Diálogo imaginario........
“Los he mandado a llamar porque necesito más plata”, dijo el presidente. “Tengo compromisos nuevos con el frente en El Salvador y Ollanta me sigue pidiendo real”. “Necesito darle más recursos a Rafaél porque la oposición se le está alebrestando. Algunas ideas brillantes, Rodríguez?
“Bueno, Comandante”, dijo Rodríguez, “Yo se que usted no quiere menear mucho mi conexión pero podemos incrementar los envíos. Eso es plata segura. La producción allá está estable, a pesar de lo ataques del ejército”.
“Mira Rodríguez”, interrumpió Rafaél, “tu sabes que no es tan fácil manejar ese dinero. Tenemos que maquillar constantemente nuestras cifras de ventas y ya esa vaina se está poniendo muy complicada. Busca otra manera, mira lo que nos está pasando con el gordo traidor”.
“OK, largo”, se sonrió Rodríguez. “pero mi conexión es la más rápida y la más efectiva”.
“Y que pasa si le pedimos plata a los chinos y a los rusos, Comandante?” Sugirió el ministro, “Esos tipos están ansiosos por ponerle la mano a la faja. Eso es más manejable que un autobús en Petare”.
“Ñooo, esa idea si me gusta”, dijo el presidente. “Organízame un viaje pá allá urgentemente. Primero paso por casa de los chinos y les pido una segunda entrega de 4000 millones, a cuenta de la faja. Luego sigo para Moscú y hablo con Vladi, no con el bolsa que Vladi puso de presidente, y le planteo que hagamos una empresa mixta. Les propongo que ellos pongan la plata y nosotros la faja. Allí hay plata en bruto!”.
“Exacto, comandante”, terció Rafaél, “una PedeProm. Eso estaría de pinga”.
Mientras esta reunión de planificación estratégica se llevaba a cabo en el trópico, en China se hablaba de un tema similar pero desde un ángulo diferente. Se proyectaba firmar otra alianaza comercial con los revolucionarios. “Les daremos todo el dinero que pidan. Total, lo van a gastar en gran parte comprándonos nuestros aviones y nuestras manufacturas. Que nos pagen en petróleo. Lo tasamos al precio de hoy y cuando lo entreguen va a valer mucho más”.
“Y que pasa si el hombre no está allí mucho más tiempo?, terció un ministro. “En ese caso, diremos que un compromiso internacional es sagrado. No los nuestros, por supuesto, sino los de ellos!”, rió el premier.
En Moscú el zar salía de su sesión de Karate cuando le avisaron la visita del comandante. “Bueno”, dijo, “de ahora en adelante tendremos que resignarnos a tener a ese payaso por aquí a cada rato. Que es lo que quiere ahora?” El asistente le informó: “Viene a pedir dinero, excelencia”. Y su excelencia replicó: “No hay problemas. Le daremos lo que necesite siempre y cuando gaste la mayor parte aquí, comprándonos nuestras armas. Que ideas tienen ustedes?”.
“Pensamos ofrecerle una línea de crédito inicial de mil millones de dólares, a fin de que se lleve los tanques que nos rechazaron en la India, por tener pequeños defectos de fábrica. El dice que el tiene quien se los arregle allá en su país”.
“Díganle que después no los mande a nosotros!”, exclamó el zar.
Días después se llevó la visita a cabo. Fue toda un éxito. En China el comandante logró cuatro mil millones más para su caja chica y en Rusia le dieron una línea de crédito de mil millones más y se habló de una empresa conjunta, PedeProm, la cuál seguramente requeriría que el país se saliese de la OPEP. Pero eso no es importante.
Asi, así es que se gobierna……
LAS ARMAS DE CORONEL
sábado, 27 de septiembre de 2008
OTRO INSULTO A LA VENEZUELA DECENTE; BUSTO DE MARULANDA INAUGURADO EN CARACAS.
Aunque parezca más un jugador de beisból que Marulanda, el busto inaugurado ayer en Caracas, arropado hasta el momento de la inauguración con la bandera Colombiana, constituye una nueva afrenta a los pueblos democráticos y decentes de América. Su pésima factura artística no compensa por la mala intención.El acto contó con discursos de guerrilleros fracasados y se llevó a cabo bajo la mirada complaciente y protectora del régimen forajido de Hugo Chávez, el cuál está siendo juzgado actualmente por lavado de dinero fuera de Venezuela y será juzgado también por su complicidad con el narcoterrorismo de Marulanda y sus secuaces.
Este es otro evento más en el progresivo descenso del régimen de Chávez hacia la total degradación moral. Que dirá el refinado embajador de Chávez en la OEA sobre este insulto a la democracia y a la libertad en América? Lo celebrará Toro Hardy en Madrid? Quien defenderá este evento en la ONU?
Le auguro corta vida a este Marulanda caraqueño, la misma corta vida del Ché Guevara de Apartaderos. El bandido que gobierna Venezuela hace lo imposible para cancelar las elecciones. Esta es la hora en la cuál mueren las palabras.
viernes, 26 de septiembre de 2008
EL COLAPSO FINANCIERO DE LA REVOLUCIÓN, ANALIZADO POR FELIPE PÉREZ MARTÍ
Nombrado Ministro de Planificación por Hugo Chávez,hoy uno de sus más vigorosos críticos.
Un largo y detallado análisis financiero elaborado por Felipe Pérez Martí en Julio de este año constituye una dramática denuncia del colapso financiero y económico de la revolución de Hugo Chávez. Es un aporte de Pérez Martí a un libro del Ministerio de Comunicación e Información, el cuál no sabemos si ha sido publicado. Este es un documento especialmente valioso porque Pérez Martí es un socialista y un seguidor del gobierno de Chávez. Sus críticas y observaciones a los errores del régimen no pueden ser catalogados, por lo tanto, como propaganda oposicionista o como parte de una conspiración pagada por la CIA.
Pérez Martí fue Ministro de Planificación del gobierno de Chávez hace algunos años y fue profesor del IESA, hasta que el Instituto lo despidió por haber hecho comentarios inapropiados sobre la banca venezolana. Es un economista graduado en Chicago. El análisis que comentamos está muy bien escrito y es de fácil lectura, aún para los no iniciados en el tema financiero.
Las conclusiones más importantes que se derivan de la lectura de este análisis son:
1.El gobierno está gastando más de sus ingresos. Esta es una situación que data desde el 2002 y se está acentuando, a pesar del voluminoso ingreso petrolero. Pérez Martí acompaña esta afirmación con datos estadísticos oficiales. Es lo que él llama una política de prociclicidad en el gasto fiscal. Mientras más ingresos más gastos. De allí que el régimen tenga que endeudarse de año a año, algo que resulta casi criminal. Pérez Martí define este comportamiento como irracional.
2. El crecimiento económico se concentra en los sectores llamados no-transables de la economía, aquellos que no son exportables: intermediación financiera, hoteles y restaurantes, importaciones. Mientras estos sectores se han expandido empujados por el gasto público, los sectores realmente vitales para la economía permanecen raquíticos. Este es el caso del sector agrícola, el cuál se ha debilitado en los últimos cinco años. Se da el caso escandaloso de que mientras el financiamiento a la actividad agrícola se ha duplicado durante este período, el crecimiento del sector es nulo o casi imperceptible. Parecería que alguien se está robando los reales. Habrá que preguntarle a los militares que manejaron el centro azucarero de Barinas.
3. El sector manufacturero ha sufrido un colapso dramático. Pérez Martí muestra estadísticas según las cuáles todos los rubros de actividad han sufrido importantes reducciones. Algunos, como el papel, la madera, la maquinaria ligera, han practicamente desaparecido. En general, la actividad manufacturera ha declinado en un 13% durante 2001-2006. Opina Pérez Martí que, mientras las políticas gubernamentales no se modifiquen, las proyectadas unidades de producción socialista no tendrán posibilidad alguna de progresar.
4. Existe una acentuada sobrevaluación del bolívar, en un 20-25% según los gráficos que muestra Pérez Martí. Esto significa que el país está importando, no está exportando. En efecto, los datos de importación muestran como se están rompiendo todos los records de importación en el país. Un caso típico, diría yo, de la enfermedad holandesa. (grave distorsión económica causada por la dependencia en un solo producto de exportación).
5. La desigualdad económica y social han aumentado! Una de la banderas políticas del régimen chavista, el logro de la igualdad, se ha venido abajo. Pérez Martí dice que ahora la gente tiene más dinero en los bolsillos, pero los ricos, viejos y nuevos, tienen mucho más dinero que la clase media y los pobres. Pérez Martí agrega que la culpa de que esto suceda no es de los ricos sino de las políticas del gobierno que han hecho posible que el capital se beneficie en el doble de los asalariados. Para Pérez Martí el gobierno actúa como un “gobierno de derecha”, el peor insulto que un “revolucionario” le puede hacer a Chávez.
6. La clase media es la que más está sufriendo. Los ricos tienen su dinero y los pobres sus subsidios (sus limosnas, las llamo yo). Pero, dice Pérez Martí de manera muy acertada, que la clase media se ha empobrecido dramaticamente. Está abandonando sus hospitales y clínicas, sus seguros y sus supermercados y ha entrado a competir con los pobres por los servicios de MERCAL y Barrio Adentro. Como resultado estas “misiones” han perdido eficiencia, no se dan abasto y ha aparecido entre ellas la corrupción (donde hay colas hay corrupción, digo yo).
7. El problema esencial, dice Pérez Martí, es uno de sostenibilidad fiscal, es decir, de la capacidad del gobierno de mantenerse a flote con sus ingresos. Según Pérez Martí el gobierno no puede hacerlo por varias razones: la magnitud de los pasivos laborales, la carencia de presupuestos reales y organizados, la baja recaudación no-petrolera (un 14%) cuando se requeriría al menos un 35%, una política impositiva regresiva, un alto nivel de desinversión privada (Pérez Martí reconoce que esta es una inversión esencial), la cuál no puede lograrse con una política de estatizaciones que aumenta la carga sobre el gobierno sin incrementar el producto interno bruto.
8. La concurrencia de tres factores muy perjudiciales para la economía: alta inflación, sobrevaluación de la moneda y bajos niveles de inversión privada, los cuáles son el resultado de políticas económicas y fiscales erradas por parte del gobierno.
*****************
Frente a este despelote financiero y económico, el cuál revela la magnitud del desastre de un gobierno que ha recibido más de $600.000 millones en los últimos diez años, Pérez Martí ofrece algunas recomendaciones que lucen muy sensatas pero que nos recuerdan el dicho de Luis Herrera Campins: “Tarde piastes, pajarito”. (mejor tarde que nunca, agrego). Estas recomendaciones incluyen:
· Gastar menos.
· Controlar la inflación
· Simplificar y modernizar el sistema impositivo
· Eliminar evasión de impuestos y aumentar la recaudación
· Eliminar el control de cambios
· Controlar la volatilidad del gasto
· Eliminar gastos electorales
· Devaluar a unos Bs. 3000 por dólar
· Atraer capitales externos (más fácil decirlo que hacerlo)
· Eliminar todos los bancos del estado (mujer, pueblo, agícola, etc) y crear un solo banco nacional del estado, con dos taquillas, una de desarrollo y otra de banco universal.
· Liquidar al Banco Industrial de Venezuela (Dios lo oiga).
· Parar la regaladera en el exterior (digo yo, no Pérez Martí)
Este engendro no tiene que ver con el artículo pero me parecióbuena idea ponerlo aquí.
Algunas de estas recomendaciones, si no todas, parecerían tomadas del libro del Banco Mundial, la odiada organización imperialista-capitalista. Sin embargo, son todas derivadas del sentido común, algo que no es frecuente encontrar en los alrededores de Miraflores.
Termina Pérez Martí su interesante análisis criticando el poder comunal. Lo define como un desórden: programas por aquí y por allá, ministerios y alcaldías en pugna, una verdadera torre de babel ideológica.
Pérez Martí ha hecho un honesto aporte a una mejor comprensión del desastre revolucionario. No sé si su documento será publicado por el gobierno, pués ello indicaría un nivel de tolerancia hacia la disidencia que el gobierno no ha mostrado tener en casos similares. Si es publicado es porque nadie lo leyó antes de incluirlo en el libro.
jueves, 25 de septiembre de 2008
WHY RAFAEL RAMIREZ, PRESIDENT OF PETROLEOS DE VENEZUELA, SHOULD BE FIRED.
Rafael Ramirez with friend Jesse Jackson.(this is not the reason).
After almost four years in the presidency of Petroleos de Venezuela Rafael Ramirez has become such a formidable liability to the company and to the nation that he should be made to resign, in order to protect whatever remnants of prestige our national company might still possess.
Although the operational problems of Petroleos de Venezuela started well before 2004, during the presidencies of Hector Ciavaldini, Gaston Parra and Ali Rodriguez, it took the presence of Rafael Ramirez, in his dual role of minister and manager of the oil company to accelerate its decline. All this time Ramirez has been essentially supervising himself and presiding over an intense process of politicization of the company. Working in intimate contact with President Chavez, Ramirez has put all normal corporate procedures aside to create a government financial and operational agency fully dedicated to promote Chavez’s political plans both inside and outside the country. All pretenses of professional management have been abandoned and the company is now engaged in active political and social activities that are taking an increasing share of its financial and human resources.
At first these departures from the core activities of the company seemed moderate. The main problems leading to a substantial loss of production, some 600,000 barrels per day, were of a technical and managerial nature. Opportune investments were not made, maintenance became mediocre and the dismissal of thousands of professional managers and technical staff in 2002 and 2003 made a negative impact on operational efficiency. This was tragic but the shortcomings were mostly compensated by the rapid increase in oil prices.
Then, in November 2006, Rafael Ramirez gave a talk to managers of the company that was recorded and made public hours later. In this talk Ramirez told the managers of the company that Petroleos de Venezuela had to work exclusively for Hugo Chavez. He said: “This company is red, all red” and added, “Any employee who does not agree to this should go before he is thrown out violently”. The eschatological language used by Ramirez and the obvious violations of the human rights of the employees contained in the speech gave Venezuelans a true measure of the gravity of the situation at Petroleos de Venezuela, one that was reinforced next day. Most Venezuelans expected Ramirez to be dismissed but, instead, President Chavez warmly congratulated him. After the enthusiastic endorsement by President Chavez, Ramirez and his management team lost all sense of shame. In a second stage of operational and ethical deterioration the company started engaging in the political promotion of Chavez and his followers, using company money and assets in these activities in open and defiant violation of our constitution. Planes of PDVSA started to fly regularly to Cuba, or to transport Bolivian President Evo Morales or actor Danny Glover in non-petroleum related trips, while PDVSA money paid for carnival schools of samba in Rio. Petroleos de Venezuela had become just a political extension of the regime.
As President Chavez required more money for his political projects, both domestically and abroad, Petroleos de Venezuela became his private bank. Petroleum income did no longer go to the Venezuelan Central Bank, as the law stipulates. Instead, it went to newly created funds and banks directly controlled by President Chavez. Petroleos de Venezuela’s income was put at the service of one man, no longer at the service of the nation. Chavez used some of this money in his programs of handouts to the Venezuelan poor that have tried, unsuccessfully, to replace sound ad systematic health, education and anti-poverty programs. Some of the money has been increasingly used abroad in the buying of political loyalties in the hemisphere. At the same time the company has been put in charge of activities that have nothing to do with its core business: food imports and distribution, housing projects, even training of Olympic athletes. The third stage of deterioration for the company has been characterized by these eccentric activities and by the illegal deviation of the company’s financial assets to the Venezuelan executive.
Even at this point Petroleos de Venezuela could have merely been defined as a poorly managed and corrupt petroleum company. As a political tool in the hands of Chavez, in a country lacking institutional checks and balances, it would have been unthinkable to ask for the dismissal of Rafael Ramirez. But now Petroleos de Venezuela has entered into a fourth stage of deterioration, the most dangerous of all for the company and the nation. It is becoming an agent of distribution of illegal money across national boundaries. The revelations of the ongoing Miami trial, in which Antonini and other Venezuelan businessmen have been involved, point to Petroleos de Venezuela and to persons within the company, such as Daniel Uzcategui, Rafael Reiter and Rafael Ramirez himself, as the main actors in an international crime involving Petroleos de Venezuela and the President of Argentina, Cristina Fernandez. Giving money overtly to a presidential candidate of another country is an objective crime. It seems that these money transfers took place not once but many times. As a result, Ramirez is in the sights of the international justice system.
This is why Rafael Ramirez is a strong liability to Venezuela and to Petroleos de Venezuela. He is a liability to all Venezuelans, those who oppose and those who follow Hugo Chavez. I sincerely believe that Hugo Chavez has only weeks, perhaps only days, to get rid of Ramirez and his gang, before the full weight of international law comes down on him, on Petroleos de Venezuela and, perhaps, on Chavez himself. Illegal flows of money across national boundaries are a serious crime, no matter if they represent political contributions or drug money laundering.
After almost four years in the presidency of Petroleos de Venezuela Rafael Ramirez has become such a formidable liability to the company and to the nation that he should be made to resign, in order to protect whatever remnants of prestige our national company might still possess.
Although the operational problems of Petroleos de Venezuela started well before 2004, during the presidencies of Hector Ciavaldini, Gaston Parra and Ali Rodriguez, it took the presence of Rafael Ramirez, in his dual role of minister and manager of the oil company to accelerate its decline. All this time Ramirez has been essentially supervising himself and presiding over an intense process of politicization of the company. Working in intimate contact with President Chavez, Ramirez has put all normal corporate procedures aside to create a government financial and operational agency fully dedicated to promote Chavez’s political plans both inside and outside the country. All pretenses of professional management have been abandoned and the company is now engaged in active political and social activities that are taking an increasing share of its financial and human resources.
At first these departures from the core activities of the company seemed moderate. The main problems leading to a substantial loss of production, some 600,000 barrels per day, were of a technical and managerial nature. Opportune investments were not made, maintenance became mediocre and the dismissal of thousands of professional managers and technical staff in 2002 and 2003 made a negative impact on operational efficiency. This was tragic but the shortcomings were mostly compensated by the rapid increase in oil prices.
Then, in November 2006, Rafael Ramirez gave a talk to managers of the company that was recorded and made public hours later. In this talk Ramirez told the managers of the company that Petroleos de Venezuela had to work exclusively for Hugo Chavez. He said: “This company is red, all red” and added, “Any employee who does not agree to this should go before he is thrown out violently”. The eschatological language used by Ramirez and the obvious violations of the human rights of the employees contained in the speech gave Venezuelans a true measure of the gravity of the situation at Petroleos de Venezuela, one that was reinforced next day. Most Venezuelans expected Ramirez to be dismissed but, instead, President Chavez warmly congratulated him. After the enthusiastic endorsement by President Chavez, Ramirez and his management team lost all sense of shame. In a second stage of operational and ethical deterioration the company started engaging in the political promotion of Chavez and his followers, using company money and assets in these activities in open and defiant violation of our constitution. Planes of PDVSA started to fly regularly to Cuba, or to transport Bolivian President Evo Morales or actor Danny Glover in non-petroleum related trips, while PDVSA money paid for carnival schools of samba in Rio. Petroleos de Venezuela had become just a political extension of the regime.
As President Chavez required more money for his political projects, both domestically and abroad, Petroleos de Venezuela became his private bank. Petroleum income did no longer go to the Venezuelan Central Bank, as the law stipulates. Instead, it went to newly created funds and banks directly controlled by President Chavez. Petroleos de Venezuela’s income was put at the service of one man, no longer at the service of the nation. Chavez used some of this money in his programs of handouts to the Venezuelan poor that have tried, unsuccessfully, to replace sound ad systematic health, education and anti-poverty programs. Some of the money has been increasingly used abroad in the buying of political loyalties in the hemisphere. At the same time the company has been put in charge of activities that have nothing to do with its core business: food imports and distribution, housing projects, even training of Olympic athletes. The third stage of deterioration for the company has been characterized by these eccentric activities and by the illegal deviation of the company’s financial assets to the Venezuelan executive.
Even at this point Petroleos de Venezuela could have merely been defined as a poorly managed and corrupt petroleum company. As a political tool in the hands of Chavez, in a country lacking institutional checks and balances, it would have been unthinkable to ask for the dismissal of Rafael Ramirez. But now Petroleos de Venezuela has entered into a fourth stage of deterioration, the most dangerous of all for the company and the nation. It is becoming an agent of distribution of illegal money across national boundaries. The revelations of the ongoing Miami trial, in which Antonini and other Venezuelan businessmen have been involved, point to Petroleos de Venezuela and to persons within the company, such as Daniel Uzcategui, Rafael Reiter and Rafael Ramirez himself, as the main actors in an international crime involving Petroleos de Venezuela and the President of Argentina, Cristina Fernandez. Giving money overtly to a presidential candidate of another country is an objective crime. It seems that these money transfers took place not once but many times. As a result, Ramirez is in the sights of the international justice system.
This is why Rafael Ramirez is a strong liability to Venezuela and to Petroleos de Venezuela. He is a liability to all Venezuelans, those who oppose and those who follow Hugo Chavez. I sincerely believe that Hugo Chavez has only weeks, perhaps only days, to get rid of Ramirez and his gang, before the full weight of international law comes down on him, on Petroleos de Venezuela and, perhaps, on Chavez himself. Illegal flows of money across national boundaries are a serious crime, no matter if they represent political contributions or drug money laundering.
miércoles, 24 de septiembre de 2008
KIRCHNER A LA SECRETARIA GENERAL DE UNASUR? SERÍA LO LÓGICO.
UNASUR SE REÚNE EN NUEVA YORK PARA SELECCIONARSECRETARIO GENERAL ( candidato es el segundo a la izquierda).
El club de presidentes y presidentas de Sur América, conocido como Unasur, se reúne actualmente en Nueva York para elegir un Secretario General. El Presidente Correa, del Ecuador (tercero a la derecha, en la foto), ha lanzado un candidato y nadie más lo ha hecho hasta ahora. Como las reuniones en este club de cobardes se toman por “unanimidad”, pués nadie dice nada en contra, nadie disiente. La idea es que el club proteja a sus miembros y que ellos se protejan y se promuevan mutuamente. No parecen estar enterados de que Néstor Kirchner es un bandido y que su gobierno está severamente involucrado en transferencias ilegales de dinero entre Chávez, otro miembro del club, y su esposa Cristina. La actividad más reciente de Unasur fue la hacer abortar “un golpe”contra Evo Morales. Quien lea los diarios o haya visitado Bolivia y posea un cociente intelectual modesto sabrá que en Bolivia existe una confrontación entre dos mitades del país: una, la de Morales, que desea imponer una constitución excluyente a rajatablas y recibe dinero para sus fechorías del Presidente de Venezuela Hugo Chávez y otra mitad, multi-étnica, multicultural, trabajadora, habitantes de las llanuras Bolivianas y parte del altiplano, que se ha rebelado contra esta imposición. Unasur se ha encargado de proteger a su compinche Evo Morales. Es indignante que Unasur pretenda estar actuando en nombre de la democracia y de la libertad al apoyar de manera acrítica un gobierno autocrático como el de Evo Morales. La selección de Néstor Kirchner como Secretario General de este nido de invertebrados corroboraría lo que decimos. Kirchner es un político mafioso, amante del dinero, desvergonzado en sus maniobras conjuntas con el dictador venezolano. Por que se pliega a esto Bachelet? Por qué lo hace Lula? Por qué lo permite Uribe? No lo sabemos, pero el espectáculo que están dando es grotesco y despreciable.
Ah!! Y todo ello con la asistencia técnica de José Miguél Insulza (no cabe en la foto), recientemente homenajeado por un centro de estudios en Washington DC como “campeón de los derechos humanos”. Los latinoamericanos sabemos que este personaje ha pasado ser un jarrón chino, un celestino de dictadores. Tengo largo tiempo que, cada vez que paso por el frente del edificio de la OEA en Washington, lo hago con un pañuelo en la nariz.
lunes, 22 de septiembre de 2008
CANDIDATO DEL PUS EN MARACAIBO TIENE SUS LEALTADES CLARITAS
Afiche del candidato del PUS, Di Martino. No hay duda alguna sobre sus lealtades "democráticas": Guevara y Castro. Como ensucia este payaso el nombre de Bolívar!EL PLAN DEL LOCO: PARA REIR Y PARA LLORAR.
buhonero en el aeropuerto internacional deMaiquetía, parte del plan.
****EL PLAN DE LA NACIÓN SEGÚN CHÁVEZ.
Ríase con este plan. Llore con este plan. Lea el lenguaje más pomposo y rimbombante que la mediocridad pueda concebir! Admire sus profundas contradicciones y su pobreza conceptual. Indígnese con el cinismo que lo satura! Vea como se abusa del nombre de Simón Bolívar. Todo eso y más, encontrará usted en las llamadas “Líneas Generales del Plan de Desarrollo Económico y Social de la Nación 2007-2013”. La verdadera naturaleza del plan, asombrosamente, no aparece en el título. No es ni económico ni social. Es político. El documento aparece firmado nada más ni nada menos que por el “Comandante Presidente Hugo Rafaél Chávez Frías” (pronto vendrá bajo la firma de Generalísimo). Uno se lo imagina laboriosamente estampando su firma, ataviado con el uniforme diseñado por Maripili, botas rusas y medallas ganadas en la batalla gastrointestinal de Yacambú.
El plan consiste de seis “directrices” principales. La primera se llama: Nueva Etica Socialista. En este capítulo se habla de la “refundación” de la nación, la cuál “hunde sus raíces “en las corrientes humanistas del socialismo, y “en el pensamiento de Simón Bolívar”. Uno se pregunta cuáles serán esas corrientes humanistas del socialismo: las masacres como las de Puente Llaguno? Las listas negras de Tascón y Maisanta? La procacidad como lenguaje oficial? La poesía de Isaías Rodríguez? La podrida boliburguesía? Tambien debemos preguntarnos, a cuáles pensamientos socialistas de Simón Bolívar se refieren? La Constitución de Bolivia? Su desconfianza del populismo? La verdadera ética socialista que la pandilla ha evidenciado durante diez años es una que combina el robo descarado de los dineros de la nación con la más absoluta impunidad.
La segunda directriz ( no son guías o lineamientos, son órdenes) se denomina: La Suprema Felicidad Social. Aquí se podrá usted reír bastante. Habla de una estructura social incluyente, de un nuevo modelo social productivo y que permita a todos vivir en iguales condiciones, rumbo a lo que el Libertador llamaba “la suprema felicidad social”. Y preguntamos: incluyente sin los escuálidos, sin los pitiyankis, sin los extranjeros, sin los empresarios, sin los sindicatos, sin los disidentes, sin el 60% de la población? Será posible el nuevo modelo social productivo en la sociedad de limosneros que Chávez ha creado, con sus subsidios, sus regalos y su carencia de programas de ataque estructural a la pobreza? La igualdad de condiciones debe entenderse como la pobreza generalizada? Las colas para comprar comida? El crimen que acecha a todos los venezolanos? Las cadenas televisivas para los esclavos?
La tercera directriz es la Democracia Protagónica y Revolucionaria. La “debilidad individual” se transformaría en “fuerza colectiva” pero, al mismo tiempo, se reforzaría el “poder originario”del individuo, la independencia y la libertad. La creación de la manada paradojicamente pretendería el fortalecimiento del individuo! Lo que existe es una autocracia poco ilustrada, en la cuál no hay protagonismo posible que no sea el del Chávez ni revolución que no sea, como dice el granuja de Escarrá, la de todos los venezolanos alrededor del sol de Barinas.
La cuarta directriz es el Modelo Productivo Socialista. Se eliminaría la división social del trabajo y su estructura jerárquica. Palabras de Heinz Diederich, hoy en desgracia. Suponemos que significa que todos vamos a ser jefes, que un barrendero y un neurocirujano ganarán lo mismo por hora de trabajo, como lo postula Diederich. La realidad chavista es otra: ahora hay más boliburguseses y ladrones del erario público que nunca. No hay sino un jefe, su capricho es ley. El que disienta es insultado , humillado en público. No hay jerarquías, solo el cantinero en el balcón y, abajo, un océano de vasallos.
La Quinta directriz es la Nueva Geopolítica Nacional, un extraño nombre porque uno pensaría que la geopolítica no es nacional sino muy global. Habla de los cambios territoriales “desconcentrados”, definido por ejes “integradores”, con un sistema de ciudades “interconectadas”. Un verdadero arroz con mango conceptual. La realidad es que lo que existe en Venezuela hoy es una centralización feroz, monárquica, donde nada se mueve (y generalmente no se mueve) sin la aprobación del caudillo.
La Sexta directriz es Venezuela: Potencia Energética Mundial. Aquí se enuncia el uso “soberano” del recurso así como su utilización para lograr la integración mundial. En primer lugar, lo que sucede hoy con el recurso petrolero es su vil entrega a los amigotes de Chávez y la prostitución de la empresa que lo produce para convertirla en una distribuidora de comida y preparadora de atletas. Que soberanía ni que ocho cuartos. Chávez se ha dedicado a regalar el petróleo como si fuera de él. Lo utiliza para sembrar discordia, no para integrar (se lo quita a los Dominicanos si tienen a Carlos Andrés allá pero se lo da a sus compinches Castro y Morales cuando obedecen sus órdenes).
La última directriz se denomina Nueva Geopolítica Internacional, término extraño por lo redundante (algo así como el círculo redondo). Se trata de “crear nuevos polos de poder”, “dialogar fraternalmente” con los pueblos del mundo, respetar la libertad de pensamiento. Al llegar aquí reímos, lloramos y hasta maldecimos. El diálogo fraterno seguramente tiene que ver con aquello de “yankis de mierda, Bush, eres un borracho, Uribe, eres un degenerado, Fox, eres un perro del imperio, Insulza, eres un pendejo, Condoleeza, te voy a tener que dar lo tuyo, Bachelet, eres una ignorante, Aznar, eres un bandido, García, eres un caimán del mismo pozo de Bush, los estudiantes se drogan para protestar contra mi”. Seguramente así es como Chávez le habla a sus hermanos en Barinas.
No entiendo como el pueblo venezolano ha soportado a Hugo Chávez por diez años, por más dinero que haya repartido. Los Venezolanos de la tercera edad hemos advertido que nuestras posibilidades de ver una Venezuela libre, democrática y socialmente próspera se han cerrado. El desastre material, moral y espiritual que Chávez ha generado en Venezuela tardará dos o tres generaciones en corregirse. Ello no impide que continuemos haciendo todos los esfuerzos posibles para ahorrarle más sufrimiento y tanta humillación a nuestros compatriotas.
miércoles, 17 de septiembre de 2008
WOLA, THE WASHINGTON OFFICE ON LATIN AMERICA, GIVES A HUMAN RIGHTS AWARD TO MR. JOSE MIGUEL INSULZA!!!!
This is the Venezuelan situation.
Congratulations? WOLA is a think tank specializing in Latin America, based in Washington DC. I have been in only one event on Venezuela organized by them about 2 years ago and it was very biased in Chavez's favor. Now they come up with this beauty. I sent them the letter I transcribe below:
MY LETTER TO WOLA.
Dear Sirs:
As you were celebrating your gala event last night, presenting Mr. Jose Miguel Insulza, the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, with an award and special recognition as a defender of Human Rights in Latin America and for having succesfully conducted his work at the OAS during the past years, the Human Rights Watch, HRW, a prestigious organization working to combat human rights violations wherever they take place in our planet, was getting ready to make public his Report on the Human Rights situation in Venezuela, a country member of the OAS. They did this today ( HRW (www.hrw.org)) and presented the world with a report that contains a nightmarish picture of the situation of human rights in Venezuela. There is no way your institution could not have known the dismal situation of human rights in Venezuela. There is no way your institution could not have known how the Secretary General of the OAS has systematically defended the authoritarian Venezuelan regime and has been most enthusiastic about Mr. Chavez's presidency, with one solitary exception, when he attempted a mild criticism and Chavez called him a "pendejo", an ***hole.
Mr. Insulza denied emphatically before the U.S. Congress any link of Mr. Chavez with the Colombian terrorist organization FARC, against all evidence to the contrary.
Mr. Insulza applauded the role of Mr. Chavez in the Santo Domingo Summit meeting, just after Chavez had tried to start a war with Colombia and had been the main promoter of the political crisis that was being discussed at that meeting.
Once and again Mr. Insulza has failed to act in the Venezuelan case and has been much more interested in his political future in his native Chile than acting impartially in defense of Latin American citizens, not simply governments. I protest vigorously this award given to Mr. Insulza. I have nothing against him as an individual but I strongly believe that he has failed his duties as an international servant. Although you have perfect right to act as your Board feels justified, I find your decision to honor him a very hard one to explain to outside observers.
Sincerely,
Gustavo Coronel
As you were celebrating your gala event last night, presenting Mr. Jose Miguel Insulza, the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, with an award and special recognition as a defender of Human Rights in Latin America and for having succesfully conducted his work at the OAS during the past years, the Human Rights Watch, HRW, a prestigious organization working to combat human rights violations wherever they take place in our planet, was getting ready to make public his Report on the Human Rights situation in Venezuela, a country member of the OAS. They did this today ( HRW (www.hrw.org)) and presented the world with a report that contains a nightmarish picture of the situation of human rights in Venezuela. There is no way your institution could not have known the dismal situation of human rights in Venezuela. There is no way your institution could not have known how the Secretary General of the OAS has systematically defended the authoritarian Venezuelan regime and has been most enthusiastic about Mr. Chavez's presidency, with one solitary exception, when he attempted a mild criticism and Chavez called him a "pendejo", an ***hole.
Mr. Insulza denied emphatically before the U.S. Congress any link of Mr. Chavez with the Colombian terrorist organization FARC, against all evidence to the contrary.
Mr. Insulza applauded the role of Mr. Chavez in the Santo Domingo Summit meeting, just after Chavez had tried to start a war with Colombia and had been the main promoter of the political crisis that was being discussed at that meeting.
Once and again Mr. Insulza has failed to act in the Venezuelan case and has been much more interested in his political future in his native Chile than acting impartially in defense of Latin American citizens, not simply governments. I protest vigorously this award given to Mr. Insulza. I have nothing against him as an individual but I strongly believe that he has failed his duties as an international servant. Although you have perfect right to act as your Board feels justified, I find your decision to honor him a very hard one to explain to outside observers.
Sincerely,
Gustavo Coronel
ENTRE EL RIESGO PAIS Y EL BOLSA DE MADURO.
El riesgo país de Venezuela pasó a ser de más de mil cincuenta puntos después de los últimos eventos en los cuáles hablaron los malandros de Miami, y los funcionarios del Departamento de Estado de los Estados Unidos designaron a los malandros Ramón Rodríguez Chacín, Henry Silva y Hugo Carvajal como cómplices de los narcotraficantes Colombianos de las FARC. Las revelaciones de Miami van a continuar y por allí viene el informe del Human Rights Watch sobre la podredumbre del régimen chavista. Y que hace la oposición?
Sin darse por enterado el bolsa de Nicolás Maduro, (arriba, agarradito de manos con la canciller de las FARC, Piedad Córdoba Flores), le exige al canciller de Chile retractarse sobre lo que ha dicho de Chávez, eso de que es "un saboteador y un farandulero". Habrá alguien que le haga caso a Maduro en Latinoamérica, a pesar del dineral que nos pertenece a nosotros y que él reparte a manos llenas? Aunque hay mucho invertebrado en las tareas diplomáticas de América Latina, si hay gente que se siente ofendida por las maneras cacasénicas de Maduro y de Chávez y que no aceptan ser comprados. Esperemos que el canciller de Chile tenga los cojones de mandar al podrido maduro, el chofer, al mismísimo...
martes, 16 de septiembre de 2008
LETTER TO LARRY BIRNS, AT THE COUNCIL ON HEMISPHERIC AFFAIRS.
Human Rights demonstration, Caracas.
A young man sleeps in the street, in Caracas.There are 200,000 young Venezuelans living like this
in Chavez's socialist paradise.
Dear Mr. Birns (left):
I am appalled at the poor quality of the “analysis”: “Bolivia: a profound breakdown of communication with Latin America” written by you and Ms. R. Rivero and published in your website today, 09-16-2008, www.coha.org . In particular I would like to offer some comments on three of the paragraphs included in this “analysis”. Allow me to start by reminding you of the position maintained by one of your heroes, Hugo Chavez, in connection with the Latin American political situation. Only a few hours ago, in Santiago de Chile, Hugo Chavez reiterated that he would intervene in Bolivia militarily if President Morales was ousted: “Chavez reafirmó sus intenciones de apoyar militarmente a Bolivia si los opositores al gobierno de Morales persisten en su supuesta idea de derrocarlo”. News Agency EFE, September 16, 2008.
Regarding the meeting in Chile the Chilean Minister of Foreign Relations, Alejandro Foley, said that Hugo Chavez "made all efforts to sabotage the meeting, asking for condemnation of the U.S." and talking about intervening militarily in Bolivia. Foley said that "some people could really go to extremes to capture attention".
The first of your statements that I would like to comment follows:
“Neither Chavez or Morales can in any manner be condemned for any democratic lapses, lack of human rights observance, nor mistreatment nor abuse of their citizens. You may consider them confrontational non-conformists, or condemn them for their non-adherence to traditional codes of diplomatic behavior, but you cannot cite them for being antipathetic in their behavior towards their own people. Surely there was enough here of democratic substance with which the U.S. could do business”….
This statement shows a very sad ignorance of what Hugo Chavez is doing and has done in Venezuela. Hugo Chavez can certainly be condemned and, in fact, is being condemned in international organizations such as the OAS Committee on Human Rights for numerous violations of human rights in Venezuela. The violations of the constitution by Hugo Chavez are almost daily occurrences. He is an authoritarian, non-democratic president. How can you say, “He cannot be condemned for democratic lapses?”. Such an assertion can only come from someone that has sacrificed his objectivity to passionate ideology or to material gain. Since I think you are not getting paid for this the other alternative is that your strategic hatred of the U.S. government (for reasons that are no concern of mine) has thrown you into the arms of a detestable and ignorant populist tyrant such as Chavez (The enemy of my enemy is my friend). The essential problem with Hugo Chavez is not, as you suggest, that he is a lout (which he is) or that he thinks nothing of insulting opponents in the most vulgar manner (which he does). His basic problem is that he is an undemocratic, populist, highly corrupt political leader who has managed to pilfer some $600 billion in ten years, while Venezuelans have similar poverty levels today to those he found ten years ago, the highest crime rate in the hemisphere (almost 60 violent deaths per 100,000 inhabitants) and its highest inflation rate (will close a over 35% this year), among many other tragic failures of his regime. How can you, therefore, say that he “cannot be cited for being antipathetic in their behavior towards his own people”? I have dozens of photographs of abandoned Venezuelan children sleeping in the streets. Chavez has created a society full of class and racial hate and has based his “social” programs in handouts that do not solve the structural problems of Venezuelan poverty, ill health and ignorance. He is turning them into beggars, dependent on the government Chavez) prodigality. This is cruel and humiliating.
I could say much more and could also talk about the sick relationship between Morales (the client) and Chavez (the patron) but will not do so for the sake of being brief. As for UNASUR, well, I think this action of support for Morales, althoug seemingly by the book, constitutes an intervention on Bolivian affairs. Now, Morales feels supported by the Club of presidents to repress the opposition. He has already put the Pando Mayor in prison, without the deaths being properly investigated. This will lead to more violence and to repression by Morales.
The second paragraph I want to comment is:
“Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) could appear more sensitive and better adapted to regional well-being than any U.S.-crafted free trade agreement with nations that are too weak, like Costa Rica and Panama, to defend their authentic self-interests against subsidized U.S. farm products”.
ALBA is one of the strategies of domination Hugo Chavez is using in Latin America to buy political loyalties. So far, it has had very modest success. Only Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua and now Honduras (highly protested by Hondurans) have joined. Chavez has pretended that ALBA becomes a NATO-type or organization, a military alliance against the U.S. but Correa, one of his boys, and other presidents have refused to agree to that. Only President Ortega, of Nicaragua, has agreed. I will not discuss the merits (or, lack of) of the FTA’s crafted by the U.S. but I just want to say, most emphatically, that ALBA is no true trade agreement but a political construct that is going nowhere.
The third paragraph I want to comment on is the following:
“Reckless and greedy same plan of the pro-autonomy leaders in Bolivia might have provided a compelling reason for the secessionists to preserve order and avoid the violence which, tragically, has already claimed upwards of thirty lives”.
In your “analysis” you make no attempt at looking into the causes of the Bolivian political crisis. You have already decided that the situation is due to the “reckless and greedy” attitude of the “secessionists”. Using a racist tone you call the Bolivian opposition “europerized”, glossing over the fact that the Bolivian opposition is made up of peoples from all skin color, economic status and cultural backgrounds. You have made no attempt at looking at the roots of the problem. Of course, the peoples from the lowlands have always felt distrust of the people form the highlands. This also happens in Venezuela (costeños versus andinos), in Colombia and in Ecuador. In Bolivia this has been increased by the pretensions of Morales to rule with his groups, excluding other groups, even Indian groups, not necessarily the “Europeans”. Morales has tried to impose a constitution that does not reflect a social, much less a political consensus. Morale is trying to utilize the rich resources for the Bolivian lowlands for the benefit of a part of the nation, his part. The autonomic, not secessionist, movement is full of hard working Bolivians but for you they are just greedy. I have seen Morales receiving checks of Venezuelan money and distributing them among his followers. He has said: “When they tell me something is illegal I call my lawyer to make it legal”, reacting to the criticism of his receiving Venezuelan money without this money being processed through the proper institutions. This is how thwy think, Chavez and Morales, your heroes.
I am frankly disgusted by your work. For some time now you have abandoned all pretenses of being an objective analyst. Your credibility as the leader of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs is highly compromised. Your ideological or partisan differences with the U.S. government should not force you into the camp of corrupt, populist, undemocratic, even immoral Latin American political leaders. To oppose Bush you don't have to idolize political gangsters like Hugo Chavez.
Best regards,
Gustavo Coronel
I am appalled at the poor quality of the “analysis”: “Bolivia: a profound breakdown of communication with Latin America” written by you and Ms. R. Rivero and published in your website today, 09-16-2008, www.coha.org . In particular I would like to offer some comments on three of the paragraphs included in this “analysis”. Allow me to start by reminding you of the position maintained by one of your heroes, Hugo Chavez, in connection with the Latin American political situation. Only a few hours ago, in Santiago de Chile, Hugo Chavez reiterated that he would intervene in Bolivia militarily if President Morales was ousted: “Chavez reafirmó sus intenciones de apoyar militarmente a Bolivia si los opositores al gobierno de Morales persisten en su supuesta idea de derrocarlo”. News Agency EFE, September 16, 2008.
Regarding the meeting in Chile the Chilean Minister of Foreign Relations, Alejandro Foley, said that Hugo Chavez "made all efforts to sabotage the meeting, asking for condemnation of the U.S." and talking about intervening militarily in Bolivia. Foley said that "some people could really go to extremes to capture attention".
The first of your statements that I would like to comment follows:
“Neither Chavez or Morales can in any manner be condemned for any democratic lapses, lack of human rights observance, nor mistreatment nor abuse of their citizens. You may consider them confrontational non-conformists, or condemn them for their non-adherence to traditional codes of diplomatic behavior, but you cannot cite them for being antipathetic in their behavior towards their own people. Surely there was enough here of democratic substance with which the U.S. could do business”….
This statement shows a very sad ignorance of what Hugo Chavez is doing and has done in Venezuela. Hugo Chavez can certainly be condemned and, in fact, is being condemned in international organizations such as the OAS Committee on Human Rights for numerous violations of human rights in Venezuela. The violations of the constitution by Hugo Chavez are almost daily occurrences. He is an authoritarian, non-democratic president. How can you say, “He cannot be condemned for democratic lapses?”. Such an assertion can only come from someone that has sacrificed his objectivity to passionate ideology or to material gain. Since I think you are not getting paid for this the other alternative is that your strategic hatred of the U.S. government (for reasons that are no concern of mine) has thrown you into the arms of a detestable and ignorant populist tyrant such as Chavez (The enemy of my enemy is my friend). The essential problem with Hugo Chavez is not, as you suggest, that he is a lout (which he is) or that he thinks nothing of insulting opponents in the most vulgar manner (which he does). His basic problem is that he is an undemocratic, populist, highly corrupt political leader who has managed to pilfer some $600 billion in ten years, while Venezuelans have similar poverty levels today to those he found ten years ago, the highest crime rate in the hemisphere (almost 60 violent deaths per 100,000 inhabitants) and its highest inflation rate (will close a over 35% this year), among many other tragic failures of his regime. How can you, therefore, say that he “cannot be cited for being antipathetic in their behavior towards his own people”? I have dozens of photographs of abandoned Venezuelan children sleeping in the streets. Chavez has created a society full of class and racial hate and has based his “social” programs in handouts that do not solve the structural problems of Venezuelan poverty, ill health and ignorance. He is turning them into beggars, dependent on the government Chavez) prodigality. This is cruel and humiliating.
I could say much more and could also talk about the sick relationship between Morales (the client) and Chavez (the patron) but will not do so for the sake of being brief. As for UNASUR, well, I think this action of support for Morales, althoug seemingly by the book, constitutes an intervention on Bolivian affairs. Now, Morales feels supported by the Club of presidents to repress the opposition. He has already put the Pando Mayor in prison, without the deaths being properly investigated. This will lead to more violence and to repression by Morales.
The second paragraph I want to comment is:
“Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) could appear more sensitive and better adapted to regional well-being than any U.S.-crafted free trade agreement with nations that are too weak, like Costa Rica and Panama, to defend their authentic self-interests against subsidized U.S. farm products”.
ALBA is one of the strategies of domination Hugo Chavez is using in Latin America to buy political loyalties. So far, it has had very modest success. Only Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua and now Honduras (highly protested by Hondurans) have joined. Chavez has pretended that ALBA becomes a NATO-type or organization, a military alliance against the U.S. but Correa, one of his boys, and other presidents have refused to agree to that. Only President Ortega, of Nicaragua, has agreed. I will not discuss the merits (or, lack of) of the FTA’s crafted by the U.S. but I just want to say, most emphatically, that ALBA is no true trade agreement but a political construct that is going nowhere.
The third paragraph I want to comment on is the following:
“Reckless and greedy same plan of the pro-autonomy leaders in Bolivia might have provided a compelling reason for the secessionists to preserve order and avoid the violence which, tragically, has already claimed upwards of thirty lives”.
In your “analysis” you make no attempt at looking into the causes of the Bolivian political crisis. You have already decided that the situation is due to the “reckless and greedy” attitude of the “secessionists”. Using a racist tone you call the Bolivian opposition “europerized”, glossing over the fact that the Bolivian opposition is made up of peoples from all skin color, economic status and cultural backgrounds. You have made no attempt at looking at the roots of the problem. Of course, the peoples from the lowlands have always felt distrust of the people form the highlands. This also happens in Venezuela (costeños versus andinos), in Colombia and in Ecuador. In Bolivia this has been increased by the pretensions of Morales to rule with his groups, excluding other groups, even Indian groups, not necessarily the “Europeans”. Morales has tried to impose a constitution that does not reflect a social, much less a political consensus. Morale is trying to utilize the rich resources for the Bolivian lowlands for the benefit of a part of the nation, his part. The autonomic, not secessionist, movement is full of hard working Bolivians but for you they are just greedy. I have seen Morales receiving checks of Venezuelan money and distributing them among his followers. He has said: “When they tell me something is illegal I call my lawyer to make it legal”, reacting to the criticism of his receiving Venezuelan money without this money being processed through the proper institutions. This is how thwy think, Chavez and Morales, your heroes.
I am frankly disgusted by your work. For some time now you have abandoned all pretenses of being an objective analyst. Your credibility as the leader of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs is highly compromised. Your ideological or partisan differences with the U.S. government should not force you into the camp of corrupt, populist, undemocratic, even immoral Latin American political leaders. To oppose Bush you don't have to idolize political gangsters like Hugo Chavez.
Best regards,
Gustavo Coronel
lunes, 15 de septiembre de 2008
AN EXCELLENT CONFERENCE ON LATIN AMERICA IN WASHINGTON DC
The annual conference on Latin America sponsored by CAF, Corporacion Andina de Fomento, took place in Washington DC, September 11110 and 11. Most of the panelists were of high quality. There were eight panels on the topics of the economic outlook for the region, the impact of food and energy prices in the region, U.S. politics (two panels), energy challenges, the Summit of the Americas, Political developments in the Andean region and the politics of Latin American relations.
1. Economic Outlook.
Miguel Castilla, CAF. After several years of growing 5% or more the region has been caught up in the global economic slowdown and will grow less, at 4.0-4.5 % for the year. The overall economic management in the region has improved dramatically. Free Trade agreements of U.S. with Colombia and Panama have relatively good chances of being approved. However, trade is slower, remittances to the region are significantly down and there are signs of credit contraction.
Brian O’Neill. Department of the Treasury. The Department of the Treasury is working closely with the countries of the region in the upgrading of finance institutions. It promotes financing by the private sector and has established fiscal savings programs in several countries. The Treasury has about 15 advisors working with Latin American governments.
Jose Fajgenbaum. International Monetary Fund. Forecasts a weaker growth for the region, 3.7-3.9% for the year. Inflation will rise and all efforts should be done to contain inflationary pressures.
Hugo Beteta, IDB. He offered an optimistic view. Inflation will peak at some 8.4%.
Joyce Chang. J.P. Morgan- Chase. Inflation behavior will largely depend on food prices, probably at 7-8%. Countries like Peru, Chile and Colombia are doing well while Argentina and Venezuela are not. There is low confidence in capital availability for the region since there is a global credit crisis. The economic crisis in Latin America will be felt for the next 2-5 years.
2. Impact of Surging Food and Energy Prices in the region.
The increasing food and energy prices do no affect all countries of Latin America in the same manner because some are net exporters of these commodities while others are net importers. In fact, the region as a whole is net exporter of both energy and food. It could be argued, therefore, that a large majority of Latin American countries are better off due to higher price increase. However, at the level of households most of Latin Americans are net buyers of food and have not been able to profit from the rise in food prices. The weak point in the region is production capacity. In the case of energy the exporting capacity is limited to a few countries while the majority of the countries are net importers.
It is argued that increasing food costs are due to the utilization of more and more land to produce bio-fuels such as ethanol. However, it has been documented that only a small percentage of the arable land is being dedicated to this activity. The panel, made up of Thomas Shannon, Department of State; Nora Lustig, George Washington University; Nancy Birdsall, Center for Global Development, Francisco Ferreira, World Bank and Augusto de la Torre, World Bank, could not agree on how serious this phenomenon was for the region or how to minimize its effects.
My Comments. It seems to me that a fundamental problem lies in the incapacity of governments in net exporting countries to manage wisely the income received from the surge in prices. In net importing countries there is a fundamental lack of sound national planning in order to increase food production and search for alternative sources of energy.
3. U.S. Politics, Panel I.
This panel was made up of U.S. Congress members Gregory Meeks, Christopher Cannon and Jerry Weller. I must say that this was a very impressive panel, basically due to the civility and political maturity of the panelists.
Gregory Meeks. Democratic representative from New York refrained from making a prediction about the outcome of the U.S. presidential elections. He said that predictions are only made by two kinds of people: Those that do not know and those that do not know that they don’t know. It will be a very close election, he said, and he trusted that his candidate, Barrack Obama, would win. He said that in the global scene the U.S. should be prepared to deal with democratic as well as with non-democratic governments and focus their efforts on consolidating potential points of agreement rather than harping on points of disagreement. He said he was sure that President Obama would be very close to Latin America and maintain with the region a relationship based on mutual respect. He supports the signing of the Colombian and Panamanian Free Trade Agreements.
Christopher Cannon. Republican representative from Utah. Cannon was in Colombia as a child, with his parents and, later, in Guatemala as a Mormon missionary. He is an enthusiastic supporter of the region. He emphasized the need to put in place programs to disseminate the use of Internet and is supporting such programs, as well as a cheap computer ($250) that can be used at school level in Latin America. Cannon believes that economic activity can increase significantly through the implementation of these programs. He believes that McCain will win the presidency but expects the Democrats to have a majority in Congress. He supports the Colombian and Panamanian Free Trade Agreements.
Jerry Weller. Republican representative from Illinois. His wife is a member of the Guatemala Congress and has made many trips to Latin America. He maintains excellent relations with other representatives who work in support of Latin America and is a strong supporter of the Free trade Agreements with Colombia and Panama. He says that the promotion of trade is the best mechanism to support Latin America. He also advocates security cooperation and the participation of NGO’s in Latin America. He said that no less than 150 U.S. NGO’s visit Nicaragua every year. According to him Bush started on the right foot with Latin America and became the U.S. president paying the largest amount of visits (11) to the region. Unfortunately, he added, 9-11 changed the priorities of his government. He believes that the next U.S. president will be John McCain and that he will go to the April 2009 Summit of the Americas to listen carefully to his Latin American colleagues. McCain, he said, has traveled extensively throughout Latin America while Obama has never visited the region. In Latin America, Weller said, we must find a way to get the food to the market.
My Comments. Listening to these members of Congress I understand fully why democracy in this nation is so strong. These persons are civil with each other, argue their points without passion, and concede the other a point when this is the thing to do. This panel was one of the magic moments of the conference because it allowed the audience to see true democracy in action.
Panel 4. U.S Politics, II.
The second panel on U.S. politics brought together the Latin American spokespersons for both U.S. presidential candidates, Daniel Restrepo (Obama) and Adolfo Franco (McCain).
Daniel Restrepo. The Obama spokesperson said that, as soon as he was inaugurated, President Obama would name a Special Envoy to the Americas. The motto of his candidate, he said, is: “Whatever is good for the Americas is good for the U.S.”. He said that Obama would be prepared to use a full array of presidential powers to deal with countries such as Venezuela, where a non-democratic president was in power. This would include a dialog, he said, since it would be self-defeating not to establish this connection. He said that Obama supports the FTA with Colombia and that Obama would deal with every country differently, since what works in one country does not necessarily works in another. Obama favors remittances to Cuba.
Alfonso Franco. The McCain spokesperson said that President McCain himself would be the Special Envoy to Latin America. McCain supports the FTA with Colombia and Panama. Today, he said, 90% of all Colombian goods entering the U.S. are duty free. The FTA would simply put U.S. products in an equal position and this is only fair. McCain, he said, knows Latin America well and has a long and coherent record of support for Latin America. McCain, he added, will not reward Venezuela or Cuba with an unconditional dialogue. These regimes will have to make democratic moves before McCain talks to them. He also supports remittances to Cuba but thinks they should not be taxed by the Cuban regime. McCain is very bipartisan about the immigration issue and acted very courageously to advance a bill together with some democrats and against members of his own party.
My Comments. This panel was excellent and featured two young and very sharp Latin intellectuals, both highly articulate. Restrepo is very bright, looked ready for a Hollywood movie but not quite ready yet for the political major leagues. He did not keep his cool under Franco’s questioning. Franco is more mature and seems more experienced than Restrepo. Both of them, however, did a very good job in trying to “sell” their candidates. Franco 2, Restrepo 1, as in soccer.
Panel 5. Energy Challenges.
This panel was moderated by Genaro Arriagada and included Jeffrey Davidow, president of the Institute of the Americas, Joel Velasco, representative of the Brazilian Sugar Cane Industry Association and Paul Isbell, Director of the Energy Program at El Elcano Royal institute, Spain.
Latin America, as a region, is a net exporter of energy but not all the countries export. The majority are net importers. Of the main exporting countries Mexico and Venezuela have suffered important declines in production during the last six or seven years, about 600,000 barrels per day each. In both countries this is due to severe under investment and poor management in their national oil companies. In the small countries of the Caribbean and Central America the high prices of energy is critical. The good news mostly come from Brazil, a country that has attained energy self sufficiency, not only through the efforts of a well managed national oil company but also thanks to its bio-fuels program, the second largest in the world after the U.S.
Paul Isbell. There is increasing energy nationalism in Latin America. This is damaging the efforts at regional integration since political ideology is prevailing over economic cooperation. The politicization of energy in the region, the use of oil as a political tool, is not justified in times of peace although it could be justified in times of war.
Joel Velasco. In Brazil up to 80% of energy needs are met with hydro electrical power. Brazil is now a pioneer in offshore drilling for oil and gas. The bio-fuels program is now the second largest in the world. The price of ethanol is half the price of gasoline. Velasco says that the U.S. and Europe have imposed a 30% tax on Brazilian ethanol that is damaging to these countries and to Brazil. Franco also says that the countries in Central America and the Caribbean should produce more ethanol. Many producers of ethanol are needed, he said. In fact, sugar cane can also generate plastics, an industry which is growing in Brazil. He added that only one percent of arable land in Brazil is being used for bio-fuel production.
Jeffrey Davidow. Although producing countries have a legitimate right to make more money out of their energy production, the way some counties are going about it, like Venezuela, will likely produce the opposite result. National Oil Companied, in the average, are about 30% less efficient than private companies. They are plagued with poor management and low transparency. The government intervenes in their decision-making process and the governments usually utilize the money required for investments for another purposes. It should be of concern to the United States that Mexico, Venezuela and, even, Canada, the three main hemispheric sources of energy for the country, are now producing less and resorting to heavy oils or tar sands to balance their declining production. Populism/Statism is increasing. IN Bolivia, Argentina, Venezuela and Ecuador gasoline sells at low, subsidized prices. The energy integration process in the southern cone has collapsed, each country going its own way. LNG terminal are being built in Argentina to import gas from the opposite side of the world, due to the unreliability of Bolivian gas.
My Comments. The energy situation in Latin America is tragic, both from the viewpoint of the energy importers and of the energy exporters. It is a sad situation of lost opportunities, corruption and mismanagement. Net importers in Central America and the Caribbean are either paying more than they can afford for energy or falling into the hands of political predators such as Hugo Chavez. Net exporters such as Mexico, Ecuador, Venezuela and Bolivia have yielded to the temptation of politicizing their industries, a process that is leading to the deterioration and eventual operational collapse of these companies and of the national economies these companies sustain. In Ecuador the operations of the oil company are in the hands of the Navy. In Venezuela the oil company is engaged in importing and distributing food, in the training of Olympic athletes and many other tasks without relation to its core business. The company is also engaged in criminal activities, such as financing the presidential campaigns of Chavez’s ideological friends in other countries of the hemisphere. In Bolivia, a country in turmoil, the operations of the corrupt and inefficient oil and gas state company is practically paralyzed and the gas to Brazil and Argentina is not being delivered. Throughout the region most political leaders practice populism, the easiest way to get nowhere. The central problem in Latin America is not geological but the lack political integrity, courage and vision by its leaders.
Panel 6. The Summit of the Americas. This panel dealt with the meeting of hemispheric heads of state being planned for April 2009. The panel included Jose Miguel Insulza, OAS; Luis Alberto Rodriguez, IADB; Pamela Cox, World Bank and Luis Alberto Rodriguez, Summit of the Americas Coordinator. The moderators were Peter Hakim, IAD, and Enrique Garcia, president of CAF and main motor behind the Conference.
The discussion centered on the outlook for success of the Summit and the possible Agenda. Insulza, Rodriguez and Cox were optimistic about the outcome. Moreno was more cautious, suggesting that the Agenda should be realistic instead of over ambitious, a problem that had limited the success of previous summits. Insulza agreed, saying that it should be possible for the summit to tackle sub-regional issues having better probabilities of agreement. Ambassador Rodriguez was very much the diplomat, both in language and attitude. He mentioned two topics that would probably be part of the agenda: Global Warming and Employment.
My Comments. There have been six or so Summits of the Americas. I wonder if an evaluation of the results of these summits has been made, a comparison of expectations and accomplishments. I agree with IADB’s President Moreno that an over ambitious agenda will probably be a kiss of death for the meeting. I made a joke, at least tried to, saying that when the last period of global warming took place, 150,000 years ago, the Summit of the Americas had no role to play, only to suggest that the next Summit should ideally tackle more manageable issues. I mentioned one: how to transform the millions of Latin Americans who are just people into citizens. Now, this would really be a challenge worthy of the leaders of the hemisphere and certainly within their power, given proper planning and will. It would be easier than going to the moon! Another would be how to transform the OAS into a working organization, but this would probably be more difficult than the other objective. A third issue that still awaits decisive action is that of institutional weakness in the countries of the region. Probably thousand of studies have been made about this problem but no remedial action has been taken, except in a very few countries (Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, Costa Rica).
Panel 7 was on Political developments in the Andean Region. It was moderated by Ana Mercedes Botero, CAF, and panelists included Ana Maria San Juan, Central Venezuelan University; Cesar Montufar, Andean Studies Center; Carlos Camargo, United Nations, Bolivian Program; Diego García-Sayan, Inter-American Court of Human Rights and Rafael Pardo, former Defense Minister of Colombia.
My Comments. There are few regions of Latin America as turbulent as the Andean region. Paradoxically, the country most affected by violence during the last decades, Colombia, is today one of the more stable, thanks to the military victory of the Colombian Army over the FARC and other irregular armed groups. Venezuela, Ecuador and especially Bolivia are social and political pressure cookers, due to the presence of populist regimes that have made of anti-Americanism their main objective, in preference to the welfare of their own peoples. A Venezuelan narcissistic leader, illegally using his country’s oil wealth has adopted a strategy of increasing hostility against the United States in the Andean region. However, the strategy is backfiring and Chavez, Correa and Morales are now fighting for their political lives, after some years of increasingly abusive authoritarianism. In particular, Chavez is now firmly linked to two criminal investigations, one related to the FARC and the other connected with the oil money delivered to the Kirchners in Argentina. As Chavez weakens as a result of these scandals and crimes the other two Andean leaders, who depend on Chavez’s financial handouts for survival, have also become more fragile. One sad aspect of this situation has been the passive, complacent role played by the Secretary General of the OAS Jose Miguel Insulza. Mr. Insulza has done nothing to curb Chavez’s pretensions of regional hegemony. In fact, at times he has sounded like one of his allies. This has further discredited the OAS as an effective organization to defend freedom and democracy in the Americas. Many of the Latin American leaders have preferred to sit on the fence, to watch the confrontation between the powerful United States and the prodigal Fidel Castro’s pupil, probably trying to extract maximum benefit from both sides in exchange for insincere pledges of loyalty.
Panel 8 was on the Politics of Latin American Relations. I did not attend this panel and cannot comment.
************************
In summary, this is the type of gathering that provides the audience with food for thought, stimulates the interest in the region and raises our hopes that positive action will be taken by those who are in a leadership position.
Congratulations to CAF for a job well done!
1. Economic Outlook.
Miguel Castilla, CAF. After several years of growing 5% or more the region has been caught up in the global economic slowdown and will grow less, at 4.0-4.5 % for the year. The overall economic management in the region has improved dramatically. Free Trade agreements of U.S. with Colombia and Panama have relatively good chances of being approved. However, trade is slower, remittances to the region are significantly down and there are signs of credit contraction.
Brian O’Neill. Department of the Treasury. The Department of the Treasury is working closely with the countries of the region in the upgrading of finance institutions. It promotes financing by the private sector and has established fiscal savings programs in several countries. The Treasury has about 15 advisors working with Latin American governments.
Jose Fajgenbaum. International Monetary Fund. Forecasts a weaker growth for the region, 3.7-3.9% for the year. Inflation will rise and all efforts should be done to contain inflationary pressures.
Hugo Beteta, IDB. He offered an optimistic view. Inflation will peak at some 8.4%.
Joyce Chang. J.P. Morgan- Chase. Inflation behavior will largely depend on food prices, probably at 7-8%. Countries like Peru, Chile and Colombia are doing well while Argentina and Venezuela are not. There is low confidence in capital availability for the region since there is a global credit crisis. The economic crisis in Latin America will be felt for the next 2-5 years.
2. Impact of Surging Food and Energy Prices in the region.
The increasing food and energy prices do no affect all countries of Latin America in the same manner because some are net exporters of these commodities while others are net importers. In fact, the region as a whole is net exporter of both energy and food. It could be argued, therefore, that a large majority of Latin American countries are better off due to higher price increase. However, at the level of households most of Latin Americans are net buyers of food and have not been able to profit from the rise in food prices. The weak point in the region is production capacity. In the case of energy the exporting capacity is limited to a few countries while the majority of the countries are net importers.
It is argued that increasing food costs are due to the utilization of more and more land to produce bio-fuels such as ethanol. However, it has been documented that only a small percentage of the arable land is being dedicated to this activity. The panel, made up of Thomas Shannon, Department of State; Nora Lustig, George Washington University; Nancy Birdsall, Center for Global Development, Francisco Ferreira, World Bank and Augusto de la Torre, World Bank, could not agree on how serious this phenomenon was for the region or how to minimize its effects.
My Comments. It seems to me that a fundamental problem lies in the incapacity of governments in net exporting countries to manage wisely the income received from the surge in prices. In net importing countries there is a fundamental lack of sound national planning in order to increase food production and search for alternative sources of energy.
3. U.S. Politics, Panel I.
This panel was made up of U.S. Congress members Gregory Meeks, Christopher Cannon and Jerry Weller. I must say that this was a very impressive panel, basically due to the civility and political maturity of the panelists.
Gregory Meeks. Democratic representative from New York refrained from making a prediction about the outcome of the U.S. presidential elections. He said that predictions are only made by two kinds of people: Those that do not know and those that do not know that they don’t know. It will be a very close election, he said, and he trusted that his candidate, Barrack Obama, would win. He said that in the global scene the U.S. should be prepared to deal with democratic as well as with non-democratic governments and focus their efforts on consolidating potential points of agreement rather than harping on points of disagreement. He said he was sure that President Obama would be very close to Latin America and maintain with the region a relationship based on mutual respect. He supports the signing of the Colombian and Panamanian Free Trade Agreements.
Christopher Cannon. Republican representative from Utah. Cannon was in Colombia as a child, with his parents and, later, in Guatemala as a Mormon missionary. He is an enthusiastic supporter of the region. He emphasized the need to put in place programs to disseminate the use of Internet and is supporting such programs, as well as a cheap computer ($250) that can be used at school level in Latin America. Cannon believes that economic activity can increase significantly through the implementation of these programs. He believes that McCain will win the presidency but expects the Democrats to have a majority in Congress. He supports the Colombian and Panamanian Free Trade Agreements.
Jerry Weller. Republican representative from Illinois. His wife is a member of the Guatemala Congress and has made many trips to Latin America. He maintains excellent relations with other representatives who work in support of Latin America and is a strong supporter of the Free trade Agreements with Colombia and Panama. He says that the promotion of trade is the best mechanism to support Latin America. He also advocates security cooperation and the participation of NGO’s in Latin America. He said that no less than 150 U.S. NGO’s visit Nicaragua every year. According to him Bush started on the right foot with Latin America and became the U.S. president paying the largest amount of visits (11) to the region. Unfortunately, he added, 9-11 changed the priorities of his government. He believes that the next U.S. president will be John McCain and that he will go to the April 2009 Summit of the Americas to listen carefully to his Latin American colleagues. McCain, he said, has traveled extensively throughout Latin America while Obama has never visited the region. In Latin America, Weller said, we must find a way to get the food to the market.
My Comments. Listening to these members of Congress I understand fully why democracy in this nation is so strong. These persons are civil with each other, argue their points without passion, and concede the other a point when this is the thing to do. This panel was one of the magic moments of the conference because it allowed the audience to see true democracy in action.
Panel 4. U.S Politics, II.
The second panel on U.S. politics brought together the Latin American spokespersons for both U.S. presidential candidates, Daniel Restrepo (Obama) and Adolfo Franco (McCain).
Daniel Restrepo. The Obama spokesperson said that, as soon as he was inaugurated, President Obama would name a Special Envoy to the Americas. The motto of his candidate, he said, is: “Whatever is good for the Americas is good for the U.S.”. He said that Obama would be prepared to use a full array of presidential powers to deal with countries such as Venezuela, where a non-democratic president was in power. This would include a dialog, he said, since it would be self-defeating not to establish this connection. He said that Obama supports the FTA with Colombia and that Obama would deal with every country differently, since what works in one country does not necessarily works in another. Obama favors remittances to Cuba.
Alfonso Franco. The McCain spokesperson said that President McCain himself would be the Special Envoy to Latin America. McCain supports the FTA with Colombia and Panama. Today, he said, 90% of all Colombian goods entering the U.S. are duty free. The FTA would simply put U.S. products in an equal position and this is only fair. McCain, he said, knows Latin America well and has a long and coherent record of support for Latin America. McCain, he added, will not reward Venezuela or Cuba with an unconditional dialogue. These regimes will have to make democratic moves before McCain talks to them. He also supports remittances to Cuba but thinks they should not be taxed by the Cuban regime. McCain is very bipartisan about the immigration issue and acted very courageously to advance a bill together with some democrats and against members of his own party.
My Comments. This panel was excellent and featured two young and very sharp Latin intellectuals, both highly articulate. Restrepo is very bright, looked ready for a Hollywood movie but not quite ready yet for the political major leagues. He did not keep his cool under Franco’s questioning. Franco is more mature and seems more experienced than Restrepo. Both of them, however, did a very good job in trying to “sell” their candidates. Franco 2, Restrepo 1, as in soccer.
Panel 5. Energy Challenges.
This panel was moderated by Genaro Arriagada and included Jeffrey Davidow, president of the Institute of the Americas, Joel Velasco, representative of the Brazilian Sugar Cane Industry Association and Paul Isbell, Director of the Energy Program at El Elcano Royal institute, Spain.
Latin America, as a region, is a net exporter of energy but not all the countries export. The majority are net importers. Of the main exporting countries Mexico and Venezuela have suffered important declines in production during the last six or seven years, about 600,000 barrels per day each. In both countries this is due to severe under investment and poor management in their national oil companies. In the small countries of the Caribbean and Central America the high prices of energy is critical. The good news mostly come from Brazil, a country that has attained energy self sufficiency, not only through the efforts of a well managed national oil company but also thanks to its bio-fuels program, the second largest in the world after the U.S.
Paul Isbell. There is increasing energy nationalism in Latin America. This is damaging the efforts at regional integration since political ideology is prevailing over economic cooperation. The politicization of energy in the region, the use of oil as a political tool, is not justified in times of peace although it could be justified in times of war.
Joel Velasco. In Brazil up to 80% of energy needs are met with hydro electrical power. Brazil is now a pioneer in offshore drilling for oil and gas. The bio-fuels program is now the second largest in the world. The price of ethanol is half the price of gasoline. Velasco says that the U.S. and Europe have imposed a 30% tax on Brazilian ethanol that is damaging to these countries and to Brazil. Franco also says that the countries in Central America and the Caribbean should produce more ethanol. Many producers of ethanol are needed, he said. In fact, sugar cane can also generate plastics, an industry which is growing in Brazil. He added that only one percent of arable land in Brazil is being used for bio-fuel production.
Jeffrey Davidow. Although producing countries have a legitimate right to make more money out of their energy production, the way some counties are going about it, like Venezuela, will likely produce the opposite result. National Oil Companied, in the average, are about 30% less efficient than private companies. They are plagued with poor management and low transparency. The government intervenes in their decision-making process and the governments usually utilize the money required for investments for another purposes. It should be of concern to the United States that Mexico, Venezuela and, even, Canada, the three main hemispheric sources of energy for the country, are now producing less and resorting to heavy oils or tar sands to balance their declining production. Populism/Statism is increasing. IN Bolivia, Argentina, Venezuela and Ecuador gasoline sells at low, subsidized prices. The energy integration process in the southern cone has collapsed, each country going its own way. LNG terminal are being built in Argentina to import gas from the opposite side of the world, due to the unreliability of Bolivian gas.
My Comments. The energy situation in Latin America is tragic, both from the viewpoint of the energy importers and of the energy exporters. It is a sad situation of lost opportunities, corruption and mismanagement. Net importers in Central America and the Caribbean are either paying more than they can afford for energy or falling into the hands of political predators such as Hugo Chavez. Net exporters such as Mexico, Ecuador, Venezuela and Bolivia have yielded to the temptation of politicizing their industries, a process that is leading to the deterioration and eventual operational collapse of these companies and of the national economies these companies sustain. In Ecuador the operations of the oil company are in the hands of the Navy. In Venezuela the oil company is engaged in importing and distributing food, in the training of Olympic athletes and many other tasks without relation to its core business. The company is also engaged in criminal activities, such as financing the presidential campaigns of Chavez’s ideological friends in other countries of the hemisphere. In Bolivia, a country in turmoil, the operations of the corrupt and inefficient oil and gas state company is practically paralyzed and the gas to Brazil and Argentina is not being delivered. Throughout the region most political leaders practice populism, the easiest way to get nowhere. The central problem in Latin America is not geological but the lack political integrity, courage and vision by its leaders.
Panel 6. The Summit of the Americas. This panel dealt with the meeting of hemispheric heads of state being planned for April 2009. The panel included Jose Miguel Insulza, OAS; Luis Alberto Rodriguez, IADB; Pamela Cox, World Bank and Luis Alberto Rodriguez, Summit of the Americas Coordinator. The moderators were Peter Hakim, IAD, and Enrique Garcia, president of CAF and main motor behind the Conference.
The discussion centered on the outlook for success of the Summit and the possible Agenda. Insulza, Rodriguez and Cox were optimistic about the outcome. Moreno was more cautious, suggesting that the Agenda should be realistic instead of over ambitious, a problem that had limited the success of previous summits. Insulza agreed, saying that it should be possible for the summit to tackle sub-regional issues having better probabilities of agreement. Ambassador Rodriguez was very much the diplomat, both in language and attitude. He mentioned two topics that would probably be part of the agenda: Global Warming and Employment.
My Comments. There have been six or so Summits of the Americas. I wonder if an evaluation of the results of these summits has been made, a comparison of expectations and accomplishments. I agree with IADB’s President Moreno that an over ambitious agenda will probably be a kiss of death for the meeting. I made a joke, at least tried to, saying that when the last period of global warming took place, 150,000 years ago, the Summit of the Americas had no role to play, only to suggest that the next Summit should ideally tackle more manageable issues. I mentioned one: how to transform the millions of Latin Americans who are just people into citizens. Now, this would really be a challenge worthy of the leaders of the hemisphere and certainly within their power, given proper planning and will. It would be easier than going to the moon! Another would be how to transform the OAS into a working organization, but this would probably be more difficult than the other objective. A third issue that still awaits decisive action is that of institutional weakness in the countries of the region. Probably thousand of studies have been made about this problem but no remedial action has been taken, except in a very few countries (Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, Costa Rica).
Panel 7 was on Political developments in the Andean Region. It was moderated by Ana Mercedes Botero, CAF, and panelists included Ana Maria San Juan, Central Venezuelan University; Cesar Montufar, Andean Studies Center; Carlos Camargo, United Nations, Bolivian Program; Diego García-Sayan, Inter-American Court of Human Rights and Rafael Pardo, former Defense Minister of Colombia.
My Comments. There are few regions of Latin America as turbulent as the Andean region. Paradoxically, the country most affected by violence during the last decades, Colombia, is today one of the more stable, thanks to the military victory of the Colombian Army over the FARC and other irregular armed groups. Venezuela, Ecuador and especially Bolivia are social and political pressure cookers, due to the presence of populist regimes that have made of anti-Americanism their main objective, in preference to the welfare of their own peoples. A Venezuelan narcissistic leader, illegally using his country’s oil wealth has adopted a strategy of increasing hostility against the United States in the Andean region. However, the strategy is backfiring and Chavez, Correa and Morales are now fighting for their political lives, after some years of increasingly abusive authoritarianism. In particular, Chavez is now firmly linked to two criminal investigations, one related to the FARC and the other connected with the oil money delivered to the Kirchners in Argentina. As Chavez weakens as a result of these scandals and crimes the other two Andean leaders, who depend on Chavez’s financial handouts for survival, have also become more fragile. One sad aspect of this situation has been the passive, complacent role played by the Secretary General of the OAS Jose Miguel Insulza. Mr. Insulza has done nothing to curb Chavez’s pretensions of regional hegemony. In fact, at times he has sounded like one of his allies. This has further discredited the OAS as an effective organization to defend freedom and democracy in the Americas. Many of the Latin American leaders have preferred to sit on the fence, to watch the confrontation between the powerful United States and the prodigal Fidel Castro’s pupil, probably trying to extract maximum benefit from both sides in exchange for insincere pledges of loyalty.
Panel 8 was on the Politics of Latin American Relations. I did not attend this panel and cannot comment.
************************
In summary, this is the type of gathering that provides the audience with food for thought, stimulates the interest in the region and raises our hopes that positive action will be taken by those who are in a leadership position.
Congratulations to CAF for a job well done!
LA VENEZUELA DE CHAVEZ: EL PARAISO DE LA DROGA.
Mapa de aviones desde Venezuela llevando drogas
Mientras Chávez vocifera, fuera de control,los niños abandonados duermen en las calles.
****EL NUEVO HERALD REVELA GRAVÍSIMAS CONEXIONES DEL GOBIERNO DE CHÁVEZ CON EL TRÁFICO DE DROGAS.
****SE ESTRECHA EL CERCO PARA CHÁVEZ: ANTONINI+FARC+NARCOTRAFICO+BOLIVIA = LO QUE LE PASÓ A NORIEGA.
Extractos de la historia del Nuevo Herald de hoy Lunes 15 de septiembre de 2008 "Venezuela, paraíso del tráfico de cocaina", por Casto Ocando y Gerardo Reyes:
....."El médico colombiano Farid Feris Domínguez, extraditado el año pasado a Estados Unidos por cargos de narcotráfico, obtuvo un pasaporte diplomático como asesor del ministro de Finanzas de Venezuela a nombre de un ciudadano fallecido.
El pago de sobornos, dijo, le permitió moverse como pez en al agua en círculos de poder de ese país desde el 2003 hasta septiembre del 2006, cuando fue deportado a Colombia por el gobierno venezolano.
En una entrevista con El Nuevo Herald en el 2007 y en una declaración al Departamento Administrativo de Seguridad (DAS) de Colombia, Domínguez describió los niveles de complicidad de altos funcionarios y militares venezolanos en el trasiego de drogas en ese país.
Según Domínguez, los militares venezolanos cobran una alta suma a los narcotraficantes por cada vuelo que salga del territorio, sin importar la cantidad de droga que se transporte"....
**********************
"Los vuelos no comerciales usados para transportar cocaína desde Venezuela aumentaron 10 veces entre 2002 y junio de este año. La abrumadora mayoría de los cargamentos tuvieron como primer destino República Dominicana y en segundo lugar México.
El número de vuelos pasó de apenas 21 en el 2002 a 220 el año pasado. La cifra del 2008 va camino a establecer un nuevo récord.
En general, el tráfico de cocaína se cuadruplicó en los últimos cinco años al llegar a 256 toneladas métricas en 2007, en contraste con 51 toneladas en el 2002, mientras que la cantidad de droga incautada por el gobierno venezolano se redujo a casi la mitad, según el informe.
"El tráfico aumenta tan significativamente porque funciona con impunidad'', dijo en una entrevista el zar antidrogas estadounidense John Walters, quien protagonizó hace una semana una polémica cuando el gobierno venezolano le negó una visa de entrada para estrechar la cooperación, aseguró".....
domingo, 14 de septiembre de 2008
HABIA $5 MILLONES EN EL AVION DE ANTONINI/ THERE WERE $5 MILLION IN ANTONINI'S PLANE.
****** BREAKING NEWS.... ULTIMA HORA.
Transcribimos la información del diario La Nación, de Buenos Aires, de hoy Domingo 14 de Septiembre. No fueron solamente $800.000 los dineros de los venezolanos que iban a manos de los Kirchner. En el mismo vuelo, no detectados, llegaron también otros $4.200.000. Lean.
**********
We enclose below the information of La Nacion, Buenos Aires daily, dated today Sunday, September 14. In essence it says that the bag with $800,000 was not the only one in that flight. There were one or two othar suitcases containing an additional $4.2 million , from Chavez to the Kirchners.
*********************
La Nación (Buenos Aires) El juicio en Miami por el escándalo de la valija
En el vuelo de Antonini Wilson llegaron otros US$ 4.200.000
Lo afirman dos fuentes que protagonizan el caso; hay evidencias en la causa; según el fiscal, el gobierno de Chávez envió para la campaña presidencial argentina más fondos que los US$ 800.000 descubiertos.
>Domingo 14 de setiembre de 2008 Publicado en diario de hoy
El fiscal Thomas Mulvihill (a la derecha), al llegar con sus asesores a la audiencia del viernes en el juzgado federal de Miami Foto: Gentileza Perfil
WASHINGTON. Ahora se sabe que en aquel ya legendario vuelo que partió de Caracas y aterrizó en Buenos Aires la gélida madrugada del 4 de agosto de 2007 había, al menos, otra valija llena de dólares, además de la que desató el escándalo.
Allí, en el aeroparque Jorge Newbery, decomisaron una maleta pequeña gris y azul con US$ 800.000 en su interior. Pero en el mismo vuelo llegaron otros US$ 4.200.000, según confirmaron a LA NACION dos fuentes independientes entre sí, una de las cuales habló desde Venezuela. Las dos tienen un papel protagónico en el proceso abierto en el juzgado federal de Miami.
El primero que se había interesado por el destino de ese dinero fue Diego Uzcátegui, el entonces presidente de la filial para la Argentina y Uruguay de la petrolera estatal venezolana Pdvsa. "¿Dónde están los 4,2 millones de dólares?", es lo que, según las fuentes, les preguntó Uzcátegui a sus interlocutores cuando arribó a Buenos Aires, pocas horas después del decomiso en Aeroparque.
Lo escucharon varios testigos. Pero la pregunta estuvo dirigida a dos pasajeros de aquel vuelo: su propio hijo, Daniel, y Guido Alejandro Antonini Wilson, el hombre que asumió como propio el dinero en el acta del Aeroparque, pero que lo niega desde entonces en Estados Unidos.
"Maletas", en plural, pero sin más precisiones, es lo que surge en un tramo fugaz de las transcripciones de los audios que grabó la Oficina Federal de Investigaciones (FBI) desde que Antonini comenzó a colaborar y hasta el arresto de cuatro supuestos "agentes encubiertos" de Venezuela en Florida.
El fiscal Thomas Mulvihill detalló, además, que "fondos adicionales" salieron del régimen bolivariano de Hugo Chávez con destino a la campaña presidencial de Cristina Kirchner. Lo aseguró durante una de las primeras audiencias que siguieron a aquellos arrestos. Pero no aclaró si esos fondos llegaron en ese vuelo o en anteriores. Durante las últimas 48 horas, sin embargo, LA NACION confirmó de dos protagonistas de las 72 horas de vértigo que siguieron al decomiso que, en efecto, hubo por lo menos otra valija en movimiento durante aquel vuelo, con dinero en su interior.
La maleta pequeña -o "carry-on"- es la que cayó en los controles argentinos. El acta se labró con US$ 790.550, aunque el monto original habría sido superior. Daniel Uzcátegui habría repartido dinero en el Aeroparque, algo que Mulvihill pareció indicar en uno de sus últimos escritos previos al juicio oral.
La otra maleta, sin embargo, "era demasiado grande como para que pueda meterse en la cabina en un avión comercial", según una de las fuentes.
La otra fuente se refirió familiarmente a esta segunda valija como "la hermana mayor" del "carry-on" que acompañaba a Antonini Wilson y que no superó los controles en Aeroparque.
Las fuentes consultadas por LA NACION por separado no precisaron si los US$ 4.200.000 fueron embarcados en una o dos valijas extras. Pero coincidieron en el monto. Tampoco pudieron afirmar si se trataba de billetes de 50 o de 100 dólares.
De las transcripciones desclasificadas por el fiscal Mulvihill surge también que el asistente que habría llevado el dinero hasta el avión sería "Reiter", un asistente de confianza extrema del presidente de la poderosa Pdvsa, Rafael Ramírez.
Reiter es el nombre que LA NACION reveló en mayo pasado como el del experto de la gerencia de Prevención u Control de Pérdidas de Pdvsa, el brazo de seguridad de la petrolera, que custodió el dinero hasta el Aeropuerto Internacional de Maiquetía Simón Bolívar, en las afueras de Caracas.
Dos son los indicios que salen de las transcripciones de Miami. El primero, cuando Antonini pregunta: "¿Y por qué Rafael Ramírez ahora se lava las manos". Y su ex socio y hoy único acusado que defiende su inocencia, Franklin Durán, le replica: "No se está lavando las manos. Ya no puede lavarse las manos. Porque siente que su asistente fue el que llevó las maletas. El no puede lavarse las manos porque el presidente [por Hugo Chávez] ya supo que el asistente de Rafael es el que llevó las maletas al avión".
¿Quién podría ser ese asistente? Durán es otra vez quien aporta el indicio en los audios: "Pero me dieron el teléfono de Reiter para que coordinaras con Reiter", le dice a Antonini.
-¿Yo con Reiter?, le replica, extrañado.
-No entendiste. Para que yo llamara a Reiter y Reiter me coordinara a Rafael y me habláramos a través del teléfono de Reiter con Rafael.
Reiter es el único "asistente" de Ramírez al que los protagonistas de la trama aluden por su nombre en las casi 600 páginas que rellenan las transcripciones de los audios hasta ahora difundidos en Miami.
Pero las grabaciones aportan algo más. Es un diálogo picante entre Antonini, Durán y otro socio de ambos, Carlos Kauffmann, que cayó detenido, se declaró culpable y testificará en las próximas semanas para Mulvihill.
-Frank, yo fui un pasajero... que le echaron una vaina -se queja Antonini-. Eso es lo menos que él [por Diego Uzcátegui] pudo haber hecho. Yo fui un pasajero... que recostaron una maleta. Lo menos que él pudo haber hecho es tratar de defenderme o defenderme.
-No lo hizo. No lo hizo, completa Durán.
-Porque él sabía -se enoja Antonini-, él sabía que estaba mandando esa plata pa , pa esa mierda. Porque a mí me lo dijo: «Yo, yo, yo [tartamudea] estos viajes he hecho muchos».
-Pero te lo dijo después que estabas metido en el peo [lío].
-El me dijo a mí -remata Antonini-. El me dijo a mí en el hotel que él ha hecho muchos de esos viajes y el ministro [por Ramírez] también.
Transcribimos la información del diario La Nación, de Buenos Aires, de hoy Domingo 14 de Septiembre. No fueron solamente $800.000 los dineros de los venezolanos que iban a manos de los Kirchner. En el mismo vuelo, no detectados, llegaron también otros $4.200.000. Lean.
**********
We enclose below the information of La Nacion, Buenos Aires daily, dated today Sunday, September 14. In essence it says that the bag with $800,000 was not the only one in that flight. There were one or two othar suitcases containing an additional $4.2 million , from Chavez to the Kirchners.
*********************
La Nación (Buenos Aires) El juicio en Miami por el escándalo de la valija
En el vuelo de Antonini Wilson llegaron otros US$ 4.200.000
Lo afirman dos fuentes que protagonizan el caso; hay evidencias en la causa; según el fiscal, el gobierno de Chávez envió para la campaña presidencial argentina más fondos que los US$ 800.000 descubiertos.
>Domingo 14 de setiembre de 2008 Publicado en diario de hoy
El fiscal Thomas Mulvihill (a la derecha), al llegar con sus asesores a la audiencia del viernes en el juzgado federal de Miami Foto: Gentileza Perfil
WASHINGTON. Ahora se sabe que en aquel ya legendario vuelo que partió de Caracas y aterrizó en Buenos Aires la gélida madrugada del 4 de agosto de 2007 había, al menos, otra valija llena de dólares, además de la que desató el escándalo.
Allí, en el aeroparque Jorge Newbery, decomisaron una maleta pequeña gris y azul con US$ 800.000 en su interior. Pero en el mismo vuelo llegaron otros US$ 4.200.000, según confirmaron a LA NACION dos fuentes independientes entre sí, una de las cuales habló desde Venezuela. Las dos tienen un papel protagónico en el proceso abierto en el juzgado federal de Miami.
El primero que se había interesado por el destino de ese dinero fue Diego Uzcátegui, el entonces presidente de la filial para la Argentina y Uruguay de la petrolera estatal venezolana Pdvsa. "¿Dónde están los 4,2 millones de dólares?", es lo que, según las fuentes, les preguntó Uzcátegui a sus interlocutores cuando arribó a Buenos Aires, pocas horas después del decomiso en Aeroparque.
Lo escucharon varios testigos. Pero la pregunta estuvo dirigida a dos pasajeros de aquel vuelo: su propio hijo, Daniel, y Guido Alejandro Antonini Wilson, el hombre que asumió como propio el dinero en el acta del Aeroparque, pero que lo niega desde entonces en Estados Unidos.
"Maletas", en plural, pero sin más precisiones, es lo que surge en un tramo fugaz de las transcripciones de los audios que grabó la Oficina Federal de Investigaciones (FBI) desde que Antonini comenzó a colaborar y hasta el arresto de cuatro supuestos "agentes encubiertos" de Venezuela en Florida.
El fiscal Thomas Mulvihill detalló, además, que "fondos adicionales" salieron del régimen bolivariano de Hugo Chávez con destino a la campaña presidencial de Cristina Kirchner. Lo aseguró durante una de las primeras audiencias que siguieron a aquellos arrestos. Pero no aclaró si esos fondos llegaron en ese vuelo o en anteriores. Durante las últimas 48 horas, sin embargo, LA NACION confirmó de dos protagonistas de las 72 horas de vértigo que siguieron al decomiso que, en efecto, hubo por lo menos otra valija en movimiento durante aquel vuelo, con dinero en su interior.
La maleta pequeña -o "carry-on"- es la que cayó en los controles argentinos. El acta se labró con US$ 790.550, aunque el monto original habría sido superior. Daniel Uzcátegui habría repartido dinero en el Aeroparque, algo que Mulvihill pareció indicar en uno de sus últimos escritos previos al juicio oral.
La otra maleta, sin embargo, "era demasiado grande como para que pueda meterse en la cabina en un avión comercial", según una de las fuentes.
La otra fuente se refirió familiarmente a esta segunda valija como "la hermana mayor" del "carry-on" que acompañaba a Antonini Wilson y que no superó los controles en Aeroparque.
Las fuentes consultadas por LA NACION por separado no precisaron si los US$ 4.200.000 fueron embarcados en una o dos valijas extras. Pero coincidieron en el monto. Tampoco pudieron afirmar si se trataba de billetes de 50 o de 100 dólares.
De las transcripciones desclasificadas por el fiscal Mulvihill surge también que el asistente que habría llevado el dinero hasta el avión sería "Reiter", un asistente de confianza extrema del presidente de la poderosa Pdvsa, Rafael Ramírez.
Reiter es el nombre que LA NACION reveló en mayo pasado como el del experto de la gerencia de Prevención u Control de Pérdidas de Pdvsa, el brazo de seguridad de la petrolera, que custodió el dinero hasta el Aeropuerto Internacional de Maiquetía Simón Bolívar, en las afueras de Caracas.
Dos son los indicios que salen de las transcripciones de Miami. El primero, cuando Antonini pregunta: "¿Y por qué Rafael Ramírez ahora se lava las manos". Y su ex socio y hoy único acusado que defiende su inocencia, Franklin Durán, le replica: "No se está lavando las manos. Ya no puede lavarse las manos. Porque siente que su asistente fue el que llevó las maletas. El no puede lavarse las manos porque el presidente [por Hugo Chávez] ya supo que el asistente de Rafael es el que llevó las maletas al avión".
¿Quién podría ser ese asistente? Durán es otra vez quien aporta el indicio en los audios: "Pero me dieron el teléfono de Reiter para que coordinaras con Reiter", le dice a Antonini.
-¿Yo con Reiter?, le replica, extrañado.
-No entendiste. Para que yo llamara a Reiter y Reiter me coordinara a Rafael y me habláramos a través del teléfono de Reiter con Rafael.
Reiter es el único "asistente" de Ramírez al que los protagonistas de la trama aluden por su nombre en las casi 600 páginas que rellenan las transcripciones de los audios hasta ahora difundidos en Miami.
Pero las grabaciones aportan algo más. Es un diálogo picante entre Antonini, Durán y otro socio de ambos, Carlos Kauffmann, que cayó detenido, se declaró culpable y testificará en las próximas semanas para Mulvihill.
-Frank, yo fui un pasajero... que le echaron una vaina -se queja Antonini-. Eso es lo menos que él [por Diego Uzcátegui] pudo haber hecho. Yo fui un pasajero... que recostaron una maleta. Lo menos que él pudo haber hecho es tratar de defenderme o defenderme.
-No lo hizo. No lo hizo, completa Durán.
-Porque él sabía -se enoja Antonini-, él sabía que estaba mandando esa plata pa , pa esa mierda. Porque a mí me lo dijo: «Yo, yo, yo [tartamudea] estos viajes he hecho muchos».
-Pero te lo dijo después que estabas metido en el peo [lío].
-El me dijo a mí -remata Antonini-. El me dijo a mí en el hotel que él ha hecho muchos de esos viajes y el ministro [por Ramírez] también.
sábado, 13 de septiembre de 2008
USOS Y DESTINOS DE NUESTRA BANDERA
Abajo, un pequeño grupo de venezolanos (yo soy quien sostiene el mini-cartelón que dice: CHAVEZ DICTADOR) manifiesta frente a la embajada de Chávez en Washington DC, pidiendo su salida por loco. La bandera es utilizada, en este caso, para defender la democracia.
Arriba, una bandera venezolana es quemada por un grupo de estudiantes de Bolivia, ya que en aquél país la bandera venezolana representa las fuerzas opresoras, intervencionistas, invasoras y corruptoras de la democracia.
Es lamentable que la bandera venezolana sea quemada como símbolo del autoritarismo en América Latina. Eso es lo que Hugo Chávez y su pandilla inculta ha sembrado en nuestra región. Por eso es que utilizamos nuestra bandera para pedir su salida.
No dejemos que Chávez nos arrebate la bandera! No dejemos que nos arrebate el alma nacional. Saquemos a ese venezolano indigno del poder!
EL CAMINO DE NORIEGA/NORIEGA'S WAY.
Hugo Chávez se acerca progresivamente, fatalmente al momento de su encarcelamiento: su complicidad activa con la FARC, sus aportes ilegales a Cristina Kirchner, el despilfarro de más de 30.000 millones de dólares en la compra de conciencias y favores en el hemisferio, su abuso de poder, su coprolalia (uso irresistible de la vulgaridad en el lenguaje), su violación sistemática de nuestras leyes, lo lleva a la cárcel. Si no lo metemos nosotros lo harán otros. Los tribunales internacionales y los tribunales de USA ya están actuando en contra del tiranuelo venezolano. No lo voy a ir a visitar.********************************************
Hugo Chavez is inevitably approaching the moment of his imprisonment: his active complicity with the FARC, his illegal supply of money to Cristina Kirchner, the pilferage of over $30 billion in the buying of loyalties and favors in the hemisphere, his abuse of power, his coprolalia (the irresistible urge to use dirty language), the systematic violation of our laws, is taking him to jail. If we don't place him there others will. International courts and the U.S. courts are already moving against the second rate Venezuelan tyrant. I will not visit him.
viernes, 12 de septiembre de 2008
THE U.S PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION SEEN FROM VENEZUELA.
Democracy and freedom lovingVenezuelans (chavistas not included) love underdogs. When a Venezuelan gets to be 35, he,she becomes conservative in politics, after being leftist in college. With a job, marriage and responsibilities come a heightened sense of caution in their approach to politics and social life in general.But one thing they cannot resist is the combination of a succesful and attractive political leader. The immense majority of Venezuelans today have fallen in love with Sarah Paulin, the candidate for the Vice-presidency in the Republican ticket. Most Venezuelans are "democrats" by instinct but this time around they do not find what they need in the democratic camp. Obama? sure, he is bright and has a great future but Venezuelans are wary of messianic figures, after what happened to them with Chavez. Biden? No way, José. Too savvy, lacks inexperience, candor.
On the other side of the fence they see McCain, a man who can put snakes to sleep, almost completely devoid of charisma, but sound and decisive as a leader. The difference has been Palin. She is vibrant, fresh, irreverent and a fighter, as well as civilized and commited to democracy, everything Venezuelans love about a leader.
If U.S. elections were held in Venezuela Sarah Palin would give the Republicans a huge victory.
EL ROSTRO DE LA DROGA: ENTRE EL PROZAC Y LO PROCAZ
A la derecha vemos un rostro de payaso, pero de payaso relativamente inofensivo. Un Bucaram cualquiera. Incapaz pero inofensivo. A la izquierda está el rostro de la droga. Esta foto es de ayer, Septiembre 11. Quizás para celebrar la caída de las torres gemelas de Nueva York, Chávez decidió la expulsión de Venezuela del "embajador yanki de mierda", frase que repitió una y otra vez, ante una masa de seres vestidos de rojo escarlata. Apoyaba la campaña por gobernador del personaje que está a su lado, Mario Silva, quien tiene la rara cualidad de ser aún más procaz que él.
En 1942, cuando las cosas le comenzaron a salir mál, Hitler comenzó a inyectarse anfetaminas. Su médico, el poco escrupuloso Dr. Morrel, hacía creer a terceros que le inyectaba "vitaminas". Esta droga, en dosis cada vez mayores y más frecuentes, alteró la personalidad de Hitler, convirtiéndolo en un ser totalmente rígido, desconfiado de todos sus seguidores, brutal con sus subordinados y cada vez más agresivo en su actitud. Nunca, sin embargo, fue procaz como lo es quien vemos arriba.
Un país no puede estar en manos de un loco, de alguien cuya mente esté profundamente alterada
por efecto de estimulantes de naturaleza desconocida para el sufrido pueblo que lo aguanta. No es el café precisamente lo que ha convertido a este caballero en un loco de atar.
miércoles, 10 de septiembre de 2008
EL JUICIO CONTRA ANTONINI ES, EN REALIDAD, EL JUICIO CONTRA CHÁVEZ
Ha comenzado el juicio en Miami contra los Venezolanos quienes trataron de introducir en Argentina una maleta con $800.000, destinados, según el fiscal acusador, a financiar la campaña presidencial de Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. Este juicio va a ser, fundamentalmente, contra Hugo Chávez, quien ordenó todo lo referente a las contribuciones a la candidata presidencial Argentina.
Antonini, Kaufman, Durán, todos los demás, son actores de reparto en esta inmensa farsa: los burócratas venezolanos involucrados, los Uzcátegui (padre e hijo), los miembros del gabinete y de la policía secreta venezolana, así como los corruptos del gobierno de Kirchner.
Abajo transcribimos la información de prensa sobre el inicio de este juicio que llevará a Hugo Chávez al banquillo de los acusados ante la opinión pública internacional. Estos son algunos de los primeros elementos de juicio que salen a relucir durante ese proceso:
"Acorralado por las grabaciones, los testimonios de los tres detenidos que se dieron vuelta y más de 700 pruebas recopiladas por la Fiscalía y la Oficina Federal de Investigaciones (FBI), el abogado Ed Shohat intentará mantener la inocencia de su cliente, Franklin Durán, con ataques a la credibilidad de su principal enemigo, Guido Alejandro Antonini Wilson.
Su primera estocada se centró en una controvertida carta que firmó el hombre que continúa como prófugo de la justicia argentina, pero que en realidad redactó el FBI. Destinatario: Hugo Chávez. Allí le fija US$ 2 millones como el precio de su silencio, que el fiscal Thomas Mulvihill justificó como un modo de verificar el verdadero interés de Caracas en silenciar el escándalo, pero Shohat calificó como una "extorsión".
Antonini entregó la polémica carta al cónsul venezolano en esta ciudad en septiembre del año pasado, pero se ignora si Chávez la recibió. Para Shohat, de todos modos, demuestra el deseo del gobierno estadounidense de enturbiar el caso con tintes políticos. Aun así, el supuesto papel decisivo de Chávez en el caso irrumpió ayer en la Corte cuando uno de los detenidos, que se declaró culpable, el abogado venezolano Moisés Maiónica, recreó los diálogos que afirmó haber mantenido con el jefe de la Dirección de los Servicios de Inteligencia y Prevención (Disip), general Henry Rangel Silva, en el cuartel de los espías venezolanos.
"Al inicio del escándalo, Pdvsa se encargó del manejo del caso. Pero en un momento, debido a que no se llegaba a una solución, el general Rangel Silva fue designado por el presidente para encargarse de todo el asunto", contó.
"Cuando habla del presidente, ¿a quién se refiere?, le preguntó Mulvihill. "Al presidente de la república, Hugo Chávez", respondió Maiónica. "¿De cuándo estamos hablando?", fue la repregunta. "Días después de que se desató el escándalo [en agosto de 2007]. No lo recuerdo exactamente", se excusó Maiónica.
Mulvihill le preguntó entonces sobre el rol de Ramírez y qué le comentó Rangel al respecto cuando se reunieron.
"Me dijo que el presidente [por Chávez] estaba molesto por la situación y que le encargó la solución del asunto desde el punto de vista operativo y que Rafael Ramírez quedaba relevado de la situación, pero que iba a seguir en el asunto para darle el apoyo que Rangel requiriera", respondió Maiónica.
Antes y después, el detenido que el viernes recibirá su sentencia detalló sus vínculos con el poder bolivariano, como su "amistad" con el entonces vicepresidente, Jorge Rodríguez -como reveló LA NACION en enero-, mientras que el fiscal también señaló la supuesta participación en el caso del superior de Rangel Silva, Tarek Al Aissami, quien ayer asumió como ministro del Interior y Justicia venezolano. Definición
Fue Rangel Silva, sin embargo, quien concentró los dardos. Mulvihill no sólo mostró su foto a todos los miembros del jurado, sino que detalló que también Durán y su socio, Carlos Kauffmann, se reunieron con él en Caracas. También lo definió como un "conspirador" en el caso y reveló que la Oficina Federal de Investigaciones (FBI) grabó dos conversaciones que mantuvo con Antonini: el 6 y el 18 de noviembre.
"Lo llamó para confortarlo con que gente poderosa estaba tomando las riendas del asunto en Caracas", le comentó al jurado.
Fue también Rangel Silva, reforzó, quien en otra reunión con Maiónica y Durán coordinó el envío de los documentos con los que Antonini debía encubrir como propios los US$ 800.000 decomisados que aún esperan en Buenos Aires que alguien los reconozca como propios.
CARACAS (DPA).- El ministro de Interior de Venezuela, Tarek El Aissami, calificó ayer de "basura del imperio norteamericano" las versiones que afirmaban que él habría sido el nexo con el gobierno venezolano de uno de los acusados de actuar como agente extranjero en Estados Unidos para encubrir el escándalo de la valija. Fue la única reacción oficial a las denuncias ventiladas en el juicio que se sustenta en Miami. El Aissami, recientemente designado en el ministerio, añadió: "No es más que una campaña sucia, descarada. Yo vengo de ser viceministro y en menos de 24 horas sale esa basura".
Abajo transcribimos la información de prensa sobre el inicio de este juicio que llevará a Hugo Chávez al banquillo de los acusados ante la opinión pública internacional. Estos son algunos de los primeros elementos de juicio que salen a relucir durante ese proceso:
"Acorralado por las grabaciones, los testimonios de los tres detenidos que se dieron vuelta y más de 700 pruebas recopiladas por la Fiscalía y la Oficina Federal de Investigaciones (FBI), el abogado Ed Shohat intentará mantener la inocencia de su cliente, Franklin Durán, con ataques a la credibilidad de su principal enemigo, Guido Alejandro Antonini Wilson.
Su primera estocada se centró en una controvertida carta que firmó el hombre que continúa como prófugo de la justicia argentina, pero que en realidad redactó el FBI. Destinatario: Hugo Chávez. Allí le fija US$ 2 millones como el precio de su silencio, que el fiscal Thomas Mulvihill justificó como un modo de verificar el verdadero interés de Caracas en silenciar el escándalo, pero Shohat calificó como una "extorsión".
Antonini entregó la polémica carta al cónsul venezolano en esta ciudad en septiembre del año pasado, pero se ignora si Chávez la recibió. Para Shohat, de todos modos, demuestra el deseo del gobierno estadounidense de enturbiar el caso con tintes políticos. Aun así, el supuesto papel decisivo de Chávez en el caso irrumpió ayer en la Corte cuando uno de los detenidos, que se declaró culpable, el abogado venezolano Moisés Maiónica, recreó los diálogos que afirmó haber mantenido con el jefe de la Dirección de los Servicios de Inteligencia y Prevención (Disip), general Henry Rangel Silva, en el cuartel de los espías venezolanos.
"Al inicio del escándalo, Pdvsa se encargó del manejo del caso. Pero en un momento, debido a que no se llegaba a una solución, el general Rangel Silva fue designado por el presidente para encargarse de todo el asunto", contó.
"Cuando habla del presidente, ¿a quién se refiere?, le preguntó Mulvihill. "Al presidente de la república, Hugo Chávez", respondió Maiónica. "¿De cuándo estamos hablando?", fue la repregunta. "Días después de que se desató el escándalo [en agosto de 2007]. No lo recuerdo exactamente", se excusó Maiónica.
Mulvihill le preguntó entonces sobre el rol de Ramírez y qué le comentó Rangel al respecto cuando se reunieron.
"Me dijo que el presidente [por Chávez] estaba molesto por la situación y que le encargó la solución del asunto desde el punto de vista operativo y que Rafael Ramírez quedaba relevado de la situación, pero que iba a seguir en el asunto para darle el apoyo que Rangel requiriera", respondió Maiónica.
Antes y después, el detenido que el viernes recibirá su sentencia detalló sus vínculos con el poder bolivariano, como su "amistad" con el entonces vicepresidente, Jorge Rodríguez -como reveló LA NACION en enero-, mientras que el fiscal también señaló la supuesta participación en el caso del superior de Rangel Silva, Tarek Al Aissami, quien ayer asumió como ministro del Interior y Justicia venezolano. Definición
Fue Rangel Silva, sin embargo, quien concentró los dardos. Mulvihill no sólo mostró su foto a todos los miembros del jurado, sino que detalló que también Durán y su socio, Carlos Kauffmann, se reunieron con él en Caracas. También lo definió como un "conspirador" en el caso y reveló que la Oficina Federal de Investigaciones (FBI) grabó dos conversaciones que mantuvo con Antonini: el 6 y el 18 de noviembre.
"Lo llamó para confortarlo con que gente poderosa estaba tomando las riendas del asunto en Caracas", le comentó al jurado.
Fue también Rangel Silva, reforzó, quien en otra reunión con Maiónica y Durán coordinó el envío de los documentos con los que Antonini debía encubrir como propios los US$ 800.000 decomisados que aún esperan en Buenos Aires que alguien los reconozca como propios.
CARACAS (DPA).- El ministro de Interior de Venezuela, Tarek El Aissami, calificó ayer de "basura del imperio norteamericano" las versiones que afirmaban que él habría sido el nexo con el gobierno venezolano de uno de los acusados de actuar como agente extranjero en Estados Unidos para encubrir el escándalo de la valija. Fue la única reacción oficial a las denuncias ventiladas en el juicio que se sustenta en Miami. El Aissami, recientemente designado en el ministerio, añadió: "No es más que una campaña sucia, descarada. Yo vengo de ser viceministro y en menos de 24 horas sale esa basura".
SE SUBIÓ LA GATA A LA AZOTEA! LOS CIRCULOS BOLIVARIANOS CONTRA CHÁVEZ
*****SERÁ VERDAD TANTA BELLEZA?
Comunicado de la Unión Nacional de Círculos Bolivarianos
A los Medios Venezolanos y Extranjeros
Declaracion Numero 3 de la
Union Nacional de Circulos Bolivarianos- 10 de Septiembre del 2008
Los Circulos Bolivarianos le pasaremos por encima al PSUV y a su cupula inservible
El Presidente Hugo Chavez escuchara a un pueblo cansado de tanta vaciladera y sordera por parte de sus dirigentes, cada dia en cada declaracion que brindan a los medios se burlan en nuestra cara y aseguran que en el pais no pasa nada y todo esta marchando bien. No tienen la valentia de asumir que la inseguridad en el pais es un problema critico, le echan la culpa a la CIA, al los paras, a todo el mundo menos a la incapacidad que tienen para resolverlo.
Nosotros los miembros de los Circulos Bolivarianos no estamos vacilando, vamos a ejercer nuestro sagrado derecho al voto de una forma contundente, no votaremos por ningun oportunista del PSUV, ni los que aspiran a la reeleccion ni los nuevos ineptos rojos rojitos, nosotros no queremos que nuestro pais se torne un paraiso de incapaces, no queremos que nuestro pais lo pinten todo de rojo, un rojo simbolo de miseria, inseguridad, desabastecimiento y ahora apagones.
Queremos un pais en donde reinen todos los colores, todas las lineas de pensamiento, sobre todo aquellas que son progresistas que buscan la justicia social pero que tambien sean tolerantes con el projimo, no podemos imponer un solo pensamiento, lo unico que podemos imponer es el desarrollo de nuestro pais y la seguridad a sus ciudadanos y esto ustedes no lo han podido lograr.
Sigan negando que existimos, que todos los Circulos somos leales a un presidente que todavia cree que los problemas mas graves por resolver son los de Cuba o Bolivia, un presidente que con cada viaje que hace nos ofende, un presidente que dice que ser rico es malo y su entorno nos demuestra todo lo contrario, un presidente que no se acuerda del probervio que dice que las palabras que no concuerdan con los hechos no tienen importancia.
Estimado Hugo Chavez se lo decimos nosotros los que lo llevamos al poder, QUE USTEDES NO PADECEN LA INSEGURIDAD PORQUE TIENEN ESCOLTAS EL PUEBLO NO TIENE ESCOLTAS, QUE CADA AÑO MUEREN ASESINADOS MAS DE 14 MIL VENEZOLANOS HONESTOS Y TRABAJADORES A MANOS DEL HAMPA QUE USTEDES NIEGAN, QUE LOS HOSPITALES NO TIENEN MEDICINAS, QUE LA BASURA HUELE MAL EN LAS CALLES, QUE TODAVIA HAY NIÑOS EN LA CALLE PIDIENDO QUE COMER, SE ACUERDA CUANDO DIJO PROHIBIDO FALLAR, PUES FALLARON TODOS, NOS FALLARON A NOSOTROS LOS VENEZOLANOS, pero ahora nosotros tenemos la palabra y en Noviembre nos van a escuchar.
Todos sabiamos quienes eran los traidores en el pasado pero hacerse pasar por patriotas como la mayoria de la cupula del PSUV (tanto en Caracas como a nivel nacional) y burlarse de nosotros cual politico de la cuarta, es peor todavia, ustedes mataron la quinta republica y la siguen hundiendo con sus proyectos y leyes absurdas creando comunas, monedas que en nada van a servir para desarrollar nuestro pais, queremos ciudades seguras y limpias no comunas, queremos un Bolivar fuerte no terepaimas o guaicaipuros, queremos orden no anarquia.
En Noviembre tendran una pista de nuestra existencia, ya en Diciembre pasado la dimos, defendimos nuestra constitucion Bolivariana que tanto nos costo, nadie la cambiara y asi se quedara.
Somos venezolanos nacionalistas no idiotas, nos quieren hacer creer que el imperialismo esto el imperialismo lo otro, el fracaso de las politicas la asumen ustedes no mandatarios extranjeros, en paises desarrollados y serios como Japon, Alemania, Suecia o Finlandia no le echan la culpa a nadie de sus fracasos, por el contrario sacan ventaja de toda situacion y cambian rapidamente sus politicas para producir desarrollo y bienestar. Nuestro socio principal es los Estados Unidos y tenemos que hacer que nuestro pais saque ventaja de esta relacion, ellos tienen el mercado y nosotros los productos, ayudemos mas bien a nuestros productores y empresarios para que puedan exportar sus productos a este gran mercado para que puedan generar mas ingresos para sus familias y un mejor nivel de vida.NI UN GOBERNADOR NI ALCALDE CHAVISTA EN NOVIEMBRE
BOLIVARIANOS SOMOS TODOS
Bolivarianos SI Socialistas NO
Votemos por los Lideres RegionalesTodos a reproducir nuestro Manifiesto
"Mientras Venezuela Tenga Hijos que la quieran,
Lucharemos por ella"
jcmf8000@msn.com
Juan Carlos Medina Fontalvo
Director General de la Union Nacional de Circulos Bolivarianos
http://uncb.blogspot.com/