<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Friday, May 16, 2003 By: Patrick J. O'Donoghue

Despite an alleged gentlemen's agreement last week between Venezuelan Executive Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel and US Assistant Undersecretary for Hemisphere Affairs, Curt Struble not to engage in "microphone diplomacy," both sides have resumed microphone sniper warfare over remarks made by US Ambassador Charles Shapiro on  World Press Freedom Day but more so, after a stand up comedy act at the Ambassador's residence (with media bosses in court) 

The real-life President Hugo Chavez Frias is NOT a puppet of Washington intriguepoking fun at President Hugo Chavez Frias. 

Rangel has called the incident "The Shapiro Show" playing on a name similarity to Colombian singer, Shakira, who staged a show at the Caracas Poliedro last weekend. 

"The show at the Ambassador's residence was irresponsible but at the same time the best proof of freedom of expression in Venezuela." 

Rangel says Shapiro's gesture contravenes Vienna Convention Article 43, part 3 ... "we  want to have the best relations with the USA ... I can't see any Ambassador in any part of the world doing this ... it's a deliberate provocation."

A US Embassy communique says a complete text of the Ambassador's speech can be read on the Embassy website and apologizes if anyone felt offended by the sketch of a Venezuelan comedian, portraying opposition TV presenter, Marta Colomina and President Chavez Frias as a puppet.

The Embassy says it did not vet the comedian's piece or had prior knowledge of the content.

Foreign Minister (MRE) Roy Chaderton Matos says he is surprised about the media show at the house of a supposedly "friendly" country ... "the Venezuelan government is assessing the US Ambassador's performance with good judgment and common sense."

Whatever the outcome, it now seems clear that the USA is committed to hounding the Chavez Frias administration and, although President Chavez Frias and his Ministers prefer to downplay such incidents, the die has been cast.

The Ambassador's soiree has given the opposition much needed encouragement and reassurance that the Bush adminstration will never accept the Chavez Frias administration as the democratically-elected government of Venezuela.

In late-breaking news, US Ambassador to Venezuela Charles Shapiro has been forced by his Beltway master manipulators to attempt to defuse the undiplomatic controversy in a half-baked apology to the Venezuelan government for hosting a press conference at his official Caracas residence that featured a female impersonator and a puppet of President Hugo Chavez Frias.

Earlier, Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel has described Shapiro's unprofessional faux-pas as "irresponsible" but Shapiro has now told Radio Union News Network ''I apologize to those who were offended by that show ... it was an act with very partisan political content.''

Relations between the United States and Chavez Frias are described in the US media as "strained" since he was elected by a democratic majority in 1999 ... all the moreso since a US-backed coup d'etat failed to permanently oust President Chavez in April last year.  Chavez Frias was returned to power when protesting Venezuelans took to the street after Dictator-for-a-Day Pedro Carmona Estanga lost no time in dissolving the Congress, Courts and the Constitution in one fell swoop.

Washington maintains a paranoid fixation on a baseball friendship Chavez Frias has with Cuban President Fidel Castro and went ballistic when Chavez Frias visited Iraqi President Saddam Hussein as part of a round-robin tour of Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) member nations in 2000.  The fact that Chavez Frias emerged from that tour as a very much stronger leader of the OPEC cartel did not endear him any the more to the Beltway Bullies in D.C.

There are no proposals on how to improve the living standards of the poorest people. Few people have made proposals for solving social problems, as they do not want to be compared with President Hugo Chávez

According to economist Emeterio Gómez, "the lack of ideas can be easily explained: No project offers solutions, maybe on the fear of being associated with Chávez-like positions."

EUGENIO MARTINEZ EL UNIVERSAL

As the date for convening a revoking referendum against Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez is approaching and opposition groups are convinced that said vote may lead to early elections, civil society has reopened the debate on "projects for the country," i.e., concrete proposals on what to do when Chávez leaves the presidential palace of Miraflores.

There are several proposals. The ideas put forward by civic organizations for an eventual new government are characterized by a lack of details.

No significant contributions

Economist Emeterio Gómez recently affirmed that the projects' negative side "is that there is no discordant chord... Most programs only summarize a consensus. There are no significant contributions."

From his point of view, proposals should tackle "the capitalist issue. Talking in general about market economy is very different from getting into the capitalism's structure: providing concrete ideas about solidarity capitalism, and finding ways to connect capitalism with social responsibility -the key topics being debated in the world."

Another issue that, according to Gómez, must be debated is a topic laid down in the Venezuelan Constitution. "The Constitution states the need to give justice priority over rights. From a leftist standpoint, this position may seem insane because it brings forth the destruction of the judiciary system, promoting (land) invasions, for instance."

According to Gómez, it is necessary to open a debate on this issue, including the defense of the right to ownership.

Meanwhile, there are no proposals on how to improve the living standards of the poorest people.

This lack of ideas can be easily explained: "No project offers solutions, maybe on the fear of being associated with" Chávez-like positions," said the economist.

Positive aspects

Nevertheless, most projects also have some positive aspects. "This evidences that they have certain common positions. One of the basic issues being debated is what to do with the (country's) economy," said Gómez.

In this sense, focusing on a market economy is one of the solutions being discussed. "Even though very few people call it this way -some people describe it as private sector importance, productive economy, or open economy-, the core issue is the acceptance of market economy. Today, only a few people defend state intervention," he explained.

Poverty and inflation

Projects for a post-Chávez Venezuela also agree on the need to ensure the independence of the Venezuelan Central Bank and to implement non-inflationary policies.

Gómez considers that most projects have a common view regarding fiscal policy: "They intend not to increase deficit."

These plans also share common ideas about poverty. "All these programs agree on the need to face poverty, but none of them deals with the problem of high public expenses, which are going to increase."

He rejected the fact that the discussion of ideas and projects does not include specific cases such as the privatization of state-owned oil company Pdvsa.

The analyses with too many ideas about transition and few short-term plans are not shared by Gómez, who believes that "they are actually talking about medium- and long-term projects. Discussing an economic program for a transition period amounts to a waste of time. The measures to be taken depend on the government structure and how bad the economy is."

According to Gómez, "if this economic disaster is allowed to continue, the economic program will have to be much more severe. It is very difficult to agree on what should be done."

emartinez@eluniversal.com