Europe has unlimited potential."

Aznar may have encouraged Spanish business to invest in Latin America, highlighting the investors' protection from bankruptcy. Yet, it was noted at the time that Aznar didn't show comparable zeal in being concerned with the depth of the region's debt problem or that European agricultural subsidies were hurting Latin America's exports to the region. Now the major investor, Spain has a vested interest in keeping the region as stable and prosperous as possible. Because of that vested interest, it is perplexing that Spain is now supporting a military conflict in Iraq, the fall-out of which could threaten the economic and political stability of the region.

This Press Memorandum was prepared by Larry Birns, Director, and Julie Mumford, Research Associate at the Washington, D.C.-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs. Additional research assistance was contributed by Manuel Rueda.

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as being "one of our nations' most respected bodies of scholars and policy makers."