www.guardian.co.uk

Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles Wednesday January 22, 2003 The Guardian

Former President Jimmy Carter has proposed as a solution to the crisis in Venezuela a binding referendum on Hugo Chavez's presidency and a shortened presidential term, in exchange for his opponents ending their strike, which has now lasted 52 days.

On Friday the foreign ministers of the newly formed Friends of Venezuela group - the US, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Spain and Portugal - meet in Washington to make another attempt to break the deadlock.

The dispute brought another death on Monday: a man was shot dead and 15 others were injured when the president's supporters and opponents clashed in Charallave, 20 miles from the capital Caracas.

The former president's Carter Centre has been assisting the negotiations in Venezuela for some weeks. Mr Carter's arrival in the country earlier this week was seen as a sign that a compromise might be within reach.

He proposes a referendum in August which would end Mr Chavez's presidency if it went against him. Mr Chavez has always said that he was prepared to submit to a referendum, which is allowed by the constitution.

His opponents say the country cannot wait that long and have been pressing for a vote on February 3.

The other part of the Carter plan is to shorten the presidential term from six years to four. Mr Chavez, three years in office, has said he would accept that if the electorate and congress agreed.

Before leaving Venezuela Mr Carter was hopeful about the reception his plan has received. "My opinion is that both sides want to end an impasse that is destroying the economy," he said.

Comunicación de Amnistía Internacional

Como quiera que la comunidad internacional está asumiendo un papel cada vez más activo en la crisis que atraviesa Venezuela, Amnistía Internacional ha indicado hoy que a la hora de tratar de encontrar formas de evitar una crisis política y una mayor polarización de la situación se debe partir, entre otros principios rectores, de una orientación global hacia la promoción a largo plazo de los derechos humanos.

La organización ha añadido: "La falta de respeto de los derechos humanos desde hace tiempo es una de las causas de la crisis, por lo que lo normal es que los instrumentos nacionales e internacionales creados para proteger tales derechos sirvan de marco para promover la resolución de esta crisis".

Si bien en estos momentos gran parte del debate se centra en cuestiones electorales, Amnistía Internacional ha instado a la comunidad internacional, y en especial a los países que integran el "grupo de amigos de Venezuela" y a las organizaciones de derechos humanos regionales e internacionales, a que promuevan una estrategia global basada en el pleno respeto de los derechos humanos como elemento fundamental para fortalecer el Estado de derecho.

El programa de derechos humanos propuesto por Amnistía Internacional para resolver la crisis venezolana hace hincapié en los siguientes aspectos:

• reforzar la justicia, entre otras formas, garantizando la independencia del poder judicial, y poner fin a la impunidad de que gozan los responsables de violaciones de derechos humanos cometidas en el pasado y en el presente a través de investigaciones imparciales y exhaustivas y de juicios sin dilación;
• garantizar que las fuerzas armadas y de seguridad no desempeñan una función política, sino que permanecen subordinadas a las autoridades civiles, y que actúan de forma imparcial y ajustándose plenamente a las normas relativas al uso de la fuerza;
• garantizar la libertad de expresión y el derecho a la información;
• permitir que los defensores de los derechos humanos realicen su labor sin temor;
• poner en práctica políticas concretas y eficaces para combatir la pobreza extrema y la exclusión, que han contribuido a la polarización extrema que sufre la sociedad venezolana.

Todos los agentes políticos venezolanos tienen la obligación de garantizar que estas cuestiones señaladas se abordan de forma seria y eficaz. Por su parte, la oposición debe asumir la responsabilidad, cuando ejerza su derecho legítimo a la libertad de expresión, reunión y asociación, de elegir métodos de protesta que no conculquen salvaguardias constitucionales.

Amnistía Internacional ha indicado: "Con demasiada frecuencia todos los partidos implicados en la crisis han instrumentalizado el argumento de los derechos humanos, apropiándose de él, manipulándolo y distorsionándolo para utilizarlo como otro arma más con el que fomentar la polarización y el enfrentamiento".

La organización ha añadido: "Ha llegado el momento de considerar el respeto absoluto de todos los derechos humanos de todos los venezolanos como uno de los pilares sobre el que construir una solución viable y duradera a la crisis. La comunidad internacional tiene un papel importante que desempeñar a este respecto".

Información general César Gaviria, secretario general de la Organización de los Estados Americanos (OEA), ha estado facilitando las negociaciones entre la oposición y el gobierno para lograr una resolución pacífica de la crisis. Hasta el momento estas negociaciones no se han traducido en resultados concretos. La crisis política que venía amenazando la estabilidad política en Venezuela durante el pasado año alcanzó una nueva cota con la huelga general convocada por la oposición que comenzó el 2 de diciembre y que se encuentra actualmente en su octava semana. Se corre el peligro de que la situación de extrema tensión en el país desemboque en graves violaciones de derechos humanos.

Como respuesta a la tensión exacerbada y la aparente renuencia de las dos partes enfrentadas a encontrar una solución pacífica negociada a la crisis, varios gobiernos extranjeros han propuesto la formación de un grupo de países "amigos de Venezuela" que contribuyan a fomentar una solución negociada a la situación. Los países que integran este grupo son: Brasil, Chile, España, Estados Unidos, México y Portugal.

Dear Mr. Weisbrot I read your article on Venezuela that appeared in Sunday's Washington Post ("A Split-Screen in Strike Torn Venezuela" www.washingtonpost.com) and felt compelled to write to you about it. I am a Venezuelan, and I oppose Pres. Chavez, but in this letter, I do not intend to insult you or disregard everything you say. I know you have traveled to Venezuela and are aware of the shouting matches that sometimes pass off as discussions in the current political environment. I would simply like to point out several aspects of your argument that are, in the opinion of many, mistaken.   You state that what is happening is an "oil strike" rather than a general strike. That is probably true, although in Venezuela it is hard to distinguish the two. You also correctly state that private media is controlled by the opposition, and is increasingly biased against the government. What you fail to acknowledge is that, like in any country with a semblance of democracy, they have a right to be biased. Moreover, the state media, which is supported by our tax bolivares, is shamelessly pro-Chavez. You also fail to address why the media is biased against Chavez the way it is. Have you ever wondered what would happen if Pres. Bush continuously denounced CNN as being opposed to his agenda, or blaming NBC news for a strike, for causing economic chaos and the loss of his popularity? What would happen if Republican activists attacked the offices of CNN, or threw rocks at Andrea Mitchell or Wolf Blitzer? What if Mr. Bush were to use NPR as his personal propaganda machine? Do you think this would win Mr. Bush the favor of the media and/or reporters? True, the private media is pretty biased against Chavez. What do you propose to remedy this? Censorship? Takeover of TV stations?   The issue of the media is a complicated one. Ask any government and they will always complain about the media being after them. However, competent governments have an informational strategy that consists  of a bit more than berating, demeaning and threatening major media outlets. That is the least one would expect from a respectable administration - to work with the media in spite of the media's hatred of the government. This, however, is not how the Chavez regime operates.   You talk about the media shamelessly blaming the government for the Plaza Altamira massacre. On January 3rd, two "chavista" supporters were killed, apparently in a shootout that began when they violently confronted a much more numerous opposition march. The president and all his cabinet quickly blamed the Metropolitan Police and used the occasion to "deepen the intervention" of that body, forgetting that many Metropolitan Police officers and opposition marchers were also shot at and wounded. No proof, no fair judgment, no legal process was needed. Why do you not mention this? Is it bad when the media passes judgment without proof, but OK when the President does it? Shouldn't they be held to at least the same standard? Or perhaps, shouldn't the President be held to a higher standard? After all, if one doesn't like a particular channel, one can turn it off. It is much harder to turn off the government. I simply do not understand why you tolerate the behavior of Chavez when you find the same conduct in private media outlets inexcusable.   You say that the view in Caracas' barrios is that the opposition is bent on unfairly overthrowing a government that represents them. Why, then, do all opinion polls give Chavez at the most 30% support? Have the barrios all of the sudden become the minority in Venezuela? Has the country been taken over by the middle and upper classes? Reasonable polling shows that Chavez has minority support even within the poorest. The majority of the population (rich and poor, dark and white) want him out because Chavez has been a terrible President, and you know it. Independent polls state that close to 90% of the populations want early elections to end the standoff. How this is compatible with what you claim is the majority view in the barrios?   You also describe the oil situation saying: "Over the last quarter-century PDVSA has swelled to a $50 billion a year enterprise, while the income of the average Venezuelan has declined and poverty has increased more than anywhere in Latin America. Billions of dollars of the oil company's revenue could instead be used to finance health care and education for millions of Venezuelans." You're right, they could be. The questions is, what has Chavez done with all the oil income he's received? Your paragraph above would also describe the Chavez revolution's economic and social record. Are you aware that since Chavez took office, oil exports have increased 41% relative to the previous four years, public spending has increased (in dollar terms) by 46%, and yet real GDP per capita has declined by 17%, capital flight has increased 950%, the minimum wage has gone from $177 a month to $137 a month, unemployment has gone from 11% to 17% (and climbing), and crime has nearly doubled? Are these not important indicators? Do these seem like indicators of a progressive administration that is addressing poverty? Or, perhaps in your view, the poor don't mind greater unemployment and crime as long as the person on top looks and talks like them.   The Chavez government inherited many social and economic problems. This is undeniable, and is actually the cause of his ascension to power. However, any objective analysis has to conclude that Mr. Chavez has only made matters worse and that poverty has indeed increased, whether it is the fault of striking workers, businesses or his own fault. Moreover, this has happened under favorable external conditions, with a high price of oil. This administration's performance is simply inexcusable considering all the political, institutional and, yes, economic support it had at the beginning of its term. Most of Venezuela's elites and the media were quick to endorse Chavez when it was clear he was going to win comfortably in 1998. For two years, Col. Chavez held sky-high popularity levels, only to squander them due to inefficiency, corruption and permanent confrontation.   You also talk about class and race. Indeed, there are certain levels of classist and racist sentiment among the Venezuelan opposition. These are feelings all mixed societies face: after all, how many poor or black presidents has the U. S. had? However, this didn't prevent people from massively backing Chavez in the beginning. Have we all of the sudden discovered that Chavez is not white and not from the posh neighborhoods of Caracas? I'm afraid your line of argument on this matter cannot overcome the obstacle of Chavez's previous popularity. Nor can it overcome the high social mobility present in Venezuela, at least when compared to other Latin American countries.   Finally, you talk about the U. S. role in this whole crisis. I understand your reasons for criticizing the Bush administration on this matter, since you have an agenda like many Washington think-tanks do. However, the CIA and all its might would have never been able to orchestrate the massive demonstrations against the government taking place all over the country. Your over-emphasis of the U. S. in this crisis undermines the immense effort that millions of Venezuelans are undertaking to get rid of a corrupt, inefficient government that is a threat to its democracy. These people are not being paid, and they are not being manipulated. They are simply expressing their anger and frustration at a government that has simply become unviable and unable to address the basic needs of the Venezuelan people.   And, on a final note, go blue.   Best regards,   Juan C. Nagel Ph. D. Candidate Department of Economics The University of Michigan

vh80299.vh8.infi.net John Sullivan January 7, 2003   Striking oil workers of Petroleos de Venezuela, SA, hold their daily meeting recently in front of anchored oil ship Morichal in Maracaibo Lake in western Venezuela. The strike has paralyzed oil exports and helped drive international oil prices above $30 a barrel. Venezuela is the world's fifth-largest oil exporter and a top supplier to the United States.

LAFAYETTE - Motorists will soon be seeing the effects of civil unrest in South America in the prices they pay for gasoline, and just where they are will depend on how much.

"We are finally beginning to see the see the actual impact of the Venezuelan strikes in U.S. markets," said John Eichberger, Director of Motor Fuels for the National Association of Convenience Stores. "As the crude market continues to rise and supplies become more constrained, there will be a market reaction and retail prices will increase."

According to U.S. Energy Information Administration, a branch of the Department of Energy, crude imports into the United States reached a three-year low on Dec. 27.

The United States was importing about 7.6 million barrels of oil per day, a low that hasn't been seen since Jan. 28, 2000, the EIA reported.

The EIA reported that refiners will begin drawing from their inventories to make up for the loss of crude oil from Venezuela. Venezuela is the fifth-largest producer of oil in the world and during 2002, the country imported an average of 1.2 million barrels of oil in the United States each day.

"The EIA reports that unofficial data indicates that Venezuela imports last week were almost nonexistent," Eichberger said. "Marketers should be prepared to explain the situation to their customers."

In Louisiana, the Louisiana Oil Marketers and Convenience Store Association reported no problems yet from their members, according to executive director Natalie Babin.

"There has been no major disruption of our supplies due to the situation in Venezuela," Babin said. "There may be some indirect effects later, but for right now, we have not had any complaints from our members."

The organization represents 350 businesses - such as convenience stores - across the state, Babin said.

"We are kind of the middle man in this situation," Babin said. "Whether we are affected as time goes, we will just have to wait and see."

The EIA reported Monday that the national average price for a gallon of gasoline rose for a third week in a row, increasing by 4 cents per gallon as of Dec. 30 to end at $1.44.

The average for the Gulf Coast, according to the federal report, was $1.389 a gallon. This is an increase of almost 5 cents a gallon from the previous week.

The Venezuelan crisis has also affected Murphy Oil refinery in Meraux, Lyondell-Citgo Refining joint venture near Houston; and Farmland Industries refinery near Coffeyville, Kan.

Officials at Citgo announced Monday that the Texas refinery, which has an operating capacity of 268,000 barrels per day, is operating at half capacity. Citgo is owned by Petroleos de Venezuela, the state controlled oil company of Venezuela.

Murphy Oil, headquartered in El Dorado, Ark., said its Meraux plant, which has a 100,000-barrel-a-day capacity, will cut back production by 15,000 barrels.

The Kansas refinery, owned by Farmland Industries, can process up to 95,000 barrels of oil per day. Company officials have said the refinery will scale back production by 15 percent.

"What will happen with our members is yet to be seen," Babin said. "For right now, we haven't seen any problems. But we are keeping an eye on the situation as it develops."

www.upi.com By Jason Tockman A UPI Outside view commentary From the Washington Politics & Policy Desk Published 1/21/2003 6:24 PM

ATHENS, Ohio, Jan. 20 (UPI) -- Most people in the United States took little or no notice of this past November's presidential elections in Ecuador. Little ink or airtime was dedicated to the selection of the former army colonel that participated in a coup in 2000 to oust the unpopular President Jamil Mahuad. But it may be time to pull out the world atlas for a little geography refresher, because there's a trend afoot to our south that has implications for us here at home.

The army colonel is Lucio Gutiérrez, a populist reformer who bested Ecuador's richest man. Gutiérrez rode into the presidency on a wave of public discontent with the status quo. From the perspective of many Ecuadorians, the status quo equals corruption equals free market fundamentalism equals poverty.

What's most relevant to the United States is the part about markets, and the growing opposition to the economic reforms imposed from Washington: the "Washington Consensus" policies of privatization, deregulation, trade liberalization and lowering public expenditures (on services like education and subsidies of food or oil).

Much of Latin America is thick with resentment toward what is generally perceived as neo-colonial dominance by the United States. Traveling in these largely developing countries, one gets the sense that the International Monetary Fund is akin to a natural disaster that happened to the region, etched in their collective memory.

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of the Brazilian Workers' Party is now president of Brazil, home to the world's eighth-largest economy. Lula's solid victory is widely seen as a public rejection of the free market policies that contributed to the economic downfall of Brazil's neighbor and close trading partner, Argentina. Similar political developments are also occurring in Bolivia, Paraguay, Peru and Argentina.

"There is a reason the left is having a resurgence in Brazil and elsewhere in the region: We promised them a rose garden, but even before this latest crisis too many people got nothing but thorns," Princeton economics Professor Paul Krugman wrote in August.

"A decade ago Washington confidently assured Latin American nations that if they opened themselves to foreign goods and capital and privatized their state enterprises, they would experience a great surge of economic growth. But it hasn't happened. And because inequality has increased sharply, most people are probably worse off than they were 20 years ago."

The political changes in South America are largely a repudiation of U.S. influence in the region, and have definite implications for U.S. foreign policy. This was apparent at a recent meeting of the hemisphere's trade ministers, who gathered in Quito, Ecuador, to negotiate the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas, a trade pact for the 34 nations of the Western Hemisphere, excluding Cuba.

It quickly became apparent in Quito that plans for the FTAA faced serious challenges.

In the streets, 10,000 protesters assailed the trade deal as a threat to farmers, indigenous people, forests and those in poverty. Chants of "Yes to life, no to the FTAA!" and "We don't want to be a North American colony!" rang for hours as the colorful protest march -- led by Ecuador's indigenous and farmer confederations -- snaked through the city.

Behind the police barricades, Latin American governments united around a tough demand that the United States must first commit to the elimination of subsidies on agriculture before talks could advance. Venezuela reiterated their objection to a 2005 deadline for the FTAA's creation, a date that few still take seriously; Brazil indicated that participation in the negotiations did not necessarily mean they would sign any final product.

The FTAA may become a fatality of the failures of the very free trade fundamentalism it seeks to advance, and in fact that may be the best thing for Latin Americans right now.

"I, too, bought into much though not all of the Washington consensus," Krugman confesses, "And my confidence that we've been giving good advice is way down. One has to sympathize with Latin political leaders who want to temper enthusiasm for free markets with more efforts to protect workers and the poor."

Despite our comfort of a stronger economic position in North America, we would be wise to take heed of the political transformation that is underway to our south, as there is a growing likelihood that these nations will soon be charting an economic course of their own. The elections in Brazil and Ecuador serve as a wake-up call for the United States to reconsider its economic intervention in the countries of Latin America.

Further, many of the spectacular failures of Washington-promoted policies in Latin America -- such as the disastrous privatization of social security in Argentina or water in Bolivia -- have their counterparts in recent U.S. experience: the electricity crisis in California and the Enron scandal, both borne of deregulation. A backlash could happen here as well.

-0- -- Jason Tockman is the director of international trade for American Lands Alliance. He is based in Athens, Ohio.

-- "Outside View" commentaries are written for UPI by outside writers who specialize in a variety of important global issues.