<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Friday, May 23, 2003 By: Patrick J. O'Donoghue

Venezuelan Executive Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel has rejected assertions from Forbes magazine that real democracy doesn't exist in Venezuela and according to one Venezuelan news agency, the magazine's incredible call on the US government to order an oil embargo on Venezuela. 

Rangel retorts, "I consider Forbes' assertions to be impertinent and completely out of touch with the Venezuelan reality." 

As for the Human Rights Watch (HRW) report on freedom of expression in Venezuela, the Vice President says the opposition in Venezuela can fall back on exercising all its rights, especially freedom of expression ... the Armed Force (FAN) has a democratic and constitutional vocation ... the government respects public liberties and human rights as never before in Venezuela's history." 

Rangel insists that the media content law that HRW general secretary Vivancos referred to is not the one that was approved in the second National Assembly(AN) sitting ... "I know Vivancos ... he's intelligent and it's clear we are not talking about the same draft law."

Venezuelan human rights group PROVEA general coordinator, Carlos Correa admits he has some complaints against the new media content law, the principal being that restricted viewing hours are far too long. 

"Restricted timetable covers 12 0f 24 hours broadcasting ... the volume of protection is far too high along with the discretional penalizing power which is exclusively in the State's hands." 

The public, Correa states, will be directly affected by the measure because it will not be able to enjoy absolute freedom of expression.

<a href=www.lapress.org>LatinAmericaPress.com Wednesday,  May 28,  2003 Gen. Néstor González Paolo Moiola.  May 22, 2003

The Four Seasons hotel on the Plaza Altamira — in Chacao, the most exclusive district in Caracas — has turned into a kind of headquarters for members of the military who, for over six months now, have declared military disobedience against the government of President Hugo Chávez (LP, Nov. 4, 2002).

They call themselves the "democratic military" and refer to the Plaza Altamira as "liberated territory." Paolo Moiola, a Latinamerica Press correspondent, spoke with one of the dissident commanders, Gen. Néstor González, who has 28 years of active service in the Venezuelan Army under his belt.

Why are you here on the plaza?

This is not something many people understand. I’ve used all of the existing legal methods to make the president respect the Constitution. I’ve made public my opposition to political involvement in the military via all of the official channels — the army, the Ministry of Defense and the President of the Republic. I’ve maintained that to politicize the armed forces will bring about division as well as leadership and operational difficulties.

This followed the events of April 11, 2002, the attempted coup against Chávez (LP, April 22, 2002). I stopped Chávez deploying troops and tanks on the streets to massacre the people demanding his resignation. That was the intention of Chávez, to use the troops to hijack the people and impose a totalitarian communist regime, aided by [Cuban President] Fidel Castro and the international leftist movement.

After this I, together with other democratic officials, reached the conclusion that rights were no longer being respected in our country and we came to the Plaza Altamira to denounce what was happening. That was October 22, 2002. We’re still here because nothing has changed since. There isn’t even a place where we can denounce what’s going on because the state is hostile towards us.

We decided to retire from the army and stay at the plaza to publicly denounce what Chávez is doing to the Venezuelan people. He’s allowed foreign elements into the country to repress the popular revolt. He’s destroyed the institutions and used the widespread misery currently experienced across the country to take forward a leftist project, aiming to destabilize the whole of Latin America and probably world peace as well.

How many members of the military share your position?

There are 135 of us occupying the liberated territory. But not all of us live here. Some go home at night, others have various safe houses for security reasons. There are many generals, discredited or retired, who want to see the back of Chávez.

I assume you are talking about a peaceful exit for the president?

Whatever! When someone sells the country down the river, when they betray the people by imposing an outside regime that has no interest in the greater good, the well-being and peace of the people, freedom must be achieved whatever the cost.

We’ve begun peacefully, but if we have to resort to other methods, we will. We must recuperate the freedom of a nation and a people in suffering. In that sense, the international community has not totally understood our situation.

Why not? Venezuela has received plenty of media coverage.

Simply because the government has manipulated the information. Chávez has spent a lot of money creating an international lobby that publicizes a Constitution that not even he respects. He wants to create an image of himself as a democrat, when in reality he’s a dictator trying to impose a communist and fundamentalist regime.

How much popular support does Chávez have?

We calculate that he has a core support of between 12 and 15 percent. There’s another 15 percent who we call "light Chavistas," many of whom are within the armed forces. Bought and corrupted. Chávez has bought the dignity and conscience of most of the people around him, but when the money runs out they won’t stick around because they don’t identify with him. There is a common misconception that he has the support of the poor neighborhoods. When we collected signatures for an anti-Chávez petition many of the people, who came forward of their own accord, came from those areas.

Where do the armed forces stand?

Anyone who thinks the armed forces are with the president is wrong. Chávez has brought many foreigners to Venezuelan territory: Colombian guerrillas ready to offer armed support and Cubans disguised as sports instructors, but armed all the same. On top of that, he’s armed a part of the population, telling them they are defending the revolution.

Are you talking about the Bolivarian Circles (LP, June 3, 2002)?

Exactly. Chávez organized them because he knows the armed forces are against him, that they have an institutional position, and that one day they will unite the people and capture him.

What do you think of the opposition Democratic Coordinating Group (LP, May 7, 2003)?

One of the tactics employed by Chávez is to divide the opposition, the Democratic Coordinating Group (DCG) included. The DCG has served to create divisions amongst the political opposition through personal, economic and party interests. The DCG members will be cast aside when the people realize that they don’t represent the interests of the Venezuelan on the street.

Chávez scorns any democratic initiative and constantly ridicules all of the political solutions proposed by the people. It’s true that the president enjoys between 25 and 30 percent popular support, but it’s also true that 70 percent of the people are against him, as they regularly make known on the street, not only here in the Plaza Altamira, but throughout Caracas.

This has never happened before, not even with the ex-President Rafael Caldera (1964-74 and 1994-99) who [in his second term] had just 15 percent approval, but the remaining 85 percent of the people were indifferent and took what they got. Everything was kept within a democratic context, without ever creating divisions between rich and poor or blacks and whites, as Chávez is attempting to do now (LP, April 9, 2003).

What does the immediate future hold?

The people must continue coming to the plaza to show the international community that our struggle is just. Peace, liberty and the future of Venezuela mean a lot not just for South America, but also for the West and the rest of the world.

A minority group cannot be allowed to hijack the liberty and justice of a country. We will continue our march forwards, at whatever cost.

There was US$39 billion of capital flight from Latin America in 2002, according to the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, which says that the region faces an uncertain financial future in 2003.

Nicaragua took a claim for the sovereignty of the San Andrés archipelago to the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Holland, at the end of April. The group of islands is currently controlled by Colombia.

The Bolivian police made a mid-April seizure of a cargo of pre-Colombus archaeological artifacts, seemingly of Peruvian origin, being smuggled to the United States from Bolivia. The boxes contained original and replica masks, drinking vessels and silver chains of incalculable value.

United States pharmaceutical companies are demanding US government enforcement of commercial penalties against Mexico for its use of generic medicines. Mexico is the largest pharmaceutical market in Latin America, with sales topping US$6 billion in 2002.

On May 5, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ordered the government of Ecuador to protect the life and integrity of the Sarayaku indigenous community threatened in conflicts with the General Fuel Company, an Argentinean subsidiary of the US consortium Texaco-Chevron (LP, March 26, 2003).

Early May floods in the eastern province of Santa Fe in Argentina left at least 18 people dead, some 300 injured and 50,000 homeless. Heavy rains caused the River Salado to flood one third of the 133,000 square kilometer farming province. The financial cost is likely to be more than US$200 million.

May 22nd 2003 From <a href=www.economist.com>The Economist print edition

THREE decades ago, the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) sent oil prices rocketing. By 1980, a barrel cost $30, ten times the price in 1970. Consumers suffered, whereas oil producers reaped an enormous windfall. Many assumed then that oil was a gift of God that would transform poor countries into flourishing economies within a generation. Yet even during those heady early days there were doubts. Juan Pablo Pérez Alfonso, a founder of OPEC, complained in 1975: “I call petroleum the devil's excrement. It brings trouble...Look at this locura—waste, corruption, consumption, our public services falling apart. And debt, debt we shall have for years.”

Several new publications argue that history has proved him right. A new book from the Open Society Institute, a foundation financed by George Soros, points out that resource-poor countries grew two to three times faster than resource-rich countries between 1960 and 1990 (even after adjusting for differences in population, initial income per head and other variables). Revealingly, the resource-rich countries began to lag only after the 1970s—in other words, only after oil wealth started to pour in.

The Open Society Institute publishes “Caspian Oil Windfalls: Who Will Benefit?”. Christian Aid publishes “Fuelling Poverty: Oil, War and Corruption” by Andrew Pendleton et al. The University of California recently hosted a conference on oil and human rights (the website includes links to many papers on the topic). Articles by Michael Ross are online, including “How Does Mineral Wealth Affect the Poor?”. Publish What You Pay campaigns for more openness from big oil companies. Britain's government launched the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative in 2002. See also OPEC.

Two factors explain this. The main economic problem is known as Dutch Disease, after the effects of the discovery of natural gas in the Netherlands in the 1960s. An oil bonanza causes a sudden rush of foreign earnings; this drives up the value of the currency. That, in turn, makes domestically produced goods less competitive at home and abroad. Over time, domestic manufacturing and agriculture fade and growth suffers.

Tricky as this problem is, oil economies such as Norway and Alaska have come up with a clever (though still imperfect) solution: they hive off much of the oil income into “stabilisation” funds, disbursing “dividends” to citizens slowly—directly in Alaska, via social spending in Norway—so that the economy does not overheat. Chile, one of the world's more successful developing countries, has a similar fund for its copper revenues.

Contrast this cautious approach with the recklessness of the OPEC countries of the Middle East, which expanded domestic spending by about 50% a year between 1974 and 1979. This enriched the elite, but spawned white-elephant projects and fuelled inflation of more than 15% a year. Venezuela has earned over $600 billion in oil money since the 1970s, but the real income per head of its citizens fell by 15% between 1973 and 1985. It is falling again today.

On top of these economic difficulties can come even worse political problems. Because oil infrastructure can be controlled easily by a few, it often leads to a concentration of political power. Michael Ross, of the University of California at Los Angeles, argues that oil worsens poverty by stunting democratic development, among other things. It also tends to cause, or at least aggravate, civil wars. A new report by Christian Aid, a charity, says that oil economies are more likely than non-oil economies to maintain large armies, and generally do worse on literacy, life expectancy and other measures of human development. In addition, sudden oil wealth affords ample opportunity for corrupting the politicians who award contracts to foreign oil firms. Wishful thinking?

These recent reports are troubling, but is there really any prospect of change? Surprisingly, the answer may be yes. For some time now, Publish What You Pay—a collection of activist groups—has been pestering Big Oil to reveal all the payments it makes to governments, which usually insist that such details be kept secret. Now some big investors are getting in on the act too. On May 19th, ten investment funds managing some $600 billion of assets declared their support for transparency: “This is a significant business risk, making companies vulnerable to accusations of complicity in corrupt behaviour...and possibly compromising their long-term commercial prospects.” Tony Blair has been promoting the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, a scheme that calls for voluntary disclosures. Britain now plans to push for an international approach by raising the topic at the G8 summit in France next weekend and at a ministerial meeting on June 17th.

A multilateral approach would certainly be more realistic than any national or unilateral steps. That is what BP discovered when it recently voluntarily revealed the terms of its contracts in Angola. No other oil company followed suit, and the local powers let it be known that they were displeased. A multilateral approach could involve the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which could push countries to publish the details of contracts and to set up resource funds. Some countries howl that such initiatives violate their sovereignty, but that is a smokescreen: rulers with nothing to hide would surely welcome transparency. Others, including Abu Dhabi and Kazakhstan, boast that they already have such funds—but these are weakened by a lack of proper oversight. In contrast, the American proposal for dealing with Iraqi oil revenues could result in the creation of a fund monitored by Kofi Annan.

But reform will not be easy. The World Bank recently demanded transparency in return for backing a controversial pipeline running from Chad to Cameroon. After much hesitation, both countries agreed to set up mechanisms that will allow outside monitoring of oil revenues and vowed that the funds will be used only for development purposes. The ink had barely dried on the accord when Chad's ruler was caught diverting oil money to military spending. Getting firms to “publish what you pay is an essential first step,” observed George Soros at the launch of the Open Society book, but the harder step is to get governments to “publish what you receive...and then be accountable for what you receive.”

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Friday, May 16, 2003 By: Linda Sonderman

Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 17:20:47 -0400 From: Linda Sonderman linda@alpi-group.com To: Editor@VHeadline.com Subject: Re: hitting your head against a brick wall

Dear Editor: <a href=www.vheadline.com>Gustavo has said it all. We who have worked in tourism for years, I've been in the business for over 20 years, have been battered constantly.

I compare working in tourism to hitting your head against a brick wall at least once a day. Every time we (tourism in Venezuela) make some progress ... bang, something happens to knock it down again.

I also compare tourism in Venezuela to another country I know well, the Turks & Caicos Islands.  When we first went to Providenciales (better known as Provo) in 1972, a beach front lot was selling for US$40,000 and a hillside lot with a spectacular view $8,000. There were no more than 500 residents on Provo, no paved streets, no electricity (except for a couple of privately owned generators), one field telephone on a sand dune near the beach, no TV, one small -- 8 room -- hotel, one small store, and the airport was a short coral strip with a small wooden shack for a terminal. At that time the island exported fish and Caribbean lobster or crayfish.

Today, after several changes of government, most with a good tourism policy and an eye towards development, the beach front lot is valued at over $1.5 million and the hilltop lot with a view at $200,000. There are over 15,000 residents; the roads are paved; there are 2 major supermarkets, many grocery stores, and place to purchase almost anything; the major roads are paved and the main road is in the process of being converted into a 4 lane highway; every home has electricity; most homes have at least one phone and an internet connection and there is cable TV; there are a whole slew of hotels and resorts; and a fairly modern airport with a paved runway and an ever expanding terminal.

The island still exports crayfish and fish so what is the difference -- tourism. That there have been favorable tax breaks, favorable legislation and an atmosphere to promote tourism. That is the only difference -- but what a difference it has made in the lives of every resident of the Turks & Caicos.

And, the only "touristy" product that the islands has is beach ...  can you imagine how Venezuela would be with a government that really promoted tourism, that made it easy and profitable for the tour operators and investors to function?

Venezuela with hundreds of miles of Caribbean coast, mountains, Amazonian jungle, a massive Delta, the desert area near Coro, and Angel Falls & the Gran Sabana.

No one could stop the growth in tourism ... but, every government since I have been here (over 20 years) has said that tourism is a priority for the country and none have taken the steps needed to really promote tourism...

Linda Sonderman linda@alpi-group.com Alpi Tour, Caracas, Venezuela

Posted on Thu, May. 15, 2003 JACKIE MAH Staff Writer

Diana Manrique came to Charlotte from Venezuela in 1993 to learn English and better herself. She went home, only to return seven years later to better others.

Manrique, 34, of Charlotte, who graduated Wednesday night from Central Piedmont Community College, hopes to use her degree in dental hygiene to serve Charlotte's Hispanic community.

When she and her classmates put on a dental clinic during the year for $20 per checkup, Manrique quickly spread the word through Hispanic news outlets to reach what she knew would be an initially hesitant audience.

"They are afraid because they don't speak (English)," Manrique said.

Because the need for Spanish-speaking hygienists is large, Manrique says, she has a number of job offers from which to choose.

Manrique doesn't plan on returning to Venezuela. She believes her mission, as far as she can see, is to stay and aid the Hispanic community here.

Manrique was one of about 320 graduates who walked at Wednesday's ceremony at Cricket Arena on Independence Boulevard.

Chuck Ireland, 41, of Charlotte stood toward the back of the processional with a bad case of nerves.

Elizabeth Willis, 54, of Salisbury, who graduated with a degree in interpreter education, proudly wore her daughter's black mortar board and gown.

In total, CPCC had 800 graduates this year, completing degrees in everything from arts to communication to welding and construction. Mark Erwin, president of Charlotte-based Erwin Capital Inc. and former U.S. ambassador to the republics of Mauritius and Seychelles and to the Federal Republic of Comoros, delivered the keynote address.

CPCC also offers a high school equivalency program, which saw the graduation of about 350 adults earlier in the day, including members of the so-called Lost Boys of Sudan, CPCC officials said.

"This is it, baby!" said CPCC counselor Don Taylor, as he paced with enthusiasm before the ceremony. "This is what we've been working for."

Family members craned their necks and stood on tiptoe to snap photos of the "Pomp and Circumstance" procession.

"I'm really proud of myself that I did it," Manrique said.

She took English classes at CPCC in 1993 because she had family in the area and returned to the college in 2000 because of the increasingly difficult political situation in Venezuela, she said.

Studying in a second language was difficult, Manrique said. But the long afternoons in the CPCC library didn't faze her. In addition to her studies, she gained knowledge of other cultures from her American and international classmates. They swapped recipes and took day trips, and Manrique said she made many friends.

"People thought I was the crazy one when I decided to come here because I had to sell everything," she said. "But now they say I am the smart one."