read: Support Bush, pay at the pump. This is an example of what Chavez calls assymetric war. The U.S. lets Chavez do things in the U.S. that he would not let the U.S. do in Venezuela.
LAS ARMAS DE CORONEL
miércoles, 5 de septiembre de 2007
CHAVEZ'S FIFTH COLUMN IN ALASKA
In Anchorage, Alaska, Citgo reminds the passer by that Hugo Chavez is the champion of the poor. I wonder what would happen if a Chevron-Texaco gas station in Venezuela ( are there any left?) read: Support Bush, pay at the pump. This is an example of what Chavez calls assymetric war. The U.S. lets Chavez do things in the U.S. that he would not let the U.S. do in Venezuela.
read: Support Bush, pay at the pump. This is an example of what Chavez calls assymetric war. The U.S. lets Chavez do things in the U.S. that he would not let the U.S. do in Venezuela.
lunes, 3 de septiembre de 2007
CONTRA LA ADULACIÓN REBELIÓN.
Earle Herrera
Toro Hardy Diaz Rangel con su jefe.
El maestro.
Señores: Rebelión o Zimbabue.
En sus “Dos Tratados de Gobierno” el filósofo político John Locke le dedicó atención especial a la adulación. Consideró al adulador como especialmente dañino a la noción de gobierno con límites. Al provocar en el adulado un deseo desmedido de poder, decía Locke, el adulador es el verdadero artífice del gobierno ilimitado e ilegítimo, contra el cuál, agregó, es preciso insugir. En “El Príncipe” Maquiavelo dedicó el capítulo XXIII a “como huir de los aduladores” que abundan, como parásitos,en toda corte. En 2004 Tomás Chauqui, de la Universidad Católica de Chile, definió la adulación como “el uso estratégico del elogio excesivo”, enfatizando la naturaleza interesada de ese elogio. Según Chauqui el adulador adula para obtener alguna recompensa mientras que, al aceptar la adulación, el adulado llega a parecerse al jalabolas. Para dar un ejemplo que todos comprenderemos, Carlos Escarrá es más parecido a Hugo Chávez que a su hermano Hérman. Quizás hubo un déficit vitamínico en la infancia de los hermanos Escarrá que los hizo vulnerables a la tentación totalitaria. Hérman fue admirador de Chávez en una etapa que llevó a varios venezolanos notables como Mayz Vallenilla, Olavarría, Combellas y el mismo Hérman a romper lanzas, de manera incomprensible, por el ignorante dictador. Olavarría se reivindicó posteriormente, de manera digna de admiración, con un discurso pronunciado el 5 de Julio de 1999 en el Congreso donde barrió el suelo con el demente. Hérman se acaba de reivindicar de manera también admirable con su discurso en el Ateneo llamando a la rebelión abierta contra el aprendiz de Mugabe. El hermano Carlos, sin embargo, acaba de romper un record de desverguenza al decir que Chávez debe ser permanente como el sol.
La adulación es antigua y existirá mientras haya gente sin honor. Shakespeare presenta algunos ejemplos notables de esta aflición: Goneril en El Rey Lear, Yago en Otelo. El dramaturgo sugirió que el adulado es, casi siempre, un psicópata social. Su vanidad no le permite advertir que los elogios no se ajustan a la realidad. Chávez probablemente ha llegado a creer que el nombre Hugo de los Reyes que le dieron a su padre (antes de que la legislación revolucionaria regulara los nombres raros) era premonitorio. Para Chávez la adulación ha llegado a ser componente indispensable de ese juego de poder y de riquezas en el cuál se ha convertido la llamada revolución socialista. Lo que es cierto es que la adulación no es un juego para los aficionados, necesita talento. Edecio la Riva Araujo narró en su libro sobre el tema como intentó halagar a Caldera trayéndole desde París una botella de añejo cognac “Remy Martin”. Se fue directo del aeropuerto a Miraflores para entregársela. Cuando la recibió, Caldera la puso a un lado y le dijo a Edecio: “Sabrás que mi cognac preferido es el Martell”. Edecio dijo después, desconsolado: “esta vaina no le hubiera pasado a Hilarión!”.
En efecto, no adula quien quiere sino quien sabe hacerlo. Por ejemplo, José Vicente Rangel ha dicho que “el presidente Chávez es el presidente más honesto que hemos tenido”. Y agregó: “quien diga lo contrario es un miserable”. Si Rangel hubiese dicho lo primero sin añadir lo segundo no hubiese sido tan efectivo. Rangel, en su senectud, se ha convertido en un maestro en jalar bolas con elegancia.
La tragedia del adulado es que olvida el interés colectivo para perseguir su interés personal. Chávez ha llegado a malgastar o prometer malgastar unos 70000 millones de dólares en regalos, limosnas y proyectos locos en el país y en el exterior, convirtiendo ese dinero en “material de construcción” para crearse una falsa reputación de filántropo. Ya está hablándose de una gigantesca estatua en su honor en el Avila, como homenaje de un anciano arquitecto y jalabolas de apellido Alzheimer.
La historia venezolana es rica en aduladores. El corrupto Guzmán Blanco fue cantado por Delpino y Lamas y llevado al panteón por Chávez. El simiesco Cipriano Castro tenía quien le escribiera sus ridículas proclamas, ya que aquello de “la planta insolente del extranjero” fue cocinado por Gonzalez Guinán. Gómez tuvo aduladores por montones: Gil Fortoul, Ezequiel Vivas, Laureano Vallenilla, Victorino Márquez y Juan Bautista Pérez. La gente de la época, al pasar por la casa de Pérez decía: “Allí vive el presidente y quien manda vive enfrente”. Pérez Jiménez tuvo su séquito de aduladores presidido por Laureano Vallenilla Planchart (el José vicente de la época) y, ahora, Chávez ha coleccionado una legión. Se acuerdan del “Por ahora y para siempre”, atribuído a Jacinto Pérez Arcay?
Un ranking preliminar de los 15 jalabolas más destacados del chavismo nos llevaría al siguiente:
CUADRO DE HONOR DE LA ADULACIÓN REVOLUCIONARIA.
1.José Vicente Rangel. Lo hace y lo sabe hacer.
2. Isaías Rodriguez. Lo hace en privado.
3. Carlos Escarrá. Lo hace en público.
4. Ezequiel Díaz Rangel. Lo hace y no parece que lo hiciera.
5. Francisco Arias Cárdenas. Lo hace de la manera más dolorosa: guindándose.
6. Alfredo Toro Hardy. Lo hace a control remoto.
7. Luis F. Acosta Carlez. Lo hace acuñando moneditas de oro.
8. Evo Morales. Lo hace disfrazado de pordiosero.
9. Pedro Carreño. Lo hace con lealtad perruna.
10. German Mundaraín. Lo hace porque esa es su naturaleza.
11. Earle Herrera. Lo hace entre palo y palo.
12. Luis Britto García. Lo hace con finura.
13. Alberto Muller Rojas. Lo hace con disfraz de disidente.
14. Cilia Flores. Lo hace con impudicia.
15. Joseph Kennedy Jr. Lo hace en dólares.
En un extraordinario discurso en la Universidad Metropolitana, en 2004, José Rodríguez Iturbe decía que Mario Briceño Iragorry definió la servilidad de los intelectuales de la época gomecista como la “traición de los mejores”. Ahora, dice Rodríguez Iturbe, debe hablarse de “la complicidad de los peores”. En efecto, el régimen de Chávez está apuntalado por una pandilla de civiles mediocres y de militares ignorantes y codiciosos que Rodríguez Iturbe define como el “lumpenmilitariat”, un grupo empeñado en rebajar al país a su nivel.
Contra esta pretensión es necesario rebelarse abiertamente. Los lemas de la Venezuela libre y democrática deben ser: rebelión o esclavitud, rebelión o Zimbabue, rebelión ahora o ignorancia para siempre.
Frente a la adulación y a la dictadura la rebelíon es nuestro derecho pero, más importante aún, es nuestra obligación.
En sus “Dos Tratados de Gobierno” el filósofo político John Locke le dedicó atención especial a la adulación. Consideró al adulador como especialmente dañino a la noción de gobierno con límites. Al provocar en el adulado un deseo desmedido de poder, decía Locke, el adulador es el verdadero artífice del gobierno ilimitado e ilegítimo, contra el cuál, agregó, es preciso insugir. En “El Príncipe” Maquiavelo dedicó el capítulo XXIII a “como huir de los aduladores” que abundan, como parásitos,en toda corte. En 2004 Tomás Chauqui, de la Universidad Católica de Chile, definió la adulación como “el uso estratégico del elogio excesivo”, enfatizando la naturaleza interesada de ese elogio. Según Chauqui el adulador adula para obtener alguna recompensa mientras que, al aceptar la adulación, el adulado llega a parecerse al jalabolas. Para dar un ejemplo que todos comprenderemos, Carlos Escarrá es más parecido a Hugo Chávez que a su hermano Hérman. Quizás hubo un déficit vitamínico en la infancia de los hermanos Escarrá que los hizo vulnerables a la tentación totalitaria. Hérman fue admirador de Chávez en una etapa que llevó a varios venezolanos notables como Mayz Vallenilla, Olavarría, Combellas y el mismo Hérman a romper lanzas, de manera incomprensible, por el ignorante dictador. Olavarría se reivindicó posteriormente, de manera digna de admiración, con un discurso pronunciado el 5 de Julio de 1999 en el Congreso donde barrió el suelo con el demente. Hérman se acaba de reivindicar de manera también admirable con su discurso en el Ateneo llamando a la rebelión abierta contra el aprendiz de Mugabe. El hermano Carlos, sin embargo, acaba de romper un record de desverguenza al decir que Chávez debe ser permanente como el sol.
La adulación es antigua y existirá mientras haya gente sin honor. Shakespeare presenta algunos ejemplos notables de esta aflición: Goneril en El Rey Lear, Yago en Otelo. El dramaturgo sugirió que el adulado es, casi siempre, un psicópata social. Su vanidad no le permite advertir que los elogios no se ajustan a la realidad. Chávez probablemente ha llegado a creer que el nombre Hugo de los Reyes que le dieron a su padre (antes de que la legislación revolucionaria regulara los nombres raros) era premonitorio. Para Chávez la adulación ha llegado a ser componente indispensable de ese juego de poder y de riquezas en el cuál se ha convertido la llamada revolución socialista. Lo que es cierto es que la adulación no es un juego para los aficionados, necesita talento. Edecio la Riva Araujo narró en su libro sobre el tema como intentó halagar a Caldera trayéndole desde París una botella de añejo cognac “Remy Martin”. Se fue directo del aeropuerto a Miraflores para entregársela. Cuando la recibió, Caldera la puso a un lado y le dijo a Edecio: “Sabrás que mi cognac preferido es el Martell”. Edecio dijo después, desconsolado: “esta vaina no le hubiera pasado a Hilarión!”.
En efecto, no adula quien quiere sino quien sabe hacerlo. Por ejemplo, José Vicente Rangel ha dicho que “el presidente Chávez es el presidente más honesto que hemos tenido”. Y agregó: “quien diga lo contrario es un miserable”. Si Rangel hubiese dicho lo primero sin añadir lo segundo no hubiese sido tan efectivo. Rangel, en su senectud, se ha convertido en un maestro en jalar bolas con elegancia.
La tragedia del adulado es que olvida el interés colectivo para perseguir su interés personal. Chávez ha llegado a malgastar o prometer malgastar unos 70000 millones de dólares en regalos, limosnas y proyectos locos en el país y en el exterior, convirtiendo ese dinero en “material de construcción” para crearse una falsa reputación de filántropo. Ya está hablándose de una gigantesca estatua en su honor en el Avila, como homenaje de un anciano arquitecto y jalabolas de apellido Alzheimer.
La historia venezolana es rica en aduladores. El corrupto Guzmán Blanco fue cantado por Delpino y Lamas y llevado al panteón por Chávez. El simiesco Cipriano Castro tenía quien le escribiera sus ridículas proclamas, ya que aquello de “la planta insolente del extranjero” fue cocinado por Gonzalez Guinán. Gómez tuvo aduladores por montones: Gil Fortoul, Ezequiel Vivas, Laureano Vallenilla, Victorino Márquez y Juan Bautista Pérez. La gente de la época, al pasar por la casa de Pérez decía: “Allí vive el presidente y quien manda vive enfrente”. Pérez Jiménez tuvo su séquito de aduladores presidido por Laureano Vallenilla Planchart (el José vicente de la época) y, ahora, Chávez ha coleccionado una legión. Se acuerdan del “Por ahora y para siempre”, atribuído a Jacinto Pérez Arcay?
Un ranking preliminar de los 15 jalabolas más destacados del chavismo nos llevaría al siguiente:
CUADRO DE HONOR DE LA ADULACIÓN REVOLUCIONARIA.
1.José Vicente Rangel. Lo hace y lo sabe hacer.
2. Isaías Rodriguez. Lo hace en privado.
3. Carlos Escarrá. Lo hace en público.
4. Ezequiel Díaz Rangel. Lo hace y no parece que lo hiciera.
5. Francisco Arias Cárdenas. Lo hace de la manera más dolorosa: guindándose.
6. Alfredo Toro Hardy. Lo hace a control remoto.
7. Luis F. Acosta Carlez. Lo hace acuñando moneditas de oro.
8. Evo Morales. Lo hace disfrazado de pordiosero.
9. Pedro Carreño. Lo hace con lealtad perruna.
10. German Mundaraín. Lo hace porque esa es su naturaleza.
11. Earle Herrera. Lo hace entre palo y palo.
12. Luis Britto García. Lo hace con finura.
13. Alberto Muller Rojas. Lo hace con disfraz de disidente.
14. Cilia Flores. Lo hace con impudicia.
15. Joseph Kennedy Jr. Lo hace en dólares.
En un extraordinario discurso en la Universidad Metropolitana, en 2004, José Rodríguez Iturbe decía que Mario Briceño Iragorry definió la servilidad de los intelectuales de la época gomecista como la “traición de los mejores”. Ahora, dice Rodríguez Iturbe, debe hablarse de “la complicidad de los peores”. En efecto, el régimen de Chávez está apuntalado por una pandilla de civiles mediocres y de militares ignorantes y codiciosos que Rodríguez Iturbe define como el “lumpenmilitariat”, un grupo empeñado en rebajar al país a su nivel.
Contra esta pretensión es necesario rebelarse abiertamente. Los lemas de la Venezuela libre y democrática deben ser: rebelión o esclavitud, rebelión o Zimbabue, rebelión ahora o ignorancia para siempre.
Frente a la adulación y a la dictadura la rebelíon es nuestro derecho pero, más importante aún, es nuestra obligación.
A LATIN AMERICAN POLITICAL SCENARIO, 2007-2012
A DARK SCENARIO FOR LATIN AMERICA.
Most of the political scenarios for Latin America are drawn in traditional ways, using mostly politically correct ingredients. Because of this cautious approach some possible futures for the region remain insufficiently discussed. One of them has to do with the region becoming the site of active destabilizing plots against the United States. We all know that anti-American sentiment in Latin America has been growing during the last ten years, although not as strongly as advertised by some interested parties. In fact, Latinobarometro and Pew, two credible polling agencies dealing with the Western Hemisphere have recently shown (1) that, even in Venezuela, the U.S. is viewed favorably by over 55% of the population and that the attacks of President Hugo Chavez against this country are rejected by 75% of the population.
Still, there is no doubt that there are strong efforts being made by some Latin American political leaders to harass the United States. If these efforts intensify and take root, Latin America could become a geopolitical hot spot in the mid-term.
The starting point of the anti-U.S. Alliance.
Essentially the current threats against U.S. national security originated about nine years ago with the political alliance between Fidel Castro, the Cuban dictator and Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan strongman. This is a symbiotic relationship that has been providing Fidel Castro with money and Hugo Chavez with brains.
The strategy chosen by this alliance is based on two facts and one very partial truth. The two facts are: extreme poverty and extreme inequality in the region. The very partial truth is that these two afflictions are the result of U.S. exploitation of the region’s natural resources aided by the systematic political intervention of this country in the internal affairs of the countries of the hemisphere. To blame our own misfortunes and inadequacies on someone else has been an old and proven method to gain adepts and to stir hate and xenophobia among Latin American societies. This is what Fidel Castro has done for the last forty years and this is what he has recommended to Hugo Chavez , a line of action that the Venezuelan strongman has embraced with enthusiasm.
Hugo Chavez’s strategies.
To do this he has been aided by significant amounts of money derived from oil exports. During the last nine years about $220 billion of oil money have entered the Venezuelan national treasury while national debt has tripled to about $65 billion. This amount of money has been mostly spent in three areas: (a), social programs of a temporary nature, really handouts, to the Venezuelan poor; (b), the acquisition of weapons; and (c), subsidies, donations and promises to Latin American countries in order to consolidate political alliances and establish political IOU’s. At least $40 billion have gone into the third category, an amount roughly equivalent to 2-3% of Venezuela’s yearly GDP during the last nine years.
As a result of these strategies the Fidel Castro/Hugo Chavez axis has been able to make some progress in its political objectives of eroding the political standing of the United States in the hemisphere and, even, of gaining supporters in the U.S. political scene. By financing the presidential campaigns in several countries they have been able to help Evo Morales, Daniel Ortega and Rafael Correa win the presidencies of Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador. At the same time they saw their favored candidates Ollanta Humala, in Peru, and Andres Lopez Obrador, in Mexico lose close elections while remaining politically strong, especially Lopez Obrador. In parallel Hugo Chavez’s major injection of money into Argentina has helped President Nestor Kirchner to join the anti-U.S. club, a move for which he did not need strong incentives.
This is all well known although generally perceived with indifference, sympathy, and tolerance or, even, amusement, in hemispheric political circles. Many celebrate secretly the harassment of such a strong power by smaller, weaker countries. Others are sitting on the political fence, receiving political and material benefits by playing one side against the other. Still others have a weak spot in their ideological hearts for authoritarian regimes and resent the hard sale of democracy being done by the U.S. all over the world. A few even laugh at the colorful antics of President Chavez and have a hard time taking him seriously.
However, political harassment of the United States represents just one aspect in a possible wider plan. Later stages might include actual economic aggression and, even, physical action against the northern “empire”. For the time being the main efforts are directed towards the consolidation of the alliance. To do this:
Chavez is providing money to members of the Armed Forces of Bolivia and to city mayors, in order to increase political control over these important Bolivian sectors (2);
Chavez could be funneling money into Argentina to promote the candidacy of Mrs. Cristina Kirchner (3);
The aid given by Chavez to Nicaragua already amounts to about $500 million and, if he follows through in his promise, will include the financing of a $2 billion refinery;
The economic ties of Venezuela and Ecuador are increasing via the oil industry, although President Correa’s ideology already includes a significant component of resentment against the United States.
Chavez is conducting a strategy of alignment with political sectors in the United States that oppose the current government policies. For some of these sectors the desire to erode the current administration has proven greater than their love for democracy. The enemy of their enemy has become their friend (4).
Almost all of these strategic initiatives by the Castro/Chavez alliance show an alternative, unfavorable outcome.
Bolivia is in the threshold of a major political crisis, due to the reluctance of important sectors of the country to roll over and play dead to Morales’s pretensions to impose the Venezuelan Constituent Assembly model that ended with the Venezuelan democracy becoming an authoritarian regime.
Mrs. Kirchner, even if she won, as it seems to be the case, might decide to go her separate ways. She has already given some indications that Argentina should not become a simple pawn of Castro/ Chavez in the struggle for hemispheric political leadership. Recent events have convinced her that Chavez’s support probably represents a kiss of death for her political future.
In Ecuador, Correa is already looking at the Bolivian political turmoil with caution, as he does not want to repeat Morales’s errors and realizes that Chavez’s success in Venezuela has been due to his deep pockets rather than his charisma. Correa does not have the money or the charisma of Chavez.
In the United States the individuals and groups that support Chavez are doing so out of personal material or political interest and have been largely rejected by public opinion.
It seems improbable that the alliance of these countries, almost entirely based on money and resentment against the United States, could last for long.
What if this alliance falters?
The main motors of the anti-U. S alliance, Castro and Chavez, understand that this strategy of progressive political harassment of the United States might not succeed. The defeat of Lopez Obrador in Mexico robbed them of a major ally in this strategy. In power Lopez Obrador would have promoted illegal immigration into the U.S. creating numerous points of social and political conflict along the weak U.S.- Mexican border. As it stands today The United States has several ways to weaken Castro/Chavez strategies. In fact, the imminent death of Fidel Castro has practically eliminated much of the brain component of this axis. Hugo Chavez is now in need of an alternative plan.
The chosen alternative is an alliance with fundamentalist groups or countries that share Hugo Chavez’s resentment against the United States. This explains the approximation of Hugo Chavez to Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Both leaders have an anti-U.S. global alliance as one of their main objectives. Their main weapon is oil or, rather, what they can do to the international oil market, in case they decided to suspend exports of this resource. Some 4 million barrels of oil per day would be out of the supply system, causing a major disruption in the world’s economy. They figure that in such a situation they have less to lose than the United States and its industrialized allies.
But oil is not their only weapon. They also have a political weapon to resort to. It has to do with the concerted action of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and FARC, assisted by violent indigenous groups such as those in Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador and socially turbulent groups like the illegal immigrants already living in the United States.
By promoting the action of these groups against the United States and its Latin American and European allies these groups can do much harm to global political stability. In this scenario one the main promoters of this action would not be located in the Middle East or in the Far East but in Latin America. This would be the first time in history, as far as we can tell, that a Latin American political leader becomes a major threat to world stability.
In summary.
Political scenarios based on traditional assumptions such as the existence of a dormant and orderly hemisphere and on the existence of international bodies like the Organization of American States, where political controversies and imbalances can be rather easily adjusted, do no longer seem to fit Latin American reality. Violent scenarios with global implications should also be considered. Scenarios are not only attempts at visualizing the future but, also, warning signals that will serve to act now, in order to mold desired outcomes.
References.
Gustavo Coronel. “Misreading Venezuela”, Human Events.com, August 15, 2007
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21930
Gustavo Coronel. “Chavez tiene a militares y Alcaldes Bolivianos en su nómina”.
In my Blog www.lasarmasdecoronel.blogspot.com, August 28, 2007
The Nuevo Herald, “Chavez y el maleta-gate”, August 16, 2007
http://www.gatago.org/soc/culture/venezuela/56725975.html
Gustavo Coronel. “A letter to Danny Glover”. The American Spectator, May 31,
2007.
http://bobmccarty.wordpress.com/2007/05/31/coronels-letter-to-danny-glover-hits-mark/
viernes, 31 de agosto de 2007
THE SHORT HONEYMOON OF PDVSA AND PETROBRAS
Tronco e' loco! PETROBRAS AND PDVSA: THE ODD COUPLE.
From Washington.
Petroleos de Venezuela, created in 1976, rapidly became a major international petroleum company thanks to good management and a non-politicized work environment. Petrobras, created in 1954, took the ultra nationalistic road. Under the motto “The Oil is ours”, insisted in using only Brazilian materials and technology. Labor unions greatly influenced its operations, its executives rotated with undue frequency and multinationals had no place in its activities. For 20 years PDVSA was a success and Petrobras a failure.
Today the opposite has occurred. Petrobras is partially privatized, Brazilian energy self-sufficiency is within sight, the company is professionally managed and has become a world-class corporation. PDVSA, on the other hand, has been politicized, its management is in inept and corrupt hands and the volume and quality of its operations have decreased dramatically. Its international standing has collapsed.
Two good companies or two mediocre ones could probably get along fine. What is unlikely is a happy association between a good company and a bad one. This is what seems to be happening to the shotgun wedding of Petrobras and PDVSA.
This association started on the wrong foot. It did not obey to a rational program of complementarity between the two companies but was politically induced by Hugo Chavez, the pushy and prodigal Venezuelan autocrat and accepted by Lula da Silva, the more reflexive Brazilian leftist president. Lula saw an opportunity to get access to Venezuelan oil and to significant volumes of Venezuelan money from Chavez, in exchange for his mild support. Therefore, he went along with Chavez’s two huge projects: a gas line from Venezuela all to the way to Argentina, alo supplying cheap natural gas to Brazil and a heavy oil refinery in Pernambuco, to process Venezuelan heavy oil from the Orinoco area, where Chavez has granted Brazil an area for development. Long months after these two projects were announced they have not taken off.
The gas line, of course, is a political fraud. It will probably serve to enrich further those friendly consultants who are doing the so-called “feasibility studies”, including its technical, reserves, financial and environmental aspects. At the end of the several, bulky volumes, the conclusions will probably read something like this:
1. Not enough free gas reserves;
2. Economically unattractive;
3. Financially unviable;
4. Environmentally disastrous.
The Pernambuco refinery was originally designed to process about 200,000 barrels of heavy oil per day, half of which would come from the Venezuelan Orinoco area “assigned” to Petrobras. The cost of this refinery was estimated at some $2.5 billion. A memorandum of understanding was signed between the two companies more than one year ago but the two companies have not done much else.
While Chavez has been busy promising 12 other refineries in different parts of the world, including one in the Fiji islands, Petrobras has been doing its own studies of the refinery. The cost is now estimated at some $4.5 billion and PDVSA has not given any sign that it is seriously thinking about the project. Petrobras management has apparently decided to go ahead without PDVSA, a move that would indicate a victory of common sense over hysterics. The main obstacle to the relationship between these two companies seems to be the lack of professional management in PDVSA. Odd couples survive in Broadway and Hollywood, rarely in the oil industry.
From Washington.
Petroleos de Venezuela, created in 1976, rapidly became a major international petroleum company thanks to good management and a non-politicized work environment. Petrobras, created in 1954, took the ultra nationalistic road. Under the motto “The Oil is ours”, insisted in using only Brazilian materials and technology. Labor unions greatly influenced its operations, its executives rotated with undue frequency and multinationals had no place in its activities. For 20 years PDVSA was a success and Petrobras a failure.
Today the opposite has occurred. Petrobras is partially privatized, Brazilian energy self-sufficiency is within sight, the company is professionally managed and has become a world-class corporation. PDVSA, on the other hand, has been politicized, its management is in inept and corrupt hands and the volume and quality of its operations have decreased dramatically. Its international standing has collapsed.
Two good companies or two mediocre ones could probably get along fine. What is unlikely is a happy association between a good company and a bad one. This is what seems to be happening to the shotgun wedding of Petrobras and PDVSA.
This association started on the wrong foot. It did not obey to a rational program of complementarity between the two companies but was politically induced by Hugo Chavez, the pushy and prodigal Venezuelan autocrat and accepted by Lula da Silva, the more reflexive Brazilian leftist president. Lula saw an opportunity to get access to Venezuelan oil and to significant volumes of Venezuelan money from Chavez, in exchange for his mild support. Therefore, he went along with Chavez’s two huge projects: a gas line from Venezuela all to the way to Argentina, alo supplying cheap natural gas to Brazil and a heavy oil refinery in Pernambuco, to process Venezuelan heavy oil from the Orinoco area, where Chavez has granted Brazil an area for development. Long months after these two projects were announced they have not taken off.
The gas line, of course, is a political fraud. It will probably serve to enrich further those friendly consultants who are doing the so-called “feasibility studies”, including its technical, reserves, financial and environmental aspects. At the end of the several, bulky volumes, the conclusions will probably read something like this:
1. Not enough free gas reserves;
2. Economically unattractive;
3. Financially unviable;
4. Environmentally disastrous.
The Pernambuco refinery was originally designed to process about 200,000 barrels of heavy oil per day, half of which would come from the Venezuelan Orinoco area “assigned” to Petrobras. The cost of this refinery was estimated at some $2.5 billion. A memorandum of understanding was signed between the two companies more than one year ago but the two companies have not done much else.
While Chavez has been busy promising 12 other refineries in different parts of the world, including one in the Fiji islands, Petrobras has been doing its own studies of the refinery. The cost is now estimated at some $4.5 billion and PDVSA has not given any sign that it is seriously thinking about the project. Petrobras management has apparently decided to go ahead without PDVSA, a move that would indicate a victory of common sense over hysterics. The main obstacle to the relationship between these two companies seems to be the lack of professional management in PDVSA. Odd couples survive in Broadway and Hollywood, rarely in the oil industry.
martes, 28 de agosto de 2007
CHAVEZ TIENE A LOS MILITARES Y ALCALDES BOLIVIANOS EN SU NÓMINA.
Cheque del Banco Union de Venezuela para los amigotes de Chávez
EL VERGONZOSO EVO MORALES EN LA NOMINA DE CHAVEZ.
Desde Washington DC
América Latina vive tiempos de verguenza. La ineptitud y corrupción del régimen de Hugo Chávez en Venezuela se extiende por todo el hemisferio, donde ha encontrado quienes aceptan de buen grado el dinero de los venezolanos mientras le hacen creer al dictador venezolano que lo apoyan. Porque eso es lo más grotesco: a Hugo Chávez le están robando el dinero que él, a su vez, le roba a los venezolanos.
Uno de los cómplices de Hugo Chávez, titular de un ministerio de papel de los muchos que tiene, ha declarado en la prensa venezolana que el régimen de Hugo Chávez ha destinado hasta seis millones de dólares para el pago a militares Bolivianos. Mientras tanto, el bovino presidente de Bolivia, Evo Morales, ha sido fotografiado entregando cheques de dinero venezolano a alcaldes Bolivianos amigos de Bolivia. Dice el desvergonzado: "Chávez me dió el dinero para que yo lo entregara".
En artículo anterior he enumerado el inmenso volúmen de dinero sustraído por Hugo Chávez a los venezolanos, sus legítimos dueños, para donarlo o prometerlo a sus amigotes del planeta: Humala, Correa, Morales, Ortega, Castro, el dictador de Bielorrusia, Putín (para comprar toda clase de cachivaches bélicos), Kirchner y quien sabe quien más. Ya suman sesenta mil millones de dólares los dineros dilapidados en el exterior por el inepto y corrupto dictador venezolano.
Que hacen frente a este inmenso crimen el contralor venezolano Russián, o el Fiscal Rodríguez, o el ministro de la Defensa, o la presidenta del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia?
Nada. Eso los hace cómplices del desfalco.
Que hace el país frente al desastre? Muchos están muy contentos comprando Hummers, Rolexes y casas en Florida. Otros permanecen en silencio, aterrados.
Mientras el país se disuelve en un océano de corrupción, incompetencia y patanería nadie parece dispuesto a elaborar la bandera de la dignidad.
Mientras tanto el Secretario General de la OEA, José Miguél Insulza, también guarda silencio. Pronto vendrán las elecciones presidenciales en Chile y él aspira a ser presidente de aquél país. Su silencio frente al crimen venezolano es ya parte de su campaña.
Suscribirse a:
Comentarios (Atom)