<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2003 By: Patrick J. O'Donoghue

Comedian Gilberto Gonzalez has told TalCual that his controversial sketch was with the prior permission of  USA Embassy officialsTrue to form, the opposition has applauded the antics of US Ambassador Charles Shapiro and the puppet show at his residence to commemorate International Press Freedom Day. 

Coordinadora Democratica (CD)  media committee has issued a communique, stating that the way to change a President is not by criticizing an Ambassador or silencing an artist but through a recall referendum, which is a constitutional right. 

It criticizes the statement of Executive Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel as "pathetic ... Rangel and national and international opinion know that Chavez Frias doesn't need anyone's help to play the fool ... he has done it in innumerable occasions in Venezuela and abroad ... deserving condemnation." 

The communique calls on people to pay attention to Ambassador Shapiro's words on the lack of press freedom in Venezuela with alleged attacks on more than 200, killing 1 and physically assaulting 80. 

Opposition international analyst, Elsa Cardoso admits she does not agree with the show at the Ambassador's residence but says Vice President Rangel  should have been more diplomatic.

According to the expert, the government's stance is an angry reaction to the Ambassador's defense of Venezuela's print & broadcast media and freedom of expression ... "the Cuban Ambassador has also interfered in Venezuela's internal affairs."

Meanwhile, pro-government National Assembly (AN)  deputies are looking for a freebie to travel to Washington to complain about the incident. 

Podemos president, Ismael Garcia says a commission will travel to lodge a formal complaint at the Organization of American States (OAS) HQ and at the US Senate,  arguing that Ambassador Shapiro must be held responsible for his actions and the US government should clarify its position on the matter. Garcia says the USA is one of Venezuela's principal trading partners and political allies.

Talcual afternoon tabloid has thrown doubt on Ambassador Shapiro's confirmation that he was unaware of the show's content, claiming that Embassy officials vetted the contents of the comedian's act beforehand ... it is normal procedure at any Embassy.

Who's telling the truth:

Comedian Gilberto Gonzalez has assured opposition-led TalCual newspaper that his controversial sketch in which he parodied radio personality Marta Colomina with a dummy of President Hugo Chavez Frias was performed with the customary prior approval of US Embassy officials at US Ambassador Charles Shapiro's official residence.

The US Caracas Embassy press lackeys have, however, hastened to issue a Spanish-language release which backpedals considerably on the comedian's and the opposition media's version of events.  The Embassy claims it did not have prior knowledge of the sketch and does not "censor" what its guests have to say.  In retrospect the Embassy apologists say the sketch was in "bad taste" because of its political content...

You the reader must decide...

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2003 By: Patrick J. O'Donoghue   National Electoral College (CNE)Former National Electoral College (CNE) Leonardo Pizani forecasts that there will be no recall referendum until December because of time lapses established in the law.  Pizani had been co-opted to the CNE last year causing a tug of war with the government, which argued that it was illegal and government candidate had more legal right. 

Pizani, member of an opposition civil sector group,  says current circumstances surrounding the appointment of the new CNE members justifies the decision taken when he was incorporated because something is happening that could be been resolved before. 

"The National Assembly (AN) must understand that it must not politicize the selection process because what's needed today is an impartial organ to stop the civil war that has already claimed 100 lives."

Pizani opposes Proyecto Venezuela and other opposition groups' proposal to pass the decision to the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ) ... "we don't want a judicial dictatorship ... we have seen that in recent events."

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2003 By: Elio Cequea

Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 19:04:57 -0500 From: Elio Cequea Feico57@aol.com To: Editor@VHeadline.com Subject: In his open letter to the President Hugo Chavez

Dear Editor: In his <a href=www.vheadline.com>open letter to the President Hugo Chavez, Gustavo Coronel forgets about basic moral principles and continues to play politics. I am with the President. These people should not be hired back. They decided to play the game and lost.

The PDVSA managers went on strike convinced that the government and the authorities of the oil company would fall in less than a week. The decision was based on two known assumptions. The first one was that Venezuela's economy could not survive without PDVSA. The second was that the company could not operate without them.

At this moment, one of the conjectures has been proven: Venezuela cannot survive without PDVSA. However, on the other hand, the fallacy of the second conjecture has been exposed. As some sympathizers of the government call it, the MERITocracy resulted in a true MYTHocracy.

PDVSA operations have been almost fully normalized. Now these people are asking the same authorities they tried to expel to reinstate them. Their argument is the same argument they used when they decided to go on strike: the company cannot operate without them ... it is just amazing!

Venezuela needs people with principles ... especially at that level!

We need people that choose to play and win or lose with dignity.

Let's not waste this opportunity to teach ourselves a historical lesson as a nation ... we have to learn to assume responsibility for our decisions.

We have to learn also to live with the consequences.

They played it. They lost it. Accept the consequences!

Grow up Gustavo ... it is a matter of principles!

Elio Cequea Feico57@aol.com

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2003 By: Patrick J. O'Donoghue

Zulia Children's Rights Council (Cedna)  president Edinson Castro says there are 8,000 street children and teenagers, of which 1,000 are located in Venezuela's second biggest city, Maracaibo.  ... "only 482 receive any attention." 

Maracaibo Mayor's Office general director, Francisco Delgado admits that he cannot confirm the above figures because no census has been made to classify street children but maintains that the municipality is organizing a technical team to tackle the problem combining state prosecutors, child protection councils, Cedna, judges, Maracaibo Police (Polimaracaibo), Casa Mia Foundation and the Divino Nino Center. 

• Child Protection Tribunal president, Hector Penaranda reports that Zulia has 4 independent judges that function when the protection councils cannot resolve a problem. 

Tribunal secretary, Angelica Barrios lists housing accommodations for street children: Child Welfare Office (INAM) Casa Hogar Maracaibo and Nido Alegre, Hogamin, Casa "Simon Rodriguez",  Anti-Drugs Jose Felix Ribas Foundation, La Casa Mia, Republica de los Muchachos and Por Amor a los Ninos that have developed special programs for children at risk. 

Zulia University (Luz) criminology studies director Alexis Rodriguez says the Child Protection Law (Lopna) is an efficient instrument to confront the situation of street children, since it also develops a preventive approach.

<a href=> <a href=www.ethicalcorp.com>Ethical Corp17 May 2003 Jon Entine

Jon Entine asks whether socially-conscious investors should grade countries.

How can individual investors play a role in "regime change," the latest political buzz phrase? So-called socially responsible investing claims as its greatest success and the seminal event of the movement its boycott in the 1980s of companies doing business in South Africa. Let's put aside for a different column the role of social investors in toppling apartheid (tease: next to nothing). We do know that today's version of social investing, with its myopic obsession on excluding companies that its screens adjudge to be social miscreants, fails miserably in putting pressure on countries to reform, either politically or economically; no individual company has enough impact to make much of a difference.

What are the alternatives? In a prior column, I discussed the incipient movement to identify companies that invest in countries that wink and nod at terrorism. This shifts the focus from exclusion, which does little but assuage the anxiety of individual client investors, to transparency, which impacts all of a company's stakeholders.

Avoiding investment

The US$133 billion California Public Employee's Retirement System takes another approach. For a second year, CalPERS, one of the world's leading advocates of corporate governance reform, has announced its list of emerging market countries in which it will avoid investments. Based on research provided by Wilshire Associates of Santa Monica, CalPERS evaluates a slew of market and non-market considerations including civil liberties, press freedom, political stability, judicial independence and accounting standards. This year's boycott list excludes investments in 12 countries including export giant China and some of the world's best performing markets, such as Russia and Egypt.

The economic impact of CalPERS black list is insignificant. Although the mega-pension fund can move markets in the US, it has less than $2 billion invested in emerging markets. But it is considering dramatically increasing such investments. And the fund's worldwide prominence, particularly in the area of corporate governance, has turned it into a bell-weather for some international fund managers. The list has also turned foreign governments into nervous Nellies. After CalPERS exxed Malaysia last year, government officials censured the fund. "Our record on human rights is good," whined the deputy prime minister. The Thai market plunged nearly 4 percent after it was listed. Government officials pleaded for time, saying, "There should be sufficient channels in which we are given appropriate opportunities to show that Thailand has complied with good-practice standards, as we have every intention to do." India, Jordan, Sri Lanka, Colombia, Venezuela, Morocco, Indonesia, Pakistan and the Philippines, the other 2003 no-no countries, have all contacted CalPERS to find out what steps would be necessary to get in its good graces. From a market performance standpoint, CalPERS' list has yet to prove its worth. For example, black listed Indonesia soared 27% last year while the Thai market went up 20%. On the other hand, the Argentine and Turkish markets, given a seal of emerging market approval, tanked 51% and 34% respectively. Almost every emerging market on CalPERS must-avoid list at least matched major western indices. As one wag put it, the question for investors is not whether the dog has fleas but whether the price of the dog takes the fleas into consideration. Of course the real value of CalPERS' ratings is not as a timer of notoriously unpredictable emerging markets but as a club for transparency and change. "There is a relationship between economic growth and underlying conditions in a country," argues California state treasurer Phil Angelides in defense of the investment boycotts. "We are long-term investors. There are certain countries that don't have the requisite stability to put our money at risk. It makes sense to set some minimum thresholds." Higher standards Part of what CalPERS is trying to do is to force western accounting and indeed political standards on other countries. That's a dubious goal in today's dicey, anti-American climate. Its critics also point out that CalPERS uses haphazard standards in determining which country passes and fails. Why is it pulling out of much of South East Asia but not economically insolvent Argentina and repressive Turkey? "They [CalPERS] are making a political decision, one that is not only subjective but questionable," comments Mark Konyn, Asia director of Dresdner RCM Global Investors. Well, one has to start somewhere. "This is a living document subject to ongoing change," responds William Crist, president of CalPERS' Board of Administration. CalPERS is actually following in a tradition blazed less ceremoniously by the conservative Heritage Foundation. Each year in cooperation with the Wall Street Journal, Heritage releases an "Index of Economic Freedom." The index has emerged as a popular measure of economic freedom around the world, which roughly (with notable exceptions) correlates with political freedom. It evaluates 161 countries on 10 broad variables including wages and prices and trade policy. Not surprisingly, many on CalPERS' black list rate low on the economic freedom index. In its ratings released last fall, Russia came in 135th, China 127th, India 119th and Egypt 104th. There are some intriguing differences between CalPERS and Heritage. Turkey, which CalPERS gives a pass, ranked a dismal 119th in the Economic Freedom Index. On the other hand, countries that are free market oriented but politically authoritarian, such as Thailand, ranked 40th and Jordan 62nd, are on CalPERS boycott list. CalPERS might do well to consider adopting a broader range of criteria including some standards included in the Economic Freedom Index. Obviously, no single list is fool or manipulation proof. These are only tools, weapons if you will in an enduring campaign for more openness and reform. In the case of CalPERS, its boycott not only encourages accountability, it is backed by the capitalist club of money. It's a sign of real hope that one of the world's most influential funds is willing to walk its talk when it comes to meaningful regime change. Perhaps other pension funds, public and private, might have the wherewithal, indeed the guts, to follow in CalPERS footsteps. by Jon Entine