www.vheadline.com Posted: Thursday, March 06, 2003 By: Robert Rudnicki

Senior Venezuelan Armed Forces (FAN) leader General Raul Baduel has denied that there are members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia's (FARC) leadership currently on Venezuelan soil as has recently been claimed in newspaper reports.

Baduel insists that the Venezuelan army always takes all the action necessary to prevent violent groups from Colombia entering into Venezuela and that the units currently guarding the border have not reported any incursions of the kind being reported.

However, the general also said that every day there is a large flow of people coming into Venezuela from Colombia and that they are permitted to do so providing their documentation is in order.

The policy of the Venezuelan government is not to allow guerilla groups into Venezuela, because he said, it is a Colombian problem that should be dealt with by them.

www.washingtonpost.com

President Bush accepted the credentials of 12 new ambassadors last Wednesday in the first such ceremony this year. It was the largest group of new chiefs of diplomatic missions to arrive in Washington in a single month and to be accredited so promptly, according to the State Department's office of protocol. Though the administration is wrestling with other priorities at the moment, the scheduling signified that diplomacy matters during troubling times.

Despite snowy weather, the afternoon reception proceeded without a hitch, with the diplomats bringing large families for the ritual champagne reception and courteous exchanges with the leader of the world's only superpower.

By virtue of arriving on U.S. soil before the rest, Argentina's Eduardo Amadeo was the first ambassador to be received by Bush, and Khamrokhon Zaripov became the first ambassador to Washington from Tajikistan.

There were only two women among the fresh wave of ambassadors: Marina Valere from Trinidad and Tobago, and Inonge Mbikusita-Lewanika from Zambia.

The others were Bolivia's Jaime Aparicio, Sri Lanka's Devinda R. Subasinghe, Panama's Roberto Alfaro, Venezuela's Bernardo Alvarez Herrera, Madagascar's Rajaonarivony Narisoa, Mongolia's Ravdangiin Bold, Malta's John Lowell and Mohamed Latheef from the Maldives.

www.vheadline.com Posted: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 By: David Coleman

Ultimas Noticia claims that CICPC Homicide Division detectives have identified three suspects in the murder of three Plaza Altamira rebel soldiers and a teenage girl which opposition propagandists had claimed were killed by pro-government supporters.

Originally accused of the horror, Military Intelligence (DIM) agent Edgar Machado has been freed of all suspicions and investigators say that, instead, evidence is clearly pointing towards that the crime was committed by rebel security personnel close to the opposition Plaza Altamira HQ.

Investigation files and documentation have been filed at the Prosecutor General's Office revealing that the killings bear all the hallmarks of a personal revenge attack by the perpetrators who are now subject to search & capture warrants to be brought to trial by the courts.

By Bernardo Alvarez Ambassador of Venezuela to the US

     One of the most important responsibilities of the media in a free and open society is getting (and reporting) both sides of a story. However, "A Venezuelan police state?" (Editorial, Thursday) suggests that The Washington Times lost perspective and returned to the safety of its traditional view of how things should be. In so doing, I believe the editors have deprived readers of a balanced view of what is actually occurring in my country.

The editorial's second paragraph began with all the drama of a bad reality-TV script: "At midnight last Wednesday, business leader Carlos Fernandez, one of the leading organizers of a two-month strike that ended Feb. 4, was arrested by armed police agents while at a restaurant and charged with rebellion and incitement, among other things." To begin, it was not a "strike." Even the perpetrators of the paralyzing lockout referred to their action as "a civic stoppage." As they know, true strikes are protected under Venezuelan law.

The problem was that they were acting illegally. The workers never voted to strike, nor was there the mandatory 120-hour cooling-off period, officially referred to as the "conciliation period." It also is important to note that in the case of essential industries - such as oil production - the law not only requires that a number of workers stay on the job, but also says that the failure of essential workers to be at work for three consecutive days requires their automatic dismissal. In this regard, such essential workers are no different in Venezuela from air-traffic controllers or police officers and firefighters in the United States.

The fact is that a warrant for Mr. Fernandez's arrest was issued by a judge in accordance with our laws, and he was duly arrested. I believe you have the same procedures - and laws against inciting riots - here in the United States.

The editorial continued: "These grave charges seem inconsistent with involvement in a strike, however injurious it may have been to the economy." Again, the facts are not nearly so dramatic. Based on facts presented to a judge by a local prosecutor in Caracas, Mr. Fernandez was charged with violating several laws. This is a procedure similar to that used by U.S. prosecutors.       Does The Times wish to imply that our laws in Venezuela are irrelevant and should not have been enacted by our legislative branch? Or that Mr. Fernandez, because of his high stature in the business community, somehow should be exempt from their enforcement? Or maybe that locking out hundreds of thousands of people from exercising their right to work and feed their families does not meet The Times' threshold of illegal activity? Is not arresting people who may have broken the law - when they have been so charged in order that they may be tried in court - the way democracies are supposed to work? What would The Times say about Venezuela if people who were believed to have violated the law were allowed to walk free?       In fairness, allow me to change the perspective for a moment. What if executives at a major defense contractor or a major airline decided to lock out their employees simply because the owners did not like the outcome of an election? Can you imagine that?       In an effort that seems to justify the splashy headline, the editorial went on to state as facts that President Hugo Chavez "began threatening extra-judicial retaliation against those involved," and that "Mr. Chavez had 'sentenced' strikers from the bully pulpit."       What The Times fails to note is that Venezuela has a constitution that separates the powers of the executive branch from those of the judicial branch. While the president has asked that the court do its duty, Mr. Chavez does not have the power to order an arrest, nor has he threatened "extra-judicial" retaliation against anyone. In following the Venezuelan Constitution, both the Venezuelan courts and Mr. Chavez have adhered to the law.       The editorial closed with perhaps its most unfortunate and inaccurate accusations, implying that Mr. Chavez knew about, supported or somehow was involved in recent bombings at the Spanish and Colombian embassies in Caracas. In a country of 25 million people trying to deal with the loss of economic opportunities, food and hope caused by whoever orchestrated the lockout of hundreds of thousands of workers - and the concomitant reduction of the country's tax revenue base by more than 30 percent - there no doubt are many frustrated people. Yet, Mr. Chavez had nothing to do with the violence and publicly condemned the cowardly acts in a statement earlier in the week.       Further, is it not fair to raise the question so eloquently asked in French - cherchez la femme - when looking at the so-called evidence left behind? Who left such evidence? What is to be gained by the government's doing such a thing, then leaving a finger pointing at itself?       We remind The Times of the historic agreement signed with leaders of the opposition calling for the end of violence and hostilities. The president and the government are committed to bringing all Venezuelans together, not driving them further apart. We welcome both internal and external comments, but we simply ask other governments to leave to us the internal administration of our laws without interference, which is all the president was saying when he askedthat Spain, Colombia and the United States cease involving themselves in our internal affairs.       Mr. Chavez and the people of Venezuela should and will continue to work toward peaceful, democratic solutions to the social and economic problems facing our country; The Times should expand its narrow focus and adjust its perspective to more accurately convey the real story in Venezuela. Certainly, fairness requires no less.       In conclusion, we have been open with The Times. We shared with your reporters the two public documents issued this week: the first from the attorney general regarding the arrests and the second from the foreign ministry concerning our official regrets and our country's intent to find the perpetrators of the bombings. In keeping with that spirit of openness, I wish to invite your editorial writers to be our guests to visit Venezuela to see the reality there firsthand.       The Washington Times LETTERS TO THE EDITOR March 4, 2003

www.vheadline.com Posted: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 By: Patrick J. O'Donoghue

With hunger strikes in La Planta, Los Teques, El Rodeo, Yare prisons and the General Penitentiary, the spotlight has been turned once again on the state of Venezuela’s prisons after a period of "benign neglect."

During a visit to El Paraiso detention center, Interior & Justice (MIJ) Minister General (ret.) Lucas Rincon Romero heard inmates complain about the delay in processing their cases … “the majority of prisoners here have the same problem and some have been here as long as 2,3 and 4 years without being sentenced.”

The Minister has promised to discuss the matter with judges to find out the reason for the delays and attempt some emergency work to deal with outstanding cases.

Answering charges that prisoners aren’t getting adequate food rations, Rincon Romero admits that suppliers haven’t been paid on time and has asked prisoners on hunger strike to be patient.