Venezuela tax chief resigns after Chavez criticism
Reuters, 05.15.03, 9:37 AM ET
CARACAS, Venezuela, May 15 (Reuters) - Venezuela's chief tax collector has resigned after President Hugo Chavez complained about tax evasion and corruption and ordered a shake-up in the state tax agency, officials said on Thursday.
"Mr. Trino Alcides Diaz told me yesterday in a telephone conversation that he had presented his resignation," Jose Ricardo Sanguino, a pro-government National Assembly deputy who sits on the parliament's finance committee, told Reuters.
Diaz, who led the National Customs and Tax Administration Service (SENIAT) for two and a half years, was replaced by Jose Vielma Mora, a retired military officer and Chavez ally who has been running Caracas' main international airport.
Diaz's resignation followed a blistering attack against the tax agency by Chavez, a former paratrooper who earlier this year sacked 18,000 employees of the state oil company PDVSA who had participated in an opposition strike against him.
In a television and radio broadcast Sunday, the populist president said levels of tax evasion remained intolerably high in the world's No. 5 oil exporter and he suggested many SENIAT officials were corrupt.
"There are a lot of crooks in there," Chavez said.
"If we have to shake up SENIAT like we did PDVSA, then we will; this is the country's money we are talking about," he added, saying he would personally supervise the probe.
In April, the level of collected taxes slipped to 84 percent of the projected amount for the month, due to a sharp fall in customs revenues caused by existing tight foreign exchange controls. Customs revenues only amounted to around 47 percent of projected levels.
Most of the country's private exporters and importers have halted operations because they say slow and inefficient allocation of dollars by the state currency control board is restricting their access to hard currency.
Diaz was the fourth official to serve as head of SENIAT since Chavez took office in early 1999.
Copyright 2003, Reuters News Service
Venezuela Poll Shows Chavez Would Lose Vote, Nacional Reports
Caracas, May 15 (<a href=quote.bloomberg.com>Bloomberg) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez would lose a referendum on his presidency by 18 percentage points if a vote were held today, El Nacional reported, citing a poll by Consultores 21.
The April 1-15 poll of 1,500 Venezuelans found that 55 percent would vote for Chavez to leave office, while 37 percent would cast ballots for him to stay. Eight percent were undecided. The margin of error was 2.58 percent.
Sixty-four percent of those polled gave Chavez bad marks, while 36 percent said they thought he was doing a good job.
Venezuela's opposition has said it plans to seek a binding referendum on Chavez's presidency after Aug. 19 when the former paratrooper passes the halfway point of his term in office. Negotiations over holding the vote continue.
(EN 5/15 A5) (To see El Nacional's Web site, click on {NCNL })
Last Updated: May 15, 2003 08:23 EDT
Latin America could become “a new Vietnam”
<a href=www.lapress.org>LatinAmericaPress
Adolfo Pérez Esquivel Fernanda Sández
Fernanda Sández. May 15, 2003
Interview with Adolfo Pérez Esquivel
According to Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, 1980 Nobel Peace Prize winner and head of the non-governmental Peace and Justice Service (SERPAJ) in Argentina, the impunity with which the United States has acted in Iraq jeopardizes the security of Latin America and the rest of the world, because it indicates that the United States could intervene anywhere without opposition or sanction. Pérez Esquivel spoke with Latinamerica Press correspondent Fernanda Sández in Buenos Aires about this threat and the regional scenario that has emerged since the war.
How do you view the conflict in Iraq?
The war in Iraq — although more than war, I think we should call it an invasion — represents the hegemonic expansion of the United States in the world (LP, April 9, 2003), which means it is not a new phenomenon. This has been under way for a number of years, but since Sept. 11, 2001, it has picked up speed and the actions have taken a clear direction: to control the Middle East and its oil reserves.
How do you see this new world situation affecting Latin America?
The United States tried something similar in Latin America [in April 2002] when, through the State Department and in alliance with local business interests, it encouraged a coup against the constitutional government of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela (LP, April 22, 2002). Considering that 30 percent of the oil that the United States imports comes from Venezuela, there is obviously a direct relationship between that episode and what is happening today in Iraq. It’s one more effort to gain direct and complete control over oil reserves worldwide. Even so, while oil is a key issue, it is only one aspect of this effort, which has much more serious connotations for Latin America.
What are those connotations, specifically?
The increasing militarization of the continent, which is reflected in the installation of US military bases throughout the region (LP, April 9, 2003). There are three main areas of action, each of which has been developed to a different degree so far. One is the triple border area shared by Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay, where there is already a US presence (LP, Nov. 5, 2001). Another is Colombia, with Plan Colombia, which involves the intervention of military personnel and advisers in the region (LP, April 10, 2000 and March 12, 2002). And the third is the so-called Puebla-Panama project, which encompasses Mesoamerica and the Caribbean (LP, July 29, 2002). As you can see, these three main areas are the bases of operation through which the United States plans to intervene on the continent. And with absolute impunity, because — as I never get tired of repeating — the first victims of this conflict were the United Nations and international law.
To what extent do you see them affected by the war?
Although future scenarios are fairly unpredictable, it is clear that the United Nations was blocked and pushed aside, with no ability to respond, and the United States even threatened to keep it from intervening in Iraq. If the United Nations does not act clearly and firmly from now on, it will be extremely difficult for it to survive. Something similar has happened with international law — one stroke of the pen has struck down international agreements, protocols and conventions that took more than 50 years to build.
This puts the entire world in a complete state of insecurity. And Latin America can’t escape, because with this new policy of "preventive" war, the United States can intervene in any country with absolute impunity and with no opposition whatsoever.
This is a real concern when one US State Department document, for example, states that "democracy in Ecuador is under pressure from increasingly radicalized populist and indigenous movements," as if it’s suggesting the need to take action.
Let’s say that intervening in internal social affairs in various countries is another [US] objective. In Ecuador, President Lucio Gutiérrez is implementing a very ambiguous policy (LP, Feb. 12, 2003). But I have no doubt that if Ecuador should become involved in Plan Colombia, Latin America could become a new Vietnam, with consequences as serious as or more serious than those of the war in Iraq.
Why?
Because it would be a new version of guerrilla warfare. There are already some alarming signs. For example, in Argentina there’s a document dated June 20, 2001, sent to Congress by the president, requesting authorization for Latin American and US troops to enter the country. That document is key, because it requests the entry of troops and one of its justifications is a war scenario in which the enemies are social organizations, non-governmental agencies and other potential enemies (LP, Oct. 3, 2001). This shows to what extent the old doctrine of national security remains in effect. When this occurred, SERPAJ and the Latin American Association of Jurists filed a request for an injunction, which was ignored. So the troops entered the country, and later they left.
This continues to occur in different parts of the continent, which shows that we are facing what I call "globalized totalitarianism" — the establishment of an empire, a global dictatorship that is destroying everything in its path. Despite this, however, I see some encouraging signs.
What are those signs?
Grassroots mobilizations. Even the people of the United States have started to mobilize, because the memory of Vietnam is still very fresh in people’s minds, and there are demonstrations in every state. In our case, there is a different challenge: we have to begin to create new social, political and economic spaces. Now more than ever, we must stimulate our own way of thinking, cultural identities, spirituality and meaning of life among our peoples.