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

USA-based commentarist Matthew Riemer writes: The Andean region of northern and western South America will undoubtedly become increasingly important to the Bush administration and its foreign policy focal point, the "war on terror," as instability in the region continues to spread and oil production is expected to increase.

Venezuela has been in and out of the headlines over the past year beginning with the attempted coup of April 2002. President Hugo Chavez was ousted for a matter of hours only to be ushered back to power by loyalists within his own military.

The next attempt to thwart Venezuela's democratically-elected government came this past December when opposition leaders fueled a "general strike" in protest of Chavez' presidency; though in many cases the strike was really a "lockout" as opposition leaders and upper managers literally locked workers out of their places of employment, ostensibly forcing them to take part in the protests.

After two months the strike crumbled and, to the chagrin of many in Washington, Chavez remained in power once again. Recently, to celebrate the one-year anniversary of the failed coup, Chavez supporters staged gatherings in Caracas.

The past year has been hailed by many as a victory for leftist agendas in Venezuela, in the region, and more broadly, in the hemisphere. Obviously, this has not escaped Washington's attention; US Secretary of State Colin Powell remarked last week that he has "concerns about Chavez's commitment to the kinds of democratic institutions that we believe are vital in a democracy."

In recent weeks, Venezuela has also become notably involved with its crucial neighbor to the west, Colombia. Bogota, as well as anti-Chavez elements in Venezuela, has accused Caracas of not only sympathizing with but also providing shelter and aid to Colombian leftist guerrillas on Venezuelan soil in remote border regions. The Colombian government, prompted by reports from its own villagers living along the northeast border with Venezuela, are also conducting an investigation of alleged Venezuelan military strikes within Colombia's borders against Colombian right-wing paramilitary forces engaged with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

Venezuelan Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel has rejected such allegations, claiming that Colombian paramilitaries had crossed into Venezuela: "This is part of an arsenal of lies which are permanently used to discredit Venezuela and make her look like a refuge for guerrillas and other elements involved in Colombia's violence."

• Chavez is scheduled to meet with recently-elected Colombian President Alvaro Uribe on April 23 to address these contentious issues of global interest.

An indication of how some in Washington are regarding the current situation is a telling Washington Times editorial released April 16, which observed with alarm: "Colombia's narcotics and terrorism cabals are spreading violence beyond Colombia. They have been given sanctuary in Venezuela, are involved in coca cultivation in Peru, are behind some drug-related violence in Brazil and launch forays into Ecuador. This regional aspect of the Colombian problem has developed a dangerous dynamic. Eyewitnesses claim the Venezuelan military has selected which narco-terror group they are backing, and are bombing their adversaries in Colombia. Thus far, the Colombian response has been subdued. But, if such bombing continues, the situation could erupt in conflict."

Such events and formulaic reactions to them illustrate how any region, any conflict in the world, can be neatly molded and packaged to interface with the "war on terror" paradigm. For Bogota's part, the Uribe administration knows it can most easily gain Washington's attention through its use of the rhetorical lexicon of the "war on terror" -- all one need do to emphasize the seriousness of a given situation or to justify one's actions is to dub one's enemies "terrorists."

• Chavez, Rangel, and other outspoken members of the Venezuelan leadership are also well familiar with the usefulness of such propaganda, albeit from the other side as they defend themselves against various allegations of "terrorism."

Washington, though seemingly aloof, is anything but and has expressed its concern and commitment to Colombia several times over the last year. In a December 4, 2002 address in Bogota, Colin Powell promised Colombia: "When I return to Washington, I intend to make the case before our Congress for full funding for our Colombia programs. This is a partnership that works and a partnership we must continue to make and invest in." He later added, "I would like to be able to get a lot more funding for Plan Colombia but, as you know, there are limits to what the United States is able to do within our own country and around the world."

Colombia was also significantly mentioned in the US State Department's 2002 report on human rights as being the source of 44 percent of the terrorist attacks against US interests in the form of the FARC.

Colombia's oil production, while far less than Venezuela's, is still among the highest in Latin America. Many foreign companies, such as Occidental Petroleum of Los Angeles have significant investments there. Ecuador's oil production is also expected to increase over the next few years and may reach as high as 600,000 barrels per day by 2005.

Now Venezuelan officials have claimed that they have "evidence" that the United States was involved in the April '02 coup aimed at removing President Hugo Chavez. Without much surprise, the US embassy in Caracas has denied such claims, calling them outright lies.

With the recent elections of Lula da Silva in Brazil and Lucio Gutierrez in Ecuador, both considered populist in nature and prone to making neo-liberals nervous about the state of the South American economy, the US-backed government of Alvaro Uribe in Colombia is feeling a bit isolated.

Because of this coalescing of many key events: the popularity of "leftist" leaders, Chavez, Lula, and Gutierrez; the continuing tension and friction between Washington and Caracas; the emerging involvement of Venezuela, though at this point only alleged, in Colombia's civil war; the admission on Washington's part of both its commitment to Plan Colombia and the significance of FARC as the source of 44% of terrorist attacks against US interests; and the increasing importance of South American oil over the next 25 years, the United States will only become more intimately involved in the region.

• Matthew Riemer writes for The Power and Interest News Report (PINR), an analysis-based publication that seeks to, as objectively as possible, provide insight into various conflicts, regions and points of interest around the globe. PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and interests involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader, seeking to inform rather than persuade. Email: content@pinr.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

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Sunday, April 20, 2003 By: Patrick J. O'Donoghue

Replying to US Secretary of State Colin Powell's latest remarks on Venezuelan democracy, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Roy Chaderton Matos wryly comments that someone is not briefing Secretary Powell properly, especially as regards the recall referendum ... "it's in the law of laws, the Constitution." 

Hammering home his point, Chaderton Matos says the recall referendum was brought into Venezuelan democracy not by an opposition initiative but by an initiative of the Bolivarian government. 

The second part that Powell should have been briefed about, according to the Venezuelan Foreign Minister, is that those who shouldn't be trusted belong to the greater part of the opposition. 

Recalling the events of April 11-14, 2002, Chaderton Matos accuses the opposition of provoking huge scale social and political upheavals, attempting to strangle the country economically, causing financial panic and using media terrorism to get rid of President Chavez Frias. 

"The recall referendum is an absolutely constitutional and legal democratic exercise and not an acid test." 

Speaking during April 19 Declaration of Independence celebrations, Chaderton Matos reports that his Ministry will respond opportunely with documents pertaining to the Colombian Army's objections to allegations made by Venezuelan Executive Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel regarding collusion with paramilitaries in border badlands. 

The Minister says both governments are working around the clock in preparation of the April 23 summit in Puerto Ordaz between Presidents Alvaro Uribe and Hugo Chavez Frias ... "democracy is working quite well between the two countries ... we are converging ... Colombians and Venezuelas will not engage in fistfights and much less bullets ... the summit agenda will be varied and revolve around common interests."

Forums

Referendum 2003 discuss the pros and cons of a revocatory referendum

President Hugo Chavez Frias express your opinions on the Presidency of Hugo Chavez Frias and his Bolivarian Revolution

Bolivarian Circles Are Bolivarian Circles a Venezuelan form of Neighborhood Watch Committees or violent hordes of pro-Chavez thugs?

Venezuela's Opposition What is it? Is a force to be reckoned with or in complete disarray?

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

NewsMax.com Wires Friday, April 18, 2003

GENEVA, Switzerland – The United Nations Commission on Human Rights Commission turned the heat on Cuba over its poor track record Thursday in adopting, by three votes, a resolution that calls on Cuba's regime to accept inspection by a special envoy. Havana says it will not allow the inspection.

The watered-down resolution fails even to mention the recent worsening of abuses in Cuba. Though conceding it was not as strong as Washington would have liked, "we're very glad the resolution passed," Kevin Moley, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, told reporters.

The head of the Cuban delegation, Juan Antonio Fernandez, denounced the outcome and said Havana had no intention to accept the motion.

"We're not going to accept the visit by inspectors ... let alone in the way it is trying to be imposed," he told reporters. Cuba says it would violate its sovereignty.

The country's human rights abuses, long an issue, have deteriorated in recent weeks. Government authorities have arrested dozens who are opposed to dictator Fidel Castro; nearly all are still in detention. Last week three men were arrested, tried and then executed for hijacking a ferry in a desperate attempt to escape the police state.

The communist regime of Castro, who overthrew a U.S.-backed autocrat in 1959, has survived more than 40 years of sanctions imposed by the United States. During the Cold War the Americans saw Cuba as a toehold of communism just off its coast, and indeed Soviet missile batteries set up there in 1962 sparked a crisis between the two superpowers that briefly brought them to the brink of war.

The human rights resolution, sponsored by Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Peru and Uruguay, passed 24-20 with nine abstentions. It was preceded by weeks of behind-the-scenes diplomatic maneuverings and periodic heated public exchanges between Cuba and its arch adversary, the United States.

Among those voting in favor of the weakened resolution were some of Cuba's trading partners, including Canada, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, as well as Mexico, Chile, Guatemala and Paraguay. Castro ally Venezuela voted against the measure, and Brazil and Argentina abstained.

Fernandez told a packed audience the Latin sponsors were "disgusting lackeys" and said the draft was "made in the United States." The adoption of the motion each year is the result of "huge and shameful pressures," he claimed.

"Cuba this year was very aggressive because events of the last couple of weeks put them on the defensive," an ambassador from a non-aligned country told United Press International.

The 53-member body passed the motion only after the 31-15 defeat of a proposed amendment by Costa Rica calling for the U.N. body to condemn the recent detention and harsh sentencing of Cuban dissidents. Cuba's retaliation, a proposed amendment declaring the U.S. embargo was a flagrant violation of Cubans' human rights, was defeated 26-17. Moley said: "We wish it took into account the egregious violations of human rights that have taken place since this commission began, including the execution just this past Friday of three people in the matter of days from the time they were arrested to the time they were tried and within hours executed."

The U.S. official said the motion "does in fact give some hope to the dissidents in Cuba, and to all those in Cuba, and elsewhere in the Americas, for human rights."

Moley said failure to authorize the special U.N. envoy was a violation of the human rights of the Cuban people and of their hopes for freedom.

"This is a shame which reflects on Fidel Castro's inability to provide human rights to his own people," he said. "We hope that in future there would be no need for a resolution, that in fact the regime in Cuba would change in such a way as to afford its own people the same kind of rights freedom of religion, freedom to vote, free and impartial judiciary there currently denied and have been now for 45 years. It is an outrage."

Earlier, the Cuban envoy declared "a well-elaborated plan of destabilization and subversion against Cuba is under way," and added, "Attempts are made to create a migratory crisis or any incident that may create the conditions necessary to justify a war of aggression against Cuba."

Havana has accused the U.S. representative in Cuba, James Carson, of overreaching his diplomatic privileges in meeting with Cubans. With such acts as giving them radios and hosting prominent meetings in support of Cuba's dissidents, Carson is fomenting political opposition and recruiting spies, according to the regime.

From President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, the Bush administration released a congratulatory statement tempered with a promise of further efforts against the dictatorship.

"President Bush welcomes the leadership of the Latin America democracies in highlighting these abuses by the only dictatorship of the region. The commission has sent the right signal to courageous Cubans who struggle daily to gain their basic political and civil freedoms," it read.

Then it expressed continuing concerns about the fate of Cuban dissidents and added it would search for "new ways" with other countries and international organizations "to effect a peaceful democratic transition in Cuba."

It ended: "We also call upon the member states of the United Nations to deny Cuba a seat on the Human Rights Commission next year. No country should be allowed to sit on the Human Rights Commission if it purposely and consistently undermines the spirit and purpose of the commission."

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Monday, April 14, 2003 By: Elio Cequea

VHeadline.com reader Elio Cequea writes: When the UN inspectors were in Iraq looking for chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction, they could not find anything. President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell insisted that the US government "had intelligence reports indicating that Saddam Hussein and his regime had them."

Thus, the war started to "disarm Saddam Hussein and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks." During the war, there was not even one attack with chemicals and the only weapons of mass destruction that we saw were used by the coalition forces "against" Iraq.

• The war is over. Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have not been found yet. The motive for the war now has been changed to "liberate the Iraqi people". Same war, just different motive.

I heard on the radio yesterday that President Bush said at a press conference that he "was confident that weapons will be found." Apparently the intelligence reports given to him and Powell were not complete, and they did not mentioned the location of those weapons. That is why, I guess, the information was never given to the UN inspectors ... either that or he just wanted a good reason to "liberate" Iraq.

I hope, in the name of peace, the reports were incomplete and weapons are found.

On the contrary, and if the US President is the man of principles some people say he is, he should not have trouble finding reasons to "liberate" China, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba.

If he doesn't try to liberate these countries, it will confirm that the war with Iraq happened just to control the second major oil reserve in the world.

Elio Cequea feico57@aol.com

Forums

The War in Iraq, effects and consequences discuss the role of the United Nations towards an equitable solution for the Iraqi people

Venezuelan Foreign Policy discuss the relative merits of Venezuela's foreign policy and its effects

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.

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Monday, April 14, 2003 By: Patrick J. O'Donoghue

Closing the "Solidarity with the Bolivarian Revolution" conference, President Hugo Chavez Frias says the event has become a world summit. "In the last four years I have been  to so many world summits and emerged disappointed from almost of all them ... there is a crisis in world summit systems ... there is a world political crisis ... we must return to political leadership." 

• President Chavez Frias also addressed a well-attended political rally of supporters hailing the first anniversary of the return to democracy.

Chavez Frias told his supporters that the Bolivarian Revolution had broken the circle of international isolation and that it would be difficult for opposition domestic media to pull wool over people's eyes. 

Forums

Referendum 2003 discuss the pros and cons of a revocatory referendum

President Hugo Chavez Frias express your opinions on the Presidency of Hugo Chavez Frias and his Bolivarian Revolution

Bolivarian Circles Are Bolivarian Circles a Venezuelan form of Neighborhood Watch Committees or violent hordes of pro-Chavez thugs?

Venezuela's Opposition What is it? Is a force to be reckoned with or in complete disarray?

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