<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Thursday, June 12, 2003 By: Elio Cequea

Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 19:17:28 -0500 From: Elio Cequea Feico57@aol.com To: Editor@VHeadline.com Subject: Ex President Rafael Caldera - Revolutions and History

Dear Editor: Ex President Rafael Caldera talks about The Revolutions and History. But, among other things, he forgot to mention WHY a revolution occurs.

That IS what is important when talking about revolutions. As he indicated, most of the changes caused by them are temporal and things sometimes even return to the way they were before the revolution.

Rafael Caldera's attempt to underestimate some of the changes he mentioned in his writing is nothing but an unsuccessful shot at the significance of what is going on in Venezuela.

All revolutions are attached to a particular historical precedent and to a particular historical moment ... they're not attached to the changes that come after. Those changes are unpredictable. That is why they are called revolutions, and ours is no different.

When implicitly comparing the 1998 Venezuelan Revolution to the French and Russian Revolutions, Caldera failed to mention important similarities. All of these three revolutions were promoted and carried out by the lower social classes. All three of them were the consequence of great social-economic deterioration. The upper classes had more and more and the lower classes less and less. Things were that way until they reach the boiling point: Revolution!

Doctor Caldera did not mention any relevant differences either. Contrary to the medieval France, nobody in Venezuela from the upper classes lost his/her head in the guillotine. And, contrary to the Russia of the Czars, royal families were not massacred. All of these thanks to democracy!

We had the first Non-Violent Democratic Revolution in history!

The Venezuelan Revolution had its reasons, as well as its historical moment, similar to other revolutions. Its consequences and changes are still developing. The revolution itself is over. Thanks God it did not happened like in France or in Russia. Most of us for sure could have lost one or two family members.

Contrary to Rafael Caldera's opinion, people do change as well as history ... many things in our country will go back to the way they were before 1998. However, the same way France and Russia NEVER went back to be a monarchy, Venezuela will NEVER AGAIN go back to the political monarchy he (Caldera) helped to create.

Elio Cequea Feico57@aol.com

Interview with Scoop-CNN en Español Thursday, 12 June 2003, 12:45 pm Press Release: US State Department

Secretary Colin L. Powell Santiago, Chile June 9, 2003

QUESTION: Buenas tardes, Sr. Secretario. Do you want to say something in Spanish?

SECRETARY POWELL: No, thank you.

QUESTION: What should be the North Americans role in the new conflict of global terrorism?

SECRETARY POWELL: I think Latin America has an important role to play. Terrorism is a worldwide threat that affects every country. No country is free of terrorism, and there are many countries in Latin America that have been seriously affected by terrorism. In the case of Colombia, terrorism is a threat not only to individuals, in terms of loss of life; it is a threat to democratic institutions. It is a threat to the viability of Colombia as a democratic country. So for this reason we all have to come together and do everything we can to help those countries that are under serious threat such as Colombia. But other countries that could be under threat because of the worldwide spread of terrorist organizations that will try to get at not just U.S. interests, but also the interests of democratic nations. So I think the global war against terrorism really becomes a major security challenge for our hemisphere. When you take terrorism and you mix it up with narco-trafficking, you have a very volatile combination that affects all of us.

QUESTION: How should the guerrilla conflict in Colombia be solved?

SECRETARY POWELL: I think that President Uribe has put together and is now implementing a very effective plan to go after the guerrillas and go after the leadership of guerrilla organizations. Will there come a time when dialogue is also necessary and perhaps we can bring them to the peace table? Perhaps, but it didn t work very well under President Pastrana. So I think it is quite appropriate for President Uribe to be aggressive in defending his people, in defending his country and defending his system of democracy.

QUESTION: Talking about the war against terrorism, the United States had very little political and popular support in Latin America for the war against Iraq. How does this affect U.S. beliefs and priorities in the region?

SECRETARY POWELL: I think that, over time, people in Latin America will realize that the United States took the correct action in dealing with Iraq. Aterrible dictator who poisoned his own people with gas, who suppressed his people, who wasted their money on weapons and on threatening neighbors and on creating huge armies--a huge army and military force--is no longer there. I hope the people of Latin America will watch these pictures we are now seeing of mass graves--tens upon tens of thousands who were murdered by Saddam Hussein--and they will come perhaps to a different judgment as to whether the United States and its Coalition partners acted correctly. I think we did act correctly. One, to get rid of weapons of mass destruction--and they are there--and as we continue to unroll the documentation, as we continue to examine the sites there, I am quite sure we will find more evidence of weapons of mass destruction. And so we got rid of that. We got rid of the dictator. We will now be using the oil of Iraq to benefit the people of Iraq. And we will now have brought to justice of a regime that is no longer there, that killed people by the tens upon tens of thousands. I hope that over time the actions that the United States took will be seen throughout the hemisphere as being quite justifiable actions.

QUESTION: International opinion studies show that anti-American feeling has grown since the war in Iraq. Do you predict that this feeling will grow even more if you can t prove that Baghdad has weapons of mass destruction?

SECRETARY POWELL: No, I don t think so. I think that now that the conflict is behind us and international opinion sees that the United States is helping the people of Iraq to build a better society, a democratic society, and when people--especially people in Muslim countries--see that the United States is engaged in the peace process in the Middle East trying to help the Israelis and the Palestinians move forward, then I think that attitude will change and it will start to be realized around the world that the United States does not come to invade you, the United States is not threatening you. The United States only wants to make friends and partners around the world, not enemies. The wars we have had to fight in recent years--whether it was Gulf War I, Gulf War II, whether it was Kosovo, or whether it was what we did in Afghanistan--all of these were for the purpose of either putting down an enemy that was destroying innocent life, in the case of Al Qaida in Afghanistan, or we were saving Muslim nations or Muslim populations from assault from other Muslim nations, in some cases, and we were coming to the rescue of Muslims. I hope over time this message will get through and that people have a better view of America than is reflected in the poll that you are making a reference to.

QUESTION: Beginning on Latin America. Is the triple border between Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay a current Islamic terrorism risk zone? What should be done?

SECRETARY POWELL: I don t know how serious it is. It is something we keep an eye on, but I would not believe--I would not suggest right now--that it has become that huge a problem, but it is some something that we have to keep our eyes on and work with the parties in the region.

QUESTION: In general in the last elections of the countries in the region, including Brazil and Argentina, have been a left wing turn even closer to Cuba. What class of relationship does the United States want to establish with these governments?

SECRETARY POWELL: We will have good relations with Brazil, with Argentina. People chose what kind of leader they wanted to have. Sometimes it will be to the left, sometimes it will be to the right. But I don t think anymore that it will be to the far left or to the far right. People understand that, in order to be successful in this century and in order to have good relations with your neighbors and frankly I think it is in the interest of nations in Latin America to have good relations with the United States--it is best to elect a leadership and to elect congresses that understand the role of democracy in modern society; that will support democracy and will support transparency in government, and the rule of law; and will support open trading systems and market economic activity. Because that s how you generate investment, that s how you get people to want to invest in your country, invest to make a profit, but more importantly, by making that profit you create jobs and you provide a better life for people in those countries. And whether they are left of center or right of center, the only thing people want to know is Are you going to make my life better? I m not terribly worried about Cuba. Cuba is such an anachronism, and when I say worried about Cuba, I m not worried about new governments coming in being so friendly to Cuba, or so supportive of Cuba, that Cuba somehow becomes a threat to us again. Cuba is not a threat. Cuba is a historical relic. It is an anachronism. It is a country that in this century, in this hemisphere, still puts people in jail for 15, 20, to 25 years. For a crime? For murder? No, for speaking out, for demanding their political rights, for demanding the political rights that the countries you just made reference to have given to their people. So I hope that all the leaders of the hemisphere will ask that the Cuban people have the right to elect a left-of-center government or a right-of-center government. They have no right to elect any government, except Castro, and he is there without the freedom of his people to make a different choice.

QUESTION: How do you define the relationship between Mercosur and AFTA, as enemy or complementary systems?

SECRETARY POWELL: No, they are not enemies, but we are going through quite a transformation in trading relations in our hemisphere. We just recently signed a free trade agreement with Chile and we are moving as aggressively and rapidly as we can toward a Free Trade Area of the Americas and we still have a goal of seeing if we can accomplish this by 2005. So all the issues related to AFTA, CAFTA, and Mercosur will have to be worked through as we move forward. But I don t find these to be enemy systems as much as systems that exist and transition systems as we move toward a Free Trade Area of the Americas.

QUESTION: Is Brazilian President Lula da Silva an obstacle to FTAA, and will FTAA be reached on your time schedule?

SECRETARY POWELL: I don t know, we will have to see. I think it is achievable, but I don t want to make predictions that belong to my colleague, Ambassador Bob Zoellick, our Trade Representative.

QUESTION: Speaking about governments, as you were doing in that summary, what is your opinion about the recent agreement that the opposition and the government of Venezuela reached?

SECRETARY POWELL: We support the agreement. In my intervention--my speech at the OAS today--I expressed the support of my government for the May twenty-ninth agreement.

QUESTION: Is it enough?

SECRETARY POWELL: It is an agreement. It s a beginning. The agreement in itself is not enough. It is executing that agreement and making sure that the referendum takes place in a way that is satisfactory to the terms of the agreement is what now has to happen.

CNN: Thank you very much.

SECRETARY POWELL: Thank you very much. [End]

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 By: Gustavo Coronel

VHeadline.com commentarist Gustavo Coronel writes: As I was reading about the invasion of the Caracas headquarters of Petroleos de Venezuela by unemployed chavistas from eastern Venezuela, in furious demand of their share of the spoils, I was listening to the speech given by Roy Chaderton at the OAS meeting in Chile...

And I could not believe my ears.

In a very hesitant manner, reading from a text that seemed unknown to him up to that moment, Chaderton denounced the Venezuelan media as racist ... because they have no blacks in their TV programs or newspaper staffs.  Although this is partially true, since blacks are in clear minority in those organizations, Chaderton was getting into hot waters by saying this.

Why?  Because there are virtually no blacks in the staff of Chaderton's Foreign Ministry. And there are practically no blacks in the government TV station "Venezolana de Television."

The truth in all cases is that the mixture of racial shades in Venezuelan organizations reflect, very approximately, the percentages of those shades in the overall make up of our population. There is no conscious racial discrimination involved, although, again, there are distortions introduced by cultural and educational ingredients which are disappearing as time goes by.

The mere mentioning of this element by Chaderton as a sign of racism in the Venezuelan media is racist in itself. We have to remember that Chaderton spoke in hateful terms about the "blue-eyed and white" managers of PDVSA at the time of the April 11, 2002 events.

Racist expressions have been very rare in Venezuelan politics ... they have only been characteristic of the Chavez regime ... Chavez just said, a few days ago: "I am black and ugly but I am no communist."

The racial ingredient is ever-present in the speeches of the President, suggesting a strong inferiority complex ... this racial line of the President has been picked up by more cultured members of his staff, like Chaderton, except that it seems to be backfiring when used in international circles which know about the Venezuelan reality.

Venezuelan censa, since 1926, have never classified Venezuelans in terms of whites, 'mestizos' and/or blacks. A rough estimate indicates that mestizos make up some 70% of our population. They are of all shades, all coffee and milk, more coffee or more milk. Whites are about 20% of the total, while blacks, really blacks, make up no more than 10%.  Native indians are very few, some 1%. The fact that we are a 'mestizo' country has allowed for very permeable social boundaries, much more so than most other Latin American countries like Peru, Bolivia, Argentina or Paraguay. The limitations to this fluid ethnic situation have traditionally been derived from the historical colonial social structure, in which creoles owned the land and blacks were slaves. This has slowly evolved into a more homogeneous and tolerant social structure.

Racism against whites is also racism ... this is what Chaderton is doing as part of the political strategy of the government. He does not do this out of conviction, as he does not mix with blacks. In the Chavez cabinet, the only blacks are Maria Urbaneja and Aristobulo Isturiz.

In a very mediocre cabinet of over 20 persons they represent less than 10% of the total and, I must say, they are as mediocre as the white or 'mestizo' members. More than color, therefore, mediocrity is the dominant characteristic of the government team.

Perhaps worse than the racial issue brought up by Chaderton was the religious issue. In Venezuela 75% of the population is Catholic, about 20% Protestant and 5% belong to other denominations or to none. There are some "adepts" of Maria Lionza, the sorceress, as well as some enthusiastic followers of Voodoo ... some at the highest levels of the government. There is a beautiful Muslim mosque and a very influential Jewish community lives side by side with Muslims. The Constitution allows total freedom of religion and ecumenical events frequently take place in total harmony.

• This is the reality of the country that Chaderton has badly misrepresented in Chile, blasting Christians as "very dangerous" people ... as criminals like Hitler and Stalin.

The objective of these highly artificial charges was no other than to reiterate Venezuela's alignment with the Muslim world ... not so much in a religious sense but in a political sense. Chaderton's whole deplorable speech was designed to irritate the US further, to insult Secretary of State Colin Powell ... Powell, a Black Christian, listened in a dispassionate manner, but will certainly not forget.

When I referred to the Chavez government team as resembling a lunatic asylum I was not trying to be disrespectful, but factual. Our memory of Felipe Perez and his religious admonitions is still fresh. The person in charge of the currency blockade quotes the prophet Malachi at every possible moment.

Military strongman Baduel claims to have had 5 lives before this one ... on national TV hookup, Chavez describes the voodoo maneuvers being attempted against him ... Chaderton keeps an autistic countenance except when he is being racist ... Minister Cabello sings continuously the theme song of the revolution while Isturiz and Urbaneja dance the merengue. Anybody would have reasons to worry about this bunch.

One feels like Casey Stengel, when managing the original New York Mets ... he kept asking: "Does anybody here knows how to play this game?"

Gustavo Coronel is the founder and president of Agrupacion Pro Calidad de Vida (The Pro-Quality of Life Alliance), a Caracas-based organization devoted to fighting corruption and the promotion of civic education in Latin America, primarily Venezuela. A member of the first board of directors (1975-1979) of Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), following nationalization of Venezuela's oil industry, Coronel has worked in the oil industry for 28 years in the United States, Holland, Indonesia, Algiers and in Venezuela. He is a Distinguished alumnus of the University of Tulsa (USA) where he was a Trustee from 1987 to 1999. Coronel led the Hydrocarbons Division of the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) in Washington DC for 5 years. The author of three books and many articles on Venezuela ("Curbing Corruption in Venezuela." Journal of Democracy, Vol. 7, No. 3, July, 1996, pp. 157-163), he is a fellow of Harvard University and a member of the Harvard faculty from 1981 to 1983.  In 1998, he was presidential election campaign manager for Henrique Salas Romer and now lives in retirement on the Caribbean island of Margarita where he runs a leading Hotel-Resort.  You may contact Gustavo Coronel at email gustavo@vheadline.com

Our editorial statement reads: VHeadline.com Venezuela is a wholly independent e-publication promoting democracy in its fullest expression and the inalienable right of all Venezuelans to self-determination and the pursuit of sovereign independence without interference. We seek to shed light on nefarious practices and the corruption which for decades has strangled this South American nation's development and progress. Our declared editorial bias is pro-democracy and pro-Venezuela ... which some may wrongly interpret as anti-American. Roy S. Carson, Editor/Publisher Editor@VHeadline.com    © 2003 VHeadline.com All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy Website Design, hosting and administration by: Integradesign.ca 

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic news Posted: Monday, June 09, 2003 By: Gustavo Coronel

"I repeat.... I will be in power until 2021, possibly beyond"...  Hugo Chavez, in a national TV and Radio hookup, April 6, 2003.

"The Venezuelan revolution is the younger sister of Mao's revolution" -- Hugo Chavez, in his farewell to Whan Zhem, departing Chinese Ambassador to Venezuela, April 9, 2003.

VHeadline.com commentarist Gustavo Coronel writes: When the President of a democratic country says what he said on April 6th there are only three possible explanations, since such a statement represents an open violation of our legal and constitutional framework:

1. The person is mentally disturbed;
2. The person is irresponsible, or,
3. The person is declaring his intention to place himself above and outside the Law of the Land.

There is an even worse alternative: that the person combines all of the problems above listed. Whoever listened to all or part of the speech given by the President April 6 will attest to the truculence of the language, to the lack of verbal restraint which characterized the outpour and to the waves of violence and hate for dissidents that he transmitted to the listeners. This is the worst we have heard from his lips. This behavior suggests some type of mental disturbance, the more dangerous since it afflicts a top public servant. This has already been expressed by Dr. Franzel Delgado Senior, president of the Venezuelan Association of Psychiatry ... a man who should know what he is talking about.

In parallel, the President exhibits an irrepressible tendency to behave like a TV showman. He can not find the proper balance between being sober and being over frivolous, which greatly detracts from the majesty of the Presidency.

But, worst of all, the continuous reference to his stay in power far beyond the period which the constitution allows (Article 230) and our laws dictate, clearly represent a serious offense. It is not enough to say that he has not done it since he is clearly telling us that he intends to do it. If I stood in Main Street shouting that I am going to kill the President and the police just laughed at me when passing by, they would not be doing their job. They should take me into custody, run some mental tests to discard insanity and, then, put me in prison, either because of my lack of civic restraint (falta de respeto) or because I am a potential killer and can not be left on the loose.

The equivalent of the police for matters of State and for serious constitutional violations in our country is the armed force. We have never been involved in a war since independence and, still, we manage to spend an average of $1.4 billion per year in military equipment. The justification for this expenditure is that the armed force acts as the guardian of our territorial integrity and as protectors of our constitution (Article 328). However, our armed force is doing much less than their job. Our territory is being systematically violated by irregular armed groups of Colombians and by Brazilian "garimpeiros" who destroy our environment with their brutal mining in our rivers for gold and diamonds. Our constitution is being violated by a President who is placing himself above and outside the law. The duty of the armed force is to restrain him and restore the majesty of the Law. This has nothing to do with a military coup but with the correct application of constitutional checks and balances. In fact, not restraining the immoderate servant of the State would, in itself, constitute the coup.

While the issues described above make up the essential malady of our country at this moment, the crisis increases by leaps and bounds all across the board. The National Assembly is in chaos, after the government lost their fragile majority over the intended Gag Law for the Media.  As a result, the government group called an illegal meeting away from the Assembly headquarters and replaced the dissident members with their alternates, all in violation of existing legislative procedures. As a result the National Assembly is close to dissolution. This and other signs of political disintegration have combined to place Venezuela as next to last in the ranking of the OAS on Efficiency of Governance, only above Paraguay. The internal debt, which was $900 million in 1998 is now over $11 billion, while minister Nobriega is touring the First World trying to get loans of up to $5 billion to balance the 2003 budget, an effort bound to fail given the discredit of the government in international financing circles.

The latest actions by the government have given a second air to dissidents, fatigued after the national strike. The adversaries of the government are again on the move, propelled by indignation due to the unethical behavior of the government.

By trying to place himself above and outside the Law, President Chavez is unleashing a new wave of popular and civic protests which will have unpredictable consequences. At first sight only two outcomes are possible: either the President will have to go, or he will emerge as a dictator. In a way, therefore, no matter what happens, this crisis marks the end of the "normal" Presidency of Hugo Chavez, the "democrat." Only the coupster remains.

Gustavo Coronel is the founder and president of Agrupacion Pro Calidad de Vida (The Pro-Quality of Life Alliance), a Caracas-based organization devoted to fighting corruption and the promotion of civic education in Latin America, primarily Venezuela. A member of the first board of directors (1975-1979) of Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), following nationalization of Venezuela's oil industry, Coronel has worked in the oil industry for 28 years in the United States, Holland, Indonesia, Algiers and in Venezuela. He is a Distinguished alumnus of the University of Tulsa (USA) where he was a Trustee from 1987 to 1999. Coronel led the Hydrocarbons Division of the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) in Washington DC for 5 years. The author of three books and many articles on Venezuela ("Curbing Corruption in Venezuela." Journal of Democracy, Vol. 7, No. 3, July, 1996, pp. 157-163), he is a fellow of Harvard University and a member of the Harvard faculty from 1981 to 1983.  In 1998, he was presidential election campaign manager for Henrique Salas Romer and now lives in retirement on the Caribbean island of Margarita where he runs a leading Hotel-Resort.  You may contact Gustavo Coronel at email gustavo@vheadline.com

<a href=www.newsday.com>NewsDay.com

Maracaibo, Venezuela - Six months after Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez turned back nationwide strikes and protests against his rule, his opponents are organizing a new effort to oust him - this time via the ballot box. This country of 25 million people has seen some of Latin America's nastiest politics in recent years as Chavez's leftist policies and pugnacious style have helped divide the country between those who love him and those who would love to see him gone. Starting in December, Chavez's opponents held a nine-week strike that shut down oil exports and the economy, but failed to dislodge Chavez from power. Last year, a coup by military and business leaders ousted Chavez for two days in April before collapsing. Those crises, and periodic street clashes between supporters of the two sides, have raised worries that this country, one of the United States' top four oil suppliers, could slide into civil war. Last month, the Organization of American States, backed by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, guided the government and opposition into signing an agreement to fight for power according to the constitution. That allows the opposition to petition for a referendum on a president's mandate after the halfway point of his term, which for Chavez will be Aug. 19. Thus, the opposition, which appeared dispirited after the failure to oust Chavez last winter, is finding new energy. "All of our efforts are for the referendum," said Nerio Romero, regional secretary in Maracaibo for Democratic Action, one of the country's two traditionally dominant parties. Still, the May 29 accord does not guarantee that a referendum will be held, or that Venezuelan politics will be made more polite. The accord is "encouraging," said Michael Shifter, a senior analyst with a Washington-based think tank, the Inter-American Dialogue. Still, "a lot of things need to be worked out," he said. "Will the opposition be unified? Will there be enough international pressure? Will Chavez work in good faith?" Under the accord, the opposition will have to present 2.5 million petition signatures to force a referendum, and the government is barred from altering the ground rules for such a vote. The government and opposition are arguing over the appointment of a National Electoral Commission, which would set the date and the rules for a referendum. The legislature, where Chavez supporters hold a slim majority, has nominated two Chavez backers and two opponents to the five-member commission, but is deadlocked over the crucial final seat. The opposition accuses the government of trying to pack the supreme court and to render the legislature a rubber stamp. On Wednesday, legislators threw papers, shoved and screamed at each other in the National Assembly over government plans to change its operating rules to eliminate some quorum requirements. Venezuela was for generations one of Latin America's stablest democracies, but one in which the vast majority of people live in miserable poverty alongside the wealth of a tiny elite. Chavez, a former paratrooper who attempted a coup in 1992, won a landslide vote six years later with his promise to reduce inequalities with a populist revolution. In office, Chavez has alienated many with incendiary rhetoric and authoritarian tendencies. The opposition coalition - including unions, business groups and media companies - says Chavez has alienated foreign investors and seeks to impose a Cuban-style communism. Chavez denies this. "It looks like [the opposition] is beginning to accept that to get rid of me they'll have to work hard in the streets and follow the constitution," said Chavez, after the OAS-brokered agreement was reached. The new round of Venezuela's political battle will be fought amid the shambles of a weakened economy. The gross domestic product fell 8 percent last year - and 29 percent in this year's first quarter as a result of the December-to-February strike. Unemployment is around 25 percent and the currency, the bolivar, has plunged, sharply escalated the price of imports and thus the cost of living. "There's no money," lamented Franyi Rivas, 28, who sells women's clothing from a stand in a Maracaibo street market. He estimated that his sales have dropped 80 percent from a year ago. Rivas blamed the economy's troubles on the anti-Chavez opposition "for not letting the government work." Chavez consolidated his grip on many national institutions after the coup and strike, firing dissidents and replacing them with his loyalists. But his popularity has stayed low - at 36 percent, according to a prominent polling firm, Datanalisis. "If the opposition motivates the people to vote, they'll beat Chavez," said Luis Vicente Leon, Datanalisis' director. "The [opposition] advantage exists, but it isn't much." Leon said he expects Chavez to use legal mechanisms to delay any referendum and to promote abstention to undermine any vote that is held. Even if Chavez's mandate were revoked in a referendum, the Constitution does not bar him from running in the elections to follow. So unless the fractured opposition manages to rally around a single candidate, Chavez could win re-election with a plurality of the vote.