<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic news Posted: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 By: Kay Onefeather

Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 10:28:09 EDT From: Kay Onefeather Kaonefeather@aol.com To: Editor@VHeadline.com Subject: Senor Gomez

Dear Editor: Amnesty-Venezuela issues strong condemnation of Venezuelan government.

Senor Gomez, Amnesty International has done impressive work, in other parts of the world. However, I cannot seem to find your statements of condemnation against opposition (anti-government) forces in Venezuela.

Surely, you have issued such statements regarding:

• Deliberate sabotage, attempting to cripple the economy, and the entire country of Venezuela.
• Blatant threats against a residing President
• Manipulating media sources against a ruling government during a national lockout. (Isn't the lockout itself, illegal?)
• Continued attempts to undermine, and manipulate public opinion against their President, and their government.
• Decades of below-minimum wages paid to workers, which most assuredly has lead to continued poverty facing the country.
• Poverty, suffered by the majority of people in Venezuela for decades, but only NOW seems newsworthy.
• Lack of health care for the majority of people, again for decades, and again only NOW gaining media attention.

Of course, you condemn those forces the government must battle daily, while trying to improve conditions in Venezuela.

But, I would very much like to read your condemnation of those aforementioned acts and their perpetrators.

Could you direct me to THAT statement of condemnation?

Kay Onefeather kaonefeather@aol.com

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic news Posted: Monday, June 09, 2003 By: Patrick J. O'Donoghue

Minority opposition parliamentarians have stated that they will not attend the National Assembly (AN) until institutionality has been restored. Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS) leader Leopoldo Puchi says they will ask the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ) to declare decisions taken by the majority parliamentary bench at El Calvario to be null and void. 

However, international opinion seems to be the main trump card the opposition will brandish to win support and moral backing. "Parliamentarians of the world will be surprised to see how the government is attempting to eliminate a public power with a long tradition." 

The opposition has promised to call public protests to indicate public rejection of the government's attack on parliament and given the Coordinadora Democratica full authority to organize street action. 

Independent observers comment that the opposition position means more freebies to Washington and the capitals of Europe, especially Spain and a continuation of dependence on international bodies to govern Venezuela.

Perhaps opposition politicians will be surprised to find less sympathy among foreign parliaments than they imagined ... running abroad to complain about events at home could backfire as politicians urge Venezuelans to sort out their own problems. 

The opposition will also be hard put to explain their approach to majority-minority democracy, as well as their constant obstructionist tactics. 

The Panama News By: Eric Jackson

If you pay a lot of attention to the international corporate mainstream media, you will have heard that Venezuela is an economic basket case whose leader is a media-bashing Fidel Castro wannabe who's about to be recalled by the voters. You may have even read some of that in the opinion sections of The Panama News, along with contrary views.

There is, however, another side to the story that's rarely told by the major news corporations. That includes Panama, and the trend will continue for now, as this reporter was the only journalist present at Excedra Books on May 27, when Ramon Alfredo Lopez Martinez, the cultural attache at the Venezuelan Embassy in Panama City, defended the government he serves.

Lopez's presentation was long and in a few parts tedious. Beginning with a brief video about the events surrounding the abortive April 2002 coup, he systematically responded to four common allegations:

• That Hugo Chavez is a dictator;
• That Hugo Chavez is a Castro-style communist;
• That there is no freedom of expression in Venezuela; and
• That the state controls everything in Venezuela.

The video, "Conspiracion Mortal," offered a version of the events leading to last year's coup attempt that has not been heard much outside of Venezuela.

You may recall that on April 11, 2002, a large crowd, urged on by Venezuela's commercial broadcasters, made its way toward the presidential palace in Caracas with the intention of overthrowing President Chavez. The palace was guarded by troops and a crowd of government supporters. Sniper fire broke out, killing several people. A group of military officers, accusing Chavez of ordering the troops to fire on demonstrators, declared themselves in rebellion. Chavez was taken into custody and the head of the Chamber of Commerce was declared head of a new ruling junta. Rioting broke out in the poor neighborhoods where there is strong support for Chavez, and troops loyal to the president restored him shortly thereafter. Since the president's restoration, there have been major arguments about who really shot whom on the day of the coup.

Ah, but according to Lopez and the video he showed, the order of events described above was wrong, and that, he argues, says a great deal about who's telling the truth and who isn't. Conspiracion Mortal might be easily dismissed as commie propaganda, but for the fact that one of its main sources is Otto Neustald, a respected reporter for CNN's Spanish-language network who has no particular political allegiances in Venezuela. He was covering the story in Caracas that day, and he and others noted something VERY odd -- the rebellious military officers announced that protesters had been shot down at Chavez's orders BEFORE any shooting started. The conclusion that the video and Lopez draw is that the shooting was part of the coup plot, not something that the president ordered, and that those who were trying to overthrow the government exposed themselves by their bad timing.

The attache then launched into a lengthy review of Venezuelan political history since 1998. In December of that year some four decades of two-party rule by the Accion Democratica and COPEI parties came to an end with Chavez taking about 56% of the vote despite the two major parties' fusion behind a single candidate. "This is the origin of democratic change in Venezuela," Lopez claimed.

There followed an April 1999 referendum in which Venezuelans by a 92% majority called for the creation of a Constituent Assembly to "reform all of the state institutions." Chavez supporters won 121 of the 131 seats in that assembly the following July, and in December of 1999 the voters approved the new constitution that they wrote. "It was a revolutionary process," Lopez said, "but a democratic and peaceful revolutionary process."

The new constitution provided that all elected public officials would have to face new elections, which were held in July of 2000. In that round of voting Chavez won some 60% of the vote. His political party, the Movement for the Fifth Republic, won only 75 seats in the 165-member unicameral legislature, but with 11 allies from smaller parties gained a working majority. On the opposition side, Accion Democratica won the most seats with 25, while COPEI won 7 and a number of other parties split the rest.

The new constitution provided that certain things could pass by a simple legislative majority (which Chavez has) and other things require a two-thirds majority (which he doesn't have).

One of the things that could be and was adopted by a simple majority was an enabling law allowing the President to issue certain decrees. That Chavez did, on a host of matters from the name of the country (now the "Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela") to oil and gas regulations, and most controversially, decrees on development along the coastlines and land tenure. Chamber of Commerce president and later dictator-for-a-day Pedro Carmona brought a lawsuit to have all of these decrees nullified, but did not prevail.

The new constitution provided for several different kinds of plebiscites -- initiatives and referenda to pass or repeal laws, advisory votes and recalls of public officials. All of these four processes have different rules under the constitution, Lopez explained.

This past December and January, the opposition called a management lockout that was supported by labor strikes in some sectors and bolstered by street protests and other measures in an effort to force an advisory vote on whether Chavez should step down. The president insisted that an advisory vote on a public official stepping down is merely an unconstitutional shortcut for a recall and insisted that if the opposition wants to recall him, they will have to follow the constitutional procedures.

Although the argument caused a 63-day crisis in Venezuela's crucial oil industry, differences between the two sorts of plebiscites has not been much discussed by the international corporate news media.

A Venezuelan advisory vote can be held more or less any time. Its proponents must gather the signatures of 10 percent of the voters. With 50% of the votes plus one more, the measure passes.

For a recall, however, proponents must gather the signatures of 20% of the voters in a given district for a lower-level official and nationwide for a President. Such petition drives can only take place after half of the official's term has been served -- that will be in August, in Chavez's case. In a recall election, there must be at least a 25% voter turnout for any result to be binding. Moreover, to recall a public official there must be more votes, in absolute terms, than were cast to elect him or her. Thus to recall Chavez, at least 3,757,774 votes would be required as he received one vote less than that in the 2000 election at which 56.6% of the registered electorate showed up at the polls.

All this suggests that even if the polls published by Venezuela's opposition press are to be taken at face value, the conclusion most frequently reached by the international corporate news organizations -- that Chavez is likely to lose a recall vote later this year -- may be more a matter of wishful thinking than reality.

According to Lopez, the opposition's bid to hold a vote under the easier consultative referendum rules did enormous economic damage to Venezuela. Although he dismissed the lockout and strike as "half effective at its height," disruption of the oil industry cost the country $3.626 billion, and another $2 billion in cash was taken out of the country. The attache also noted that "during 63 days, the commercial media didn't broadcast one single commercial."

There ensued a long discourse on the Venezuelan economy (the tedious part of the lecture). "Oil for Venezuela is like the canal is for Panama," Lopez explained, defending his boss's role in OPEC, which has entailed visits to world leaders that Washington doesn't much like in an effort to win higher prices for his country's main export. "The US has twisted this to say 'he's a terrorist because he visited Iraq and Libya," he argued, but "when Chavez came to power Venezuela was getting a nickel a liter and his foreign policy was aimed at raising that, which has happened."

Lopez also noted the special deals that Venezuela has given to Latin American neighbors that don't have oil, including Panama. Chavez has been criticized in the US and by the Venezuelan opposition for giving Cuba preferential petroleum deals, but the attache said that the Cubans pay the same prices that Panama does, but pay in part by providing doctors for the Venezuelan public health care system.

"This concerted, systematic campaign about the 'Cubanization' of Venezuela conflicts with the basic communist principle of expropriation," Lopez alleged. His country's constitution, like those of Panama and the United States, guarantees private property rights and requires compensation when property is taken by eminent domain.

Lopez also defended a proposed new press law that was under consideration back in Caracas as he spoke. "In Venezuela, not one medium has been closed," he argued, adding that "if there's a fault, it's with the media." He said that the legislation is not for the purpose of limiting freedom of expression, but to stop the incitement of violence. "What we're looking to do is to prevent the kind of thing that happened on April 11," he concluded.

www.thepanamanews.com

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic news Posted: Sunday, June 08, 2003 By: David Coleman

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Frias has given additional fodder to the opposition media, describing himself as "ugly and sometimes coarse" ... but denies emphatically that he is a communist or that communism would ever be introduced in Venezuela. "The opposition keeps trying to compare me with Cuba's Fidel Castro ... but I am NOT a communist, if I were, I'd say so directly because I have no 'hairs on my tongue' ... Fidel Castro is my friend and brother, yes, he's a communist, but the Venezuelan project is NOT communist and could never be such."

Speaking on his weekly "Alo Presidente" national radio and television broadcast earlier today, Chavez Frias brushed aside opposition accusations that he is intolerant, and says he can readily accept that there are people who do not share his vision for Venezuela or his ideology ... "I understand that I am not a golden boy to the whole world ... I'm ugly ... I'm black with mixed indian blood ... that's me "I'm proud of my mixed-race ancestry and I'm a little coarse sometimes ... but what can I do? I cannot change the way I am."

The President has called on public institutions to act responsibly and in time to avoid major problems.  "We simply cannot have people calling for a coup d'etat ... we must act quickly to deal with desperate opposition sectors whose only goal is to overthrow the government.  I am calling on all members of the National Assembly (AN) to avoid violent confrontations like last week's rumpus in the Legislature -- that was a kind of coup d'etat aimed at overthrowing Congress itself."

Chavez Frias suggests that the citizenry and his allies in the Legislature, who command 51% of the 165 seats, should urgently ask for a judicial process against "rebel deputies who have attempted to sabotage and impede the proper functioning of parliamentary process." That session of Congress was suspended after opposition deputies brawled and began to set fire to parliamentary order sheets.  AN president Francisco Ameliach had suspended the session which was re-convened on the steps of El Calvario on Friday under a security blanket provided by 5,000 soldiers.

Former AN president Willian Lara said Friday's assembled quorum was able to approve a partial reform of the Assembly's Internal Debate Rules where the opposition has for three months attempted to block approval of 43 laws reforms seen as critical to getting Venezuela economically back on its feet again.

Vocal opposition leaders complain that approval of the reform laws poses limitations on fundamental rights in Venezuela but President Chavez Frias says "the majority of the Venezuelan people want peace ... what we want now is for public institutions to close ranks to avoid the violence and chaos that the anti-government conspirators want to spread.  The opposition should take pause to reflect on the fact that it is they who are creating violence, but it will not impede Venezuela's progress to transformation and peaceful reform."

"Part of this would be for the media to cease their poisonous campaign against the government, seeking to falsify what is good and true about my government and myself ... for example, they will be making little of the fact that today we can announce a loan of $250 million from the Central Bank of China to construct a 180 kilometer long aqueduct to secure supplies of drinking water to the people in Falcon State.

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Sunday, June 08, 2003 By: Roy S. Carson (OPVPR: Official Paid Version, Please Reply)

The anti-Chavez Venezuelan Community Abroad (VCA) grouping has issued a press release ahead of an Organization of American States (OAS) assembly in Santiago de Chile, Monday,  claiming concern that the Venezuelan government will not comply with the Recall Referendum enshrined in the Bolivarian Constitution ... "the Venezuelan Community Abroad requests that the Group of Friends of Venezuela and international observers closely monitor the Venezuelan political process during until the country’s crisis is resolved."

Houston-based VCA contact person Cristal Montanez writes that "after seven months of negotiations between representatives of the opposition and the government, a 19-point Agreement was signed. The historical accord embodies the hopes of the majority of the Venezuelan people who want to participate in referendum vote to revoke the mandate of the autocratic government of Hugo Chavez, after August 19 of this current year."

Claiming that the Venezuelan opposition today comprises a majority of the country's population, Montanez continues that it "feels the need to communicate to the international community their deep mistrust of the agreement, since it sets no date for the recall referendum and is not binding. Since President Chavez was elected in 1998, he has shown a tendency to disregard agreements, laws, and even our constitution. We are concerned that he will also disregard the terms of this new accord."

VCA then admits that the agreement it mistrusts "mimics Article 72 of the Venezuelan Bolivarian Constitution, which states that the mandate of an elected official can be revoked after the midterm of his period."  The proceeds to state that "during the past few weeks, the government has taken an aggressively repressive stance against the opposition, refusing dollars to the private sector, and creating new laws that threaten our fundamental freedom of expression and our right to protest. In addition, it is arming urban militias called Bolivarian Circles, who (whose?) role is to intimidate and suppress the protest actions of the opposition, violating all the rules and regulations contemplated in the International Human Rights code."  In a complimentary addition to the slugfest Montanez adds that "The Bolivarian Circles are trained by Cuban military officers who are active in the country."

In a press release that appears honed to misinform North American newspapers, radio and television broadcasters, the opposition VCA demands that "international observers are urgently required to monitor the creation of the new National Electoral College (CNE) ... a prerequisite for the referendum, and the verification of signatures ... so that the recall referendum doesn’t become yet another unfulfilled promise. Without the assistance of the "Group of Friends" of Venezuela, the Organization of American States, the Carter Center and the PNUD, we (VCA) are concerned that the recall referendum will never materialize."

So far so good in the preemptive propaganda attack from Houston-base; the spin-doctors are obviously concerned that the Chavez Frias government will not abide by the 1999 Constitution ... totally forgetting (or conveniently laying aside) the fact that it was they, the opposition, who enacted the April 11 coup d'etat which saw the installation of Dictator-for-a-Day Pedro Carmona Estanga, who promptly dissolved the Constitution, the Congress and the Courts...

But let's continue:  VCA says it is imperative that these international organizations acknowledge the obstacle included in the Bolivarian Constitution, which states that if the people do not succeed in recalling the President’s mandate before he enters the last two years of his term, then there are no new elections, and the Vice President becomes President, completing the remaining portion of the term. That would mean that even if President Chavez’s mandate is recalled, the Vice President might still become President until 2006 (articles 71, 72, 231 and 233 of the Venezuelan Bolivarian Constitution).

Just a question:  Is there a 1999 Constitution or isn't there?  Was it not democratically authored by a democratically-elected National Constituent Assembly?  Was it not approved by a majority of Venezuelans in a December 15, 1999 National referendum?  Were not democratic elections duly held in accordance with that Constitution which returned the current government to power, in full compliance with all its democratically-arrived-at Articles?

NOW: In obvious rejection of the judicial process as well, VCA says that an February 3, 2003, the Venezuelan Supreme Court (TSJ) decided that the mid-term of President Chavez’s period is August 19, 2003.

Here comes the switch ... "By delaying the referendum until 2004, he (President Chavez) can then pressure the Supreme Court to revisit their decision concerning the Presidential term, and declare in a new ruling that their earlier decision was not in keeping with the Constitution, which clearly states that the Presidential term begins in January."

Come in Houston ... we have a slight problem with your speculation!

PR Cristal Montanez goes off into an extraterrestrial trajectory to conclude that the Supreme Court could declare that his term began in January of 2000 ... "not only would such a decision by the TSJ cause confusion about the referendum date, but it would also mean that if Chavez is still in office on January 1st, 2004, then there is not way to revoke President Chavez’s mandate before 2006."

Hey, come on Cristal and friends ... stop searching the skies for visitors from other planets, you're already spaced out ... the Constitution clearly states that a recall referendum's process begins after August 19 ... take August 20 as a starting-gate.  The opposition needs to gather its wits about it before that date to get together a series of Constitutionally determined prerequisites ... a number of supervised and authenticated signatures from registered voters to request a revocatory referendum; approval of such a referendum petition by the National Assembly (AN) and then due process by which to call a proper YES/NO vote on Chavez or whomsoever else will be subject to revocatory procedures.

Yes, we know you want a revocatory referendum with only one end result!

OAS General Secretary Cesar Gaviria has somewhat optimistically said that an eventual revocatory referendum will get off the ground sometime in November ... but looking realistically at Venezuela as we know it, yes, the date will probably be projected into December or perhaps even further into the early months of 2004.

But to extrapolate the lethargy of Venezuela's political process into a conspiracy theory of black helicopter proportions to "demonstrate" the rabid opposition's pet theory of impending Doom & Gloom is taking things a bit too far, don't you think?

...and you have to remember who it was who attempted to impose a dictatorship on April 12, 2002 ... and who moved immediately to dissolve the Constitution to which (rightfully) the VCA lays such fond acclaim, the democratically-elected Congress and the Courts!

We've seen clear and present evidence that it is elements within the Venezuelan opposition that wants to overthrow the Constitution ... we've seen no substantiation of allegations that the same qualifications apply to the Chavez Frias government...

Instead of screeching cat gut to orchestrate your violin serenade to the foreign media, Cristal, you should take pause for introspection and, as said "Come in Houston, we have a problem..."

Venezuelan Community Abroad (VCA): Cristal Montanez may be contacted at email: CJoslin@aol.com or telephone number +1-713-823-3621