www.heraldtribune.com By The Associated Press ...... Feb. 4 Der Tagesspiegel, Berlin, Germany on the end of the general strike against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez: At the moment all are claiming to have won. Hugo Chavez sees himself as the winner because the opposition has had to end its two-month-long strike. The protesters point out that the mediation of Jimmy Carter has forced him to agree to negotiations leading to a referendum which could more than halve his term in office. But in actual fact this power struggle has produced no victors, but only losers. The strike has cost Venezuela between 25 and 30 percent of its economic strength. Hundreds of businesses are bankrupt. It will take months for the economy to recover. ... ........ Feb. 4 Der Bund, Bern, Switzerland, on the general strike in Venezuela: It is hardly pure political reason that finally led the political opposition in Venezuela to give in. Instead, the strike front has been crumbling recently. More and more small businesses saw no sense in ruining the economy of the country and themselves for a power struggle that led nowhere.

President Chavez, who still has at his disposal an army of passionate supporters, proved to be completely unfazed by the weeks of mass protests. Even the economic demise of his country combined with the collapse of the crucially important oil sector were apparently less important to him than his personal claim to power. ...

Of course, Chavez now finds himself in a triumphant position. But his jubilation is naive and arrogant. Even if the referendum initiated by the opposition works in his favor, contrary to expectations, in the long term the president cannot afford to ignore the dissatisfaction of whole groups of the population.

www.granma.cu Havana. February 5,  2003 BY MARIA VICTORIA VALDES-RODDA —Granma International staff writer—

• AFTER two months of trying to bring down Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, the country’s opposition released an official communiqué on Sunday, February 2 announcing an end to the so-called strike, but not before insisting on other anti-governmental actions, including new elections by mid-2003.

The opposition alliance Coordinadora Democrática (CD) acknowledged the ineffectiveness of the strike given that it has been unable to oust Chávez from power before the end of his term in 2006.

According to press cables from various international agencies, on Monday, February 3 in Caracas — the nation’s capital and the center of the controversy — commercial sectors re-opened as did banks, and private elementary and high schools.

Froilán Barrios, a member of the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CTV) leadership whose group participated in the strike along with the CD, told AP that "it’s understandable that people would want to re-open their businesses after two months of strikes," but confirmed that opening times would be restricted, which he described as part of the new anti-Chávez strategy.

However, in Venezuela and abroad attention is mainly focused on evaluating the drop in oil exports due to the recent crisis provoked by the opposition forces’ sabotage of the country’s most productive sector and the world’s fifth largest exporter of crude.

NORMALIZATION MEASURES FOR INTERNAL MARKETS

Rafael Gómez, public relations manager for the Petroleos de Venezuela Corporation (PDVSA), told Prensa Latina that the company plans to import 12 million barrels of oil during the month of February in an effort to slowly reestablish gasoline distribution for the internal market.

Similarly, he revealed that the PDVSA is "on the right track and advancing in refinery production, and imports will cover more than 50 days of regular consumption, in order to constitute, as Gómez himself stated, "a strong blow to speculators who are currently hoarding it to resell at inflated prices."

Trinidad and Tobago and other Caribbean countries, as well as Saudi Arabia and the United States, are among the providers.

A recent PDVSA report confirmed losses of over $1.35 billion USD due to its activities being paralyzed since December 2, 2002.

News agencies AFP and EFE published comments from the current PDVSA administration stating that production in refineries under its jurisdiction would return to pre-crisis levels and it is counting on staff support for this.

During a speech on Sunday February 2, Chávez qualified "the reactivation of PDVSA and its increased production to 1.8 million barrels per day" as a triumph for the people.

"We’ve combated and defeated the terrorist and coup plotters’ sabotage plans, and the oil industry is still in the hands of the people, now more than ever before." He then commented that more progress had been made in the past two months than in the past four years.

OTHER STRATEGIC GOVERNMENT ACTIONS

From Miraflores Palace, Chávez spoke to the nation via the radio and television microphones of "Aló Presidente," ratifying his decision to initiate a strategic offensive addressing the unavoidable issues of internal politics, economics, law, international issues and communication.

"We will strengthen, consolidate and accelerate the development of this process in the different areas of national life as a way of confronting terrorism and fascism and thus defending peace, democracy and national unity," the leader emphasized.

According to the Venezuelan leader, the new official U.S. dollar-bolívar exchange rate that came into effect on February 5 is aimed to end the ban on hard-currency dealings, a measure that was imposed to stop the dollar’s flight abroad.

That situation was caused by individuals "trying to destabilize the nation’s financial system," he commented.

Notimex reported that in line with the financial panorama, the Venezuelan government is planning to enforce the constitutional obligation placed on banks to invest part of their credits in agriculture and to reaffirm the state role of assigning foreign currency to national companies for their imports and payments, giving preference to those in favor of economic development.

YEAR OF THE REVOLUTIONARY OFFENSIVE

In another public speech early this month, Chávez qualified as excellent "the statement by countries in the Friends of Venezuela Group calling for solution to the political crisis within the constitutional framework," ANSA reported.

Likewise, during his "Aló Presidente program," Chávez pointed to similarities in foreign and national positions, adding: "I urge that any country wishing to help Venezuela starts by recognizing that we have a legitimate government here."

The leader later highlighted that "none of these countries can accept the president of a Republic being treated disrespectfully, or his/her authority not being recognized, and this refers both to the president and to state institutions."

He asked his opponents to abandon their hope that someone from "outside" could change the will of the people.

In terms of the huge popular support for Chávez’ leadership, marches in favor of the Bolivarian process took place all last week.

www.vheadline.com Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 13:22:06 -0500 From: Justin Delacour jdelac@unm.edu To: Editor@VHeadline.com Subject: Re: Janet Kelly

Dear Editor: Hello, my name is Justin Delacour.  If you've ever checked out the NarcoNews website, you might have seen an article that I wrote about two highly-tainted Venezuelan pollsters, Jose Antonio Gil Yepes and Alfredo Keller.

Anyway, I'm here to comment about your recent posting at VHeadline.com.

You shouldn't be surprised to see your name creeping into an exchange between Phil Gunson and Al Giordano.  For those of us who critically analyze US press coverage of Venezuela, folks like you and Eric Ekvall symbolize the scandalously cozy relationship between the press and Chavez's business-led opposition.

Janet, the problem is not that you are a Chavez opponent.  Nor is the problem that you are quoted in the English-language press. The problem is that people like you, Eric Ekvall, Michael Schifter, Riordan Roett, Alfredo Keller and Luis Vicente Leon have a virtual monopoly on the press' account of what's going on in Venezuela.  That's the problem.

Let me ask you some questions, Janet.  Why do you think the correspondents love to quote you?

I read articles in the alternative press by people who -- like you, I suppose -- have vast knowledge of Venezuela.  I'm sure you have little or no familiarity with the people that I'm talking about; they don't run in your elite circles.

There's a historian at la Universidad de Oriente named Steve Ellner who has lived in Venezuela for probably twenty years.  He is an expert on the ins and outs of the Venezuelan labor movement.  Now, one might think that someone like Ellner, a specialist on Venezuelan labor, would be a worthwhile source for a correspondent who wants to learn and inform his or her readers about the recent "general strike" in Venezuela.

However, I've literally never ever seen any mainstream correspondent quote Ellner.  Not one measly quote.  Why do you think that is, Janet?  Could it be that maybe a guy like Ellner could blow the cover off this whole story you folks have been peddling about a "general strike"?

Has anyone ever heard of a "general strike" led by businessmen?

Has anyone ever heard of a "general strike" that is relegated to the affluent neighborhoods of a city?

Gee, that kind of "strike" doesn't sound very "general" to me.  In fact, it doesn't even sound like a "strike."

We here on planet earth call that a business lockout.  But the funny thing is that I never heard you or any one of your journalistic buddies ever mention the word "lockout."  Why is that, Janet?

Why is it that a prominent labor leader like Ramon Machuca of Venezuela's Iron and Steel Workers doesn't get quoted when he says that CTV leader Carlos Ortega is a fraud, a corrupt tool of the bosses, a person who doesn't enjoy the support of the majority of Venezuelan workers?

Why is it that no journalist ever bothered to ask anybody besides Ortega about how most Venezuelan workers truly felt about the so-called "strike"?

Could you tell me that, Janet?

So, once again, why do they quote you, but not Ellner or Machuca or the sociologist Greg Wilpert or the freelance writer Charles Hardy or the Venezuelan historian Samuel Moncada or the Venezuelan-born historian Miguel Tinker Salas or the Venezuelan anthropologist Fernando Coronil or the US economist Mark Weisbrot or, for that matter, any Venezuela analyst who is either sympathetic to Chavez and/or very suspicious of the opposition?  Why?

Could it be that the correspondents who love to quote you work for newswires and newspapers that are structurally tied to the interests of global finance and the "Washington Consensus"?

Could it be that these correspondents have been brainwashed throughout their entire lives to believe that insufficient subservience to Uncle Sam constitutes "communism" and "totalitarianism" or whatever other horrible sacrilege they can dream up?

Could it be that they quote you not because you are of any greater intrinsic worth as a source than any of these other people but rather because you regurgitate every cherished piece of neoliberal propaganda that has been pounded into our brains for as long as we can remember?

Could it be that, like you, these correspondents believe that the only road to economic development is to grovel before your cherished investor class, a class that is obscenely wealthy relative to the majority of people in Latin America, the most inequitable region on the planet? 

So Janet, why is it that you fell for the news reports of April 11?

And if these news reports about Chavez's "resignation" and orders to kill people turned out false, what does that say about you, a person who these same ignoramuses-cum-correspondents love to quote?

You say that anyone can make a mistake.  But I'll tell you something, Janet; I'm no genius and I didn't make that mistake.  I've paid a little attention to history, and what the record shows is that the rich of Latin America and their foreign backers -- whether in Chile, Guatemala, El Salvador, Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela or wherever -- have always been ruthless about ridding any perceived threat to their economic interests, no matter what the costs to rest of the population and no matter how many lies they have to tell to achieve their goals.

And why is it, by the way, that your admirers in the press corps have never written a story about Otto Neustald, the CNN video photographer who confessed to taping anti-Chavez Generals rehearsing their statements about Chavez's supposed sniper shootings before the shootings had ever taken place?

I have multi-angle footage of the shooters on the Llaguno Bridge, and what the footage shows is that the only people who were on the avenue below the bridge while the shootout took place were Alfredo Pena's Metropolitan Police, who were also "firing away."

Given that the majority of the shooting victims on April 11 took direct hits -- at medium to long range -- to the head and chest, don't you think it's a bit crazy to think Chavistas with handguns could be responsible for the bulk of the bloodshed?

Oh, and by the way, rather than talk about Gunson's little road-runner plagiarism, why don't we discuss the actual analogy that you dreamed up in the first place?  Chavez was standing beyond the edge of a cliff, with nothing but air below his feet, just like Bugs Bunny, right?  So what happened to the impending fall, my dear friend?

I find it fascinating that correspondents can run to people like you or Riordan Roett for these oh-so-prescient predictions, and when the events turn out oh-so-differently than you predicted, you and the correspondents go on as if you never made total fools of yourselves in the first place, and when the next crisis hits the correspondents come running back to you again to record your latest imaginings.

My God, Janet, are you really going to quibble over whether or not you're "partisan" or not?  Let's be serious.  The issue is that you're anti-Chavez.  We don't have a problem with that, per se, but we do have a big problem with the near Orwellian press coverage in Venezuela that tailors almost every story to the interests of its business and financial overlords, whom you dutifully serve.

And, by the way, Gaviria is no mediator.  He's a US puppet, a neoliberal just like yourself, a former President who stood idly by as paramilitaries slaughtered an entire leftist political party in Colombia, the Patriotic Union.  If you favor Gaviria, then you are indeed very partisan.

• Eventually, you and your ilk may wake up to the fact that you've been totally discredited among those who don't buy into the barrage of propaganda.

Don't flatter yourself into thinking that correspondents quote you for any other reason than that you bow down before the powerful, just as they do.

Justin Delacour jdelac@unm.edu

sg.biz.yahoo.com Wednesday February 5, 9:38 PM

CARACAS (Dow Jones)--Venezuela's currency markets remained closed Wednesday, the day the government said it would lift a two-week halt on foreign-exchange sales, a trader at a foreign bank with local offices said.

"There are no forms you're supposed to fill out according to the new rules that haven't yet been announced," the trader told Dow Jones Newswires.

"Maybe if they get the whole thing done and print the forms tonight, maybe, we'll be up Thursday," the trader said.

ADVERTISEMENT But, given the volume of work involved to implement new foreign-exchange trading rules President Hugo Chavez said would be implemented Thursday, trading may remain halted well into next week, the trader said.

Various government officials have said the new rules will likely set the bolivar ($1=VEB1853) at a fixed rate, which will apply to imports of critical goods like food and medicine, as well as to transactions by government firms. A second rate may later be established in a parallel market in which the central bank may participate.

The first fixed rate will likely be between VEB1600 and VEB1750 per dollar, analysts have said.

Chavez has said government agencies will handle more imports, and those who haven't backed opposition efforts to oust him will be given preferential access to foreign currency.

The government said last week it will announce the new exchange-control measures on Feb. 5, ending a halt on foreign currency sales to preserve international reserves and stabilize the bolivar.

In the 13 business days of this year before the government called the sales to a halt, Venezuela's international reserves had dropped an average $59.3 million a day, according to Finance Minister Tobias Nobrega.

Foreign reserves stood at $11.24 billion Friday, down from $11.93 billion at the beginning of the year, according to central bank statistics.

Traders have said the central bank has been pumping in upwards of $70 million a day over the last weeks in an unsuccessful attempt to stop a steep slide in the bolivar, which has lost more than 25% of its value against the dollar since the beginning of the year. The currency lost 46% against the dollar last year.

Despite the sales halt, the bolivar is still trading in an informal secondary market - as weak as VEB2500 per dollar - amid soaring demand for dollars as Venezuelans flee to safe haven on fears the government may be forced to impose even tougher measures given a two-month general strike that began Dec. 2 has had a devastating effect on the economy.

Some analysts have predicted gross domestic product will shrink up to 40% in the first quarter, and the government is quickly running out of money, given the work stoppage has virtually shut the country's vital oil industry, which accounts for about half of government income.

Tax collections, too, have been badly affected as thousands of businesses closed due to the strike.

Although many businesses have reopened, opposition leaders have said they won't call off an oil-sector walkout unless Chavez agrees to early elections.

Chavez's critics blame his left-leaning policies for the country's deepening economic crisis, as the economy likely contracted about 8% last year amid unemployment of 17% and inflation of 31%.

Chavez, first elected in 1998 on promises to eradicate corruption and inequality, has blamed the recession on an "economic coup" by his opponents.

Central bank Web site: www.bcv.org.ve

-By Jehan Senaratna, Dow Jones Newswires; 58212 564 1339; jehan.senaratna@dowjones.com

www.vheadline.com Posted: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 2:47:26 AM By: Robert Rudnicki

According to Coordinadora Democratica negotiator Enrique Naime, the opposition petition held on Sunday has already collected 4.5 million signatures, and this doesn't include those from overseas and from certain provinces that are difficult to access.

Naime claims the petition could end up with around five million signatories, and if President Hugo Chavez Frias has agreed to a referendum on February 2 "5.5 million people would have voted against him, compared to one million in his favor."

• "In the name of Coordinadora Democratica, of the country ... I would like to thank the Venezuela that wants a democratic solution and that says no to violence ."

For these figures to be accurate, the opposition would have had to collect signatures from over one third of Venezuela's approximate 12 million registered voters, a figure that several top government representatives, including the President, have expressed their doubts over.

However, despite the claims and counter claims, there is currently no body that is able to verify these signatures as the new National Electoral College (CNE) board is yet to be appointed.