Saturday, June 7, 2003

Lure of diamonds ends in jail and deportation

Posted by click at 8:16 AM in In Venezuela too.

<a href=winnipeg.cbc.ca>winnipeg.cbc.ca Web Posted | May 30 2003 12:51 PM CDT

WINNIPEG - Most of the people who stole diamonds from a Thunder Bay jewellery store this year have been sentenced to time already served in jail.

That amounts to a sentence of about six weeks.

The group is made up of mostly men, from Mexico, Columbia and Venezuela.

They were arrested in Winnipeg in mid-April with $29,000 in diamonds stolen days earlier from Atkinson's Jewellers.

All of the accused, with the exception of one Canadian woman, now face deportation back to their native countries.

A ninth person remains in custody awaiting a further court hearing.

Don't Look to the UN for Resistance--Re-Colonizing Iraq

Posted by click at 8:13 AM in Post war

CounterPunch May 30, 2003 By TARIQ ALI

Unsurprisingly, the Security Council has capitulated completely, recognised the occupation of Iraq and approved its re-colonisation by the United States and its bloodshot British adjutant. The timing of the mea culpa by the 'international community' was perfect. Yesterday, senior executives from over a 1000 companies gathered in London to bask in the sunshine of the re-established consensus under the giant umbrella of Bechtel, the American Empire's most favoured construction company. A tiny proportion of the loot will be shared.

So what happened to the over-heated rhetoric of Europe versus America? Berlusconi in Italy and Aznar in Spain--the two most right-wing governments in Europe--were fitting partners for Blair while the East European states, giving a new meaning to the term 'satellite', which they had previously so long enjoyed, fell as one into line behind Bush.

France and Germany, on the other hand, protested for months that they were utterly opposed to a US attack on Iraq. Schroeder had owed his narrow re-election to a pledge not to support a war on Baghdad, even were it authorized by the UN. Chirac, armed with a veto in the Security Council, was even more voluble with declarations that any unauthorized assault on Iraq would never be accepted by France.

Together, Paris and Berlin coaxed Moscow into expressing its disagreement too with American plans. Even Beijing emitted a few cautious sounds of demurral. The Franco-German initiatives aroused tremendous excitement and consternation among diplomatic commentators. Here, surely, was an unprecedented rift in the Atlantic Alliance. What was to become of European unity, of NATO, of the 'international community' itself if such a disastrous split persisted? Could the very concept of the West survive? Such apprehensions were quickly to be allayed. No sooner were Tomahawk missiles lighting up the nocturnal skyline in Baghdad, and the first Iraqi civilians cut down by the Marines, than Chirac rushed to explain that France would assure smooth passage of US bombers across its airspace (as it had not done, under his own Premiership, when Reagan attacked Libya), and wished 'swift success' to American arms in Iraq. Germany's cadaver-green Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer announced that his government too sincerely hoped for the 'rapid collapse' of resistance to the Anglo-American attack. Putin, not to be outdone, explained to his compatriots that 'for economic and political reasons', Russia could only desire a decisive victory of the United States in Iraq.

Washington is still not satisfied. It wants to punish France further. Why not a ritual public flogging broadcast live by Murdoch TV? A humbled petty chieftain (Chirac) bending over while an imperial princess (Condeleeza Rice) adminsters the whip. Then the leaders of a re-united North could all relax and get on with the business they know best: plundering the South.

The expedition to Baghdad was planned as the first flexing of a new imperial stance. What better demonstration of the shift to a more offensive strategy than to make an example of Iraq. If no single reason explains the targeting of Iraq, there is little mystery about the range of calculations that lay behind it. Economically, Iraq possesses the second largest reserves of cheap oil in the world; Baghdad's decision in 2000 to invoice its exports in euros rather than dollars risked imitation by Chávez in Venezuela and the Iranian mullahs. Privatization of the Iraqi wells under US control would help to weaken OPEC.

Strategically, the existence of an independent Arab regime in Baghdad had always been an irritation to the Israeli military-even when Saddam was an ally of the West, the IDF supplied spare parts to Tehran during the IranúIraq war. With the installation of Republican zealots close to Likud in key positions in Washington, the elimination of a traditional adversary became an attractive immediate goal for Jerusalem. Lastly, just as the use of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had once been a pointed demonstration of American might to the Soviet Union, so today a blitzkrieg rolling swiftly across Iraq would serve to show the world at large that if the chips are down, the United States has, in the last resort, the means to enforce its will. The UN has now provided retrospective sanction to a pre-emptive strike. Its ill-fated predecessor, the League of Nations, at least had the decency to collapse after its Charter was serially raped.

Analogies with Hitler's blitzkrieg of 1940 are drawn without compunction by cheerleaders for the war. Thus Max Boot in the Financial Times (2 April, 2003): 'The French fought hard in 1940-at first. But eventually the speed and ferocity of the German advance led to a total collapse. The same thing will happen in Iraq.' What took place in France after 1940 might give pause to these enthusiasts.

The lack of any spontaneous welcome from Shi'ites and the fierce early resistance of armed irregulars prompted the theory that the Iraqis are a 'sick people' who will need protracted treatment before they can be entrusted with their own fate (if ever). Such was the line taken by David Aaronovitch in the Observer. Likewise, George Mellon in the Wall Street Journal warns: 'Iraq Won't Easily Recover From Saddam's Terror': 'after three decades of rule of the Arab equivalent of Murder Inc, Iraq is a very sick society'. To develop an 'orderly society' and re-energize (privatize) the economy will take time, he insists. On the front page of the Sunday Times(30 March, 2003), its reporter Mark Franchetti quoted an American NCO: '"The Iraqis are a sick people and we are the chemotherapy", said Corporal Ryan Dupre. "I am starting to hate this country. Wait till I get hold of a friggin' Iraqi. No I won't get hold of one. I'll just kill him."' No doubt the 'sick society' theory will acquire greater sophistication, but it is clear the pretexts are to hand for a mixture of Guantanamo and Gaza in these newly Occupied Territories.

If it is futile to look to the United Nations or Euroland, let alone Russia or China, for any serious obstacle to American designs in the Middle East, where should resistance start? First of all, naturally, in the region itself. There, it is to be hoped that the invaders of Iraq will eventually be harried out of the country by a growing national reaction to the occupation regime they install, and that their collaborators may meet the fate of Nuri Said before them. Sooner or later, the ring of corrupt and brutal tyrannies around Iraq will be broken. If there is one area where the cliché that classical revolutions are a thing of the past is likely to be proved wrong, it is the Arab world. The day the Mubarak, Hashemite, Saudi and other dynasties are swept away by popular wrath, American-and Israeli-arrogance in the region will be over.

Tariq Ali is an editor of New Left Review and a frequent contributor to CounterPunch. He is the author of The Clash Of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads And Modernity, published by Verso. His new book, 'Bush in Babylon: Re-colonising Iraq' will be published by Verso in the autumn.

Today's Features

CounterPunch Wire WMD: Who Said What When

Jason Leopold Despite Thin Intelligence Reports, US Plans Overthrow of Iran Regime

Ron Jacobs Popular Uprising, Inc.

Michelle Ciaccorra Bush's Nuclear Policy: Do As I Say, Not As I Do

Yves Engler The Economics of Health Care in America: Pay More to Die Sooner

Kimberly Blaker Vouchers for Jesus

Harry Browne Stakeknife: Britain's Army Spy at the Top of the IRA

Stew Albert Cops of the World

Steve Perry Greens 04: In or Out?

New Print Edition of CounterPunch Available Exclusively to Subscribers: The Real Scandal at the Times: Why Not Give Jayson Blair a Pulitzer? After all They Gave Them to Safire and Gerth; What About the Framing of Wen Ho Lee? Falling for the Jessica Lynch Fraud? Judy Miller's Missing WMDs? Blair, the Early Years; Meet the Minister of Sleaze: Deputy Interior Secretary Steve Griles; He Still Works for Big Oil and Strip Miners; Uses 90-Year Old Women as Human Shields; The Crash of the American Economy; Smearing Rachel Corrie's Memory; The Origins of Chalabi: Is He a Creature of Israeli Intelligence? Remember, the CounterPunch website is supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide web audience is soaring, with more than 60,000 visitors a day. This is inspiring news, but the work involved also compels us to remind you more urgently than everto subscribe and/or make a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now!

Or Call Toll Free 1-800-840 3683 or write CounterPunch, PO BOX 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Coming Soon! From Common Courage Press

Annan welcomes agreement between government and opposition in Venezuela

Posted by click at 8:04 AM in America watch

<a href=www.un.org>UN

30 May – Secretary-General Kofi Annan today welcomed the agreement signed between the Government of Venezuela and the opposition Coordinadora Democrática, and pledged continued United Nations support in helping the country to find peaceful solutions to its problems.

A statement issued by a UN spokesperson said the Secretary-General “urges all Venezuelans to take advantage of the opportunity that [Thursday’s] agreement provides to advance in the search for a peaceful, constitutional and electoral solution to the problems of their country.”

The statement also commended the international facilitators, particularly César Gaviria, Secretary General of the Organization of American States.

“The Secretary-General emphasizes that the United Nations will continue to be engaged in supporting Venezuelans as they seek peaceful solutions to resolving their differences,” the statement said.

Cuba Worsens Venezuelan Crisis

Posted by click at 8:03 AM in America watch

United Press International. NewsMax.com Wires Friday, May 30, 2003

CARACAS, Venezuela – In an upscale neighborhood of eastern Caracas, demonstrators this week continued to congregate in Altamira Plaza to protest against President Hugo Chavez. A hotbed of Venezuela's political opposition during the opposition petroleum strike, the desolate plaza now looks a lot like an abandoned circus. But opposition leaders are just as agitated as they were at the height of the strike.

"He is a terrorist and a communist," says Gustavo Ramírez, 32, a student who showed up at the gathering. "He has people in the country going hungry, and he wants to ensure that there's no freedom of expression."

Though opposition sympathizers frequently levy similar accusations against their embattled left-wing president, Ramirez's condemnation was not aimed at the embattled Chavez, but rather at Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.

"President Chavez wants to turn Venezuela into another Cuba," says Ramirez, "but we can't let that happen."

Statements such as these show how Chavez's open admiration of Castro's communist revolution has infuriated Venezuela's conservative sectors and raised eyebrows in the international community. Even as the government and opposition Thursday signed a cooperation agreement that could help ease the crisis, the opposition resentment over the Cuban issue remains high.

Since the arrival of Chavez, Venezuela has signed dozens of cooperation agreements with Cuba, increased cultural exchange and provided subsidized petroleum to the Caribbean nation, much to the chagrin of Venezuelans already unnerved by what they see as Chavez's leftist agenda. Government leaders defend the new cooperation with Cuba as a way of consolidating Venezuela's social changes. But with Cuba once again in the eye of the world, the relationship may prove costly for Chavez.

A former paratrooper turned populist president, Chavez became a household figure in Venezuela after leading a failed coup in 1992. Released from jail on a presidential pardon, Chavez swept elections in 1998 on an anti-poverty, anti-corruption platform dubbed the "Bolivarian Revolution" in honor of the Venezuelan founding father, Simon Bolivar.

With a core constituency of Venezuela's burgeoning lower classes, Chavez has become a hero to the poor by promising to remake Venezuelan society. Although he has promised a peaceful revolution, Chavez often seems ideologically linked to the Latin American armed left. Faithful to his revolutionary roots, Chavez quickly increased diplomatic ties with Castro, a father figure for the Latin American left who in the 1960s sponsored Marxist guerrilla activity in Venezuela.

A year after taking office, the Chavez government signed an agreement to sell 53,000 barrels of oil a day to Cuba at subsidized rates in exchange for medical treatment by Cuban doctors. Since then, the Venezuelan government has entered into numerous cooperation agreements with Cuba, covering everything from sports training programs to urban gardens overseen by Cubans. As a result, Venezuela has become Cuba's largest trading partner.

There was little initial backlash to the new cooperation during Chavez's first years in office, when he enjoyed popularity ratings as high as 80 percent. But his excessively confrontational manner, his willingness to insult his adversaries and his decision to legislate by decree led to a steady decline in his popularity during 2001.

Watching his approval slip, Chavez' adversaries pounced on his friendship with Castro, insisting that Chavez was trying to impose a model of "Castro communism" in Venezuela. Although there is almost nothing about Chavez's economic policy that could be described as communist, his friendship with Castro has made it easy for his enemies to label him as such.

According to journalist and political commentator Clodosvaldo Hernandez, Venezuelans have such a primordial fear of communism that Chavez's flirtations with Cuba have greatly contributed to his decline in popularity.

"Chavez approaching Fidel has awakened Venezuelans terror of communism, which was successfully instilled during the era of guerrilla fighting in the 1960s," says Hernandez. "In addition, Venezuela is a very materialist society, which makes communism all the more threatening."

Hernandez points out that many poor Venezuelans, the president's core constituency, have moved away from Chavez for precisely this reason.

But government leaders such as pro-Chavez legislator Tarek William Saab say the opposition has exaggerated Venezuela's relationship with Cuba.

"We have similar cooperation agreements with dozens of other countries," says Saab, "but since it's Cuba, political leaders like to make it into an ideological issue. The issue has been magnified and exaggerated, in particular with the help of the anti-Castro lobby in Miami."

Miami, in the U.S. state of Florida, is a stronghold of anti-Castro Cuban emigres.

Nonetheless, it's hard to describe the relationship as a simple commercial exchange. The two leaders clearly share an ideology, and Chavez's move toward Cuba is an open challenge to the U.S. embargo of the island. Indeed, while U.S. authorities in May were declaring Cuba a terrorist sympathizer and expelling Cuban diplomats, Venezuela was signing 15 new agreements with the communist island.

Many speculate that the fear of encroaching communism helped drive military leaders to oust Chavez on April 11 of 2002, when 19 people were killed as an opposition march approached the presidential palace. Businessman Pedro Carmona was installed as president, but Chavez was restored to power two days later by supporters and loyalist troops.

During Carmona's government, opposition protesters surrounded the Cuban Embassy, cutting off the power and water to force hiding Chavez allies to leave the compound. The incident is frequently cited as one of the opposition's excesses, and served to strengthen ties between Castro and Chavez.

Government sympathizers such as Wilmar Perez, 42, a former taxi driver, have been drawn to the Chavez government through exchange programs with Cuba.

"The opposition criticizes Cuba because they don't know anything about it," says Perez, who was sent to Cuba for six months to receive medical attention for a gunshot wound he received on April 11. "They should continue the exchanges with Cuba. It is helping us to consolidate the revolution."

'Revolutionary Army' ... Trained in U.S.

However, political analyst Alberto Garrido insists that popular approval or discontent is not the primary issue for Chavez.

"The real problem here is the armed forces," says Garrido. "Officers fear that Venezuela's armed forces are going to be turned into a revolutionary army. And you have to remember that many of these officers have been through the U.S. School of the Americas. They were trained to fight against communism."

Garrido adds that by embracing Castro too closely, Chavez also risks upsetting the United States, which buys most of Venezuela's oil exports.

"Staying tied to Castro is an enormous liability for Chavez," says Garrido. "It means confronting people that should be his allies. How far can he really take this?"

Widespread criticism of Cuba within Venezuela indicates that Garrido has a point. But Chavez shows no sign of distancing himself from Castro, even in the face of international condemnation of Cuba's recent abuses of human rights. And Chavez, much like Castro, has never been afraid of a little healthy confrontation, meaning the Cuban issue is unlikely to disappear from the Venezuelan horizon any time soon.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics: Castro/Cuba Latin America Editor's note: Discover and use the CIA’s secrets Click Here Now

Venezuelan opposition full of contradictions ... again!

Posted by click at 8:01 AM in Propaganda

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Friday, May 30, 2003 By: Oscar Heck

VHeadline.com commentarist Oscar Heck writes: The Venezuelan opposition seems to be full of contradictions (again). In March 2003, opposition members who were participating in the selection process of the new CNE (National Electoral College) board stated that they were happy with the way the process was being manned. The opposition implied that the people involved in the process were acting in good faith.

Now it appears that the opposition is having problems with the process regarding the choosing of the last board member. As I understand it, this last board member is important because, apart from this, the rest of the board is 50/50 pro-opposition/pro-government (although the board is supposed to be neutral, I think).

The government suggests that the issue be brought up to the TSJ (Supreme Justice Tribunal), but it appears that the opposition has a problem with that as well, because they seem to believe that the TSJ has too many pro-government judges. Very strange.

If the TSJ was politically driven in favor of Chavez, the people involved in “the stoppage” (December 2002-January 2003) and in the April 11, 2002 coup would already be in jail for having committed acts of treason and sedition … Carlos Fernandez, Carlos Ortega, Juan Fernandez, Pedro Carmona, and a bunch of other people. (Many of these people are no longer in Venezuela. Some are in Colombia, Costa Rica and the USA).

Now, the selection of the CNE board is also important for the opposition because without this new CNE board, they will not be able to legally begin the process for a referendum against Chavez.

So, why are they stalling?

If the selection process was good for the selection of the other board members, why is it not good now?

Why is the TSJ suddenly not good either?

It doesn’t make sense ... as far as I know, the TSJ is one of Chavez’ pet peeves … Chavez is continuously complaining that the TSJ is not doing its job and implies most of the judges are supporting the opposition and are corrupt.

So, why would the opposition be stalling again (without any apparent logic)?

I believe that the opposition is starting another tactic to discredit the present Venezuelan government … again. The tactic … create all sorts of scenarios to delay the referendum then blame it on Chavez and propagate this as “news” worldwide to add to their lies that Chavez is a dictator and anti-democratic.

However, I do not think that their tactics will work because Venezuelans will not be fooled again, as some 2-3 million were conned into believing that “the stoppage” and the sabotage of PDVSA (Venezuela’s national petroleum company, one of the largest in the world) would result in Chavez leaving office.

During the months of January and February 2003, Globovision (Venezuela’s 24-hour news/commentary TV station ú and pro-opposition) had countless interviews with “petroleum” experts, politicians, etc., all of which guaranteed that PDVSA would take years to recover, blaming it all on Chavez and his incompetent government. These “expert opinions” were propagated worldwide as “news” ... however, they have all been proven wrong. PDVSA production is almost back to normal after a few short months.

In the same way, as with the issue of the CNE board selection, the opposition may be attempting to begin fabricating scenarios that they will later attempt to use as ammunition against the Chavez government.

Now, about corruption … I have been having some very interesting email discussions with a Venezuelan who has very good ideas. Corruption in Venezuela has been “a way of life” for many people … I would say mostly for the upper crust such as the leaders of the CTV (Central Union Movement), members of Fedecamaras (Chamber of Commerce equivalent), politicians, lawyers, judges, and also within the police forces. During his election campaign, Chavez had apparently promised to curb corruption and jail people who are corrupt, also promising that his government would not be corrupt. Tall order!

Most opposition people appear to think that Venezuela is more corrupt than ever and that the Chavez government is more corrupt than previous ones. I argue that corruption is probably that same still but that people are talking about it more than ever, thus appearing to be greater.

One example is that the case of corruption (for misuse of government funds) against Chavez has been thrown out of court, “Supreme Tribunal throws out corruption charges against the President.” I also believe that if the Chavez government is so corrupt (as the opposition charges), real evidence would have come out by now, after 4 years of Chavez being in power. (There are enough people who hold economic power in Venezuela that would love to see Chavez ousted from his elected post).

The person that I have been corresponding with is disappointed with the “fact” that corruption is still rampant in Venezuela and that Chavez appears to be doing nothing about it (contrary to what he promised to do). I believe that Chavez is doing what he can, especially under the circumstances (attempted coup, “the stoppage”, sabotage, etc).

First of all, if Chavez, or the Chavez government, jails people for being corrupt without going through the legal system, then Chavez and company would be acting as dictators ... not something that Chavez needs. Secondly, as far as I can see, the Chavez government is taking the legal approach to the problem of corruption. Some examples: working on the passing of anti-monopoly laws, implementing land reform, applying anti-speculation/hoarding laws (such as the seizing of hoarded chicken) and digitalizing information (such as at two of the main customs installations).

It is also important to realize that most fraud/corruption cases take years to resolve, even in countries such as Canada or the USA.

To add to the difficulty, in Venezuela, the TSJ is in disarray and the overhaul of the seemingly corrupt and inefficient TSJ has been apparently continuously hampered by anti-government interests. Without a solid and politically-neutral TSJ, anti-corruption laws will be very difficult to implement.

Overall, I believe that eradicating corruption from the mainstream of Venezuelan society will take years, probably 1-2 generations. (In Venezuela, even if a person believes that corruption is not a good thing, the person will often participate in corruption because if she/he doesn’t, then she/he will be the loser).

I believe that Venezuelans must be patient.

Chavez (or anyone else) can not quickly and magically change “traditional” habits that have been around for so many years.

Oscar Heck Oscar@VHeadline.com

July 2025
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31
August