<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 By: Yasmin y Federico

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 23:09:46 -0400 From: Yasmin y Federico elbotuto@cantv.net To: Editor@VHeadline.com Subject: get it straight

Dear Editor:  Explain to Francisco Rivero that in 1958, when Perez Jimenez was ousted, there were 8,000 "ranchos" in Caracas ... and in 1970 there was what was called "the ring of misery around the city" that was hundreds of thousands of ranchos.

Is that what he calls "explosive economic growth and improving well-being in Venezuela."

Mr. Rivero: Explain your father's point to the fascist crowd on the corner of Calle 5 de Sta. Eduvigis who, tonight (Tuesday) at 8:30-9:00 p.m. ... with whistles and horns and a megaphone, yelling "Muera Chavez, Muerte Los Chavistas," "Sta. Eduvigis es de la oposicion", and hypocritly "no queremos division," "libertad," "no a la dictadura, fuera el dictador" etc. That means: "Die Chavez; Death to the Chavistas," "Sta. Eduvigis (our neighborhood) is for the opposition," "we want no division," "freedom," "no dictatorship, out with the dictator."

Yasmin y Federico elbotuto@cantv.net

<a href=>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Monday, April 28, 2003 By: Francisco Rivero

Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 19:14:59 -0400 From: Francisco Rivero riverofjr@hotmail.com To: Editor@VHeadline.com Subject: Re: Venezuela's social-political past

Dear Editor: Nice try to Elio Cequea ... in his story there are fantastic strands of magic realism, half-baked truths and outright nonsense.

I wonder how would you explain the explosive economic growth and improving well-being in Venezuela during the 1950s thru 1970s.

What happened with your villains on those years?

It seems to me that your story’s "leit motiv" is to create villains people love to hate.

You know, my father used to tell me “nothing good has ever come from hate and resentment...”

Get a life! and get your story straight!

Francisco Rivero riverofjr@hotmail.com Caracas, Venezuela

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 By: Francisco Rivero

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 20:19:20 -0400 From: Francisco Rivero riverofjr@hotmail.com To: Editor@VHeadline.com Subject: In response to Mrs. Dawn Gable

Dear Editor: Mrs. Gable claims she really knows what’s going on in Venezuela ... she has spent several months before and after April 11, 2002 ... she has visited us several times since ... she has traveled extensively, spoken to many people and witnessed first hand what is really happening here.

She discredits Mr. Labartino better claim to really know what’s going on in Venezuela to his gullible appetite for propaganda ... with a single stroke she disqualifies every thinking Venezuelan who dares to risk a divergent opinion on what’s is really going on in Venezuela ... she apparently knows best!

It is sad and worrisome that there still are around so few people such as Dawn Gable who are too prone to believe their own lies and half-truths, and so quick to talk about the responsibilities and accountability that come with acknowledging the truth and acting upon it.

As a Venezuelan I have no qualms with VHeadline.com and celebrate really independent reporters who are not afraid to tell the truth, whatever it may be ... I very much doubt Mrs. Gable fits the profile.

Francisco Rivero riverofjr@hotmail.com

<a href=frontpagemag.com>FrontPageMagazine.com By Michael Radu FrontPageMagazine.com | April 21, 2003

Recently, following a pattern understood by all but American liberals, Fidel Castro again did something he always does in response to U.S. efforts to improve relations with Cuba. He answered renewed congressional efforts to weaken the embargo by cracking down on the opposition. In the past, when then-President Jimmy Carter tried to improve ties, we wound up with the Mariel exodus and the emptying of Cuba's jails through migration to the U.S.; when Bill Clinton tried to improve relations, it ended up with American citizens being blown out of the skies  by Castro's fighter planes and yet another mass send-off to Florida. This time, when a combination of greedy Republicans from farm states and leftist Democrats tried to weaken the embargo in the name of free trade, Castro answered by jailing 79 dissidents for sentences totaling over 2,000 years.

Even the communist, Portuguese José Saramago, Nobel laureate in Literature and supporter of any leftist cause this side of the Milky Way, declared in an interview with Spain's El Pais that "This is my limit." ("Saramago critica ejecuciones en Cuba," AP, April 14). This reminds one of the late 1960s, when Castro's Stalin-like purges of intellectuals forced Jean-Paul Sartre, another lifelong fellow traveler, to reach his limit with Fidel. And Miguel Vivanco of Human Rights Watch, whose goal seems to be indirectly helping the Marxist-Leninist terrorists/drug traffickers of Colombia's Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC) by blasting every effort of that country's democratic government to fight FARC, also seems to have seen the light. He criticized the UN Human Rights Commission's proposed resolution condemning Castro's persecution of dissidents and demanding that they be released as "weak . . . a slap on the wrist."

Those conversions, along with the fact that the UN resolution was submitted by Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Uruguay and Peru, are the good news from a UN organization now improbably chaired by Libya. Costa Rica aside, the Latin sponsors have paid heavy prices in fighting and defeating Marxist-Leninist insurgencies over the past few decades. They know what communism is, does, and may lead to.

There is another, less symbolic but darker side to the issue. Argentine president Eduardo Duhalde, a lame duck but nonetheless representative of his people's feelings, declared that Argentina will abstain from voting on the Resolution, calling the timing of the vote "inopportune" given the "unilateral war [in Iraq] that has violated human rights." Brazil will also abstain and in Mexico some 50 leftist intellectuals and the majority in the Mexican Congress have asked President Vicente Fox to abstain as well. They could not bring themselves to support Havana, but, again using Iraq as a pretext, claimed that abstention is the best way to deal with Castro. As Mexico's human rights ombudsman stated, regretfully, "only poor countries are condemned" and thus, in his logic, condemning Cuba is unfair - in effect asking for some kind of proportional condemnation, regardless of  realities.

Ultimately it comes down to fundamental differences among the Latin countries. The politics of most of the larger of them vis-à-vis the United States are adolescent, based on the desire to demonstrate independence from Washington. Nowhere is this more evident than in Mexico. To support the U.S. position on any matter, from the treatment of rocks on Mars to dissidents in Cuba, is politically dangerous, opening a leader to accusations from the intellectual elites of being a "gringo puppet." These elites have a disproportionate, and usually nocive impact on politics. In Brazil those sentiments are enhanced by most Brazilians' emotional belief that their country, by virtue of its size and relative economic power, is entitled to a leading role that Washington unfairly challenges.

It was the very same adolescent politics that led the left-of-center governments of Brazil, Ecuador, and Venezuela to recently refuse to do the obvious, common-sense thing: to declare as terrorists the three irregular forces-FARC, the smaller, also communist National Liberation Army (ELN), and the anti-communists of the United Self-Defense of Colombia (AUC)-that are trying to destroy or avoid the democratic government of neighboring Colombia. They refused to do so despite the fact that FARC at least, and certainly soon enough the AUC, which is hunting them, operates across the borders in Panama, Ecuador, Brazil, and especially Venezuela, whose government is openly supportive of the insurgents.

In the case of Mexico, which has a seat in the UN Security Council (likely to the chagrin of President Fox), not supporting the U.S. approach to the Iraq issue was not a foreign policy or national interest issue, but one of national identity. Supporting the United States is a "sell out to the gringos." Teenagers of the world, unite!

In Chile, the most rational and pragmatic country in Latin America and certainly the most successful in economic, free-market terms, the story is the same, and equally depressing. President Lagos, a Socialist leading a coalition with the Christian Democrats, had never behaved as a socialist in either economic or political terms until Iraq, when he had Chile withhold support for the United States in the Security Council. Why? Because of anti-Americanism. It does not cost much, it is popular-especially in a country where hating capitalism and the United States is still popular among elites and the small (3 percent in the last elections) but organizationally effective Communist Party. Likewise with enthusiastically supporting whatever Havana does. Furthermore, Santiago, like Ciudad de Mexico, Brasilia, and Buenos Aires, still has difficulty understanding that Washington is less tolerant of adolescent games now than prior to 9/11. When President Bush stated that "those who are not with us are against us" in the war on terror, most Latins did not take it seriously. They may well have to now.

Ultimately, abstaining on or voting against a largely meaningless UN criticism of Cuba is itself irrelevant. However, a combined accumulation of Latin American positions suggests that when it comes to choosing between the obvious violations of freedom by one of their own (Havana) and supporting anything proposed by the United States, most Latin American governments will choose opposing Washington.

Understanding this, now let's consider both Castro's recent summary execution of thee ferryboat hijackers and the broader issue of how these Latin American attitudes toward U.S. global positions will affect their U.S. relations.

On the first issue, there is only one thing to say: a hijacker is a hijacker, period. As for capital punishment, it remains what it always was - a matter of political culture. Latins are fast to condemn US executions, especially when they involve their own citizens, but have little or nothing to say when Castro sentences people to death.

As to the price Latin America will pay, some sort of price for their recent behavior? Mexico is clearly doing its best to diminish, if not destroy, whatever support there was in Congress for the legalization of millions of its nationals living illegally in the United States. Chile was a legitimate applicant for NAFTA membership and possessed all the right social, economic, and political credentials, but it has how raised questions about its belonging there. Instead of facing Congressional opposition only from U.S. Democrats opposed to free trade, it will also now face opposition from Republicans, whether they are for or against free markets.

Washington must make clear that being "anti-gringo" just on principle cannot continue in the age of international terrorism. Behavior should cost in terms of how many benefits one can expect to continue from Washington. Opposing the United States on matters of American security should have a cost in that regard, and Washington should impose it. Mexico, Chile, Brazil, and Argentina should be convinced that the cost is real and immediate.

Michael Radu is Senior Fellow and Co - Chair, Center on Terrorism and Counterterrorism, at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia. ---------------------------__---- My friend, there is a Fifth Column in America, an enemy within. It's the so-called "peace movement." Sign the e-petition to EXPOSE THE ENEMY WITHIN to editors and producers of the nation's largest newspapers, news magazines, and network newsrooms. Click Here to Sign the E-petition

Daily Review from veninvestor.com

April 10, 2003

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

"Everybody where I live knows the guerrillas are on the other side of the river, that they maintain their camp there. Everybody knows this. Everybody." - Maria, a villager who lives on the Colombian-Venezuelan border, concerning the presence of FARC guerrillas in Venezuela   "The immediate challenge of reestablishing macroeconomic stability will require addressing the government's large borrowing requirements and removing the recently imposed exchange and price controls." - International Monetary Fund Report on Venezuela   "We have faith, we hope that a recall referendum takes place, according to the Bolivarian Constitution" - US Ambassador to Venezuela, Charles Shapiro       Good day,   While the War in Iraq seems to have ended, the struggle to institute democracy in Iraq has only started. Yesterday, we watched as many Iraqis celebrated the end of a Saddam era, stomping their shoes against images of the ruthless dictator.  Others, who were not shown on US channels, cried from fear and frustration, even when they admitted that they didn't want Saddam in power.   Why weren't the Iraqis jubilant when the US and British forces first arrived? Because they were living in a regime of terror, where any show of emotion meant death. One woman, clumsily waving to the troops, was quickly hanged by her own townspeople. People were willing to speak against the regime off camera, reporters said, but they knew that challenging the regime on camera could end their life.   Elsewhere, Castro took advantage of the war by quickly imprisoning and sentencing anyone those who opposed his regime, including journalists, poets, and activists.  "Last week, Fidel Castro's government started a series of closed-door trials of 78 dissidents, many of them associated with the Varela Project, a grassroots petition drive seeking more democracy in Cuba," reports the Financial Times. "On Monday, 36 of them were convicted...given prison sentences ranging from 12 to 27 years."   Then there's Chavez.  Even as the US signals that dictators that abet terrorists will no longer be tolerated, Chavez insists in meddling with the FARC.  Reuters reports that "Venezuela on Wednesday rejected allegations by Colombian border residents that its aircraft bombed a village in Colombia last month in support of leftist rebels fighting right-wing paramilitaries."  In fact, "Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has ordered an inquiry into the allegations by border residents that Venezuelan military helicopters and planes crossed into Colombian airspace on March 21 and bombed a border hamlet at La Gabarra, in North Santander province, killing and wounding several people."  The Washington Post reports: "If corroborated by the Colombian government, the bombings would be Venezuela's first military foray into Colombia's civil war."  The FARC began an offensive late last month to retake this region from the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), according to the Washington Post. "The paramilitary force fights the FARC alongside the Colombian army in much of the country. But here, say refugees and paramilitary commanders who do much of the fighting, they face a new adversary: the Venezuelan military."  And the accounts are overwhelming. "According to accounts from a dozen refugees who have arrived here over the last two weeks to escape a fresh surge of fighting, Venezuelan military aircraft bombed paramilitary positions inside Colombia on March 21 and again a week later to the south in a way that helped a rebel scorched-earth campaign gain momentum across the northeastern frontier," the Washington Post reports.   The Washington Post also provides "Watching War in the Shadow of U.S. Power: Latin America Paying Close Attention to Events in Iraq."  It provides snippets from the war coverage in Latin America. "In Tal Cual, an independent daily in Caracas, columnist Vilma Petrásh dismisses the argument, often made by Chavez supporters, that the U.S.-U.K. invasion was motivated by oil. She argues that Iraqi daily production of 2.8 million barrels of oil a day is comparable to Nigeria or what Venezuela was producing as recently as a year ago, but far behind the big three oil producers, Russia, United States and Saudi Arabia. To return to 1980 levels of production would take three years and $7 billion worth of investment, she says."   While Venezuelans understandably lament the documentary release of "The Revolution will not be Televised," a couple of books on the market provide a succinct view of the Venezuelan reality, much needed after Amy Chua's "Globalization: The World on Fire.". One is "Democracy Challenged: The Rise of Semi-Authoritarianism," by Marina Ottaway.  "Despite their growing importance, semi-authoritarian regimes have not received systematic attention. Marina Ottaway examines five countries (Egypt, Azerbaijan, Venezuela, Croatia, and Senegal), which display the distinctive features of semi-authoritarianism and the special challenge each poses to policy makers. She explains why the dominant approach to democracy promotion isn't effective in these countries and concludes by suggesting alternative policies."  While I don't agree that better alternatives exist to democracy, I do believe that democracy doesn't begin and end with elections, as the Venezuelan experience has demonstrated. Democracy also entails an implicit agreement to abide by universal standards of human liberties and a system that promotes a balance between the executive, legislative, and judicial powers, all gone from Venezuela. When a democratically elected president begins to abuse his own people, an international system should exist to castigate the perpetrators, leading them to either institute justice or forgo their position. A nation doesn't only elect a leader, but an orderly political system that works in their interest.  The president is merely the supplier of that system. When the political contract is broken, a nation has a right to demand change.   The New York Times reviews "The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracies at Home and Abroad", by Fareed Zakaria.  Mr. Zakaria provides a cautionary note on elections. His book "is a calm antidote to the fervency of those who want to force elections down the throat of every society, no matter what its particular circumstances and historical experience. As any foreign correspondent knows, there are all kinds and gradations of dictators." The New York Times reports: "Because social and economic conditions in much of the non-Western world now approximate those of Europe between the wars, Mr. Zakaria is able to catalog a vast array of instances in which the electorate's will led to the retrenchment of liberty. In 1994 voters in Belarus overwhelmingly elected the extreme nationalist Aleksandr Lukashenko as their president. The recent crackdown on independent news media by President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was sanctioned by the electorate in opinion polls. In 1998 Venezuelans elected as their president Hugo Chávez, the angry populist and cashiered army colonel who then eviscerated the legislature and the judiciary."  The challenge for the opposition in Venezuela will be, of course, to pressure Chavez to agree to elections, and also to provide one candidate that can beat him. Recent polls show that Chavez would pummel a divided opposition, as much as the opposition may not want to smell the flowers on this one. The other challenge will be to convince the radical elements of Chavistas that they will be included in any new government, so that governability does not become a problem for the new government.   Local News...   *  The government will spend over 23 billion to celebrate the events of April 2002.     *  Vice-President Rangel again accuses Colombia of neglecting the border.   

• President Chavez swore in the Presidential Commission for the Local Council of Public Planning,  which the government said were modeled after the Committees for the Defense of the Cuban Revolution.
• An entity that coordinates electric energy production and transportation between private and public companies warned of an imminent collapse of electricity services in the country.   *  According to the IMF, Venezuela will be the only country in the continent to suffer a contraction in 2003.   *  Venezuela intends to produce over 5 million bpd in five years according to PDVSA´s president.   Opinions

Today, I've provided two opinion pieces. The first is a commentary and stratfor report by former PDVSA director, Pedro M. Burelli.  The Stratfor Report is titled "The Farc, Venezuela and Brazil: Growing Security Concerns in South America."

In "Let's just call it Operation Free Iraqi Oil", The Straits Times reports that among the threats to American supplies: "Venezuela, America's fourth biggest oil supplier, is also unreliable. The Bush administration is not enamoured with the regime of President Hugo Chavez, which has cultivated close political links with Cuba, Libya and even Mr Saddam. And the recent crisis in its oil industry, when production ceased after thousands went on strike to protest Mr Chavez's appointment of cronies in the state-owned oil company, has made America wary and forced it to search for alternative sources."

Events and Announcements

A Memorial Mass remembering the victims of violence in Venezuela will take place on April 11 at 6:00 pm at the Blessed Sacrament Church on 71st street, between Broadway and Columbus Avenue in New York.   The Consulate of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in New York will show the film "The Revolution will not be Televised."  Then, Consul General Leonor Osorio Granado and Consul Juan Pablo Torres will speak.  The event will take place at the Consulate's Gallery at 7 East 51st St. on Friday, April 11 at 6:00 PM.   For upcoming events, please check www.11abril.com, www.proveo.org, www.amigosny.com and www.veninvestor.com.   I hope you are safe, content, and peaceful, wherever you are,   Alexandra Beech

Research Staff Carlos Penug (international news) Sol Maria Castro (local news) Conchita Fernandez (Research and Translations)