www.vheadline.com Posted: Thursday, February 27, 2003 By: Robert Rudnicki

A march by opposition supporters through the streets of Caracas has forced the postponement of Organization of American States (OAS) led peace negotiations which had been scheduled to restart in the afternoon after being suspended last week due to OAS secretary general Cesar Gaviria's previous commitments. 

The talks had to be postponed as thousands of marchers protested outside the Gran Melia de Caracas hotel where talks have been taking place.

The negotiations are now expected to restart today, Thursday, with opposition and government negotiators likely to discuss the arrest of Venezuelan Federation of Chambers of Commerce & Industry (Fedecamaras) president Carlos Fernandez and the arrest order for Confederation of Trade Unions (CTV) president Carlos Ortega, as well as the arrest orders for seven Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) rebels who are leading the ongoing strike action.

Opposition leaders claim the government has gone back on last week's no-violence agreement, but government officials insist the arrests are lawful.

www.vheadline.com Posted: Thursday, February 27, 2003 By: Robert Rudnicki

The United States embassy in Caracas will not be opening today due to a security alert following the bombings of Colombian and Spanish diplomatic missions this week. An embassy statement said "the US embassy in Caracas has received a credible threat to its security and will be closed to the public on Thursday, February 27, 2003."

Exact details of the threat were not made available, but the embassy is expected to open again normally on Friday this week.

• Security measures have been stepped up at many diplomatic buildings in Caracas, as the government seeks to reassure foreign diplomats about possible safety risks.

Opposition leaders have accused government supporters of the attacks, while government members are blaming sections of the opposition looking to further damage the government's international reputation.

www.daily.umn.edu February 27, 2003 EDITORIAL

For the first time in Colombia’s bloody civil war, the country’s largest rebel group, the FARC, has captured U.S. government workers and deemed them “prisoners of war.” In Venezuela, the world’s fifth-largest oil supplier, violent political struggle between President Hugo Chavez and his opponents has caused serious international implications. And in poverty-stricken Bolivia, the government’s austerity plans recommended by the International Monetary Fund were met with deadly protests and unrest that, if continued, could erase the free-market gains made by that country over the last 20 years.

Even as the world’s attention turns to Iraq and the Korean peninsula, these events showcase the need for the United States to engage Latin America and carefully apply a combination of measures to address the unique problems of each of these countries.

Colombia’s situation is particularly grim. In 1997, the United States began supplying Colombia with funds and military assistance for the purpose of squashing drug production and fighting leftist rebels who — while leading an insurgency against the Colombian government for the past 39 years — became intimately involved in the country’s drug trade. Since then, the original purpose of the U.S. mission — known as Plan Colombia — has changed. The first shift occurred after Sept. 11, 2001, when the United States designated Colombia’s two leftist guerrilla groups and right-wing paramilitary army as terrorists. This placed the intractable problems of drugs and Colombia’s civil war within the George W. Bush administration’s “war on terrorism.” The next shift came after FARC rebels kidnapped three federal workers contracted by the Defense Department. Coming off the heels of military buildups in the Persian Gulf and the Philippines, the Bush administration is now planning to send close to 150 troops to Colombia to aid in the rescue of the kidnapped Americans.

In attempting a rescue, the United States must be careful not to go beyond the scope of the legislation permitting U.S. troops in Colombia. Congress voiced this sentiment in 2001 due to concerns the United States might end up in a protracted conflict similar to Vietnam. Therefore, restrictions were put in place on the number of military personnel in Colombia at any given time. In the most recent report delivered by Bush to Congress for the period ending in mid-January, there were 208 military personnel and 279 contract workers in Colombia. The saving grace in all this is a restrictive clause in the legislation allowing the president to “carry out emergency evacuation of U.S. citizens or any search-and-rescue operation for U.S. military personnel or U.S. citizens.”

Meanwhile, in Venezuela bombs recently ripped through the Spanish and Colombian diplomatic missions. The attacks followed a series of often-violent protests in Venezuela, as well as a two-month-long strike that failed to oust Chavez. In Bolivia, President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada’s Cabinet resigned en masse Tuesday after violent protests of economic policies left 29 people dead.

Although the United States used the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 to stake out its claim to the countries of Latin America, it was not until the late 19th century that it had the economic and military might to pursue its interests there wholesale. The United States must not lose sight of South America — its strategic and economic importance, as well as the plight of its people — as it pursues its agenda elsewhere.

blogs.salon.com By Miguel Octavio

For days I have been pondering on how to answer Ken Hagler on the comment he made on his site on my story “Woke up in a dictatorship today”. Ken’s comment was direct and simple, and coincides with my gut feeling when I see what is happening around me:   “I think at some point, perhaps now, the people of Venezuela should stop relying entirely on protests and exercise their right to "vote 'no' with the weapon of their choice."   You see, I have always seen myself as a pacifist. Never shot a gun. Never considered reacting or acting violently in my life. During the last year, I have gone to marches, demonstrations, and protests believing that the sheer numbers of people involved would convince the Government that the only way out of our crisis was some form of an electoral solution. It is in the Constitution, which Chavez himself created. That is what Constitutions are for, they are there, you have to respect them, and you look for the protections that it provides for you, even if you don’t like the Constitution. But it has not worked. The control that Hugo Chavez has on what are supposed to be the independent powers: the electoral commission, the Supreme Court and the National Assembly are such that we are further away from any election at this point when we were on Nov. 4th., when we submitted the petition to have the consultative referendum.   I also believed that the OAS mediated negotiating table, while useless in the end, would keep Chavez in check. It would stop him from going beyond what civilized rules call for. At that time it appeared as if Chavez and his Government were at least afraid of international opinion, which they had masterfully managed to their advantage. But Chavez is simply a user. Whether it is “the people”, his collaborators, international opinion or even his wife, Chavez uses people, gets the most out of them to his advantage and then disposes them at will. And he moves on.   And I marched, I blogged, I e-mailed, I chanted, I screamed and I did all of the things that I thought would inevitably force Chavez to come to terms with the fact that his mandate has been cancelled. He is no longer popular. His supporters are a minority across all social strata. The revolution is dead, it was simply not viable under his primitive and incompetent leadership.   But what has not been viable was my belief in decency, fairness and rationality. That is not how Hugo Chavez’ minds works. So, instead of the rosy electoral solution we have slipped further and further into this violent dictatorship. And if last week it was the shock to see the deaths of dissident military officers, followed by the order to capture the two most important opposition leaders, this week it is the shock of huge C4 bombs exploding at diplomatic missions four blocks from my home.   And thus we come to Ken’s suggestion to stop the protest and start relying on our weapon of choice. And I do want to march to the presidential palace. And I hate it everytime our marches are cancelled or stopped because Chavez’ violent supporters are there waiting for us. And I think it is time to prove to the country and the world that there is no space that can be banned to us. But at the same time, I believe that the only reason we are right, the only reason we are truly superior, the only reason why we are the honorable and decent opposition to an outlaw Government, is simply that we refuse to go and fight under their own terms. I prefer to blog tonight and then go to tomorrow’s march with my flag and whistle and get shot at by Chavez’ supporters, than to go armed and shoot somebody. Maybe that is why we are losing, if indeed we are. But I still feel we will win in the end, because we are indeed morally right, we are morally better. We have proven it!   Will this change if we start getting shot at daily? I don’t know, and I hope I never find out......

Comments in response to this post: Please find some time and post in The Guardian's Talkboards.

I sometimes post links to your blog. I'm sure other regular readers of your blog (by far, one of the best on Latin American issues) might be interested too.

talk.guardian.co.uk Jotavitch [jotavitch@worldcrossing.com] • 2/25/03; 7:12:55 PM

I agree with your strong and deeply felt post, Miguel. At long last the uneven fight is beginning to pay off, as more and more people see Chávez as he really is. Val [val@dorta.com] • 2/26/03; 6:43:20 AM

There are two options left for the opposition, Miguel. Option One: Civil Disobedience; it worked for Ghandi and Martin Luther King. What it requires is that opposition marchers must be willing to put their lives in immediate danger. For instance, marching to Miraflores knowing full well that armed Chavistas are there waiting to kill you. Besides the obvious danger of being killed, there is another caveat. It may not further illegitamize Chavez. This is because any violence visited upon opposition marchers would not be perpetrated by personnel in government uniforms. So Chavez could be able to deny that his government is culpable. Ghandi and Martin Luther King had the "benefit" of being assaulted by forces of the government. Therefore the media ran stories and film footage of peaceful protesters being beaten or killed by soldiers and policemen. This led to the de-legitimization of the policiy of segregation in the US, and also the policy of Great Britian toward its then colony of India. Opposition marchers will not have this advantage in Venezuela. Thus the option of Civil Disobedience could easily fail. The second option is for the opposition to meet force with force. In either case, Civil Disobedience or Use of Force, there is going to be bloodshed on the road to a resolution of the crisis in Venezuela. Gary Duncan [gduncan19@yahoo.com] • 2/26/03; 9:17:43 AM

Unfortunately I agree Gary, however, much like in April of last year, even if it is not soldiers or cops, the world will be watching and taping and everyone will know who they are, it should not make a difference. I think we have shown that we are willing to put ourselves in danger in the cases where marches were on the move before the violent Chavistas arrived. We(I) have been shot at three times so far. And the shots came, in every instance, at the same time the National Guard was using tear gas on us. It will happen again and I think it will be the magnitude of the bloodshed what will shock the world. In my mind it was the magnitude of the bloodshed which shocked Venezuela last April and made Chavez resign, the world was simply not watching. Miguel Octavio [moctavio@bbo.com.ve] • 2/26/03; 9:49:38 AM

Miguel, you are brave. Keep marching, keep blogging. This is a struggle. And as such, there are no easy solutions. Violence is always too easily opted for because it is just that, easy. We know who has the most guns, and it is not the people. This phase of the conflict, the arrests, bombings and continuing violence is going to be the hardest. This is the means by which the tyrant hopes to silence you. Get a louder whistle. Get a bigger drum. Paint yourself in the flag. In the end, you will win. Because you are right. Because you have the truth on your side...and the truth will set you free.--scott JS Barnard [jsb@earthdome.com] • 2/26/03; 11:12:22 AM

I agree with Scott. We are going through the hardest part of this struggle, but we have to endure and keep trying and trying the Democratic path. Look at Chile, with the most feroucious repression and dictatorship, they went to elections and at the end Democracy won. We can't abandon the streets, we can't let this Mother FFFF become what he wants to be, he is not already because WE the majority of the people haven't let him. We have to keep the negotiation table very much alive, opossition just have to find its way united and we will. We can't abandon Venezuela and just leave like cubans did letting Fidel do as he pleased with a resignated society. The truth is on my side. five5546@yahoo.com Symetric [symetric@ziplip.com] • 2/26/03; 11:49:17 AM

I think someone should start a campaign to donate tens of thousands of video cameras to the Venezuelans. Ron [ron@pdxnag.com] • 2/26/03; 12:33:56 PM

Thank to all of you for your comments, indeed what is happening here is quite amazing. As to Ron's suggestion on the video cameras, it is already happening. TV stations have shown amateur videos showing the excesses of state sponsored violence. Such was the case of the pro-Chavez people shooting at us in Los Proceres and in the "Valles del Tuy". Thanks again. There is a very good comment today by Francisco Toro in Caracas Chronicles (link on the left of my page) on those that say the opposition also abuses, in which he reminds people that Government's have a responsability towrds ALL its citizens. Anyway, read it he expresses it very well. Miguel Octavio [moctavio@bbo.com.ve] • 2/26/03; 2:04:37 PM

Plus a lot of us are film makers and we are trying to do our best work with documentaries and interviews... Soda Cáustica [causticasoda@yahoo.com] • 2/26/03; 4:52:03 PM

Or amateur reporters...like me....not like Francisco toro, who is a REAL reporter. Miguel Octavio [moctavio@bbo.com.ve] • 2/26/03; 5:59:08 PM

caracaschronicles.blogspot.com By Francisco Toro

Foreign philochavistas come in two flavors: the ones who don't know what the hell they're talking about and argue in broad strokes and abstract categories (those damn oligarchs are just angry because finally someone's taking on their privileges!) and the ones who do know what they're talking about - generally because they live here - and argue in good faith. While I have almost no patience for the former, I think it's important to engage the latter. Greg Wilpert, who is decidedly among the latter, writes in about my last post:

I am wondering if either you are not aware of the threats that prominent government officials and supporters live under or if you think that such threats are not worth mentioning. Perhaps you think they are not worth mentioning because you blame Chavez for creating the atmosphere in which such threats exist?

If you are not aware of the threats, I suggest that you talk to some MVR diputados, for example. Not too long ago Iris Varela's home was bombed, for example. Shortly after the brief coup attempt, even an insignificant person such as me received kidnapping threats via e-mail, for having written the truth about what happened on April 11 and 12. I've intentionally been keeping a relatively low profile as a result.

The upshot is, I have no doubt that the threats against prominent pro-government individuals are every bit as common as against anti-government individuals. The difference perhaps is that the threats against pro-government individuals are occasionally carried out. Perhaps you don't know about the over fifty campesino organizers who have been murdered in the past year? There are incidents happening all of the time, that don't even get mentioned in the government television, perhaps to encourage the image of a happy Venezuela.

You might think that foreign correspondents should mention the threats against anti-government politicians; I think they should mention all threats, no matter who is being targeted - that might at least correct the image of the oh-so holy opposition and the oh-so evil government. I personally believe that the balance of good and evil on both sides of the conflict is more or less the same.

Best, Greg wilpert@cantv.net

I'll be honest: I wasn't aware of a really broad-based campaign of intimidation against government supporters, though it sounds entirely likely that one exists. I've heard plenty about chavistas being harassed and intimidated when they go to the "wrong" public spaces, and I think that's awful, near-fascist, detestable, and I've argued against it both in private and in public. The overall breakdown of tolerance and civility in society is really one of the worst and most ominous aspects of the crisis.

But I have to admit I find it somewhat hard to believe that the intimidation being metted out to government supporters is anywhere near as systematic and broad as what the opposition is getting. And not because the opposition is good and the government is evil (a view I've argued against repeatedly for months,) but because in order to mount a campaign on the scale of the one opposition leaders are now subject to you really need an organization behind it - you need wiretaps and surveilance capabilities, you need money and manpower and technology and centralized decisionmaking. In other words, you need control of the state.

And this, to my mind, is the key difference, as well as the root of so much of the instability in this country: when a Chávez supporter is threatened, he can call on the state for protection. When an opposition leader is threatened, it's probably the state doing it. Or, at least, someone with the aid, or at the very least the quiescent complicity, of the state. It's the principle of equal protection under the law turned on its head.

If you want to know why Venezuela is so unstable, here's an excellent place to start. The notion that the state ought to protect all its citizens equally, regardless of their political views, seems to me like a minimal requirement for stable democratic coexistence. But President Chávez has never made a secret of his contempt for the idea. From the word go he made it clear, again and again, that he intended to govern for one part of society only, and against the other. For a long time he tried to sell the idea that he would govern for the poor and against the rich. But as anyone with open eyes here knows by now, the real dividing line is purely political: he governs in favor of those who support him acritically and unconditionally and against everyone else.

It seems entirely predictable to me that those who suddenly saw the might of the state turned against them would react with virulent rage. You threaten people, they respond. There's no mystery there. Some of those reactions have gone really way too far, and they've only made the original problem worse, yes. But the original problem hasn't changed, and it won't go away until those who have hijacked the state for their own personal purposes cease and desist.

As Teodoro Petkoff has argued many times, it's entirely specious to say that the government and the opposition are equally responsible for the crisis. Enforcing the law equally, without arbitrary distinctions, is one of the core duties of a democratic state. When a government flouts that duty as comprehensibly as this one has - when it systematically uses state money, state facilities and state power to intimidate critics, all the while giving its supporters carte blanche to do anything they want any time they want, then the minimal basis for stable democratic coexistence are compromised, and the entire edifice of a free society teeters.

And with the edifice we're in teetering, it's obviously crucial not to do anything at all to exacerbate the problem. So yes, you're right, my original post was wrong. At times like these it's very imortant to avoid mindlessly partisan postures. That's what this blog is supposed to be all about, and I was wrong not to bring up the detestable threats made against government supporters in my last post.

But I reject, strenuously, the notion that that means that we can just split the blame down the middle and leave it at that. The Venezuelan state belongs to all Venezuelans equally - all Venezuelans have a right to demand its protection regardless of their political views. It just so happens that the Venezuelan state is momentarily led by someone who vigorously disagrees with that view, someone who's launched a sort of personal crusade against the principle of equal treatment under the law, who sees of the state as a personal plaything, as a political sledgehammer he can use to pound his enemies and a petty cash box he can use to bankroll his friends. So long as we're led by someone who thinks that way, Venezuela will never be both stable and democratic again.