<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Monday, May 26, 2003 By: Oscar Heck

VHeadline.com commentarist Oscar Heck writes: I recently watched a Canadian TV program called “Venture,” where Amy Chua was interviewed. Amy Chua has recently written a book called, “ World on Fire”, which I will soon buy.  What Amy Chua said in the interview brought back memories … memories of Venezuela and of many other countries worldwide.

She spoke of “democracy” and how “democracy” (as understood by western standards) almost automatically implies “free-market-economy”. In other words, most westerners believe that democracy and free-market-economy goes hand-in-hand, regardless of socio-economic structures.

Her basic premise appears to be that “western-style democracy” can “work” in some parts of the world but that it does not “work”, and even creates a negative effect, in many other parts of the world, especially in those parts of the world where the economy is traditionally held and controlled by an “ethnic” minority.

She gave the example of Indonesia, which became open to “democracy” in the late 1990s and how the economy essentially backfired (even though the USA praised the fact that Indonesia finally became “democratic”). She mentions that traditionally, the Indonesian market-economy (including the boom) was controlled by the 3% “Chinese ethnic minority” along with a minority of corrupt Indonesians (and others).

Amy Chua intimated that once “democracy” began to flourish, the Chinese ethnic minority (and their minority corrupt Indonesian cohorts) began to get richer and richer while the vast majority of Indonesians became poorer and poorer. As well, the traditionally restrained majority of Indonesians (the people that basically never had a voice) began to speak up against oppression and corruption to the point that the Chinese minority “left” Indonesia (with billions of dollars, of course ú est. US$40-100 billion) in order to escape further assaults upon them.

She also gave another example … when she attended a conference at a university in South Africa. After the conference, the “white” professors would invite many of the conference-goers to their “place”. Their “places” were huge ranches, fully equipped, and “apt” to receive many guests. Amy Chua brought up an additional example. In the USA, if a USAP from a small “poor” hamlet in the outback of Arkansas (e.g.) watches Bill Gates on TV, that person will most probably not “curse” Bill Gates for being so rich, for two reasons: Bill Gates is also a USAP and it is “envisionable” for the “poor” USAP to dream that his/her child may one day be like Bill Gates.

• In many countries throughout the world, it does not work that way.  In the USA, Canada, and most “western” civilizations, there are reliable infrastructures and social services that are common to the majority.

In many other countries, a person only has access to reliable health-care, education, banking, etc, if one comes from the “ethnic minority” … and not from the majority. Therefore, once “democracy” enters the picture and the minority rich get richer, the poor get poorer and more and more frustrated and angry.

She contends that this syndrome started about 15 years ago and will be on the increase worldwide. As I understood her, she also believes that, although western-style-free-market-democracy has its merits, it must not be exported blindly. If entire reliable infrastructures (accessible to the majority) were to be exported simultaneously along with free-market-democracy, then that would perhaps work … however, it is not realistically doable.

She mentions that it is not realistic to expect a formerly “non-democratic” country to go from “non-democracy” to “western-style democracy” overnight (quick democracy). It took “western” countries, 40 or 60 or 100+ years of refinement and fine-tuning to arrive at a system that includes the “majority” and that is accessible to the “majority.”

Coming back to the example of Bill Gates. In Venezuela, a young person watching Ricky Martin on TV from his/her leaky-squeaky “rancho” in the barrios could never aspire to be another Ricky Martin. However, a young Venezuelan person watching the same show on TV from his/her “humble” seven-bedroom-five-bathroom summer cottage on the Caribbean can certainly aspire to be another Ricky Martin. The reliable infrastructures in Venezuela have traditionally been mostly accessible to the “minority.”

• I argue that even if the opposition and the USA and others believe that Venezuela had a “democracy” before Chavez, they are not telling the real truth.

What Venezuela had was a pseudo-democracy controlled by a small minority and not accessible to the majority. It will take years for Venezuela, under Chavez or others, to arrive at what could resemble a western-style democracy.

• I believe that Chavez is opening the doors towards this future. I also believe that it is unfair and unjust for the opposition (and the USA) to propagate the idea that Chavez is a communist or that the pre-Chavez Venezuela was a true “democracy.”

True democracy in Venezuela will be achieved when all Venezuelans will have equal (or almost equal) access to reliable infrastructures such as health-care, education, social services and equitable treatment.

If Venezuela’s opposition would concentrate on such issues rather than scream and yell about how they are losing their grip on the traditional economic control that they have inherited, then the Venezuelan opposition might have a fighting chance to attract people from the “majority” towards their side.

Chavez is attracting people to his side because he is actually trying to get things done, unlike the destructive actions that the opposition has been betting on in the last year or so.

• I believe that Amy Chua has some very interesting and valid points … and some of her points apply very well to Venezuela.

For all you “scholarly types” out there, Amy Chua is a professor at Yale Law School. She is also from the “ethnic Chinese minority” in the Philippines. She is not a communist-loving, peace-and-love, anti-USA, anti-globalization hippie terrorist activist.

Oscar Heck oscar@vheadline.com

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Thursday, May 22, 2003 By: Roy S. Carson

Having used the plight of beautiful Miss Venezuela 2003, Mariangel Ruiz to create worldwide headlines, shadowy billionaire Gustavo Cisneros has stepped in to save the maiden in distress by paying for the trip out of petty cash.

Cisneros had played the political violin strings with precision as he launched his media network into overdrive, with Miss Venezuela as the centerpiece, attacking the Venezuelan government saying that Mariangel could not attend the June 3 Miss Universe pageant in Panama because she (personally?) could not get the necessary greenbacks to pay for her participation.

The international PR coup had all the hallmarks of Cisneros' own shadowy participation in the April 11, 2002 coup d'etat against democratically-elected Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Frias but low-keyed the reality that Cisneros' television syndicate is literally rolling in US revenues from Spanish-language TV stations across America as well as his key participation in Time/AOL, Coca Cola etc.  There was effectively "no way, Jose" that Cisneros was NOT going to have Miss Venezuela turn up for the event, considering the multi$ million revenues the Misses always make for the mogul.

Then, having garnered the worldwide negative publicity he so expertly craved against the Chavez Frias regime, Cisneros played his Howard Hughes' role to a T and called Panamanian organizers Tuesday to tell that Miss Venezuela will indeed be participating in the annual Miss Universe pageant ... he staged to rescue the "damsel in distress" in a supreme show to upstage the Venezuelan government, battling on a home front to contain the economic damage caused by the USA-backed coup d'etat last year and continued rebellion by corrupt elites.

Cisneros' VeneVision TV channel had claimed last week that foreign exchange controls imposed by President Hugo Chavez Frias had prevented it from obtaining $80,000 to send Miss Ruiz (23) to the pageant ... Miss Venezuela president Osmel Sousa had said his organization had the funds in the local bolivares but couldn't exchange them for dollars.

But the Cisneros organization ploy to discredit the government was neatly holed when Edgar Hernandez, the president of CADIVI (the government agency in charge of authorizing dollar sales) said the Miss Venezuela organization hadn't even bothered to apply for dollars ... but that he would consider granting a fast-track currency conversion if officially asked.

Venevision TV executives have remained resolutely mum following Hernandez' explanation and had persisted in their original claim that Venezuela's economic woes threatened Miss Ruiz' candidacy.  Cisneros claims Chavez' government is cracking down on his personal freedoms while Chavez Frias says there is conclusive evidence to show that Cisneros had been involved in destabilization efforts against his reform government.

GRANMA

CARACAS (PL). — Venezuelan Foreign Minister Roy Chaderton condemned the meddlesome declarations of Charles Shapiro, the U.S. ambassador to Venezuela this Wednesday, and stated that it is dangerous to talk benevolently about persons who violate fundamental human rights.

Currently on his way to Moscow, Chaderton’s statement was made public by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs as a response to Shapiro who, in a highly publicized meeting in his residence, criticized alleged limitations regarding freedom of expression in Venezuela.

"I hope that the (ambassador’s) statement refers to the media dictatorship that exists in Venezuela, where last year the private media channels took part in the overthrow of a legitimate government. They kept information concealed from the public and have spent years manipulating information," said the minister.

Chaderton added that it is very difficult to be benevolent to those who, in the private sector, are violating fundamental rights such as the freedom of expression, the right to free movement and a good reputation.

"The proven and self-confessed enemies of democracy, institutions and freedom of expression, they are entrenched within the private sector and conspiring to launch a new assault against the Republic’s legitimate powers, in the hope of international support," Chaderton emphasized.

During the reception at his residence, Shapiro made a clear threat to the Venezuelan government by warning that the United States is taking the alleged official aggression to the freedom of the press very seriously and expressed its support for the owners of the private media channels, those who are involved in a ferocious campaign against President Hugo Chávez.

At the same event, he even allowed Daniel Natera, newspaper boss and Press Bloc president to call for the press to continue "the fight against Chávez and his dictatorship," and a comedian, carrying an effigy of the head of state, to make jokes at the government’s expense.

• Fidel participates in an International Solidarity Encounter in Havana’s International Conference center • Representatives of more than 120 trade union organizations from 47 nations sign the call not to admit any military aggression of Cuba

BY ALDO MADRUGA—Granma daily staff writer—

A call to intensify solidarity with Cuba at a time when a real threat of aggression by the world superpower is hanging over the island was signed by representatives from more than 120 trade union organizations from 47 countries participating in an International Solidarity Encounter at Havana’s International Conference Center, presided over by President Fidel Castro.

The document also calls for increased efforts for the release of the five Cuban patriots unjustly imprisoned in U.S. jails, which means diffusing the real reasons behind their heavy sentences in very hard conditions in all parts of the world.

Pedro Ross, general secretary of the Central Organization of Cuban Trade Unions (CTC), welcomed the delegates and expressed gratitude for the solidarity of those who, together with the Cuban people, are raising their voices for a just and dignified peace, against warfare, genocide and the real threat of a fascist global dictatorship, and who oppose the evident intentions of the United States to become the force of "world law and order" and initiate further "liberating crusades" like the one it has just executed against the suffering Iraqi people.

He called on those present as part of the international labor movement, and intellectuals, campesinos and students from all over the world, and the U.S. people in particular, to develop a giant and powerful common front against those current U.S. government aspirations.

Basing his argument on official U.S. State Department documents like Project Cuba and the Helms-Burton Act, Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada, president of the National Assembly of People’s Power, demonstrated how the empire’s obsession to erase the Cuban Revolution from the face of the earth dates back to the very moment of the triumph of the Revolution in 1959, when nothing more than the Agrarian Reform Act had been drawn up, and how, on the outside, its strategy has changed very little since then, and not at all in its essence of hatred.

He stressed that at this time the U.S. government sees itself as the master of the world, with the greatest arsenal of military machinery that the empire has ever owned, as well as the owner of the planet’s major mass media, and is even too brazen to deny that it is employing terrorism against Cuba and will continue to do so.

Honest and impassioned speeches from trade unionists and representatives of solidarity groups from all over the world all expressed the determination to close ranks alongside the Cubans and oppose by all possible means the reach of the destabilizing trap being internationally orchestrated against Cuba and whose objective is to facilitate a military aggression to do away with the system of social justice defended for more than 40 years.

Representatives from trade unions and other organizations in the United States, Ecuador, Mexico, Canada, Zambia, Norway, Trinidad and Tobago, the United Kingdom, Colombia, Spain, France, Austria, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Venezuela, Belgium and Switzerland spoke out at the meeting. "Leave Cuba in peace" was a phrase repeated in most of their messages.

Gloria La Riva, president of the Free the Five Committee in the United States spoke on the efforts underway in that country to inform people of the truth concerning these Cuban patriots and proposed using paid announcements in the main U.S. dailies.

On behalf of the families of the prisoners and all Cuba, Irma Sehwerert, mother of René González, one of the Five, an experienced trade unionist who began her struggles for the workers in a factory in the nation where her son is currently imprisoned, expressed gratitude for all the international moves to free the Five.

She confided that she has suffered much as a mother during the five years that her son and his comrades have been resisting taunts and torture, but at the same time, as a Cuban and revolutionary, has felt a deep pride at the courage of those who, in the very den of the Cuban-American mafia in Miami, in a courtroom filled with its most notorious capos, pointed to them and spoke the truth to their face.

She acknowledged the importance of solidarity to achieve the release of the Five, and called on everyone not to falter in the battle to alert the world to the tremendous injustice being committed against them.

San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center by Noam Chomsky Wednesday April 30, 2003 at 10:10 PM

"It had been recognized for some time that with new technology, the industrial powers would probably lose their virtual monopoly of violence, retaining only an enormous preponderance." New Political Science,Volume 25,Number 1

It is widely argued that the September 11 terrorist attacks have changed the world dramatically, that nothing will be the same as the world enters into a new and frightening “age of terror”—the title of a collection of academic essays by Yale University scholars and others, which regards the anthrax attack as even more ominous.1

It had been recognized for some time that with new technology, the industrial powers would probably lose their virtual monopoly of violence, retaining only an enormous preponderance. Well before 9/11, technical studies had concluded that “a well-planned operation to smuggle WMD into the United States would have at least a 90 percent probability of success—much higher than ICBM delivery even in the absence of [National Missile Defense].” That has become “America’s Achilles Heel,” a study with that title concluded several years ago. Surely the dangers were evident after the 1993 attempt to blow up the World Trade Center, which came close to succeeding along with much more ambitious plans, and might have killed tens of thousands of people with better planning, the WTC building engineers reported.2

On September 11, the threats were realized: with “wickedness and awesome cruelty,” to recall Robert Fisk’s memorable words, capturing the world reaction of shock and horror, and sympathy for the innocent victims. For the first time in modern history, Europe and its offshoots were subjected, on home soil, to atrocities of the kind that are all too familiar elsewhere. The history should be unnecessary to review, and though the West may choose to disregard it, the victims do not. The sharp break in the traditional pattern surely qualifies 9/11 as an historic event, and the repercussions are sure to be significant. The consequences will, of course, be determined substantially by policy choices made within the United States. In this case, the target of the terrorist attack is not Cuba or Lebanon or Chechnya or a long list of others, but a state with an awesome potential for shaping the future. Any sensible attempt to assess the likely consequences will naturally begin with an investigation of US power, how it has been exercised, particularly in the very recent past, and how it is interpreted within the political culture.

At this point there are two choices: we can approach these questions with the rational standards we apply to others, or we can dismiss the historical and contemporary record on some grounds or other.

28 pages more. <a href=sf.indymedia.org>Read the complete article.