<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 By: Patrick J. O'Donoghue

Continuing his analysis of the opposition, Jorge Olavarria maintains his position that the opposition should sign the government counterproposals and get on with the job of preparing the recall referendum. His message is a clear: Stop wasting time.

Olavarria still believes signatures collected during the so-called "Firmazo" on February 2 are invalid ... "the signature papers for the recall referendum were only included at the last moment and thanks to my insistence." The Coordinadora Democratica (CD), Olavarria points out, has produced 4 leaders in one year and they all have burned out. "In any negotiated agreement one obtains what one can not what one wants ... the problem is that time is running out."

If the agreement is signed, the government will have to accept the international supervision of somebody like Organization of American States (OAS) general secretary, Cesar Gaviria ... "signing the agreement would be a personal victory for him and vindicate his position."

Olavarria proposes a new signature campaign with a heading and text in line with Bolivarian Constitution Article 72. "New signatures, new life."

However, Olavarria warns that the parties must agree on the heading and wording of the text, as well as draw up clear norms as regards signing the paper to avoid sabotage and errors and it must be organized within 11 days.

If the campaign starts on May 18 there should be sufficient signatures by July 31 to take to the National Electoral College (CNE), in other words, the opposition has 75 days to collect 3 million signatures (40,000 per day).  After that, the opposition will need at least 2 weeks to audit and verify the signatures between August 1-20.

If all this action is postponed to await a decision on whether the February 2 signatures are valid or not, it will mean waiting till July 15. If the "Firmazo" is declared null, then it means 200,000 signatures would have to be collected per day to beat the deadline.

Recomiendo la lectura del escrito de mi buena amiga y jóven escritora Gabriela Nicoloso Franchi.

Robert Alonso

Patriotismo

Mientras las firmas van y vienen, el dilema del referéndum revocatorio se define y la credibilidad de los bandos políticos y no políticos esta en juego, la sociedad civil se encuentra como barco a la deriva esperando que buena ola lo conduzca a puerto. Pero el dilema no es solo creer o no creer, a quien si a quien no, no se trata de un simple juego de palabras, se trata de que nos estamos jugando el futuro de Venezuela, nuestro país, la herencia de nuestros hijos y esto, no es un juego de azar.

Reflexionemos un momento, solo un momento y pensemos cuantas veces, sobretodo en este periodo de crisis, hemos usado la palabra Patriotismo, muy poco. Llego la hora de hacerlo, llego la hora de que oficialismo, oposición, sociedad civil y, porque no, nuestros “hombres de verde”, todos unidos entendamos el gran significado que esta palabra encierra, Amor a nuestra Patria, Unión de nuestro pueblo.

Con que moral algunos hablan de atentado a los derechos Humanos, otros de impunidad, de corrupción, de revoluciones armadas, de terrorismo, guerrilla, inseguridad. Otros hablan de pobreza, ¡a sí!, pobreza, educación, salud, desempleo, palabras claves de todas las campanas políticas, que ironía, cada vez hay mas pobreza, mas desempleo, menos educación, menos salud y menos de muchas cosas más.

Que se ha hecho en todo este tiempo para curar estos males que se agudizan y que azotan a nuestro país. Esto no es el hoy, fue el ayer y será el mañana sino terminamos de entender el profundo significado de lo que es Patriotismo

Reflexionemos un momento, solo un momento, hoy Venezuela necesita de la unión de todos, necesita del Patriotismo de todos, necesita de la ayuda de todos, y podremos lograrlo cuando realmente queramos lograrlo. Cuando el protagonismo y los intereses personales no brillen por su presencia sino por su ausencia, cuando las campañas electorales unipersonales lleguen a su tiempo, cuando los dirigentes políticos se dirijan a su pueblo con respeto, no con un léxico barato, no con engaños y cuando reconozcan los problemas de un país real no de uno que no existe. Podremos lograrlo cuando cambie la palabra revolución por Evolución, cuando la impunidad se convierta en castigo y la injusticia en justicia, cuando la oposición sea constructiva y no destructiva. Podremos lograrlo cuando dejemos de hablar y empecemos a trabajar para que la pobreza se convierta en riqueza y el desempleo en empleo y cuando finalmente entendamos a una Venezuela dividida como una Venezuela unida y que el Patriotismo será la clave de nuestro éxito.

Reflexionemos un momento, solo un momento. Patriotismo es amar a la tierra que nos vio nacer, que nos dio alegrías, tristezas, no es sembrar la semilla de la discordia, es sembrar optimismo, es lograr su progreso trabajando y luchando por ella, es poder pertenecer a un bando u a otro consientes de que nuestro único punto de encuentro es Venezuela.

La palabra Patriotismo es muy grande y a muchos les queda corta, porque Patriotismo es, querer lograr que nuestro País, Venezuela, sea el mejor del mundo.

Gabriela Nicoloso Franchi.

Recomiendo la lectura que sigue, de mi buena amiga y jóven escritora Gabriela Nicoloso Franchi.

Robert Alonso

Nobleza y Desidia

Puede un gobierno mancillar la dignidad de un pueblo hasta alcanzar sus ideales?,

Sí, y si nos remóntanos a los hechos nos damos cuenta que estos gobiernos existieron y existen, no es historia pasada.

Puede la nobleza de un pueblo permitir que no se respeten sus Derechos Humanos, que se tire por la borda su derecho de vivir en libertad, en paz, en democracia. ?

Mucho se ha hablado de la nobleza del pueblo venezolano, pero ¿cuánto más puede ella soportar, esa metamorfosis, que la “Revolución Bonita” la obliga a experimentar? Esta nobleza ha sido ofendida durante muchos años. Ese sentimiento que caracteriza a nuestro pueblo ha sido aprovechado o mal utilizado por los dirigentes, “héroes” de nuestra patria. Ha sido la pelota de un juego entre dos bandos, la que recibe el golpe de un lado y de otro.

Pero, hagamos una reflexión, será que tanta nobleza se convirtió en desidia, en falta de interés, y hoy, cuando vivimos esta historia jamás imaginada, cuando nos toca llevar esa cruz, tan pesada, llamada revolución, nos damos cuenta de los errores que hemos cometido, de todo lo que hemos permitido. ¿ Ha sido la nobleza o la desidia la que ha hecho que por tanto tiempo cerrásemos nuestros ojos ante tanta corrupción, tanta injusticia, tanto engaño, tanta burla, cual de ellas permitió que desangraran a nuestro país?.

Hoy, este cambio nos hizo reflexionar, nos ayudo a darnos cuenta de cuanto amamos a esta tierra y cuanto estamos dispuestos a dar por ella. Ya empezamos, erguimos la cabeza con dignidad, con el orgullo de ser venezolanos, alzamos nuestras voces y no la silenciaremos jamás. Ya no podremos permitir, que nunca jamás, nos arrebatan lo que por derecho es nuestro, aquí nacimos, aquí crecimos, aquí moriremos. Venezuela es nuestra, nos pertenece y les pertenece a nuestros hijos, ellos tienen derecho a vivir en una tierra libre, en una tierra digna.

Que no se quede ni un solo venezolano en la espera de que los demás solucionen nuestros problemas, ya basta, podremos seguir siendo nobles, pero ya no más negligentes, la lección esta aprendida. Hoy, mañana y siempre, exigiremos respeto y seremos nosotros mismos en decidir nuestra forma de vida, de como nos tienen que conducir..

Tenemos un compromiso con nuestro país. Esta madre tierra, la más bella de todas nos necesita, como se necesitan madre e hijo, no podemos abandonarla.

Ya no somos ese pueblo frágil, aquel pueblo sumiso, callado que permitió que se rompieran las reglas del juego, que se compraran conciencias, que permitió que poco a poco le fueran truncadas sus esperanzas, sus sueños. Hoy somos fuertes, incansables, hoy, los mismos que depositamos, de buena fe, la confianza en los dirigentes, preguntaremos y exigiremos respuestas. Ya basta, Hoy transformamos la Desidia en Valentía y la nobleza seguirá siendo nobleza.

“Temíamos ver la verdad hasta que descubrimos la falsedad de las mentiras”

Gabriela Nicoloso Franchi.

Power and Interest News Report (PINR) content@pinr.com May 11, 2003: Drafted by Erich Marquardt on May 11, 2003

Now that the United States has expressed its desire to weaken the United Nations politically and to create a new world order in which the U.S. can become the sole, unrestrained power in the world, it will be important to watch how Europe responds. Prior to the war in Iraq, the European states of France and Germany were unwilling to support a U.S. led invasion. With the weight of the Security Council behind these two states, governments around the world watched to see if the U.S. would defy the United Nations and thus upset the balance of world order. The Bush administration decided to attack Iraq without U.N. support, which sent ominous signals throughout the world that the U.S. would no longer be restrained by the decrees of the U.N.

In this new state of affairs, the U.S. will continue to stand unchallenged on the world stage until another state or group of states attempts to check its power. As of now, no such entity exists, and the members of the Bush administration have taken note of this situation and are thus pushing U.S. interests on the world. Because the U.S. wields an abundance of economic and military power, other powerful states are hesitant to stray too far from U.S. interests. China, for example, has the potential to check U.S. power; however, its growth potential is reliant on good relations with Washington. Because of the Sino-U.S. relationship, it will be France, Germany and Russia that will most likely be able to check U.S. power.

The major power brokers within the European Union -- France and Germany -- are unhappy with the recent changes in world order. Until recently, France was able to influence global relations through its permanent member status in the United Nations Security Council. Now, with the U.S. replacing the U.N. as the formal center of world order, France's power on the world stage has been greatly diminished, if not eradicated altogether. Germany is also unhappy with the United States limiting the power of Europe so it can become a global hegemon. Russia, like France, has a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council; due to Washington's weakening of the U.N., Russia also lost considerable power in global affairs. For these reasons, France, Germany and Russia took a strong stance against a U.S. attack on Iraq.

But now there are signs that these states are willing to put up even more resistance. On April 29, the leaders of France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg agreed to work towards a European Security and Defense Union by the end of 2004. As part of this union, the four member states would combine resources to create a rapid reaction force capable of preventing conflicts and managing military problems anywhere in the world. Furthermore, this force would be commanded by an independent E.U. military command center just outside Brussels. Such a force, as stated by French President Jacques Chirac, is necessary in order to create "balance." Chirac added, "We need a stronger European Union and a strong United States."

Even more groundbreaking is the recent statements by the defense ministers of both France and Russia, in which they announced mutual intensified military cooperation and joint weapons production. Encouraged by Washington's decision to attack Iraq, both Paris and Moscow had increased political and diplomatic cooperation in recent months. Military collaboration between the major power brokers of the European Union and Russia could work to weaken U.S. global power. The advanced states of the European Union, combined with Russia's nuclear capability, could act to counter unrestrained U.S. power. This chain of events would provide the most credible restraint to current U.S. foreign policy aspirations and once again establish a world order that relies on balance, rather than one superpower with unilateral ambitions.

Still there are several potential obstacles to such an alliance. The European Union is far from united; after announcing their plan to build an independent E.U. military command center, the E.U. states of Britain, Spain, Italy and the Netherlands all detached themselves from this proposition. Other European member states have reacted coolly. This lack of cooperation is due to most European member states' unwillingness to distance themselves politically too far from the United States. The massive economic, political and military power the U.S. wields causes most European member states to find their interests best served by the United States, rather than the central powers of the European Union. Until relations with the central powers of the European Union are more appealing than relations with the United States, European member states will continue to attempt to keep good relations with both the central E.U. states and certainly the United States.

Russia finds itself in a similar predicament. Moscow still looks to the United States to help it succeed in the world of globalization and free trade capitalism. Russia has been waiting for the U.S. to lift Cold War-era trade restrictions; moreover, Russia also wants acceptance into the World Trade Organization. Therefore, Russia finds that its national interests lie in good relations with the United States; this political reality has kept Russia from swaying too far away from U.S. interests. Furthermore, as in the case of pro-U.S. European states, Russia does not yet feel that an alliance with central E.U. states such as France and Germany would be more beneficial than an alliance with the United States.

But due to quick developments that often emerge on the global scene, the relations between these states could quickly change. If the U.S. takes further action that threatens European and Russian interests, the U.S. could unwillingly push these former hegemonic states into an alliance that will work to check U.S. power abroad.

The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an analysis-based publication that seeks to, as objectively as possible, provide insight into various conflicts, regions and points of interest around the globe. PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and interests involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader. PINR seeks to inform rather than persuade. This report may be reproduced, reprinted or broadcast provided that any such reproduction identifies the original source, www.pinr.com. All comments should be directed to content@pinr.com.