PMBComments: On the State of Venezuela's Democracy

Dec 24/11 | A Christmas without Putin? Chapter 2 ... tic...tic...tic

2011-12-25T16:24:00.003-04:30

What goes around comes round. After calling the white ribbons of the

Dec 10th March condoms, today he was made to wear one!!

PMBComment | Developments in Russia are still on track with my succinct - and for many shocking - prediction: a Christmas without Putin (keep in mind that Orthodox Christmas falls on January 7th). The size, tone and wide-ranging nature of the speakers at today's rally (see NYTimes report below) cannot be compared to anything Russia has experienced since the fall of Communism. A mere 3 weeks ago, when I last arrived in Moscow, nobody would have been able to predict that Winter would be a good time to ignite a Russian Spring. But that is exactly what is happening and 120,000 people on the street of Moscow in sub-zero temperature is the equivalent of X more in cushier Western capitals or warmer Middle Eastern conditions.

The dismantling of Putin's power base will be much harder than dislodging the spent Soviet nomenklatura. The new power elite is awash in cash (and shares) and probably fears reprisal even more than the old apparatchiks. But, on the other hand, they are awash in cash (and shares) and might behave very opportunistically and be all too happy to dump Putin - and his inner circle of "thieves and scoundrels" - as long as those giving them the final push can hold on to some (or maybe all) of their goodies and morph into born-again democrats and liberals.

Of all the surprising calls heard today it was, once more, blogger - and nominal head of this amazing groundswell - Aleksei Navalny who captured the spirit and the headlines: “We have enough people here to take the Kremlin and the White House (seat of Government),” he shouted to the massive crowd. “But we are peaceful people and we won't do that — yet. But if these crooks and thieves don't give us back what they've stolen from us, we will take it ourselves.” On Christmas Eve on this side of the world it is heartwarming to see and hear the voice of freedom in a land of immense opportunity and amazing talents. PMB

NYTimes | December 24, 2011

Vast Rally in Moscow Streets Is Challenge to Putin’s Power

By ELLEN BARRY and MICHAEL SCHWIRTZ

MOSCOW — Tens of thousands of citizens converged in Moscow on Saturday for the second huge antigovernment demonstration in a month, an early victory for activists struggling to forge a burst of energy into a political force capable of challenging Vladimir V. Putin’s power.

The first such demonstration, two weeks ago, was unprecedented for Mr. Putin’s rule, and there were reasons Saturday’s turnout could have been lower — among them, winter holidays and the onset of bitter cold.

Instead, people poured all afternoon into a canyon created by vast government buildings, and the police put the crowd at 30,000, more than they reported on Dec. 10. Organizers said it was closer to 120,000. Hours later, as the protesters dispersed, they chanted, slowly: “We will come again! We will come again!”

If the movement sustains its intensity, it could alter the course of the presidential election in March, when Mr. Putin plans to extend his stretch as the country’s dominant figure to an eventual 18 years. Opposition voters were furious over the conduct of this month’s parliamentary election, and will be roused again by Mr. Putin’s campaigning. Still, maintaining momentum is a huge challenge, and the initial giddy mood has already hardened into something more serious.

The crime novelist Boris Akunin, peering out through wire-rimmed glasses as he addressed the crowd from a stage, said demonstrators should prepare themselves for a long haul.

“We will have a difficult year,” Mr. Akunin said. “But it will be an interesting year. It will be our year.”

The protests have rattled the Kremlin, which has not encountered widespread political resistance for a decade. Mr. Putin initially sneered at the demonstrators, saying days after the first rally that the white ribbons they have adopted as a symbol resembled limp condoms, and that they participated only because they were paid by foreign agents seeking to undermine Russia.

But it is clear that government elites are taking protesters’ complaints as a warning and scrambling to head off a more dangerous confrontation. On Saturday, for the first time, two high-level figures connected to the Kremlin were at the demonstration.

Former Finance Minister Aleksei L. Kudrin, a member of Mr. Putin’s inner circle for more than two decades, took the stage to express his support for many of the protesters’ demands: the dismissal of the head of the Central Election Commission, Vladimir Y. Churov; the dissolution of Parliament and new elections; and changes in the election code to allow for free competition.

Mr. Kudrin published an article on Saturday in Kommersant, a respected daily newspaper, noting that many employees of state enterprises were participating in the demonstrations.

“It seems to me they wanted to say the following: ‘Respected leaders! Many of us have come here for the first time, fully consciously and entirely independently. We have something to lose, and we are for stability,’ ” Mr. Kudrin wrote. “But the violation of your own rules — and this is the way we take the information about mass falsifications and violations of statistical patterns — this is too much.”

The billionaire Mikhail D. Prokhorov, who has said he will run against Mr. Putin, was also in the crowd, though he did not deliver a speech. He arrived without a security detail, stooping occasionally to answer questions and pose for photographs with young women.

Both Mr. Kudrin and Mr. Prokhorov are viewed skeptically by a portion of the protesters, who fear they represent attempts by the Kremlin to dilute or divide a powerful new protest electorate.

“Sorry, what relationship does Kudrin have to democratic movements?” wrote Vladimir Varfolomeyev, an editor at the radio station Ekho Moskvy, via Twitter. “He’s a bureaucrat who has faithfully served the regime for 10 years.” When Mr. Kudrin took the stage, he was booed by some in the crowd and cheered by others.

Though all demonstrators interviewed said they were hoping to avoid a violent uprising, some left the possibility hanging in the air like a warning. Aleksei Navalny, the blogger whose enormous popularity set these protests in motion, was greeted with a deafening roar from the crowd, which had been begging to see him for more than an hour.

“I can see that there are enough people here to seize the Kremlin,” said Mr. Navalny, 35, who listened to the earlier protest on the radio while serving 15 days in jail. “We are a peaceful force and will not do it now. But if these crooks and thieves try to go on cheating us, if they continue telling lies and stealing from us, we will take what belongs to us with our own hands.”

Mr. Navalny especially delighted the crowd with barbed insults of Mr. Putin; indeed, hatred for the prime minister has become a primary motif at these events. One popular sign read “Putin is our condom,” in a reference to his comments about the white ribbons. Another, painted in the style of Salvador Dalí, showed the prime minister melting in front of a giant clock and read, “Your time has passed.”

“Where is this man?” Mr. Navalny asked. “Can you see him? Is he here?”

He added: “These days, with the help of the zombie-box, they are trying to prove to us that they are big and scary beasts. But we know who they are. Little sneaky jackals! Is that right?” The crowd roared. “Is that true or not?” Another roar.

Pavel Morozov, 23, said he realized that dislodging Mr. Putin might hurt the middle-class quality of life he enjoys. But he said it did not matter. “Putin is a reincarnation of Brezhnev,” he said. He added that while he did not know whether people like Mr. Navalny or the environmental activist Yevgenia Chirikova were worthy alternatives, “at least they are an alternative. Anyone now but Putin.”

Former President Mikhail S. Gorbachev told Ekho Moskvy that he thought Mr. Putin should withdraw his bid for the presidency. When asked whether he thought Mr. Putin would give up power voluntarily, Mr. Gorbachev, who was not at the rally, said, “What’s terrible about it?” and noted that he had done so 20 years ago. “Then all the positive that he has done would be safeguarded.”

For organizers, the challenge is to keep the movement alive at all, since the protesters are working people who will leave the city for two soporific weeks in January. Their commitment to politics is unclear; some say that they are willing to demonstrate for years, others that they will lose interest if a leader does not emerge.

“I don’t know what people here want or what they expect from today, but the fact that they are here is important and valuable in and of itself,” said Zinaida Burskaya, 22. “I do feel that it will affect things over the next two to three years. That people have torn themselves from off their couches and have come here and are not apathetic. This may allow for new leaders to emerge.”

Toward evening, the humorist Viktor Shenderovich looked out at the protesters and stated: “This toothpaste cannot be put back in the tube.” And they dispersed in a great surge through backstreets and alleyways — anarchists and incrementalists, nationalists and bread-and-butter voters waving the hammer-and-sickle flag of the Soviet Union. Marina Shkudyuk, 58, an economist, said she was motivated by rising housing and utility costs, and planned to keep coming out until her demands were satisfied. She said she did not see a leader emerging from the movement, but “at least let there be something different.”

“My family thinks that Grandma has gone crazy,” she said.

Glenn Kates, Ilya Mouzykantskii and Nikolai Khalip contributed reporting.

Dec 19/11 | On the possible reasons for sidelining of a Chavez successor

2011-12-19T15:25:00.000-04:30

Foreign Minister Maduro counting possible reasons for his demise...1..2..3..4?

PMBComment | Hugo Chávez announced a few days ago that Foreign Minister Maduro, who had been slated to take over as Vice President from Elias Jaua, was to step down in order to run for the governorship of the industrial state of Carabobo. There are many theories for the sudden sidelining of Chávez-heir apparent - Nicolas Maduro, four of the most credible are:

1. Maduro was becoming too big of a domestic shadow for a paranoid coupster like Hugo Chávez who has always been mindful of 'chavismo without Chávez' maneuvering.
2. Maduro was being trumpeted as successor by too many foreign governments (i.e. Brazil, Cuba, Colombia..) that have assumed as 'sincere' his behind-the-scene bad mouthing of Chávez: "it is so difficult to work with him...he is nuts...let me see how we can make him understand" ... and so on. Chávez, this version states, was able to see during CELAC's Summit that Maduro was in cahoots with others holding court as the anointed one. Remember this instant-falling-out-of-favor happened a decade ago to Cuba's Roberto Robaina, and more recently to Carlos Lage and Felipe Perez Roque. It would not be surprising if Cuban intelligence reported on some of Maduro's most egregious badmouthing and grandstanding.
3. Maduro and his partner, former National Assembly President, Cilia Flores (also apparently fallen from grace), where allegedly outed by Walid Makled, the much talked about drug kingpin the Colombians returned to Venezuela after months of debriefing by US Government agencies. According to this version, Makled supposedly gave accounts of the activities of the powerful couple who - according to him - controlled their own little segment of the narcotics trade out of the Port of Puerto Cabello (in Carabobo State by the way). According to Makled, one of Maduro-Flores containers was reportedly captured by the DEA in Cartagena, Colombia, on the way to Mexico containing something other than the bathroom fixtures it was said to hold. Those pushing this theory say that Chávez was made aware by 'a third country' that Maduro and Flores were being closely tracked.
4. Maduro is still the "successor" and the announcement of his demotion is nothing but a ploy by mentally perturbed and physically impaired Hugo Chávez.

Whatever the reason - and I have no evidence to choose any of the above - something serious must have happen as I am certain being Governor of the State of Carabobo was NOT very high on Maduro's wish list for this Christmas. PMB

Blogger Miguel Octavio discusses this case in his latest post.

Nov 17/11 | On a doctor's (insider?) take on the Bolivarian caudillo's health

2011-10-17T12:39:00.000-04:30

A panel of distinguished doctors. Not seen in Caracas lately.

PMBComment | Below you will find a very interesting interview (translated from the original) with a Venezuelan doctor that has in the past treated President Chávez and who claims to be in touch with people in the know of his current malady. While it is strange to have a doctor discuss in such details a particular patient, this was bound to occur given the irresponsible secrecy surrounding Mr. Chávez's condition. Indeed nothing proves more that we do NOT live in a democratic society that the secrecy that has surrounded his matter. An elected president is nothing more than an employee of the public; that same public, which the populist Chávez once termed "el soberano". It would seem that "the sovereign" has the right to know what is happening to someone who has concentrated - while in the public payroll - all power in his hands and is using copious amount of public monies to seek a cure in an even more secretive (i.e. less democratic) foreign country. But no, the information gap is filled with speculation, rumours and lies. In the mean time Hugo Chávez spends almost every waking minute talking about his illness, his treatments, his recovery, and doing little to run a country that seems to be spinning out of his - and everyone's - control.

When asked my opinion about the real state of Mr. Chávez's health, I have to plead ignorance on the facts, but can surmise that in this type of circumstance no news is usually bad news. Much of what Dr. Navarrete discusses about his mental state is well known but not necessarily well incorporated into news or academic writing about the subject. As to his current prognosis, if it were truly good, the clearly distracted (scared?) but usually communicative leader of the Bolivarian movement would waste no time to have REAL doctors (i.e. not Fidel Castro) get on TV and present, in proper fashion, his medical facts. Failure to do so tells a great deal. PMB

M Semanal

Original Source (in Spanish) : www.msemanal.com/node/4768

Mexico City, Sunday, 16 October 2011

Translated into English from the original Spanish

Hugo Chávez. Life Expectancy: Two Years

The president went from having problems with triglycerides and cholesterol 20 years ago to receiving treatment for bipolarity during the last ten years and now has an aggressive tumor in his pelvis that requires chemotherapy and offers a very bad prognosis.

The cancer President Hugo Chávez is suffering from has shaken Venezuela and the President’s allies. The physician who had brought in a team of Venezuelan physicians to Miraflores Palace to look after the President’s health, before the President would subsequently entrust his life only to Cuban physicians, agreed to talk to M Semanal about the subject. In this interview, surgeon Salvador Navarrete Aulestia traces the profile of patient Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías, and his diagnosis is not good: the President suffers from an aggressive malignant tumor of muscular origin lodged in his pelvis. The life expectancy in those cases can be up to two years.

During recent years, steeped in secrecy, several Latin American presidents have seen their health deteriorate while wielding power: Fidel Castro bequeathed the presidential chair to his brother Raúl in Cuba as he was on the brink of death in 2006; Néstor Kirchner become ill while he was President and died last year, and his widow Cristina is showing signs of depression as she leads Argentina; Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo has cancer; Uruguayan President Pepe Mujica, age 76, has mentioned that he suffers from stress; Salvadoran President Mauricio Funes does not hide his extreme attachment to tobacco, while Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff is recovering from lymphatic cancer; Vicente Fox had spinal surgery amidst his term of office and Peru’s former President Alejandro Toledo suffers from alcoholism.

Having taken care of the President’s health is not the only merit earned by Salvador Navarrete, a specialist in laparoscopy trained in Venezuela, France, the United States and Cuba. He has published some thirty writings and scientific videos, and received a series of awards; among them the Venezuelan Society of Surgery prize, the Cipriano Jiménez Macías Prize and the Ricardo Baquero González Prize, at several sessions of the Venezuelan Congress of Surgery. This is his testimony.

VFG: What is the profile of Hugo Chávez Frías as the patient of a physician to the Office of the President?

SN: President Chávez is a man who, in the past, has been treated for an illness of the manic-depressive kind, something known to his biographers and to those of us who have seen him as physicians. This illness had been previously managed by a group of psychiatrists led by physician Edmundo Chirinos, who in 2010 was sentenced to 20 years in prison for murdering a female patient in 2008. This medical treatment serves to counteract the President’s manifestations of unstable mental states that swing from euphoria to sadness, states in which the personality becomes dissociated and reaches episodes of losing contact with reality. It is a very frequent illness in today’s world, categorized as bipolar disorder. President Chávez oscillates between these two poles, with more of a tendency toward euphoria, to hyperactivity and to mania.

VFG: When was your first meeting with President Chávez as a patient?

SN: I saw him as a patient at Miraflores Palace in March of 2002, on the eve of the coup d’état against him, because he was feeling very distraught. The Minister to the Secretariat of the Presidency, Rafael Vargas, who was living at the presidential residence, asked us to create an inner circle of politically trustworthy Venezuelan physicians in order to treat the ailments of a President who was under immense pressure and physical debilitation.

VFG: What was the work like for that medical team having the mission of caring for a President during Venezuela’s greatest political crisis of the last decade?

SN: It was a very intense experience. He had us become members of the personnel of highest political trust assigned to Miraflores Palace. The three of us were Venezuelan physicians: a cardiologist, a gastroenterologist and yours truly as the team’s surgeon. Of the three I was the only one having political militancy, being a member of the Expanded National Office of the Fifth Republic Movement (MVR), founded by President Chávez, as part of the Office of Ideological Training, which was a great political party until its conversion in 2007 into the core of the Unified Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV).

THE DISTRUST

VFG: What was the experience like for this group of Venezuelan physicians who were faced with a powerful patient who was being hounded permanently?

SN: The three of us went to evaluate the President several times. On that occasion, less than 10 years ago, we found it necessary to perform an upper and lower endoscopy (inserting a camera through the mouth and through the anus). The reason we went there was to protect him, so that that ailment would not evolve, but he did not allow us to examine him. Today, now that the cancer he suffers from has been discovered, the President states publicly that he regrets his haughtiness toward the medical recommendations.

VFG: Does this then have to do with an unwilling and skeptical patient?

SN: The President is very distrustful. Very, very distrustful. He thought he was never going to take ill. On one of those occasions he and I had an important discussion, when I called to his attention the lack of political responsibility that resulted from his not allowing his ailments to be tended to and from his not allowing us to perform our medical work, which was to preserve his health.

VFG: Were there any consequences?

SN: The President never made enemies with me. That episode stayed where it was, suspended in midair, and faded away even more so as a result of the tribulations of the coup d’état that followed. From that moment onward I became aware of many things surrounding power and I abandoned my political militancy and moved on to “winter quarters” as an advisor to the government in the field of Health; but I did not withdraw completely. Two years later the then Minister of Health, Francisco Armada, appointed me as his ministerial representative to the administration of the University Hospital of Caracas, an office I held until July of this year when, happily, after having resigned twice, the current Minister of Health, who had been a student of mine, Eugenia Sader, accepted my resignation from an office I held from 2005 until July of 2011, with a very nice letter of appreciation. It was a very interesting honorary public office which kept me active in hospital administration, despite the fact that three less-than-transparent, formerly military, Ministers of Health came and went. Now I dedicate myself to medical and academic activity.

THE PRESIDENT’S CLINICAL HISTORY

VFG: What kind of person did the President turn out to be during the medical auscultations that he allowed to be performed on him at that time?

SN: He is a very, very clean person. It is noteworthy that he sees to it that someone grooms his fingernails and toenails, and that is something that draws much attention toward him, a military man. The President presents himself very well and has a very particular magnetism. He is a man who is very careful about his personal appearance, who is always well groomed, who does not smell bad, who is meticulous, who is concerned about being in good physical shape. He is an interesting man of power, not inclined toward reading in a systematic way, but reads fragments he tries to tie together in his own ideological imagination, which can swing from one faction to the other.

VFG: What was the most noticeable addiction entered in his medical record?

SN: He is a man who drinks a lot of coffee, lots of it. He drinks countless cups of coffee daily. He smokes under stressful situations or for pleasure, in private, never in public. On a daily basis he works until late hours of the night, is a night owl and makes his ministers work at the same pace as he does. He gets up at six-thirty or seven in the morning, with an average of three or four hours of sleep nightly, no more than that, and he sleeps very little. He is a strong man, even though he may now appear deformed from the effect of the chemotherapy.

VFG: What records appear in the history prior to the President’s current clinical record?

SN: There are no operations or records of previous surgeries. He has a record of a metabolic disorder known as dyslipidemia, in other words, high cholesterol and triglycerides. At that time he was not receiving treatment for it and he was showing a tendency toward high arterial tension, but he was not hypertense. At about 180 pounds he was barely ten to thirteen pounds overweight, not like he is now. He is a tall strong man whose height is about 5 feet 10 inches.

VFG: How did this patient, a decade later, suddenly display a clinical profile with cancer?

SN: The President decided to go in a radically different direction after the coup d’état against him. He walked away from all the Venezuelan physicians and placed himself absolutely in the hands of Cuban physicians. A month ago we met with people very close to the President and I told them the same thing I told him at Miraflores when he was my patient: that there is a lack of awareness of the national political impact stemming from the President’s health. The answer from these people around him was the same: that he cannot be told anything about his health, that he does not pay attention to anyone, much less to Venezuelans.

VFG: There is much speculation about the type of cancer that afflicts the President. Neither he nor anyone else has said what it is.

SN: I am going to offer the information I have concerning that premise you propose to me. President Chávez has a tumor in his pelvis that is called a sarcoma. Those are retroperitoneal tumors of the pelvic floor. From the embryological point of view they can be of three types: mesodermal, ectodermal and endodermal. The information I have from the family is that he has a sarcoma, a very aggressive tumor having a very bad prognosis and I am almost certain that is the reality. That is why they are giving him such an aggressive chemotherapy, because if it were prostate cancer, then hormonal treatment would be given and that would be it, and you wouldn’t even notice he was receiving any treatment.

VFG: Are you then discarding a prostate tumor?

SN: It is not a prostate tumor. It is a tumor that is very near to the prostate and is probably invading his bladder. Or it is a tumor that originates in the bladder and is invading the pelvis. In any case, it is a tumor that originates in the lower part of the pelvis, which is considered to be the anatomical region that is within the hips. Behind that region are the iliopsoas muscles, which are muscles that, [originate] at the lumbar region of the spine, [and insert at] the femur, lifting it upwards. It is the muscle that makes it possible to raise the knee while seated. That is why we think the tumor is of a muscular nature, that it is lodged and originates there; I say so because, before undergoing surgical intervention for removal of the malignant tumor the size of a baseball, the President was oversensitive to a problem in his knee: referred pain. That is why we are almost certain that this has to do with that kind of cancer. That is a some information that, through the public’s natural interest, we have been integrating and constructing little by little. I am the family’s surgeon and I met with one of their (the family’s) other physicians, we shared the available information and fully coincided in this diagnosis I am making.

VFG: The inevitable question everyone is asking is: what is the range of life expectancy for a profile similar to that of President Chávez?

SN: We believe that the prognosis for President Chávez is not good. And when I say the prognosis is not good that means that the life expectancy can be for as many as two years. This explains the decision to hold elections sooner.

ILLNESSES OF POWER

VFG: Is an ill president the result of two decades of stress, starting with his attempted coup d’état in 1992 and which includes the 12 years he has been in power?

SN: Men in power are individuals who believe themselves to be possessed by a supernatural force. In order to aspire to be President of a country you need to have an emotional condition different from the majority of the people, because you need to have a lot of ambition and perseverance to be able to move so many people out of your way and be able to take power and keep it. That constitutes a very particular psychic and emotional state. To have the cojones to aspire to lead a country of 50 million inhabitants, or 30 or 20 million, requires more than just will.

VFG: You know the President’s family because you as a surgeon have operated on them. Is there a common tendency toward certain illnesses?

SN: On the Chavez side of the family, the paternal branch, they tend to have vascular diseases. [His father] suffered a stroke. And on the Frías branch, his mother’s side, they have a tendency to have tumors. I operated on his mother for a benign tumor of the neck in 1999, together with another colleague who is their family physician and whom I still see frequently. And now she is a very healthy and very strong woman. But President Chávez was a healthy man when I examined him in the context that led to the coup d’état of 2002. He only suffered from a problem with elevated cholesterol and elevated triglycerides and a mental problem consisting of bipolar behavior under treatment. Someone in the family must have that illness, an ancestor, because President Chávez definitely has it, but we do not know who he inherited it from.

VFG: Are the President’s family’s physicians also Cubans?

SN: No, we are the family’s physicians.

VFG: And why is it that Cubans and not Venezuelans are occupying that space? Has the President become distrustful?

SN: Absolutely, right now President Chávez does not trust anyone.

VFG: Nobody?

SN: Nobody. In Venezuela President Chávez does not trust anybody: only Cubans. In fact, at the Military Hospital there is now a floor prepared just in case something happens to the President and all the personnel are strictly Cuban. Not even the stretcher-bearers are Venezuelan.

VFG: Does that explain the imprecise report published by the Miami Herald about President Chavez’s hospitalization a couple of weeks ago?

SN: I can say with certainty that between Sunday September 25^th and Monday the 26^th he was given dialysis because the kidney was not filtering the medications well and he was suffering. On Monday medical colleagues had to remove a dialysis machine from the Caracas Military Hospital and take it to Miraflores Palace.

VFG: It was in his bedroom at Miraflores Palace where you performed an auscultation at some moment. What’s it like within that intimate realm of the President of Venezuela?

SN: It is a very plain and orderly bedroom, just like he is. With a very small bookcase, with the readings he chooses for the moment, everything is very tidy, and I must insist that he his a very meticulous, clean, orderly and austere person. That is how he is.

VFG: What is the scenario with Chávez being ill in 2012?

SN: This scenario has two options: one with Chávez as candidate and the other without him. The President could die and the military would have to take power for a while; or, if his illness prevents him from running as candidate, then the incumbent party would lose the elections. If he comes forth under conditions of health acceptable for en electoral campaign, according to recent information he has more than 55 percent acceptance in popularity, but as a candidate Chávez scores 35 points, a yet unnamed independent candidate would receive the same 35 percent, and the opposition candidate only 22 points. These are the consequences of the President’s illness.

Salvador Navarrete, surgeon

A surgeon with specialty in bariatric and metabolic surgery, graduated from the Faculty of Medicine, Luis Razetti School, Central University of Venezuela, in 1981. Postgraduate work completed at University Hospital in Caracas, where he received the title of Specialist in General Surgery.

He completed his training in France, the United States and Cuba, specializing in laparoscopic surgery. Likewise, he was a visiting assistant at the Laparoscopic Unit led by the prestigious Dr. Moses Jacobs at Baptist Hospital in Miami.

As a specialist in surgery for obesity, he has participated widely as a panelist and presenter at medical conferences and gatherings in Venezuela, as well as in Japan, Brazil, Spain, the United States and Peru, among other countries.

Dr. Navarrete has more than thirty scientific publications and videos, which have earned him wide recognition, among them the following: the Venezuelan Society of Surgery Prize, the Cipriano Jiménez Macías Prize and the Ricardo Baquero González Prize, bestowed upon him at different events of the Venezuelan Congress of Surgery.

He has been Chief of the Surgical Team at University Hospital in Caracas, Chief of Residents of Surgery Service II and currently is Chief of the Endoscopic Unit of University Hospital in Caracas.

His teaching activity at the Luis Razetti School of the Faculty of Medicine of the Central University of Venezuela has been extensive, including General Coordinator of Postgraduate Studies of General Surgery and Coordinator of the Internship of the Undergraduate Program in General Surgery of the Department of Clinical and Surgical Therapy B of University Hospital in Caracas.

Currently he is Coordinator of Postgraduate Studies of General Surgery at University Hospital in Caracas and Head of the Department of Clinical and Surgical Therapy B.

Doctor Navarrete shares his professional activities among University Hospital in Caracas, El Ávila Clinic and Santa Sofía Clinic. He belongs to numerous scientific societies: founder of the Endoscopic Surgery Section and of the Bariatric Surgery Section that are part of the Venezuelan Society of Surgery, as well as founder of the Venezuelan Society of Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery.

He’s a member of the Latin American Endoscopic Surgery Association, The Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons and of the Laparoscopic Surgery Society of Spain, among others.

Víctor Flores García

Translation by: Indysurfer

Oct 13/11 | On RIA Novosti's "What Russia stands to lose if Venezuela sees regime change"

2011-10-14T00:50:00.000-04:30

Chavez (L) and Sechin: Till death do us part...

PMBComment | It is refreshing to read this article in Russia's state-owned news service RIA Novosti (see below). This might very well be intended to reflect the split that exists among Russian officials about murky dealings with Bolivarian Venezuela.

On the one side there is the team headed by Igor Sechin, Deputy Prime Minister and Energy Zar, that believes they have to take full advantage of a weak government in Caracas in order to sign as many contracts as possible ("The next guys will be inclined to sign deals only with US companies" goes their storyline).

On the other side, there are Foreign Ministry officials and international advisers to the Kremlin more attune to the risks posed by dealing with a government that has unilaterally changed the terms of all pre-existing oil contracts and nationalized hundreds of companies. This tug of war has been going on for at least 6 years and it is clear that Sechin's group has made huge inroads into Venezuela as the regime desperately seeks funds and allies to survive its own administrative incompetence and moral recklessness.

The hope of the "lets take advantage (lets get rich) group", as expressed by one of the individuals interviewed for this article, is that these contracts are treated as "State to State contracts" and not as contracts signed by various Russian entities with a particularly corrupt and indecent government. However, as was the case with Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Gaddafi's Libya, the flaw in this approach is that contracts signed in haste with crumbling regimes are particularly vulnerable. Past experience notwithstanding, the monies involved for promoters and intermediaries is too tempting to pass up and might in itself justify brokering and signing these deals independent of their eventual fate. Hundreds of millions of Venezuela's and Russia's easy-earned oil dollars are probably already in secret accounts of crafty functionaries on both ends of these hurried deals.

From my conversation with leading opposition political figures in Venezuela, there is absolutely no intention to break LEGAL commitments that serve the real interests of a free and truly democratic Venezuela, but at the same time there is a clear expectation that grown ups - whether they speak Russian, Mandarin or Brazilian Portuguese - will understand perfectly well when the music stops and it is time for them to leave the party owing up for junk debt, broken down air crafts, rusty tanks and 'misplaced' silverware.

In order to ally misperceptions and fears, I have reminded many in Russia's establishment that the Chinese oil companies came into Venezuela prior to Chávez's election in 1998. They were awarded contracts in open and transparent processes in which they outbid some of the largest companies in the world - including most of the US based oil majors. Russian companies were invited by PDVSA to participate in these bidding rounds and it was the Russian government that banned them from doing so as the main priority then was to channel scarce funds into Russia's crumbling Soviet-age oil infrastructure. So it is not true that an opposition led government will blackball Russian energy companies as a matter of principle. And at the same time they must remember that Chávez unilaterally changed the terms of the Chinese contracts and treated them with the same heavy handedness he treated Conoco and Exxon.

I hope this article is well read in the Kremlin and surrounding buildings. There is much to be learnt about 11th hour greed. PMB

PS: a little know fact about April 11th 2002 is that the Russian Federation was the first country to issue a statement expressing their desire to maintain good relations with the Carmona administration. Trace of that statement disappeared a few days later from the Russian Foreign Ministry web site, but it remains forever archived in the digital files of news agencies too lazy to point this relevant factoid out.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20111011/167579958.html
RIA Novosti

Features & Opinion

What Russia stands to lose if Venezuela sees regime change
18:27 11/10/2011
Natalia Karnova, RIA Novosti
Multi-billion dollar contracts between Russia and Venezuela, sponsored by Hugo Chavez, the incumbent president of this Latin American country, may be under threat. The health of the 57-year-old Venezuelan leader, who has ruled his country for almost 13 years, is deteriorating. This development comes not long before Venezuelans vote in presidential elections.
A number of experts have been polled by Prime on what could, potentially, happen to Russian contracts in arms, oil, gas, energy, transport and agriculture, and what might be in store for the companies that concluded these contracts and are working in this Latin American country if Chavez goes.
Investment and plans
The Civilian Association Citizen Control for Security, Defense and Armed Forces reports that over the past six years the country has spent $15 billion on weapons and military equipment, with Russia accounting for $9.5 billion of that sum.
Last week, a Russian delegation led by Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin visited Venezuela and signed an agreement on granting the Bolivarian Republic a $4 billion loan to continue this military-technical cooperation with Russia. Two billion will be allocated next year, and two more in 2013, Chavez explained.
Development of the Junin 6 and Junin 3 oilfields on the Orinoco River is one of the major joint venture projects involving the two countries. Junin 6 is being developed by Russia's National Oil Consortium, which includes, on a parity basis, Gazprom Neft, Lukoil, Rosneft, Surgutneftegaz and TNK-BP, together with Venezuela's state company PDVSA. Junin 3 is being developed by Lukoil.
Russian energy giant Inter RAO UES is planning to build a petroleum coke-fired power plant in Venezuela and is also interested in other projects. Russia is contemplating supplying more machines and equipment to this Latin American country and importing bananas and other agricultural produce.
Does it all hang on Chavez?
Experts interviewed by RIA Novosti have expressed varying views. Vladimir Sudarev, deputy director at the Russian Academy of Sciences' Latin American Studies Institute, does not believe the situation, especially regarding Chavez's health, should be overdramatized. "The main problem is that the regime itself is unstable, there is no successor, and the mood among Venezuela's top brass and army is not quite clear," he said. But extreme scenarios like a military coup are ruled out because that era in Latin American history is long gone, he believes.
In his view, whatever the situation, most of the contracts have been concluded with the Venezuelan state, not Chavez personally. Should the opposition suddenly take over, it may of course annul them, but it is a point of honor for any government to pay what it owes, especially as otherwise the Hague Court might step in.
"It is true that many of the contracts concluded with Caracas are linked to Chavez, but many people around him have backed them, too," argues Dmitry Abzalov, a leading expert from the Center for Current Politics. "This offers the country's authorities the chance to maintain a balance between the interests of North America, the destination for a lot of Venezuelan oil, and other partners, including Russia."
Russian oil and gas companies are understood to be firmly settled in Venezuela and the main risk they face would be power falling into the hands of individuals from the anti-Chavez northern provinces. Under this scenario, many nationalization projects and programs would be abandoned, companies would revert to their former owners, and Russia might find itself back at square one, the expert believes.
Konstantin Simonov, general director of the Foundation for National Energy Security, is confident that "judging from the Libyan experience, our contracts in Venezuela are likely to meet an unenviable fate." In his day, Chavez drove Western companies out of the country and refused to pay them compensation, so any new government would most likely invite them back, while simultaneously meting out the same harsh treatment to these Russian partners, who would later be said "to have cooperated with a criminal regime," he believes.
No to arms - yes to oil
What will happen to specific contracts? In Sudarev's opinion, if the opposition comes to power in Caracas, it will start by canceling the arms contracts with Russia. "We are partly to blame for this - although we offer sophisticated weapons, we do not back that up with any maintenance services," he said.
However, he downplays the impact any reduction in Russia's military contracts with Venezuela would have, pointing out that they already total nearly $10 billion, plus another four billion loaned by Russia, with half set to be used for military purposes. Therefore going forward the country is not particularly likely to need further armaments.
Oil and gas cooperation is likely to survive because it benefits Venezuela. Russia does not charge heavily and has positive experience in this field. "If reasonable people come to power in Caracas, they will be unlikely to shoot from the hip," Sudarev believes.
On the whole, in Sudarev's view, Russia should focus on the high-tech sector and nuclear energy rather than on car exports to Latin America, because the car market there is already cornered by Chinese and Korean manufacturers.
Abzalov of the Center for Current Politics agrees that some contracts may be revoked. "We will have a chance to retain our positions if pro-active steps are taken, as has happened with a number of Lukoil projects in Iraq," he noted. "Here Russia should both uphold general trends on the continent and look out for its own interests since, in a number of areas, Venezuela is our rival."
How much does Russia need this Caribbean foothold?
Experts agree that Venezuela is a promising country on the whole. This applies especially to the Orinoco deposits, in which China has already expressed an active interest, Abzalov noted. "Then there are the mineral resources and transport infrastructure, for example, the construction of a gas pipeline stretching across Latin America, to which Russia might like to contribute," he said.
"The fact that we are now established in Venezuela benefits us, including in terms of contacts with its neighbors," Sudarev believes. "It is a regional leader. It would therefore be wrong to pull out of it voluntarily."
Abzalov argues that if Russia wants to retain its positions, it should put down strong roots in Venezuela and cultivate cooperation with other countries in the region - Brazil, Argentina and Chile. "The important thing now is to reach an agreement with Venezuela's elite, Chavez's potential successors and, as far as I am aware, contacts are already being pursued through defense and defense industry channels," he said. "We may soon find out about talks ongoing on exactly this."
Simonov, on the other hand, does not believe that Russia should invest tens of billions of dollars in the Bolivarian Republic and cherish dreams about a global partnership. It is better to spend the money on developing deposits in Eastern Russia. "Bizarrely, we have paid about a billion dollars just for the right to invest in Venezuela," he said.
The problem is that Russia, as it seeks entry into foreign markets, chooses the most roguish regimes as partners and consequently runs terrible political risks. "Projects in Venezuela are set to last ten years, not a year or two, and this is a period when something is bound to happen to Chavez," he argues. In countries like this, regime change equals changing project participants, yet Russia stubbornly walks into the same trap time and again, Simonov concludes.
The views expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.

May 22/10 | Las FARC y sus muchos sostenes

2011-05-22T13:27:00.000-04:30

Los mejores nuevos amigos ...¿de que?

PMBComentario | Esta noticia del El Nacional de hoy (ver abajo) es vieja, la gran mayoría se publicó a los días del ataque de Uribe y Santos al campamento ecuatoriano de Alias Raúl Reyes, pero aun así sigue siendo sorprendente que no haya tenido mayor trascendencia. Todos los funcionarios y oficiales Venezolanos mencionados siguen activos e inclusive algunos han sido promovidos. Mis fuentes en Colombia me dicen que las computadoras encontradas mas recientemente en el campamento de Alias Mono Jojoy dan fe de la colaboración intensificada del régimen chavista con los terrorista narco traficantes de la FARC. Y nada ocurre.

La primera razón de que nada ocurra es que el liderazgo opositor en Venezuela ha optado por enfocarse en lo superfluo - ser mas chavistas que Chávez parece ser el objetivo populista de muchos - e ignorar todo lo grave que ocurre en Venezuela. Ya sea por un pésimo calculo político, por ignorancia voluntaria o por miedo al régimen y sus complices, el discurso político en Venezuela es el de los monitos que no ven, no oyen y no hablan. En Venezuela estas noticias son fenómeno de unos días y desaparecen para ser sustituidas por - y no acumuladas a - un nuevo escandalo.

Luego tenemos el caso de Colombia, doliente directo de estas fechorías. Hace unos días la Sra. Canciller, que se dice conocedora como nadie de Venezuela (fue embajadora allá al principio del gobierno de Chávez y finalmente le rogó al Presidente Uribe que la sacara de Caracas), dijo que había que "pasar la pagina" de estos datos/eventos. Me imagino que estará muy convencida que sus encantos femeninos son mas poderosos que la demostrada voluntad chavista de reincidir en el delito. Lo que mas extraña es que fue el Presidente Santos quien siendo Ministro de Defensa contrató al IISS para que evaluara los archivos de Reyes y también quien autorizó que se publicaran en este preciso momento. Entonces uno muestra la pagina y la otra pide que se olvide todo. De tanto jugar ajedrez cuatridimensional el Sr. Santos corre el riesgo de darse un auto jaque mate - ojala no sea ese el caso pues las consecuencias serian nefastas para ambos países.

Finalmente tenemos a los EEUU. Al poco tiempo de que estos correos salieron al aire la administración Bush designó a tres de los funcionarios venezolanos allí mencionados como "drug kingpins". Mis fuentes me dicen que la lista era mas larga (abarcaba a algunos de los personajes mencionados en esta nota de hoy) y los recaudos fueron entregados a la entrante Administración Obama. Pero nada pasó pues Dan Restrepo, Director de Asuntos del Hemisferio Occidental en el Consejo Nacional de Seguridad (NSC, por sus siglas en ingles) consideró que los recaudos del Departamento de Justicia y el Departamento del Tesoro no eran suficientes para el recomendar al Presidente una acción que - sin el peso de una acusación penal - al menos evitaría que los EEUU terminará como encubridor de acciones criminales asociadas a una organización como las FARC que está en la lista de "grupos terroristas" y en un país donde los contribuyentes norteamericanos han gastado 11 mil millones de dolares para justamente ayudar al gobierno a acabar con el flagelo de una guerrilla narcotizada. Los niveles de indolencia y complicidad de gente como Dan Restrepo son lo que al final resultan en que los EEUU no solo pierda la autoridad moral, sino que definitivamente vaya perdiendo la guerra contra el narcotrafico y su muchos complices.

El hecho que hechos que no son ya noticia lo sigan siendo es responsabilidad de quienes buscan posiciones de autoridad para luego rehuir responsabilidades. La tragedia de muchos es culpa no siempre de unos pocos malos, sino también de unos que se las dan de buenos y terminan siendo sostenes de todo. PMB

El Nacional | Mundo  22 May 2011 | 07:54 am - Por Manuel Tovar

Las FARC obtuvieron armas y apoyo logístico desde Venezuela

En una comunicación que dirige el guerrillero Iván Márquez a sus compañeros se lee textualmente: "Tenemos la impresión de que el general Alexis Maneiro es un tipo que lo que está buscando es plata desaforadamente, por fusil AK pide 3.500 dólares, 57 millones de pesos por ametralladora, y hasta nos sugirió que en los negocios debería haber plata adelantada. A pesar de comprarlo directamente en la fábrica, en Rusia". También señala: "Aprovechando la visita de Freddy (Bernal), disimuladamente le preguntamos si era cierto que el hombre era general y amigo de Chávez. Nos respondió que sí. Que tenía amistad con Chávez desde niño y que era un hombre de su confianza".

Los vínculos entre las FARC y representantes del Gobierno e instituciones venezolanas van más allá de las coincidencias ideológicas, según revelan correos electrónicos extraídos de la computadora del fallecido líder de la guerrilla Raúl Reyes y procesados por el Instituto de Estudios Estratégicos de Londres.

En los correos se señala que miembros del Ejecutivo de Venezuela facilitaron, ofrecieron o sirvieron de enlace para entregar armas a la insurgencia colombiana.

En correspondencia enviada el 8 de marzo de 2003 por Iván Márquez a otros miembros del Secretariado, como Manuel Marulanda, Raúl Reyes y Nariño se lee: "Camaradas: unos tres días antes de la entrevista con [Freddy] Bernal nos reunimos con el General Alexis Maneiro y un Coronel que llegaron de paisanos desde Caracas a buscarnos para plantearnos un negocio de armas con Rusia. Nos sorprendió que dijeran que venían con el visto bueno de [Hugo] Chávez y que los precios que insinuaran fueran tan elevados (ejemplo: fusil AK 3.500 dólares, ametralladoras PKM, 57 millones de pesos)".

En los documentos se señala al ex alcalde del municipio Libertador como reemplazo del ex ministro del Interior Ramón Rodríguez Chacín como enlace entre el Gobierno de Venezuela y la guerrilla.

En la comunicación se ve la desconfianza del líder rebelde hacia la posible transacción. "Aprovechando la visita de Freddy [Bernal] disimuladamente le preguntamos si era cierto que el hombre era general y amigo personal de Chávez. Nos respondió que sí.

Que tenía amistad con Chávez desde niño y que era un hombre de confianza".

En el mismo texto se afirma sobre Maneiro: "Tiene disponibles 50 fusiles AK y 30.000 tiros", y que era posible que se los dejaran por 2.000 a 3.000 dólares. "Nos informó que esta oferta la hace porque él es el encargado de adquirir un armamento ruso para Venezuela y de esta forma puede camuflar los negocios que haga con las FARC".

En una comunicación del 25 de marzo de 2003, Márquez se dirigió a Raúl Reyes y Noel Mata Mata, alias Nariño, y expresó su desconfianza hacia la oferta del general Maneiro, ex jefe del Core 7, ahora en situación de retiro. "Tenemos la impresión que el general Alexis Maneiro del que le hablamos en nota anterior es un tipo que lo que está buscando es plata desaforadamente, por fusil AK pide 3.500 dólares, 57 millones de pesos por ametralladora, 4.000 pesos tiro de AK y hasta nos sugirió que en los negocios debería haber plata adelantada. Todo esto a pesar de comprarlo directamente en la fábrica, en Rusia", afirmó.

En el texto, Márquez vuelve a referirse a Bernal: "Nos manda a decir Freddy que sigue trabajando lo de las armas y que muy pronto nos detallará sobre ofertas concretas".

Márquez señala a otros funcionarios venezolanos en un correo que envió a Rodrigo Granda, Raúl Reyes y otros miembros del Secretariado el 28 de octubre de 2004. "Realizamos el encuentro con los venezolanos para tratar el asunto del Apure (probablemente se refiere al ataque que realizaron las FARC el 17 de septiembre de 2004 contra una patrulla militar del Ejército venezolano que daba seguridad a un equipo de Pdvsa. En el hecho murieron cinco militares y una ingeniera venezolana. En un primer momento se señaló a la guerrilla por su autoría pero luego, el Gobierno se desdijo).

Nuestros interlocutores fueron: el general Hugo Carvajal, comandante del DIM, Luis Pedro y Amín por la Disip", escribió.

"Ofrecen ayuda para el caso de planes de ataques nuestros a guarniciones militares colombianas y `paracos' en la frontera. De nuevo, el tema de los misiles, planteamiento de ellos. Que lo de los `AT4' comentados lo tienen frenado porque serían inculpados vilmente, ya que solamente los tiene Venezuela. Que están explorando otras posibilidades".

Más adelante en el mismo correo electrónico se señala el interés de los venezolanos en que las FARC derriben "la mayor cantidad posible de Black Hawks".

Los rebeldes sugirieron mirar las zonas como retaguardia en caso de agresión o intervención de Estados Unidos. "Por aquí pueden guardar armas, misiles, municiones, aparatos de comunicaciones, emisoras, dinero; que estábamos a su disposición. Respondieron que ya estaban pensando en eso. Como vinieron con poco tiempo, quedaron de regresar el jueves de la próxima semana. Temas a tratar: Visita a Chávez. Lo de los misiles. La propuesta de zona de retaguardia".

El 12 de noviembre de 2007, Márquez y Rodrigo Granda escribieron a Marulanda y a otros miembros del Secretariado para expresar que en su viaje a China, Tino visitó la fábrica de misiles antiaéreos y la Norinco [fábrica de defensa china conocida por sus productos de alta tecnología], "Trajo los catálogos de ofertas (fusiles AK, ametralladoras livianas, punto 50 y antiaéreas). También RPG7 y comunicaciones".

Logística. En los correos también se hace referencia al ofrecimiento y uso del territorio venezolano para transportar y entregar armas a los rebeldes colombianos.

"Como estaba previsto, el 3 de enero me reuní con los generales [Clíver] Alcalá [Cordones] y Carvajal, -con el cual ya me había reunido en tres ocasiones en compañía de Ricardo-, [Rodrigo Granda]", dijo Márquez al Secretariado el 4 de enero de 2007.

Señala que se hablaron de temas como el Plan Patriota, el canje, la parapolítica y de tres aspectos del plan estratégico: finanzas, armas y política de fronteras.

"Nos van a hacer llegar (la próxima semana) 20 bazucas (no recuerdo el calibre) de gran potencia, según ellos, de las cuales 10 serían para Timo (Timoshenko) y 10 para acá. Alcalá sugirió que fuera una cantidad mayor. Reiteran la oferta de munición, lo cual debemos precisar con Alcalá. Otra vez se planteó la posibilidad de aprovechar las compras de armas de Venezuela a Rusia para incluir unos contenedores con destino a las FARC. Sin asentir ni negar dijeron que no debería ser de la misma característica del material que están importando. Nuevamente se habló de que Alcalá está próximo a asumir el control del puerto de Maracaibo, lo que nos daría una gran ventaja para desembarque de carga nuestra".

El general Alcalá Cordones estuvo destacado para la fecha en la base de Maracaibo.

Se intentó obtener la versión de Bernal pero no atendieron la llamada. El general Maneiro no está en el país, dijeron fuentes de la institución castrense.

Se llamó al general Carvajal a la Dirección de Inteligencia Militar, pero funcionarios informaron que sólo atendería entrevistas personales en el organismo.

El general Alcalá Cordones fue el único que respondió a la mención de su nombre en el computador de Reyes y sus supuestos nexos con la guerrilla.

Negó cualquier vínculo.

"Los colombianos están desestimando esos correos, lo hizo su Corte Suprema. No puedo caer en esas provocaciones.

Esos temas me parecen burdos. El que se defiende se acusa, uno no tiene que prestarle atención a eso. Sobre todo lo que corresponde a este proceso", afirmó.

El AT4 de la discordia
El AT4 es un arma portátil antitanque fabricada en Suecia por Saab Bofors Dynamics, según Wikipedia. Es el lanzacohetes más común del mundo y la infantería lo usa para destruir o neutralizar vehículos blindados; el cuerpo del artefacto y su proyectil están unidos en una sola pieza, por lo que pueden ser usados sólo una vez.

Es más conocido por el escándalo que se produjo en 2009 y causó una escalada en la tensión entre los gobiernos de Colombia y Venezuela después de que se acusó el Ejecutivo nacional de suministrar este arsenal a las FARC.
El 6 de agosto de 2009, el presidente Hugo Chávez rechazó cualquier implicación en el hecho y dijo que las armas las robaron del puesto fluvial fronterizo de Cararabo en 1995. Un oficial retirado de la Marina venezolana consultado por E NACIONAL y prefirió el anonimato dijo que lo robado por la guerrilla en esa incursión, realizada por el ELN fue armamento liviano.

Suecia dijo que estudiaría la vinculación del hecho y cómo llegaron los equipos a los rebeldes colombianos.
Noticias Relacionadas
  20 May  El Teatro de Operaciones 2 brindó asistencia a las FARC
  18 May  Para la guerrilla de las FARC Hugo Chávez es impredecible
  17 May  Freddy Bernal envió a estudiantes a entrenarse en explosivos con las FARC
  15 May  Rodríguez Chacín pidió a las FARC apoyo para la guerra asimétrica
  11 May  Nicolás Maduro calificó de "basura" informe sobre ayuda de Venezuela a las FARC
  10 May  Los archivos de "Reyes" vuelven a poner en jaque a Colombia y sus vecinos
  10 May  Chávez habría apoyado a las Farc según documentos de la computadora de Raúl Reyes
  10 May  Los correos que revelan la relación entre Farc y el gobierno Chávez

Apr 06/11 | Mini cumbre Santos, Obama ... y Makled

2011-04-06T14:24:00.000-04:30

Esta vez habrá un invitado indeseable

PMBComentario | Abajo verán la transcripción de la entrevista que el Presidente Santos dio a Univisión anoche. Noten como ya la tercera pregunta (y la mitad de la entrevista) es sobre el caso Makled y observen como la respuestas del Presidente Santos en esa materia parecen el balbuceo de un estudiante de segundo año de Derecho de la Javeriana. Comparen eso con la posición de ESTADO que asume el Ex Presidente Uribe en entrevista ayer mismo con el periodista Andrés Oppenheimer. (Link: http://tinyurl.com/3j394k8)

Hay quienes alegan que "Colombia es un país serio", yo lo siento y se así, pero me pregunto: ¿cual de estos dos importantes Colombianos representa en este caso a esa Colombia seria? El que busca salvar cara por ponerse a prometer una extradición sin informarse bien sobre la persona que tenia bajo arresto? ¿O el que no se le olvida que para salvar a la República hubo que extraditar centenares de ciudadanos Colombiano a un país extranjero donde hay un sistema judicial y carcelario confiable?

Lo único que le queda a Juan Manuel Santos es pedir (exigir?) garantias a Washington que si le entrega este complicadisimo personaje (complicado en toda suerte de crímenes, algunos mucho mas serios por cierto que dos supuestos asesinatos), la justicia norteamericana va a actuar con inusitada celeridad y anunciar de inmediato al mundo los cargos que se derivan de haber tenido acceso irrestricto a Makled en la cárcel en Colombia. Lo mas grave para Santos seria implosionar su "luna de miel" con los vecinos y después ponerse viejo esperando que la justicia y la política americana actué.

Para Obama también es una papa caliente pues lo ultimo que querrá es abrir otro frente. Mas aun cuando Chavez ha logrado entrometerse, cual toro en un quirófano, en el tema Libia. Pero en la medida que el caso Makled esta totalmente judicializado y lo que han descubierto los investigadores y fiscales americanos afecta la "seguridad nacional" de los EEUU dificilmente podrá Barack Obama hacerse el loco y echarle tierra a todo esto como si hizo Santos con toda la evidencia que el gobierno colombiano había acumulado contra el régimen chavista (para muestra, en engavetamiento de los ordenadores de Reyes y el Mono Jojoy).

A las 10AM mañana comienza en la Casa Blanca una de las reuniones mas transcendentes para la región...y pensar que se montó a la carrera bajo la excusa del Tratado de Libre Comercio (dudo por cierto que Obama anuncie a la salida que esa misma tarde enviará el Tratado para el Congreso) y bajo la sombra de la evidencia en manos de un subestimado maleante con mucho que contar.

PMB

TRANSCRIPCIÓN DE UNIVISION NOTICIAS

Programa: “Noticiero Univision”

Contenido: Entrevista exclusiva con el Presidente de Colombia Juan Manuel Santos sobre la extradición de Walid Makled.

Fecha: 5 de Abril, 2011

Enlace: http://noticias.univision.com/noticiero-univision/videos/video/2011-04-06/santos-extraditara-a-makled-a

Leyenda

PSC: Pamela Silva Conde

JMS: Presidente Juan Manuel Santos

PSC: EL TRATADO DE LIBRE COMERCIO ENTRE ESTADOS UNIDOS Y COLOMBIA AUN ESTA ESTANCADO. ¿TIENE RAZONES PARA SENTIRSE MAS OPTIMISTA DE QUE FINALMENTE SEA RATIFICADO?

JMS: Yo soy optimista que este año, al final del año este tratado que tanto hemos luchado y que le conviene a Estados Unidos y a Colombia finalmente será aprobado por el congreso.

PSC: SE ESTARA REUNIENDO CON EL PRESIDENTE BARACK OBAMA. ¿ES PARA DISCUTIR ESTE TEMA?

JMS: Si nos reunimos va a ser la agenda bilateral donde por supuesto el tratado de libre comercio será uno de los puntos.

PSC: HAY MUCHA EXPECTATIVA POR SU DECISION SOBRE LA EXTRADICION DEL PRESUNTO NARCOTRAFICANTE WALID MAKLED. ¿CUANDO ESTARA TOMANDO ESTA DECISION?

JMS: Desde el momento en que la Corte Suprema da el visto bueno hasta el momento en que el gobierno tiene que tomar una decisión - hay unos días y eso vence el 15 o 16 de abril, tengo entendido.

PSC: USTED LE PROMETIO AL PRESIDENTE HUGO CHAVEZ QUE SERIA ENTREGADO A VENEZUELA. ¿HABIA RAZONES PARA UN CAMBIO DE INTENCION?

JMS: Primero, nosotros tenemos un tratado de extradición con Venezuela, no tenemos un tratado de extradición con Estados Unidos. Eso es algo que la gente no sabe. Segundo, el tratado de extradición con Venezuela dice claramente que en situaciones como esta, quien ponga el requisito, quien llegue primero tiene prevalencia. Venezuela llego primero. Nuestro código de procedimiento penal, el nuestro en Colombia dice también expresamente que cuando se presenta una situación como la que tenemos en este momento, el país que requiera a la persona por el delito más grave tendrá prevalencia. En este caso el asesinato es un delito más grave que el narcotráfico.

PSC: PERO BAJO ESAS CIRCUNSTANCIAS TODO SEÑALA QUE SI VA A HACER EXTRADITADO A VENEZUELA

JMS: Al menos de que los abogados y el ministro del interior está en este momento consultando los abogados digan que no, será extraditado a Venezuela. Las autoridades colombianas le preguntaron a las autoridades norteamericanas si este señor era una persona de mucha importancia que si lo requerían y creo que fue cuando, cuando Venezuela lo pidió en extradición y Estados Unidos dijo que no, que no era una persona demasiado importante. Su importancia salió a relucir, o supuesta importancia, salió a relucir después.

PSC: ¿CREE QUE ÉL SI RECIBA UN JUICIO IMPARCIAL BAJO EL GOBIERNO DE CHÁVEZ?

JMS: El abogado de Makled está diciendo que deben extraditarlo a Venezuela eso también inclusive a mi me sorprendió. Lo ha dicho en varios medios de comunicación y lo que uno le exigiría al gobierno venezolano es que el juicio sea un juicio claro, objetivo.

PSC: ES EVIDENTE QUE LAS RELACIONES ENTRE COLOMBIA VENEZUELA HAN CAMBIADO RADICALMENTE DURANTE SU GOBIERNO. ¿ES ALGO, SE PUEDE DECIR QUE ES UNA QUÍMICA ENTRE LOS DOS PRESIDENTES O ES MÁS CONVENIENCIA MUTUA?

JMS: Si yo respeto lo que él piensa y el respeta lo que yo pienso y no nos metemos en los asuntos internos de los países podemos por el bien de nuestros pueblos tener buenas relaciones. Entonces no quiere decir que yo me voy a volver un revolucionario bolivariano ni que el presidente Chávez se va a volver un demócrata liberal.

###

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

This Blogger is taking a rest...nothing much to add - por ahora!

2010-12-21T17:03:00.002-04:30

Stay tuned to the return of PMBComments in early 2011. Much of what I have warned about in the past years (read past posts) has become reality and Venezuela is today on the verge of political, economic and social collapse.

Corruption, incompetence and the growing presence of all sorts of criminal mafias have defeated - for now (por ahora) - the democratic spirit of millions of Venezuelans. This will be reversed, but it will take time, effort and the solidarity of most in Venezuela and many outside. The tipping point will not be reached without trauma, but it will be reached with certainty...and sooner rather than later. The conditions that made the Bolivarian "revolution" possible not only persist but have be magnified by one of the most senseless and ineffective exercises of power in the region's history.

The state of Venezuela’s democracy has deteriorated sharply, but the desire of Venezuelans to live in democracy endures without any doubt.

If you want to be included in this blogger's more private e-mail service, please write to pmbcomments@gmail.com and provide name, e-mail, affiliation and a short sentence on interest on the subject.

You can also follow me on Twitter @pburelli

Jun 15/10 | A hard hitting interview that proves much about the mental state of HChF

2010-06-15T18:02:00.001-04:30

Links for English Version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DAJ4cOaRHE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rq_owa0rto

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffWiYOlJgEs

May 26/10 | On Jackson Diehl's "Hugo Chavez's implosion continues in Venezuela"

2010-05-26T20:48:00.004-04:30

Back to square one ...but now really really broke

PMBComment | If someone has understood the convoluted DNA and macabre tempo of the Bolivarian "revolution" it has been Jackson Diehl from the Washington Post. There is no one in mainstream media that has been so prescient, trenchant and consistent in his assessment of this destructive bacchanal. The piece below, which was posted today in the paper's blog section, is one of a long list of articles and editorials that have been proven right despite the protestations of Chávez's withering legion of sycophants.

The long anticipated final implosion of a country blessed with all sorts of natural resources and unique geographical location, is now upon us. The crude and rude Lt. Colonel who has ranted more than ruled, who has destroyed more than built and who is now being chased by ghosts and non-ghost of his own making, has only dark places and treacherous ploys in which to hide. His democratic facade has melted, his skills as a communicator have worn thin and if he is in power it is because there is no obvious alternative - but, as is always the case, a replacement will emerge just when finally needed.

Hugo Chávez's remaining relationship with a minority of Venezuelans is mostly mercantile which is no surprise in a country in which the State is omnipresent despite its incompetence. But, every day someone from the innards of the beast jumps ship in a one directional exodus with no feasible return. Soon more and more of the ugly truths of a very crooked administration will surface and the "magic" of the Bolivarian fraud will be bared. The world will be exposed to lurid details of massive secret foreign bank accounts, untold wealth in the hands of a few - many with Chávez as their last name, and a myriad of dangerous liaisons that will compromise Venezuela's future for years to come. The oil bonanza that hid so much from 2002 till 2008 is long gone, the internal battles are ragging, the foreign friends - with the exception of the most desperate and dangerous - are mostly gone, the apologists are few and unconvincing.

As we enter the epilogue of this wasteful saga, we must open our collective eyes to the challenges of rebuilding a country dismantled by hatred, incompetence and greed. When first sworn in, Mr. Chávez stated - correctly - that he was "consequence and not cause", but he has morphed into the root cause of untold misery and intractable problems we never dreamed of having. For the future of Venezuela, and the region, and the world, it would be ideal that this putrid time bomb explodes in the face of its artificiers. Mr. Chávez is not destined - nor has he earned the right - to exit democratically and that is not a threat or even a wish, but a crude reality of his own making. Those who naively spouse a "democratic, electoral and peaceful" do not fully understand the nature of the brew, or the corrosive power and natural consequence of this brand of misrule. PMB

The Washington Post | Post Partisan |
Hugo Chavez's implosion continues in Venezuela

By Jackson Diehl | May 26, 2010; 2:26 PM ET

Hugo Chavez has been keeping a relatively low profile of late -- there have been no grand world tours, no fiery speeches at the United Nations. The Obama administration, which once promised to “engage” the Venezuelan caudillo, is instead quietly shunning him.

There’s a simple reason for this: the implosion of Chavez’s self-styled “Bolivarian socialism” is accelerating.Figures reported Tuesday by the Chavez-controlled central bankportrayed an economy that is completely out of sync with the rest of the region -- and perhaps unique in the world in the degree of its current distress. Gross national product fell by 5.8 percent in the first quarter, while inflation remained at 30 percent. Private investment plummeted by 27.9 percent as capital continued to flee the country.

Private economists suspect the economic contraction is even worse than what the official figures concede. But let’s assume they are correct. Venezuela’s crash compares with quarterly growth rates of 8 percent in Brazil, Argentina and Mexico. It comfortably exceeds the collapse of Greece, which contracted by 3 percent in the first quarter.

Inflation in Caracas is triple the next highest rate in Latin America (Argentina) and is more than double that of the next worst economy (Pakistan) among the 56 tracked by the Economist’s website. Even Zimbabwe, which used to be considered the world’s economic basket case, looks good compared to Venezuela: it is expecting 6 percent growth this year, while inflation is under 5 percent.

In short, economic recovery is taking hold across the world -- except in Chavez’s Venezuela. When I pointed out back in January that Chavez’s revolution was collapsing, a chorus of left-wing bloggers rose up in protest. The extremists among them claim that Venezuela is actually doing better than the rest of the world, because (loony version) Chavez is destroying evil capitalism or because (slightly less loony version) Venezuela’s implosion is irrelevant to the rest of the region.

But, of course, Venezuela really is cratering -- and Chavez’s desperate measures to stop the freefall are only making it worse. A couple of weeks ago, for example, he abruptly moved to abolish the private currency market, which supplies the dollars for 30 to 40 percent of Venezuela’s imports. The dollar exchange rate was soaring, so the government arrested a bunch of currency traders and announced that sales of dollars henceforth would be controlled exclusively by the central bank. The result will almost certainly be another drastic decrease in imports, the worsening of already widespread shortages in food and basic consumer goods, and the creation of a new black market in dollars.

And, of course, the implosion of Chavez’s potted socialism does matter to the rest of Latin America. It’s not just that the Obama administration no longer needs to bother with the strongman, since he is doing an excellent job of self-destruction. It’s that Venezuela’s clients and imitators -- especially in Bolivia and Nicaragua -- stand to lose both subsidies and ideological sustainment from Caracas. Chavez’s decade-long attempt to create a bloc of like-minded countries around the region is in tatters.

The caudillo’s popularity rating around Latin American is now below 40 percent, and his backing in Venezuela has dropped below 50 percent. With an election for the National Assembly coming up this fall, he has resorted to the Iranian tactic of disqualifying prominent opponents from the ballot. He will try to steal the election; if that doesn’t work he will try to strip the legislature of power.

No matter: Chavez appears powerless to stop the unraveling of Venezuela’s economy -- and with it, his “revolution.” He will be left with a choice: surrender to his country’s mounting discontent, or rule entirely by force.

By Jackson Diehl | May 26, 2010; 2:26 PM ET

Apr 19/10 | The Revolution Goes Hollywood

2010-04-19T19:48:00.001-04:30

Photo Credit: Reuters

Costume Credit: Banana Republic armoire 2, Universal Studios, Burbank, CA

Apr 8/10 | Insulza on the defensive in World Economic Forum Latin America 2010 (Cartagena, Colombia)

2010-04-07T23:29:00.000-04:30

Insulza: Manhandling the promotion of democracy in the region and being called on it

Below you will find link to the video of the session in which SG Insulza had to listen once more to harsh criticism. Harvard's Ricardo Hausman and Foreign Policy's Moises Naim corner the hapless Insulza who continues to use half truths to excuse his total blunders:

He stubbornly pretends to wash over his dogged instance that the General Assembly of the OAS should pass unconditional resolution allowing Cuba to re-join the OAS. He was defeated and has now opted to deceitfully adopt the final resolution as his own when in fact his alliance with the ALBA countries made consensus very hard.
He continues to lie about his role in Honduras. As has been well documented he was actually part of the problem that resulted in the ouster of President Zelaya and then fumbled time and time again in trying to resolve the crisis. Others had to come to guide the country towards the only viable solution.
He says he has reacted promptly to the jailing of dissidents in Venezuela. yet he fails to mention that he has done NOTHING related to Mr. Chavez's violation of the will of the electorate and the rights of the elected in the case of Caracas Mayor Antonio Ledezma and a number of other regional elected officials. He actually met with them and promised to issue a report (he had his legal team with him at the two meetings he held with Ledezma and affected governors) but has failed to deliver.

It is a tragedy that this man was reelected for a 5-year term, but it is gratifying to see - as we also saw in the CNN interview the night of his reelection - that he will be followed everywhere by his failings and his lies. Furthermore, with a new - and more principled - President in Chile and a new - more competent - Chilean Ambassador in the OAS he will have less places to hide and more disagreeable moments like these. PMB

Link to WEF Session on Governance in the Americas:

http://www.livestream.com/worldeconomicforum/video?clipId=pla_8da1f7a1-2af7-4e7a-a152-0bbba3ece0a6

Mar 24/10 | 10 Reasons Why OAS SG Insulza Does Not Deserve To Be Reelected

2010-03-24T03:40:00.000-04:30

PMBComment | It is very likely that Jose Miguel Insulza will be reelected later today to a second 5-year term as Secretary General of the Organization of American States. The fact that he is running unopposed is indicative of serious issues in both the region and the organization. There are few die-hards among his visible backers and the support of Chile - his home country, of Brazil, and certainly the U.S., has little to do with earnest approval of his performance to date. In the case of Brazil, it is clear that a weakened OAS fuels hope for an almost stillborn UNASUR. Chile’s new administration has made it very clear that its views will be represented solely by its Permanent Representative and not by the Chilean they felt obliged to support on pure nationalistic grounds. The U.S. has sought assurances of more principled and able behavior.

Mr. Insulza likes to remind the press that his current critics include some who also opposed his original election in 2005. Let me include myself in both groups.

In 2005, my worry was triggered by the very enthusiastic support the consummate Chilean bureaucrat received from Hugo Chávez. This was surprising given former Secretary General Cesar Gaviria’s dogged – yet painfully flawed - efforts to pull a well deserved red card on the increasingly abusive former coupster. Chile’s Foreign Minister Ignacio Walker, Insulza’s other cheerleader during the first election, made a point in meeting after meeting around the hemisphere to minimize the risk posed by Hugo Chávez. He ridiculed anyone who pointed at Chávez’s malignity and brazenly insinuated in Washington that he could best be contained by other socialists in the region.

What did Chávez, or his handlers in Havana, know about Insulza that made them so comfortable about his election? I asked myself that question many times in 2005 and today, when the ALBA countries have yet to show their hand, I continue to search for an answer to this quandary.

Over the past five years I have had the opportunity of numerous one-on-one interactions with Secretary General Insulza. I have no doubt of three things: 1) He is a very hard worker, 2) He is a tactical and reactive political operator, and 3) He is pragmatic to the point of cynicism, and yet much of what he does is tinged by ideology and a subtle anti-Americanism that, to paraphrase him, stinks of cold war refuse.

On a more substantive note, I would like to list in rapid succession reasons why I have openly criticized Mr. Insulza’s on-the-job performance and today oppose his almost certain reelection:

His entire handling of the Honduran crisis, and particularly his serious errors PRIOR to the forced exile of Mr. Zelaya, is illustrative of a style of haphazard meddling that can only be termed ill advised and counterproductive. It certainly matches the image conveyed by his preferred moniker “El Panzer”: brutish and brainless bravado.
For almost two years he tried to make the reentry of Cuba into the OAS a priority while disregarding many other more pressing issues (or maybe this was part of the bargain that got him Mr. Chávez’s enthusiastic endorsement in 2005). To make matters worse, Insulza sided stubbornly - to the bitter end - with those advocating an unconditional entry of Cuba into an organization that takes particular pride in its Human Rights bodies and its Democratic Charter. He and his ALBA allies failed miserable when a principled and conditional resolution, sponsored among others by the U.S., was passed at the 2009 General Assembly of the OAS in San Pedro Sula. Nobody has talked about Cuba and the OAS since, so how important was it really?
His dedication to pursuing the Presidential candidacy of the Concertación while on the OAS payroll violated all sorts of norms and showed wanton disregard for his duties and responsibilities as Secretary General.
Having lost to former President Eduardo Frei, he went to Chile and participated in political rallies on his behalf, once again violating written norms and prudent custom.
While playing lip service to the OAS’s expertise in electoral observation he has degraded these missions through inept staffing (i.e. Fischer in Venezuela), improper preparation, reckless politization (Paraguay), or recurring to the very dubious practice of “Misiones de Acompañamiento”. This last figure is at the heart of both the Honduran fiasco and a more recent spat involving regional elections in Nicaragua.
Once insulted by President Chávez for properly criticizing the closing of RCTV in Venezuela, Mr. Insulza opted to remain silent, cowered, through many equally troubling abuses. In at least one occasion, the politically inspired measures against Chacao Mayor Leopoldo Lopez, the silence obeyed the Secretary General’s personal political agenda in Chile. On others, including the recent publication of the report from the IACHR on Human Rights and Democracy in Venezuela, Mr. Insulza has tried to shield himself behind feeble arguments so as to preserve his chances of gaining the votes of the Chávez or ALBA bloc of countries.
His timid defense of the IACHR and its Executive Secretary when Mr. Chávez went way out of bounds in a foul-mouthed reaction to the above mentioned report was very disappointing. Seeing Argentina’s representative risk the wrath of its benefactor Venezuela to defend a human rights body to which the country owes so much was a real breath of fresh air. Insulza’s and President Bachelet's silence on the matter was deeply disheartening to say the least.
In order to placate critics, Mr. Insulza disingenuously talks about modifying the Democratic Charter to accommodate other powers beyond the executive branches of the member states. He knows perfectly well that the Charter will never be modified to accommodate such proposal, yet insists on using this “proposal” as deflector for criticism pointed at his failure to exercise the hard fought degrees of authority entrusted to the Secretary General in the DC.
As an administrator Mr. Insulza has failed. The OAS is in a precarious financial position with a large budget deficit and no reserves left to cover contingencies. He insists on blaming others (prior administrations, the excess of mandates) without much to show in the form of true preventive action or budgetary prudence.
Mr. Insulza has continued the practice of building top heavy teams of loyalists littered with advisors that contribute little towards the building of strong institutional mechanisms and memory. The number of envoys and advisors sent to Honduras (we all lost count) clearly highlights this ad hoc style of management which in the end weakens the OAS’s ability to execute its fundamental mandates.

This list is not meant to be all inclusive, it is only meant to enumerate, in very simple terms, matters which I consider important and that in my opinion have been poorly handled by Mr. Insulza, the hard working cynic.

I have expressed my concerns directly to Mr. Insulza over the years and while not confident that he will make many amends, one would expect that he will operate on a shorter leash as many others have also expressed deep concern about his priorities, skills and style.

For all its failings the OAS is an indispensable institution that cannot be sidetracked and will not be replaced easily – if ever. But, how can anyone deny or ignore that it is in the midst of a very grave crisis of purpose, means and most importantly, leadership? PMB

Mar 17/10 | Further Exposing OAS's SG Insulza's Wrongful Actions in Honduras

2010-03-17T11:02:00.002-04:30

Zelaya and Insulza: All hugs and all smiles

PMBComment | Last week, the New York based Human Rights Foundation (HRF) released a comprehensive report on the political crisis that rocked Honduras when its democratically elected President was forcefully expatriated by the military as retort for his increasingly undemocratic tendencies and unconstitutional activities.

Much has been written about the role the Organization of America States (OAS) played in the aftermath of President Mel Zelaya’s forced removal. Most observers have concluded that this was not the OAS’s finest hour. We have detected remorse and doubts from various officials from key member states. The fact remains that Honduras has not yet achieved global recognition for its new, democratically elected, government, nor has it rejoined an OAS that has willfully ignored the systematic democratic and human rights transgressions of other member states.

Now, the General Counsel of the HRF has isolated and summarized the role of OAS Secretary General Insulza in the crisis. Interestingly, he sheds new light on the critically important period that preceded the ouster of the hatted Mr. Zelaya.

General Counsel Javier El-Hage in his surgical post-mortem of the handling of this crisis reaches the following damning conclusion on Insulza’s contribution to the crisis itself:

HRF’s legal report contends that if Secretary General Insulza had acted in adherence to his obligations, all anti-democratic events that led to the interruption of democracy in Honduras could have been avoided. It is reasonable to assume that if Insulza—instead of encouraging and endorsing a poll that went against multiple court orders—had refrained from rendering legitimacy to President Zelaya’s anti-democratic actions, the OAS could have deterred the June 28 coup d’état and the unconstitutional removal of the president by Congress, as well as the Supreme Court validation of these anti-democratic events later. Sadly, however, throughout the Honduran crisis, Insulza acted as a mere international agent of President Zelaya, rather than as the leader of an international organization called to promote and protect democracy in its member state.

This conclusion, contained in a brief two and a half page document (see below and attached) is a clear indictment of a man who in all likelihood will be reelected – uncontested, but not by joyful acclamation - on March 24^th to a lofty post he has served with blemished success and with obvious disregard for much of what justifies and assures the OAS's existence. PMB

Note | As I count myself among those who opposed Insulza’s original election and now oppose his reelection, I will post, for the record, in the next few days, my personal “10 Top Reasons Why Insulza Should Not Be Reelected”. Suffice to say that the handling of Honduras, where I agree wholeheartedly with the conclusion of the HRF, takes the #1 spot ahead even of #2, his reckless, and futile, campaign to have Cuba readmitted into the Inter American system without conditions ,and #3, his very weak and unprincipled handling of Hugo Chavez’s abuses at home and his meddling in the region.

To Print or see the full footnotes of this Legal opinion go to HRF’s website link Insulza’s Wrongful Actions in Honduras

Insulza’s Wrongful Actions in Honduras

Legal opinion prepared by Javier El-Hage, HRF’s General Counsel | javier@thehrf.org

Insulza’s wrongful “Mission of Accompaniment” for president Zelaya and his misleading statements to the U.S. Congress and the OAS Permanent Council

o The Human Rights Foundation’s legal report reveals that there were informal talks between President Zelaya’s administration and the OAS General Secretariat, discussing what sort of mission the OAS could send to observe President Zelaya’s “opinion poll” and report back to the OAS. By the time this informal discussion took place, the Attorney General and Congress had been publicly expressing outrage over President Zelaya’s consultation/poll for over two months. By June 3, the Administrative Court of Tegucigalpa had issued three highly publicized court orders (two preliminary injunctions and a court notice) enjoining President Zelaya from carrying out the poll.^{^[1]}

o On June 8, the Honduran foreign minister formalized the outcome of this discussion by sending a letter to the OAS, requesting “international observers” to “accompany” the “important popular consultation.” On June 16, Insulza responded through a letter “congratulating the government for seeking mechanisms that foster citizen participation,” and informing that a “Mission of Accompaniment shall be sent to witness such act.”

o Insulza’s letter specified that the mission “shall [then] proceed to report to the General Secretariat about the results of its task.” In light of this assertion, on June 26, a representative of Insulza (Víctor Rico) misleadingly told the OAS Permanent Council that the OAS Mission “was simply one of accompaniment, to witness [the poll], and that, naturally, this mission would not generate any subsequent act which would eventually be submitted to the bodies of this Council.”^{^[2]}

o The June 26 misleading statement by Insulza’s representative was made after the U.S. Permanent Representative at the OAS requested the Secretary General to “clarify” what his role had been in Honduras. Specifically, this request followed a Permanent Council discussion about the June 23 resolution by the Honduran Congress, expressing “profound outrage” and requesting the OAS to “immediately withdraw” its Accompaniment Mission. The resolution was delivered through a letter to the OAS, and was formally received on June 25.^{^[3]}

o On July 13 and 14, the Adjunct Secretary General of the OAS, Albert Randim falsely told a U.S. Congress body (the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, consisting of 24 congressmen) that “before the coup d’état” the OAS “had a proactive role” in seeking to “prevent the growing confrontation” between the “government and the opposition” and in “supporting a pacific settlement of the dispute.” He did not mention anything about the Mission of Accompaniment or the “outrage” letter by Congress that ensued.^{^[4]}

Insulza’s phone conversation with the president of the Supreme Court of Honduras

o On June 28, after the military expatriated President Zelaya but before Congress met, the president of the Supreme Court (who was in a meeting with the presidents of Congress and the Electoral Tribunal) called Insulza on the phone to tell him he was “examining” the way to restore the constitutional order. HRF’s legal report contends that, at this point, Insulza—without justifying or condoning the coup—should have recognized President Zelaya’s repeated anti-democratic actions and offered his good offices to: (1) gain as much support from the international community for the Supreme Court, so that they could duly declare the coup d’état void and unconstitutional; and (2) gain support from the international community for the Supreme Court, so that any criminal proceedings against President Zelaya, and his eventual suspension or removal from office as a result of a presidential trial, would be carried out according to the Honduran constitution and with full international support.^{^[5]}

o But no, Insulza circumvented the issue of President Zelaya’s anti-democratic actions and the possibility of an internationally-endorsed trial against him. Throughout his phone conversation with the president of the Honduran Supreme Court, Insulza acted as if he did not know about the multiple court orders against President Zelaya’s poll, and about how the OAS’s Accompaniment Mission had contributed to the escalation of the crisis. Hours later, Micheletti was sworn in by Congress and two days later the Supreme Court validated the coup, by issuing a set of documents including “secret search and arrest warrants” that, nevertheless, failed to provide for President Zelaya’s expatriation to Costa Rica, or for his suspension or removal from office as a result of the proceedings.^{^[6]}

Insulza’s wrongful interpretation of the General Assembly’s July 1 resolution and his diplomatic initiatives

o Pursuant to the OAS General Assembly July 1 Resolution that “instructed the Secretary General to carry out the necessary diplomatic efforts in order to restore democracy and the rule of law,” on July 3, the Secretary General traveled to Honduras. Insulza met with a group of representatives of civil organizations, but he did not meet with Congress, nor with the Attorney General’s Office, nor with the Supreme Electoral Tribunal. He only met with justices of the Supreme Court because he thought they did not have “a direct role in the coup d’état.” In virtue of this one conversation, the report prepared by the Secretary General concluded that “the behavior displayed by the de facto regime is extremely rigid, without a willingness to change their position, but rather, to strengthen it;” and that “presented with the inflexible attitude of the de facto regime, there seems to be no other choice than to adhere to the position assumed by this Assembly [on July 1] and apply Article 21 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, with the resulting implications.”^{^[7]}

o It is true that reverting the anti-democratic events in Honduras became far more difficult after June 30—when the Supreme Court validated the coup by the armed forces and the unconstitutional removal by Congress. However, the OAS should have tried to achieve this goal by performing good offices precisely with the former president of Congress, with the current Congress, and, especially, with the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, the Secretary General wrongfully interpreted the July 1 General Assembly resolution as a prohibition to perform good offices before the democratically-elected Congress and the Supreme Court, including them in what he broadly called “the de facto regime.” On the contrary, both the Secretary General and, later, the General Assembly treated President Zelaya at all times as an exemplary democratic leader. Considering this biased approach by OAS officials and organs throughout the crisis up to July 4, all diplomatic initiatives between June 28 and July 4 were expectedly fruitless in reverting any of the anti-democratic events in Honduras. Instead, they likely caused most Honduran institutions affected by President Zelaya’s previous actions to become further entrenched in their positions. As a result, the General Assembly applied the ultimatum and suspended Honduras from the OAS.^{^[8]}

o Unlike the actions taken by the OAS throughout the crisis, the diplomatic initiatives carried out by the president of Costa Rica since mid-July were appropriate as they were aimed at reverting the three—and not just one—anti-democratic events in Honduras, without ruling out the possibility to carry out a presidential criminal trial against President Zelaya. Specifically, the San José Accord proposal called on President Zelaya to refrain himself from “calling for a constituent assembly, in a direct or indirect way;” and called for the “return of the branches of government, to their composition before June 28.” It specifically called on Congress to reinstate President Zelaya “until the conclusion of his term, on January 27, 2010,” but did not rule out the possibility of criminally trying President Zelaya for the crime of abuse of authority, upon the completion of his term in January 2010. Unlike the position adopted by the OAS Secretary General, the San José Accord also called on all parties involved in the crisis to sit around the negotiation table and the president of Costa Rica explicitly offered his good offices before the democratically-elected Congress and the new chief of the executive, Roberto Micheletti—who had from the outset been recognized as president by the Congress and the Supreme Court. In the following weeks, many member states and the General Secretariat of the OAS aligned themselves with this new diplomatic approach by President Arias. On August 8, OAS envoys traveled to Honduras exclusively to meet with Micheletti.^{^[9]}

Insulza’s wrongful failure to monitor the November 29 elections

o According to a 2003 study prepared by a group of experts on collective protection of democracy (edited by Madeleine Albright), under the auspices of the Council on Foreign Relations, when the restoration of democracy can not be achieved through reverting the anti-democratic events that caused the breakdown of democracy, the international community must get the anti-democratic regime to agree to hold democratic elections in the shortest timeframe possible, and to allow the international community to monitor them. Accordingly, the OAS should have decidedly promoted and monitored the elections of November 29 in order to foster the restoration of democracy in that country. However, in early November, the Secretary General of the OAS publicly stated that a team of OAS observers for the upcoming elections of November 29 “is truly something we could not even consider.” This is the same Secretary General that five months earlier, in spite of the lack of any international legal provision allowing for this type of mission, and against a formal request by the Honduran Congress to withdraw it, did not hesitate in putting together an unprecedented “Accompaniment Mission of the OAS” that would “observe an opinion poll” that, “if victorious,” would have led to the election of a Constituent Assembly on November 29.^{^[10]}

Conclusion

o HRF’s legal report contends that if Secretary General Insulza had acted in adherence to his obligations, all anti-democratic events that led to the interruption of democracy in Honduras could have been avoided. It is reasonable to assume that if Insulza—instead of encouraging and endorsing a poll that went against multiple court orders—had refrained from rendering legitimacy to President Zelaya’s anti-democratic actions, the OAS could have deterred the June 28 coup d’état and the unconstitutional removal of the president by Congress, as well as the Supreme Court validation of these anti-democratic events later. Sadly, however, throughout the Honduran crisis, Insulza acted as a mere international agent of President Zelaya, rather than as the leader of an international organization called to promote and protect democracy in its member states.^{^[11]}

Notes

^{^[1]} JAVIER EL-HAGE, THE FACTS AND THE LAW BEHIND THE DEMOCRATIC CRISIS OF HONDURAS, 114, 160-162 (Human Rights Foundation & HRF Center for Research on Democracy, 2010). Available at: http://thehrf.org/HRF_TheFactsAndTheLaw_Honduras2009.pdf

^{^[2]} Id., at 112, 123, 161-62 (HRF received the original copies of the June 8 and 16 letters on the week following the publication of its report).

^{^[3]} Id., at 111, 159, 170.

^{^[4]} Id., at footnote 218 (the quotes by Albert Randim are translated from the official Spanish versions of July 13 (C-227) and 14 (C-229) General Secretariat releases, because there are no English releases posted on the OAS official website where those two specific ones should be.).

^{^[5]} Id., at 127, 169, 172, 182-84.

^{^[6]} Id., at 71-92.

^{^[7]} Id., at 139, 142, 151, 180-85.

^{^[8]} Id., at xiii, 145, 184-185 (In order to avoid Insulza’s continuous wrongful interpretation, the July 4 General Assembly Resolution expressly stated that “No [diplomatic] initiative will imply recognition of the regime that emerged from this interruption of the constitutional order.”)

^{^[9]} Id., at 106-07, 145-47, 181-87, 190.

^{^[10]} Id., at 107-09, 113-14, 147-48, 155, 163, 187, 191.

^{^[11]} Id., at 17, 166, 170-176, 179-191.

Mar 13/10 | Realigning State Dept. and Southcom on Venezuela-FARC links: Joint Diagnosis but Cure Still Elusive

2010-03-13T18:23:00.003-04:30

Did this General & blogger need call with A/S Arturo Valenzuela to see the light on Chávez-FARC link?

PMBComment | In his Blog, Southcom's Commander, General Doug Fraser, clarified what seemed like factual differences with Assistant Secretary Arturo Valenzuela (see AFP article below) about ties between the Bolivarian Government of Venezuela and the FARC. Short and to the point, this blog post requires no further comment. But a question remains: What are the logical consequences of "clear and documented historical and ongoing evidence of the linkages between the Government of Venezuela and the FARC"?

From the contradiction that gets "cleared up" by Fraser's blog post, it would seem the USG is having real trouble defining next steps despite having plenty of troubling - and connecting - dots on their various Venezuelan charts. It is NOT hard to understand the reasons why adding Venezuela to the public list of "hot spots" is not an appealing prospect for the Obama team. First and foremost, many in the region do not want to lend their support and expect the US to do the dirty work and rid the neighbourhood - one way or the other - of this dangerous threat. The fact is that Brazil's Lula da Silva has had a lot to do with empowering a man who funded his original campaign with copious resources (study the Jose Dirceu-Marco Aurelio Garcia Cuba axis) and has awarded billions of dollars of no-bid contracts to some of Brazil's largest companies. The last thing Lula wants, as he struggles to insure his legacy, is for an irate Chávez to disclose the money trails in reprisal for what he would clearly perceive as betrayal. Mexico and Chile have been conspicuously silent. Spain has been clearly complicit, and Colombia's Uribe, surprisingly flippant in the treatment of a counterpart that will outlast him and continue to threaten Colombia despite oodles of evidence of all kinds of criminal mingling in its domestic affairs. Washington cannot be the Hemisphere's cop, but what probably troubles the likes of Fraser, Valenzuela and Dan Restrepo (NSC) is that evidence continues to pile up, first and foremost, on theirs desks, while logical allies bury their heads deeper in the sand. One of the unfortunate consequences of having a formidable 24/7 intelligence apparatus is that you can claim a lot of things but seldom ignorance.

To make matters worse, the domestic political debate in Venezuela can best be described as a bunch of school children preparing very hard for their Biology exam without realizing that the subject in which they are about to be tested is Math. The links with FARC, ELN, ETA, Iran, drug cartels (including mafia elements from Russia and Belarus), the Cuban stranglehold, the obliteration of PDVSA, the inoperability of the over-politicized and corrupted armed forces, and the 8 million small weapons on the street and the thousands of combat weapons in the hands of all sort of militias, are just but a short list of grave subjects that are seldom part of the noisy discussion taking place among politicians and aspiring politicians in today's Venezuela. All of these grave matters are critical for the immediate health of the country, and more so to its future governability. Some of them have direct impact beyond the borders of Venezuela, and some involve clearly identified global threats. The reasons these are not discussed openly are plain ignorance, demonstrable ineptitude and/or obvious intimidation.

Some still like to pretend that Mr. Chávez and his many criminal allies will abandon power via elections. This naivete is dangerous and can actually lead to a state of complacency that these thugs - local and foreign, state and non-state - will exploit with obvious skill and delight. A peaceful transfer of power has never occurred when the consequences for the losers are so dire. The Venezuela of Hugo Chávez has become operating base and safe haven for some of the most nefarious elements in today's convoluted world, so we must all stop paying lip service to pretty concepts and focus on the unsavory facts that people in the know, in Venezuela, Washington and beyond, are having to stare at with no obvious remedy. PMB

Posture Testimony: Clear and Documented Links between Government of Venezuela and the FARC

Posted On: Mar 12 2010 5:08PM

Yesterday I testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee and fielded a question from Senator McCain pertaining to the Government of Venezuela (GoV) facilitating contacts between the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the Euskadi Ta Askatasuna or ETA (Basque Homeland and Freedom) during the planning and attempted assassination of Colombian officials, including President Uribe, during their recent visit to Spain.

The Senator also asked about other activities where the GoV was engaged in enabling or supporting terrorist activity in our area of responsibility.

Assistant Secretary of State Arturo Valenzuela was asked a similar question one day earlier during testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Conference on 10 March.

Assistant Secretary Valenzuela and I spoke this morning on the topic of linkages between the government of Venezuela and the FARC. There is zero daylight between our two positions and we are in complete agreement:

There is indeed clear and documented historical and ongoing evidence of the linkages between the Government of Venezuela and the FARC.

We track this and continue to monitor the amount and level of direct support in the form of money, networks, and providing a safe haven for operations and personnel.

In this view and pursuit, we are in direct alignment with our partners at the State Department and the Intelligence Community.

- General Doug Fraser

US general sees no Venezuela-guerrilla link

(AFP) – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON — The general in charge of US military activities in Latin America said Thursday he had no evidence of links between Venezuela's leftist government and Colombian and Basque guerrilla groups.

"We have not seen any connections specifically that I can verify that there has been a direct government-to-terrorist connection," General Douglas Fraser, head of the US Southern Command, told a Senate hearing.

"We have continued to watch very closely for any connections between illicit and terrorist organization activity within the region," he said. "We are concerned about it. I'm skeptical. I continue to watch for it."

Fraser's comments follow charges by a Spanish judge linking alleged assassination plots in Spain by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the Basque separatist group ETA to Venezuelan "governmental support."

Venezuela has rejected the charges, which raised tensions with Spain.

Arturo Valenzuela, the assistant secretary of state responsible for Latin American affairs, told another congressional panel Wednesday there had been some evidence of some kind of Venezuelan assistance to the FARC.

Fraser, however, said he was aware only of "old evidence" of assistance.

"But I don't see that evidence. I can't tell you specifically whether that continues or not," he said

Mar 03/10 | Patria para Todos y con Todos | Extraordinario discurso de José "Pepe" Mujica, Presidente del Uruguay

2010-03-05T02:42:00.003-04:30

El Pepe: ¿Lobo cubierto con piel de ovejo?

Ya veremos, por ahora el discurso merece la pena leerlo.

PMBComentario | No es nada común que en una sola semana se pronuncien dos discursos dignos de leerse y releerse. Mucho menos en un continente enfrascado en una polarizante e innecesaria diatriba entre el difícil trabajo del diario gobernar y el irresponsable - y mentiroso - oficio del engaño sistemático.

Tanto Oscar Arias, al despedirse en Cancún, como Pepe Mujica, al asumir la presidencia, le han dado un revolcón histórico, en sus narices, a Hugo Chavez y a sus populistas y ruinosos secuaces. El discurso de Arias ha circulado y ha sido comentado ampliamente. Pero el de este viejo ex-guerillero, que con 74 años llega por los votos al poder que buscó irresponsablemente (con sangre) y en vano con las armas, no ha sido muy difundido.

El tono y el contenido sorprenden, pero mas aún el hecho que no elude ningún tema, ni esconde alguno en frases rebuscadas ni tras citas eruditas. Pocas veces siente uno que un discurso llega al grano, plasma un compromiso y conecta con un pueblo con tan contundente claridad. Ahora tenemos que ver como gobierna Mujica, pero sin lugar a dudas este discurso, como el de Arias, tiene que tener muchas mas cobertura pues la América no se puede dejar distraer por titulares sobre fantasmas, groserías, caprichos y desastres. PMB

Discurso de José "Pepe" Mujica en la Asamblea General con ocasión de toma de posesión como Presidente del Uruguay

Enlace

2 de marzo de 2010

"Señora Presidenta de la Asamblea General, mi querida Lucía [Nota: es su esposa], Legisladores y Legisladoras que representan la diversidad de la Nación, Presidentes y Presidentas de países amigos que están con nosotros, altos funcionarios destacados para apoyar esta ceremonia, cuerpo Diplomático, Presidente de la Suprema Corte de Justicia, Comandantes en Jefe de las Fuerzas Armadas, Señores ex Presidentes, Dirigentes de los Partidos Políticos del Uruguay y de las principales organizaciones sociales, de las comunidades religiosas, en fin, señores y señoras. A todos los aquí presentes, gracias.Y también gracias a todos ustedes, compatriotas del alma, que nos acompañan en sus casas y en las calles.
Mis conocimientos jurídicos, extraordinariamente escasos, me impiden dilucidar cuál es el momento exacto en que dejo de ser presidente electo para transformarme en presidente a secas.
No se si es ahora, o si es dentro de un rato, cuando reciba los símbolos del mando de manos de mi antecesor.
Por mi parte, desearía que el título de "electo" no desapareciera de mi vida de un día para otro. Tiene la virtud de recordarme a cada rato que soy presidente sólo por la voluntad de los electores.
"Electo" me advierte que no me distraiga y recuerde que estoy mandatado para la tarea. No en vano, el otro sobrenombre de los presidentes es "mandatario".
Primer mandatario, si se quiere, pero mandado por otros, no por sí mismo.
Con mejores palabras y más solemnidad, esto es lo que la constitución establece.
La Constitución es un marco, una guía, un contrato, un límite que encuadra a los gobiernos.
Ese es su propósito principal.
Pero es también un programa, que nos ordena cómo comportarnos, en cuestiones que tienen que ver con la esencia de la vida social
Por ejemplo, nos manda literalmente evitar que las cárceles sean instrumentos de mortificación.
O nos dice NO reconocer ninguna diferencia de raza, género o color.
¡Cuánta deuda tenemos aún con la constitución!!
¡Con qué naturalidad la desobedecemos!
No está de más recordarlo hoy, un día en que nos enorgullecemos de estar aplicando las reglas con todo rigor y detalle.
Pondremos todo nuestro empeño en cumplir los mandatos constitucionales. En cumplir los que aluden a las formas de organización política del país, por supuesto Y también en cumplir los enunciados constitucionales que describen la ética social que la nación quiere darse.
Hoy es el día cero o el día uno de mi gobierno.
Y para mí, gobernar empieza por crear las condiciones políticas para gobernar.
Por si suena como un traba-lenguas, lo repito:
para mí, gobernar, empieza por crear las condiciones políticas para gobernar.
Y gobernar, para generar transformaciones hacia el largo plazo, es más que nada crear las condiciones para gobernar 30 años con políticas de estado.
Me gustaría creer, que esta de hoy, es la sesión inaugural de un gobierno de 30 años.
No míos, por supuesto, ni tampoco del Frente Amplio, sino de un sistema de partidos, tan sabio y tan potente, que es capaz de generar túneles herméticos que atraviesan las distintos presidencias de los distintos partidos ,y que por allí, por esos túneles, corren intocadas las grandes líneas estratégicas de los grandes asuntos.
Asuntos como la educación, la infraestructura, la matriz energética o la seguridad ciudadana
Esto no es una reflexión para el bronce ni para la posteridad. Es una formal declaración de intenciones.
Me estoy imaginando el proceso político que viene, como una serie de encuentros, a los que unos llevamos los tornillos y otros llevan las tuercas.
Es decir, encuentros a los que todos concurrimos, con la actitud de quien está incompleto sin la otra parte.
En ese tono se va a desarrollar el próximo gobierno del Frente Amplio.
Asistiendo incansablemente a las mesas de negociación con vocación de acuerdo.
Puede ser que el gobierno tenga más tornillos que nadie,
Más tornillos que el Partido Nacional, más que el Partido Colorado, más que los empresarios y más que los sindicatos…
¿Pero de qué nos sirven los tornillos sueltos, si son incapaces de encontrar sus piezas complementarias en la sociedad?
Vamos a buscar así el dialogo, no de buenos, ni de mansos, sino porque creemos que esta idea de la complementariedad de las piezas sociales, es la que mejor se ajusta a la realidad.
Nos parece que el diagnóstico de concertación y convergencia es más correcto que el de conflicto, y que sólo con el diagnóstico correcto, se puede encontrar el tratamiento correcto.
Miramos la radiografía, y lo que vemos adentro de la sociedad, son formas convexas y cóncavas, negociando el ajuste, porque se necesitan entre si. Entonces pensamos que sería contra natura, que los representantes políticos de esos retazos sociales, nos dedicáramos a separar y no a concertar.
En Uruguay, todos los partidos políticos son socialmente heterogéneos. Pero los partidos tienen fracciones, y las fracciones tienen acentos sociales.
Pero aún en el caso de las fracciones más específicamente representativas de sectores, el mandato de sus votantes no es el de atropellar ciegamente para conquistar territorio.
Hace rato que todos aprendimos que las batallas por el todo o nada, son el mejor camino para que nada cambie y para que todo se estanque.
Queremos una vida política orientada a la concertación y a la suma, porque de verdad queremos transformar la realidad.
De verdad queremos terminar con la indigencia
De verdad queremos que la gente tenga trabajo.
De verdad queremos seguridad para la vida cotidiana.
De verdad queremos salud y previsión social bien humanas.
Nada de esto se consigue a los gritos. Basta mirar a los países que están adelante en estas materias y se verá que la mayor parte de ellos tienen una vida política serena.
Con poca épica, pocos héroes y pocos villanos.
Más bien, tienen políticos que son honrados artesanos de la construcción.
Nosotros queremos transformaciones y avances de verdad.
Queremos cambios de esos, que se tocan con la mano, que no sólo afectan las estadísticas sino la vida real de la gente.
Para lograrlo estamos convencidos de que se necesita una civilizada convivencia política
Y no vamos a ahorrar ningún esfuerzo para lograrla.
Por supuesto, nada de esto comienza con nosotros. El país tiene hermosas tradiciones de respeto recíproco que vienen de muy atrás.
Pero es probable que nunca hayamos estado tan cerca de conseguir un cambio cualitativo en la intensidad de esos vínculos entre partidos políticos.. Quizás ahora podemos pasar de la tolerancia a la colaboración, de la confrontación controlada a ciertos modos societarios de largo plazo.
Con el Frente Amplio en el gobierno, el país ha completado un ciclo. Ahora todos sabemos que los ciudadanos no le extienden cheques en blanco a ningún partido y que los votos hay que ganárselos una y otra vez en buena ley. Los ciudadanos nos han advertido a todos que ya no son incondicionales de ningún partido, que evalúan y auditan las gestiones, que los que hoy son protagonistas principales, mañana pueden convertirse en actores secundarios.
Después de 100 años, al fin, ya no hay partidos predestinados a ganar y partidos predestinados a perder.
Esa fue la dura lección que los lemas tradicionales recibieron en los últimos años. El país les advirtió que no eran tan diferentes entre sí como pretendían, que sus prácticas y estilos se parecían demasiado y que se necesitaban nuevos jugadores, para que el sistema recuperara una saludable tensión competitiva.
Por su parte el Frente Amplio, eterno desafiante y ahora transitorio campeón, tuvo que aceptar duras lecciones, no ya de los votantes sino de la realidad. Descubrimos que gobernar era bastante más difícil de lo que pensábamos, que los recursos fiscales son finitos y las demandas sociales infinitas,
que la burocracia tiene vida propia, que la macroeconomía tiene reglas ingratas pero obligatorias.
Y hasta tuvimos que aprender, con mucho dolor, y con vergüenza, que no toda nuestra gente era inmune a la corrupción.
Estos últimos años han sido entonces de intenso aprendizaje para todos los actores políticos.
Es probable que todos estemos ahora más maduros y por tanto listos para pasar a una etapa cualitativamente nueva en el relacionamiento entre fuerzas políticas.
Cada una con su identidad y sus énfasis ideológicos.
Sin aflojarle ni a la pulseada ni al control recíproco.
Pero sí ampliando dos capacidades que estamos lejos de haber llevado al máximo: la sinceridad y la valentía.
Más sinceros en nuestro discurso político, llevando lo que decimos un poco más cerca de lo que de verdad pensamos y un poco menos atado a los que nos conviene.
Y más valientes para explicarle, cada uno a su propia gente, los límites de nuestras respectivas utopías.
Esa sinceridad y esa valentía van a ser necesarias para llevar adelante las políticas de estado que proyectamos.
Para ponernos de acuerdo vamos a tener que rebajar nuestras respectivas posturas y promediarlas con las otras.
Y esa rebaja implica líos obligatorios con nuestras bases políticas.
Ese va a ser un test de valentía.
Los temas de estado deben ser pocos y selectos.
Deben ser aquellos asuntos en los que pensamos que se juega el destino, la identidad, el rostro futuro de esta sociedad.
Sin pretensiones de verdad absoluta, hemos dicho que deberíamos empezar por 4 asuntos:
educación, energía, medio ambiente y seguridad.
Permítanme un pequeño subrayado: educación, educación, educación.
Y otra vez, educación.
Los gobernantes deberíamos ser obligados todas las mañanas a llenar planas, como en la escuela, escribiendo 100 veces, "debo ocuparme de la educación"
Por que allí se anticipa el rostro de la sociedad que vendrá. De la educación dependen buena parte de las potencialidades productivas de un país. Pero también depende la futura aptitud de nuestra gente para la convivencia cotidiana.
Y seguramente, cualquiera de los aquí presentes podría seguir agregando argumentos sobre el carácter prioritario de la educación.
Pero, lo que probablemente nadie pueda contestar con facilidad es ¿a qué cosas vamos a renunciar, para darle recursos a la educación?
¿Qué proyectos vamos a postergar, qué retribuciones vamos a negar, qué obras dejarán de hacerse?
Con cuántos "NO" habrá que pagar el gran "SÍ" a la educación!
Ningún partido querrá quedar en soledad para hacerse responsable de todo ese desgaste. Tendremos que hacerlo juntos, decidirlo juntos y por supuesto, poner el pecho juntos.
Este es el significado de las políticas de estado.
Sus consecuencias no deben beneficiar ni perjudicar a ningún partido en particular.
¿Estamos dispuestos a hacerlo?
Si no lo estamos, todas nuestras grandes declaraciones de amor por la educación, no serán más que palabrerío de discurso político.
También hemos sugerido que los temas de infraestructura de energía, sean separados de la agenda gubernamental corriente, y tratados en común por todos los partidos.
La energía es un asunto lleno de complicaciones técnicas.
Implica complejos pronósticos sobre el stock de recursos no renovables, como los hidrocarburos. Pero también implica casi adivinanzas, sobre lo que nos traerá el desarrollo tecnológico de la energía solar o de la energía eólica. E implica cálculos, de resultado todavía incierto, sobre la conveniencia de hacer agricultura de alimentos o agricultura para producir bio-combustibles.
Pero después que todos los ingenieros y todos los adivinadores del futuro den su veredicto, la política tendrá que ocuparse de las definiciones estratégicas, en temas en los que la opinión social va a estar dividida.
El más notorio de esos temas, es el uso de energía nuclear para generar electricidad.
Otro, es cuanto estamos dispuesto a pagar para apoyar las energías renovables que no son económicamente rentables, incluidos los biocombustibles.
En estos temas, tan imprevisibles, el aumento de la base de sustento político no garantiza que se tomen decisiones óptimas. Pero SÏ asegura que los rumbos elegidos no serán modificados sobre la marcha.
En materia energética no se puede avanzar en zig-zag. Porque pueden pasar décadas entre el momento en que un proyecto comienza a andar, y el momento en que empieza a producir.
También , hemos reservado las estrategias de medio ambiente, para ser tratadas en régimen de políticas de estado.
Hoy la comunidad internacional nos pide que nos pensemos a notros mismos como miembros de una especie, cuyo hábitat está cada vez más amenazado. Hace años que el país ha incorporado una fuerte consciencia sobre el tema, ha legislado con sabiduría y ha operado con decisión y transparencia.
Pero la tensión, entre el cuidado del medio ambiente y la expansión productiva, va a ir en aumento. Vamos a estar cada vez más tironeados, entre las promesas de la explosión agrícola, y las amenazas asociadas al uso intensivo de agroquímicos.
Para no hablar de asuntos aún mas complejos, como las incógnitas vinculadas a la modificación genética, de las especies vegetales.
¡Hasta nuestras pobres vacas! con sus emisiones de gases, son un enorme tema de discusión medio ambiental en el mundo.
Sobre todos estos asuntos, ya empiezan a escucharse algunos tambores de guerra. Afortunadamente, de guerra conceptual, entre los partidarios de la producción a rajatabla, y los preservacionistas a toda costa.
El estado deberá arbitrar y tomar las mejores decisiones.
Sean las que sean, deben tener un ancho respaldo político, para que tengan toda la legitimidad posible y puedan sostenerse en el tiempo, contra viento y marea.
Aquí de nuevo el sistema político tendrá que ser sincero y valiente, porque para cuidar el medio ambiente habrá que renunciar a algunas promesas productivas. O al revés, para sostener la producción, habrá que rebajar la ambición de una naturaleza intocada.
Nos jugamos mucho en todo esto. Tenemos que decidirlo entre todos.
Y después, enfrentar las consecuencias entre todos.
La seguridad ciudadana, es el último tema que estamos proponiendo abordar, de inmediato, en régimen de políticas de estado.
No lo incluiríamos, si sólo se tratara de mejorar la lucha contra una aumentada delincuencia tradicional. Creemos, que no sólo estamos frente a un escenario de números crecientes, sino ante transformaciones cualitativas.
Ahora tenemos drogas, como la pasta base, de muy bajo costo, que no sólo destruyen al adicto sino que lo inducen a la violencia.
Y tenemos mafias enriquecidas, con amplia capacidad de generar corrupción en la policía. Y tenemos operadores del narcotráfico internacional, que usan el país para el tránsito, la distribución y el lavado de dinero.
Aún, somos una sociedad tranquila y relativamente segura. Pero lo peor que podríamos hacer, es subestimar la amenaza. La sociedad ha levantado el asunto a los primeros lugares de la agenda pública y desde el sistema político tenemos que responder sin demora y a fondo.
Educación, energía, medio ambiente y seguridad son los temas para los que debiéramos definir estrategias orientadas al largo plazo y luego, arroparlas, protegerlas del vaivén político para que puedan proyectarse en el tiempo y consumar sus efectos.
Para todo lo demás, necesitamos que la política discurra en sus formas naturales: es decir, el gobierno en el gobierno y la oposición en la oposición.
Con respeto recíproco, pero cada uno en su lugar.
Como gobierno, nos corresponde la iniciativa para trazar el mapa de ruta.
Aquí vamos.
Lo que hoy comienza, se define a sí mismo, entusiastamente, como un segundo gobierno. Ya lo dijimos en la campaña: nuestro programa se resume en 2 palabras "Más de lo mismo"
En primer lugar, vamos a darle al país 5 años más de manejo profesional de la economía, para que la gente pueda trabajar tranquila, e invertir tranquila.
Una macroeconomía prolija es un prerrequisito para todo lo demás. Seremos serios en la administración del gasto,
serios en el manejo de los déficit, serios en la política monetaria y más que serios, perros, en la vigilancia del sistema financiero.
Permítanme decirlo de una manera provocativa: vamos a ser ortodoxos en la macroeconomía.
Lo que vamos a compensar largamente, siendo heterodoxos, innovadores y atrevidos, en otros aspectos.
En particular, vamos a tener un estado activo, en el estímulo a lo que hemos llamado, el país agro inteligente.
El agro uruguayo está viviendo una revolución tecnológica y empresarial, creciendo muy por encima del resto del país.
Los problemas son hoy otros: la sustentabilidad del suelo, la incorporación masiva del riego como factor de producción y sobre todo de mitigación ante las frecuentes sequías. Los proyectos de fuentes de agua que involucran predios de diferente propiedad, marcan una época y es un deber darles el máximo apoyo. Las políticas de reserva y de seguros son exigencias de la adaptación al cambio climático. La investigación, la recreación genética, la alta especialización en las ramas biológicas que nutren el trabajo agrícola de toda esta región, definible como último reservorio alimentario de la humanidad, son para nosotros el capítulo central de una especialización que hemos en llamar ¨el país agro-inteligente¨
Queremos que la tierra nos de uno. Y a ese uno, agregarle 10 de trabajo inteligente. Para al final tener un valor de 11, verdadero, competitivo, exportable.
No vamos a inventar nada, vamos con humildad detrás del ejemplo de otros países pequeños, como Nueva Zelanda o Dinamarca.
Si el país fuera una ecuación, diría que la fórmula a intentar es
agro + inteligencia + turismo + logística regional. Y punto.
Esta, es nuestra gran ilusión.
A mi juicio, la única gran ilusión disponible para el país.
Por eso, no vamos a esperar de brazos cruzados que nos la traiga el destino o el mercado. Vamos a salir a buscarla con decisión.
Pero también con seriedad.
Apoyando sólo aquellas actividades, que una vez maduras, tengan verdadera chance de subsistir por sí mismas.
No queremos repetir errores del pasado.
En particular no queremos que nos vuelva a pasar lo que ocurrió entre los años 50 y 70, cuando la sociedad desperdició enormes recursos, en la quimera de industrias imposibles.
Ya una vez quisimos ser antárticos, y producirlo todo fronteras adentro. Nos fue mal, muy mal.
Seria criminal no aprender de aquellos dolores y volver a una economía enjaulada y cerrada al mundo.
Y si vamos a ser proactivos en ciertas dimensiones de la economía productiva, vamos a ser el doble de proactivos en la búsqueda de una mayor equidad social.
¡Eso sí, que no vamos a esperarlo sentados.!
¡Ahí sí, que no tenemos paciencia para esperar que la prosperidad resuelva sola las cosas.
Tal como hizo el gobierno que termina, vamos a llevar el gasto social a los máximos posibles. Y vamos a sostener y profundizar los múltiples programas solidarios emprendidos en los últimos 5 años.
Ya bajamos la indigencia a la mitad, pero aún queda un 2 % de la población en esa situación. El objetivo es terminar con esta vergüenza nacional, y que hasta el último de los habitantes del país, tenga sus necesidades básicas satisfechas, en los términos definidos por las Naciones Unidas.
Pero con saciar las necesidades básicas no hacemos nada!
Hoy, y después de años de prosperidad y de esfuerzo solidario, 1 de cada 5 uruguayos, sigue en condiciones de pobreza.
Aún, si al país como conjunto, le sigue yendo bien, estamos amenazados en convertirnos en una sociedad que avanza a 2 velocidades:
unos recogen los frutos de un crecimiento acelerado,
otros - por retraso cultural y marginación - apenas los contemplan.
No es justo, pero además es peligroso, porque no queremos un país que se luzca en las estadísticas, sino un país que sea bueno para vivir.
Y no será bueno, si la prosperidad y el bienestar de una familia, se tiene que disfrutar con muros o alambres de púa.
De nuevo, para enfrentar la pobreza, la educación es la gran fuente de esperanzas.
La escuela y sus maestros, son el ariete principal que hemos de usar para integrar a aquellos a los que las penurias dejaron al costado.
El combate a la pobreza dura tiene mucho de acción formativa en la niñez y la adolescencia.
A la cabeza de todas las prioridades va a estar la masificación de las escuelas de tiempo completo, seguido por el fortalecimiento de la Universidad del Trabajo y el sostén de esa maravilla que es el Plan Ceibal.
Ya tenemos una computadora por niño y por maestro. Ahora vamos por una computadora por adolescente y por profesor.
Y por conexión a Internet en todos los hogares.
Si la educación es la vacuna, contra la pobreza del futuro, la vivienda es el remedio urgente para la pobreza de hoy.
En primera instancia desplegaremos un abanico de iniciativas solidarias con la vivienda carenciada, DENTRO Y FUERA de los recursos presupuestales.
Apelaremos al esfuerzo social. Vamos a demostrar que la sociedad tiene otras reservas de solidaridad que no están en el Estado.
Me niego al escepticismo, sé que todos podemos hacer algo por los demás y que lo vamos a demostrar.
¡Van a ver! , van a aparecer materiales, dinero, cabezas profesionales y brazos generosos.
! LES APUESTO A QUE SI !
No quiero olvidarme de nuestros pobres de uniforme.
Las FF AA, llenas de pobres, van a ser parte del Plan de Emergencia Habitacional y vamos a movernos rápido para aliviar en algo la penuria salarial que las aflige.
El pasado no es excusa para que hoy no nos demos cuenta que una patria de todos incluye a estos soldados.
Nuestro reconocimiento para aquellos compatriotas militares que sirven en Haití y han demostrado una admirable entereza y eficiencia solidaria.
En estos años, el Uruguay ha cambiado mucho, y nadie discute que ha cambiado para bien.
Allí están los números económicos y sociales, de todos los colores.
Pero hay un cambio menos visible, imposible de cuantificar, pero a mi juicio de gran importancia: el cambio en la autoestima, el cambio en la manera que nos percibimos a nosotros mismos y a los horizontes posibles.
Nuestros modestos éxitos nos han hecho más ambiciosos y más inconformistas.
¡Bienvenido inconformismo!
¡Bienvenido el cuestionamiento de viejas certezas!
Y en esta línea:
BIENVENIDO EL PROFUNDO CUESTIONAMIENTO DEL ESTADO URUGUAYO.
Del estado hacia adentro, como estructura, como organización, como prestador de servicios.
El Uruguay se mantuvo al margen de los vientos privatizadores de los años 90. Es más, la sociedad recibió propuestas, las consideró y las rechazó explícitamente.
Estuvimos entre los abanderados de ese rechazo y no nos arrepentimos.
Pero el respaldo de los ciudadanos, fue a un modo de propiedad social, no a un modo de gestión de la cosa pública y menos, a sus resultados.
Es probable que aquellos eventos y estas confusiones, hayan postergado demasiado la discusión franca sobre el Estado, sobre los recursos que consume y sobre la calidad de los servicios que presta.
Hoy una revisación profunda es impostergable.
Necesitamos evaluaciones serias, imparciales y profundas.
Necesitamos números y comparaciones.
Y con todo eso a la vista, tenemos que rediseñar el Estado.
Todos sabemos que puede ser más eficiente y más barato.
Esta reforma, no va ser en contra de los funcionarios sino con los funcionarios.
Pero tampoco vale hacerse el distraído: el 90 % de la eficacia del estado se juega en el desempeño de los funcionarios públicos.
La sociedad uruguaya ha sido benévola con algunos de sus servidores públicos y casi cruel con otros. Ha permitido que, funciones sencillas, que no requieren esfuerzo ni preparación, se paguen en algunas oficinas 10 veces más de lo que recibe quien realiza un trabajo imprescindible y duro, como un policía o un maestro rural.
Cuando estas asimetrías duran un tiempo, pueden considerarse errores o desaciertos. Cuando duran décadas, más bien parecen ser manifestaciones de una sociedad que se va volviendo cínica.
Del mismo modo la sociedad uruguaya ha protegido a sus servidores públicos mucho más que a sus trabajadores privados. Recordemos que en la crisis del año 2002 y 2003, casi 200 mil personas perdieron su trabajo y ninguna fue un funcionario público. Se estima que otras 200 mil sufrieron rebajas en sus salarios, y todos fueron trabajadores privados.
Como bien ha dicho el presidente Tabaré Vazquez, esta es la madre de todas las reformas. No deberíamos permitir que esa madre nos siga esperando.
¿En que mundo vivimos? No está fácil de saber.
Me gustaría preguntárselo, a cada uno de los ilustres visitantes que están aquí.
Aunque sin duda tienen "mucho mundo", me atrevería a decir que no van a poder darme una respuesta simple.
¿Verdad que no?
El mundo está cambiando a cada rato
Y lo que es peor, a cada rato está cambiando la teoría, de cómo se construye, uno mejor.
Todavía no acabamos de padecer las consecuencias de la crisis planetaria, con que nos obsequió el sistema financiero, en la cumbre del mundo.
Descubrimos que habían creado un universo de burbuja y de casino. Pero que desde allí, no solo se jugaba a la ruleta, sino que se podía golpear al mundo productivo real.
Durante la crisis, para rescatar lo que quedaba en pie, se rompieron dogmas que parecían sagrados, se decretó la muerte de los paradigmas vigentes y se volvió a la política, como a un refugio de esperanza.
Hoy ante los desafíos no previsibles de la realidad, casi todos pensamos que ningún camino puede descartarse a priori,
ninguna experiencia desconocerse, ninguna fórmula archivarse para siempre.
Sólo el dogmatismo, quedó sepultado.
No está fácil navegar. Las brújulas ya no están seguras de donde quedan los puntos cardinales
Así que mirando las estrellas nos quedan algunas pocas certezas para orientarnos.
Primero, que el mundo ya no hay un centro sino varios y que la globalización es un hecho irreversible.
Por todos lados, los humanos anudamos nuestro destino y nos hacemos mutuamente dependientes. La idea de cerrase al mundo quedó obsoleta.
Pero a su vez, el proteccionismo sigue vivito y coleando, y a menudo es protagonizado por unidades de tamaño continental.
Los latinoamericanos, un poco a los tumbos, estamos intentando construir mercados más grandes
¡Pero como nos cuesta!!
Somos una familia balcanizada, que quiere juntarse, pero no puede. Hicimos, tal vez, muchos hermosos países, pero seguimos fracasando en hacer la Patria Grande.
Por lo menos hasta ahora.
No perdemos la esperanza, porque aún están vivos los sentimientos: desde el Río Bravo a las Malvinas vive una sola nación, la nación latino-americana.
Dentro de nuestro hogar latinoamericano, tenemos un dormitorio que compartimos y que se llama MERCOSUR.
! AYY MERCOSUR!
¡Cuanto amor y cuando enojo nos suscita!
Hoy estamos en público y no es el momento de hablar de los temas de alcoba.
Solo déjenme afirmar que para nosotros, el MERCOSUR es "hasta que la muerte nos separe" y que esperamos una actitud reciproca de nuestros socios mayores.
Finalmente, deseamos que el Bicentenario nos encuentre con un Río de la Plata más angosto, despejados todos los caminos que nos unen.
He reservado para el final, la más grata de todas las tareas:
saludar la presencia de quienes han venido a acompañarnos desde el exterior, especialmente de aquéllos que han venido desde muy lejos, casi inesperadamente.
Años atrás hubiéramos considerado estas visitas como un valioso gesto diplomático, una cortesía de país a país.
Creo que en los últimos tiempos, estas presencias tienen un significado mucho más intenso y mucho más político. Siento que al estar aquí, ustedes expresan el respaldo a los procesos democráticos de renovación del poder. Se hacen testigos de la celebración.
¡Ya sabíamos del afecto ¡ Pero nos gusta más sentirlo en la presencia física de todos ustedes. Sentirlo cara a cara. Y también corresponderlo cara a cara!
Esto es así, para el afecto entre la gente y para el afecto entre los países. Quererse de cerca, debería estar recomendado en las academias de diplomacia.
Así que, amigos del mundo aquí presentes, reciban el agradecimiento del Uruguay entero. Sepan que no sólo estamos honrados por su presencia. También estamos contentos de tenerlos aquí y hasta diría que un poco conmovidos.
Para terminar, déjenme llegar al borde de la exageración, y decir que,
este gobierno que empieza, no lo ganamos, sino que lo heredamos.
Porque la principal razón de mi llegada a la presidencia, es el éxito logrado por el primer gobierno del FA, encabezado por el Doctor Tabaré Vázquez.
El y sus equipos han hecho un gran trabajo: les digo muchas gracias en nombre de 3 millones de uruguayos.
Nosotros, vamos a seguir por el mismo camino, construyendo una
PATRIA PARA TODOS
Y CON TODOS
MUCHAS GRACIAS

Mar 2/10 | The IAHRC/CIDH Report that has rattled the UNDEMOCRATIC and HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATING Chávez regime

2010-03-02T15:37:00.001-04:30

Mar 01/10 | Exposing Hugo Chávez | Desenmascarando a Hugo Chávez

2010-03-02T00:31:00.002-04:30

FARC's "Ivan Marquez" and preferred benefactor Hugo Chávez

THE DANGEROUS LIAISONS OF HUGO CHÁVEZ | LOS VINCULOS PELIGROSOS DE HUGO CHÁVEZ

A PARTIAL LIST OF RECENT EVIDENCE | LISTA PARCIAL Y RECIENTE DE EVIDENCIAS

EXHIBIT | MUESTRA A (RELATES TO EXHIBIT D BELOW | RELACIONADA CON D ABAJO)

EL TIEMPO | Bogotá

March 1, 2010

Former President of Colombia Andrés Pastrana

“President Hugo Chávez owes us the explanation already requested by the Government of Spain, because it has to do none other than with an alleged plot against the life of – among others – two presidents of Colombia during their terms of office.”

"El Presidente Hugo Chávez debe la explicación ya solicitada por el Gobierno Español, pues se trata nada menos que de un presunto complot contra la vida de -entre otros- dos presidentes de Colombia en ejercicio de sus cargos."

http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/latinoamerica/pastrana-pide-explicaciones-a-venezuela-por-el-caso-farc-eta-uribe-apunta-prudencia_7325074-1

EL Mundo | Madrid

Marzo 2, 2010

España pide 'una explicación' a Venezuela por su presunta 'cooperación' con ETA

http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2010/03/01/espana/1267462312.html

EXHIBIT | MUESTRA B

U.S. Department of State

International Narcotics Control Strategy Report

Volume I: Drug and Chemical Control

p. 16

March 1, 2010

"There is strong evidence that some elements of Venezuela’s security forces directly assist these FTOs (foreign terrorist organizations).”

Full report can be read here:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/137411.pdf

EXHIBIT | MUESTRA C

United States Senate

Press Release

March 1, 2010

Sens. Lugar and Dodd call for U.S. Mission to the OAS to ask for discussion of ‘Venezuela Democracy and Human Rights’ Report at the Permanent Council:

In response to a report issued by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) last week regarding violations of human rights and intimidation of citizens in Venezuela based on their political beliefs, U.S. Sens. Dick Lugar (R-IN) and Chris Dodd (D-CT) released the following joint statement.

“We are deeply disturbed by some of the report’s observations. One of the more alarming findings was that: ‘The Commission considers that the lack of independence and autonomy of the judiciary with respect to the political branches constitutes one of the weakest points of democracy in Venezuela, a situation that seriously hinders the free exercise of human rights in Venezuela. In the Commission’s judgment, it is this lack of independence that has allowed the use of the State’s punitive power in Venezuela to criminalize human rights defenders, judicialize peaceful social protest, and persecute political dissidents through the criminal system.’

“This passage highlights what can happen in a country when the regional and international mechanisms that are in place to prevent this type of erosion of democratic institutions fail to act.

Full statement can be found here:

http://lugar.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=322645&&

http://dodd.senate.gov/?q=node/5490

EXHIBIT | MUESTRA D

Juzgado Central de Instrucción Número 6

Audiencia Nacional

Madrid

Sumario: 75/09 (DP 263/08)

February 22, 2010

"Obran diligencias en este procedimiento que ponen de manifiesto la cooperación gubernamental venezolana en la ilícita cooperación entre las FARC y ETA."

"There is diligence at work in these proceedings that makes evident Venezuelan government cooperation in the illicit cooperation between the FARC and ETA."

Juez Eloy Velasco - Audiencia Nacional

http://urru.org/papers/DDHH/DDHH_2010_varios/201024_AutoJuzgadoEspanaFARCetaChavez.pdf

Also quoted in various news sources in Spain and elsewhere. See EL PAÍS and EL CORREO below.

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/Gobierno/venezolano/colaboro/ETA/FARC/juez/Velasco/elpepunac/20100302elpepinac_7/Tes

http://www.elcorreo.com/alava/v/20100302/politica/audiencia-nacional-acusa-venezuela-20100302.html

And in English in Reuters and the Wall Street Journal

WSJ: Venezuela Plotted to Kill Rival, Spain Says

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704754604575095291011683812.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_World

TYhe Guardian: Hugo Chávez 'terrorist link' sparks diplomatic row between Spain and Venezuela

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/01/hugo-chavez-venezuela-spain-eta

EXHIBIT | MUESTRA E

United Nations

Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 2009

Chapter III

A. Africa

E/INCB/2009/1

p. 56

“The cocaine seized in Africa originates mainly in Colombia and Peru and, in many cases, has been smuggled through Brazil and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of).”

http://www.incb.org/incb/en/annual-report-2009.html

EXHIBIT | MUESTRA F

Organization of American States (OEA) | Organización de Estados Americanos (OAS)

OEA/Ser.L/V/II
Doc. 54

30 December 2009

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights | Comisión Inter Americana de Derechos Humanos

DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN VENEZUELA

CHAPTER VIII. CONCLUSIONS

“1154. The Commission considers that the lack of independence and autonomy of the judiciary with respect to the political branches constitutes one of the weakest points of democracy in Venezuela, a situation that seriously hinders the free exercise of human rights in Venezuela. In the Commission’s judgment, it is this lack of independence that has allowed the use of the State’s punitive power in Venezuela to criminalize human rights defenders, judicialize peaceful social protest, and persecute political dissidents through the criminal system.”

http://cidh.org/countryrep/Venezuela2009eng/VE09.TOC.eng.htm

EXHIBIT | MUESTRA G

GAO - United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Ranking Member,

Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate

DRUG CONTROL

U.S. Counternarcotics Cooperation with Venezuela Has Declined | Cooperación Anti-narcoticos de EEUU con Venezuela ha declinada

July 2009

“According to U.S. and Colombian officials, Venezuela has extended a lifeline to Colombian illegal armed groups by providing significant support and safe haven along the border. As a result, these groups, which traffic in illicit drugs, remain viable threats to Colombian security. A high level of corruption within the Venezuelan government, military, and other law enforcement and security forces contributes to the permissive environment, according to U.S. officials.”

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09806.pdf

Compiled by | Recabado por IS+PB

Feb 28/10 | Alvaro Uribe stopped on his tracks: A win-win solution in Colombia

2010-02-28T15:24:00.000-04:30

Question: And what happened with the Court?

Uribe: It told me to f*** off

Both Colombia and Alvaro Uribe "won" as a result of the well reasoned Constitutional Court decision. I have been quite critical of Mr. Uribe's push to run a third time. One of the rules of democracy is the need for an orderly - and timely - succession of elected leadership. If a president has done a good job there is no reason to believe his legacy will be trampled on by the electorate and his successors. What did Mr. Uribe fear? His obstinacy was the real risk for a country that has always relied on strong legal and institutional framework to combat all sorts of challenges. PMB

Feb 27/10 | Micro-entrevista con el SG OEA Insulza sobre su slencio con respecto a informe de la CIDH sobre Venezuela

2010-02-27T20:14:00.001-04:30

¿Muy sordo o demasiado callado? Lea aqui su explicación...

El miércoles La Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH)publicó un informe titulado “Democracia y Derechos Humanos en Venezuela” que concluye que ambos principios (y sus practicas conexas) están profundamente amenazados por el gobierno de Hugo Chávez. Ante la extensa cobertura que recibió este informe mucha gente se pregunta porque el Secretario General de la OEA, José Miguel Insulza, no ha emitido una opinión al respecto mas allá de un comunicado formalista explicando que es la CIDH. Luego de ese comunicado escueto, el Presidente Chávez se sumo al coro de sus sicofantes en el ataque frontal a la CIDH – que irónicamente es presidida por una venezolana de corte chavista - y su secretario ejecutivo Santiago Canton.

Para buscar una respuesta contacte al SG Insulza y le hice una pregunta que me respondió hoy de forma diligente a pesar de la tragedia que vive Chile.

PMB: ¿Por que el Secretario General Insulza no ha dado su opinión acerca del Informe sobre Venezuela entregado por la CIDH?
SG OEA JMI: Eso jamás ha ocurrido. Ni el Secretario General ni el Consejo Permanente han entregado nunca una opinión acerca de los contenidos de un dictamen ni de un informe de la CIDH. Más de una vez algún país ha llevado un caso o Informe al Consejo, para quejarse del trato recibido, pero nunca se ha emitido una conclusión ni una opinión.

La razón es simple: SG, Consejo Permanente y CIDH son órganos creados por la Carta para funciones distintas. La CIDH es el órgano competente de la OEA para pronunciarse sobre materias relativas a derechos humanos. Agregar a sus pronunciamientos comentarios favorables o negativos contradice el carácter autónomo de la CIDH y, a la larga, restaría valor a sus opiniones.

El SG no conoce, ni debería conocer, de manera previa, los informes que emitirá la CIDH. Tanto el SG como la CIDH son elegidos por la Asamblea General y no corresponde que el SG reafirme o cuestione sus opiniones. La CIDH es totalmente autónoma y esa autonomía es la que le ha permitido tener la eficacia y la respetabilidad que tienen sus decisiones e informes.

Lo que si corresponde al SG es defender a la CIDH como el órgano que los países miembros han creado y eligen para formular veredictos en materia de derechos humanos. Por esa razón he pedido que la CIDH sea recibida por todos los países que quiera visitar y he criticado cualquier ataque a la CIDH que considere impropio.

Fin de la micro entrevista

Tengo entendido que en las próximas horas habrá un comunicado del SG Insulza respecto a lo que toca en el último párrafo y a la luz de la escatológica arremetida del Teniente Coronel Chávez Frías la CIDH y el Sr. Canton.

Me gustaría recibir sus comentarios respecto a la posición institucional del Sr. Insulza con la seguridad de que se las haré llegar de forma abierta (o anónima si es que así lo prefieren). Ya el sabe mi opinión (es critica) pero me la reservo por ahora en la espera de las de ustedes.

Feb 25/10 | The English Version of Arias' Speech in Cancun

2010-02-25T23:50:00.002-04:30

Translation from the original in Spanish

Speech delivered by President Oscar Arias Sanchez of Costa Rica at the Cancun Summit, February 23, 2010

Excellencies, Heads of State and Government from Latin America and the Caribbean, friends:

This is my last appearance at an international summit. I do not expect to say goodbye to Latin America nor to the Caribbean. I keep the dreams of this region bound to the center of my life. But I do have to say farewell to all of you, my colleagues, brothers and sisters, fellow travelers. I must say goodbye to this audience that summarizes, in a cluster of voices, the hopes of 600 million people, nearly a tenth of humanity. It is on behalf of that Latin American lineage that I want to share with you some thoughts. It is on behalf of the generation that dwells beyond these doors, and demands from us the boldness to build a more dignified place under the sun.

Despite the speeches and the applause, the truth of the matter is our region has made little progress in recent decades. In certain areas, it has stepped back with resolve. Many want to climb aboard a rusted out railroad car headed toward the past, to the ideological trenches that divided the world during the Cold War. Latin America runs the risk of adding to its amazing collection of lost generations. It runs the risk of wasting, once again, its opportunity on this Earth. It is up to us, and those who come after us, to prevent that from happening. It is up to us to honor the debt we owe to democracy, to development and to peace for our peoples, a debt which matured centuries ago.

Honoring the debt to democracy means more than enacting political constitutions, signing democratic charters or celebrating periodic elections. It means building a reliable set of institutions, beyond the anemic structures that currently sustain our state apparatuses. It means guaranteeing the supremacy of the law and the effectiveness of the Rule of Law, which some insist on pole vaulting.

It means strengthening the system of checks and balances, deeply threatened by the presence of tentacular governments who have erased the boundaries between ruler, party and State. It means ensuring the enjoyment of a solid core of fundamental rights and guarantees, chronically impinged upon in much of the Latin American region. And it means, above all, the use of political power for achieving a greater human development, the improvement of our people’s living conditions and the expansion of our citizens’ freedoms.

One must not confuse the democratic origin of a régime with the democratic operation of the State. There are governments in our region that avail themselves of election results so as to justify their desire to restrict individual freedoms and persecute their opponents. They make use of a democratic mechanism in order to subvert the foundations of democracy. For a true democrat, if he has no opposition, then he must create one. He shows his success in the fruits of his labor, but not in the product of his retaliations. He demonstrates his power by opening hospitals, roads and universities and not by curtailing freedom of opinion and expression. A true democrat demonstrates his power by fighting poverty, ignorance and rampant crime, and not foreign empires and imaginary conspiracies. This region, tired of hollow promises and empty words, needs a legion of increasingly tolerant statesmen and not a legion of increasingly authoritarian rulers. It is easy to defend the rights of those who think like we do. Defending the rights of those who think differently: that is the challenge for the true democrat. Let us hope that our peoples have the wisdom to elect rulers for whom the democratic shirt is not too large a fit.

And may they also resist the temptation of those who promise rose gardens behind the participatory democracy that can be a dangerous weapon in the hands of populism and demagoguery. Latin America's problems are not solved by replacing a dysfunctional representative democracy with a chaotic participatory democracy.

Paraphrasing Octavio Paz, I dare say that democracy in our region does not need to take on wings; what it needs is to take root. Before selling tickets to paradise, let us worry first about consolidating our feeble institutions, safeguarding the fundamental guarantees, ensuring equal opportunities for our citizens, increasing the transparency of our governments, and above all, improving the effectiveness of our bureaucracies . My experience as a head of state has shown me that what we have are sclerotic and hypertrophied States, unable to meet the needs of our people and to provide the benefits that democracy is obliged to deliver.

This has serious consequences for our capacity to honor the second debt that I wanted to mention to you, the debt owed to development. A debt which, I repeat, we must honor. Neither Spanish colonialism, nor the lack of natural resources, nor the hegemony of the United States, nor any other theory resulting from the eternal victimization of Latin America, explains the fact that we refuse to increase our spending on innovation, to tax the rich, to graduate professionals in engineering and the hard sciences, to promote competition, to build infrastructure or to provide legal certainty to businesses. It is time for each mast to endure the sails of its own own progress.

What right does Latin America have to complain about the inequalities that divide its peoples, if it collects almost half of its fiscal revenues in indirect taxes, and the tax burden in some nations in the region hardly reaches 10% of the Gross Domestic Product? What right does Latin America have to complain about its underdevelopment, if it is the one that has demonstrated a proverbial resistance to change every time there is talk of innovation and adaptation to new circumstances? What right does Latin America have to complain about the lack of quality jobs, when it is the one that allows the average schooling to be around 8 years? And above all, what right does Latin America have to complain about its poverty if it spends, each year, nearly 60 billion dollars in weapons and soldiers?

The debt to peace is the most shameful of all, because it demonstrates the amnesia of a region that feeds the return of an arms race, in many cases aimed at fighting ghosts and mirages. It also shows the complete inability to set priorities in Latin America, a practice that prevents the realization of a true agenda for development. There are countries suffering internal conflicts who may justify an increase in national defense expenditures. But in the vast majority of our nations, increased military spending is inexcusable in view of the needs of a people whose real enemies are hunger, disease, illiteracy, inequality, crime and environmental degradation. It is regrettable that there are gathered at this Summit of Unity countries that are arming against each other. It is also regrettable that one finds absent from this Summit of Unity the Government of Honduras, whose people are victims of militarism and do not deserve punishment, but rather help instead.

If I had been told twenty years ago that in the year 2010 I would still be condemning the increase in military spending in Latin America, I probably would have been surprised.

How, after having seen the mangled bodies of young people and children wounded in war, could this region long for a return to arms? How could one allow the horrific parade of rockets, missiles and guns that passes by in view of rickety school desks, empty lunch boxes and clinics without medicines? Some might say that I was mistaken to trust in a peaceful future. I think not. Hope is never a mistake, no matter how many times it is short-changed.

I still hope for a new day for Latin America and the Caribbean. I hope for a future of greatness for our peoples. The day will come when democracy, development and peace will fill the saddlebags of the region. The day will come when the recount of the lost generations will cease. It may be tomorrow, if we dare to make it so. It may be next year, in the next decade or in the next century. As for me, I will keep fighting. Regardless of the shadows, I will continue to wait for the light at the end of the rainbow. I will continue to fight until such day arrives.

Dear friends. It has been a high honor and a true privilege to partake in this forum with you, just as it has been at many others. This is my last summit and in saying goodbye I want all of you to know that Óscar Arias will always be your true friend.

Thank you very much.

Óscar Arias Sánchez

Note: non-official translation by MO&WK

Feb 25/10 | Arias, un salvavidas en el estercolero de Cancún

2010-02-25T12:57:00.002-04:30

"Un verdadero demócrata, si no tiene oposición, debe crearla."

PMBComentario | De la Cumbre de Cancún lo que el mundo se enteró fue de las malcriadeces de los Presidentes Chávez y Uribe; lo que pocos han oído o leído es este magnifico discurso de Óscar Arias Sánchez, Presidente de Costa Rica. Es un discurso magistral que no merece haber sido eclipsado por insultos y malacrianzas, y mucho menos por inventos folclóricos sobre la necesidad de crear nuevos organismos - o mecanismos - para distraer aun mas a los malos gobernantes de sus verdaderas ocupaciones. PMB

Discurso de Óscar Arias Sánchez, Presidente de Costa Rica

23 de febrero de 2010 | Cancún, México |Cumbre de la Unidad de América Latina y el Caribe.

"Que cada palo aguante su vela" Jefes de Estado y de Gobierno de América Latina y el Caribe, amigas y amigos:

Ésta es mi última participación en una cumbre internacional. No pretendo despedirme de América Latina ni del Caribe. Los sueños de esta región los llevo atados al centro de mi vida. Pero sí debo despedirme de ustedes, colegas, hermanos, compañeros de viaje. Debo despedirme de este auditorio que resume, en un racimo de voces, las esperanzas de 600 millones de personas, casi una décima parte de la humanidad. Es en nombre de esa estirpe latinoamericana que quiero compartir con ustedes algunas reflexiones. Es en nombre de la prosapia que habita más allá de estas puertas, y que exige de nosotros la osadía de construir un lugar más digno bajo el sol.

A pesar de los discursos y de los aplausos, lo cierto es que nuestra región ha avanzado poco en las últimas décadas. En ciertas áreas, ha caminado resueltamente hacia atrás. Muchos quieren abordar un oxidado vagón al pasado, a las trincheras ideológicas que dividieron al mundo durante la Guerra Fría. América Latina corre el riesgo de aumentar su insólita colección de generaciones perdidas. Corre el riesgo de desperdiciar, una vez más, su oportunidad sobre la Tierra. Nos corresponde a nosotros, y a quienes vengan después, evitar que eso suceda. Nos corresponde honrar la deuda con la democracia, con el desarrollo y con la paz de nuestros pueblos, una deuda cuyo plazo venció hace siglos.

Honrar la deuda con la democracia quiere decir mucho más que promulgar constituciones políticas, firmar cartas democráticas o celebrar elecciones periódicas. Quiere decir construir una institucionalidad confiable, más allá de las anémicas estructuras que actualmente sostienen nuestros aparatos estatales. Quiere decir garantizar la supremacía de la ley y la vigencia del Estado de Derecho, que algunos insisten en saltar con garrocha.

Quiere decir fortalecer el sistema de pesos y contrapesos, profundamente amenazado por la presencia de gobiernos tentaculares, que han borrado las fronteras entre gobernante, partido y Estado. Quiere decir asegurar el disfrute de un núcleo duro de derechos y garantías fundamentales, crónicamente vulnerados en buena parte de la región latinoamericana. Y quiere decir, antes que nada, la utilización del poder político para lograr un mayor desarrollo humano, el mejoramiento de las condiciones de vida de nuestros habitantes y la expansión de las libertades de nuestros ciudadanos.

No se debe confundir el origen democrático de un régimen con el funcionamiento democrático del Estado. Hay en nuestra región gobiernos que se valen de los resultados electorales para justificar su deseo de restringir libertades individuales y perseguir a sus adversarios. Se valen de un mecanismo democrático, para subvertir las bases de la democracia. Un verdadero demócrata, si no tiene oposición, debe crearla. Demuestra su éxito en los frutos de su trabajo, y no en el producto de sus represalias. Demuestra su poder abriendo hospitales, caminos y universidades, y no coartando la libertad de opinión y expresión. Un verdadero demócrata demuestra su energía combatiendo la pobreza, la ignorancia y la inseguridad ciudadana y no imperios extranjeros y conspiraciones imaginarias. Esta región, cansada de promesas huecas y palabras vacías, necesita una legión de estadistas cada vez más tolerantes, y no una legión de gobernantes cada vez más autoritarios. Es muy fácil defender los derechos de quienes piensan igual que nosotros. Defender los derechos de quienes piensan distinto, ése es el reto del verdadero demócrata. Ojalá nuestros pueblos tengan la sabiduría para elegir gobernantes a quienes no les quede grande la camisa democrática.

Y ojalá también sepan resistir la tentación de quienes les prometen vergeles detrás de la democracia participativa, que puede ser un arma peligrosa en manos del populismo y la demagogia. Los problemas de Latinoamérica no se solucionan con sustituir una democracia representativa disfuncional, por una democracia participativa caótica.

Parafraseando a Octavio Paz, me atrevo a decir que en nuestra región la democracia no necesita echar alas, lo que necesita es echar raíces. Antes de vender tiquetes al paraíso, preocupémonos primero por consolidar nuestras endebles instituciones, por resguardar las garantías fundamentales, por asegurar la igualdad de oportunidades para nuestros ciudadanos, por aumentar la transparencia de nuestros gobiernos, y sobre todo, por mejorar la efectividad de nuestras burocracias. Mi experiencia como gobernante me ha comprobado que los nuestros son Estados escleróticos e hipertrofiados, incapaces de satisfacer las necesidades de nuestros pueblos y de brindar los frutos que la democracia está obligada a entregar.

Esto tiene serias consecuencias sobre nuestra capacidad de honrar la segunda deuda que he querido mencionarles, la deuda con el desarrollo. Una deuda que, repito, tenemos que honrar nosotros. Ni el colonialismo español, ni la falta de recursos naturales, ni la hegemonía de Estados Unidos, ni ninguna otra teoría producto de la victimización eterna de América Latina, explican el hecho de que nos rehusemos a aumentar nuestro gasto en innovación, a cobrarle impuestos a los ricos, a graduar profesionales en ingenierías y ciencias exactas, a promover la competencia, a construir infraestructura o a brindar seguridad jurídica a las empresas. Es hora de que cada palo aguante la vela de su propio progreso.

¿Con qué derecho se queja América Latina de las desigualdades que dividen a sus pueblos, si cobra casi la mitad de sus tributos en impuestos indirectos, y la carga fiscal de algunas naciones en la región apenas alcanza el 10% del Producto Interno Bruto? ¿Con qué derecho se queja América Latina de su subdesarrollo, si es ella la que demuestra una proverbial resistencia al cambio cada vez que se habla de innovación y de adaptación a nuevas circunstancias? ¿Con qué derecho se queja América Latina de la falta de empleos de calidad, si es ella la que permite que la escolaridad promedio sea de alrededor de 8 años? Y sobre todo, ¿con qué derecho se queja América Latina de su pobreza si gasta, al año, casi 60.000 millones de dólares en armas y soldados?

La deuda con la paz es la más vergonzosa, porque demuestra la amnesia de una región que alimenta el retorno de una carrera armamentista, dirigida en muchos casos a combatir fantasmas y espejismos. Demuestra, además, la total incapacidad para establecer prioridades en América Latina, una práctica que impide la concreción de una verdadera agenda para el desarrollo. Hay países que sufren conflictos internos, que pueden justificar un aumento en sus gastos de defensa nacional. Pero en la gran mayoría de nuestras naciones, un mayor gasto militar es inexcusable ante las necesidades de pueblos cuyos verdaderos enemigos son el hambre, la enfermedad, el analfabetismo, la desigualdad, la criminalidad y la degradación del medio ambiente. Es lamentable que en esta Cumbre de la Unidad se reúnan países que se arman los unos contra los otros. Y es también lamentable que en esta Cumbre de la Unidad se encuentre ausente el Gobierno de Honduras, cuyo pueblo es víctima del militarismo y no merece castigo, sino auxilio.

Si hace veinte años me hubieran dicho que en el 2010 estaría todavía condenando el aumento del gasto militar en América Latina, probablemente me habría sorprendido.

¿Cómo, después de haber visto los cuerpos destrozados de jóvenes y niños heridos en la guerra, podía esta región anhelar un retorno a las armas? ¿Cómo habría de permitir el dantesco desfile de cohetes, misiles y rifles que pasa frente a pupitres desvencijados, loncheras vacías y clínicas sin medicinas? Algunos dirán que me equivoqué al confiar en un futuro de paz. No lo creo. La esperanza nunca es un error, no importa cuántas veces sea defraudada.

Yo aún espero un nuevo día para América Latina y el Caribe. Espero un futuro de grandeza para nuestros pueblos. Llegará el día en que la democracia, el desarrollo y la paz llenarán las alforjas de la región. Llegará el día en que cesará el recuento de las generaciones perdidas. Puede ser mañana, si nos atrevemos a hacerlo. Puede ser el próximo año, la próxima década o el próximo siglo. Por mi parte, yo seguiré luchando. Sin importar las sombras, seguiré esperando la luz al final del arco iris. Seguiré luchando hasta el día que llegue.

Queridos amigos y amigas. Compartir con ustedes este foro, al igual que muchos otros más, ha sido para mí sumamente honroso y un verdadero privilegio. Esta es mi última cumbre y al decirles adiós, quiero que sepan que en Óscar Arias tendrán siempre a un amigo de verdad.

Muchas gracias.

Óscar Arias Sánchez

Feb 22/10 | Carnival is over or is it not?

2010-02-22T18:18:00.003-04:30

Chávez went to Rio Group Summit in Cancun with his military costume: nobody was kind enough to tell him Carnival ends on Ash Wednesday> the poor guy is really frustrated he only reached the rank of coupster.

This Fidel Wannabe fits less and less in such group picture...PS: Will the lady in the front row en up in a black and white stripped jumpsuit?

Feb 13/10 | On The Treasonous Plan of a Puppet and his Cuban Puppeteers

2010-02-13T17:44:00.005-04:30

Will the Venezuelan Armed Forces march to this mismatch?

This well documented article from the Economist requires little additional commentary. Suffice to say that Cuba is not the only rogue state, or foreign criminal group, trying to meddle in what with little doubt will be the violent unravelling of a very corrupt and ruinous "revolution". PMB

The Economist |"Venecuba", a single nation | Hugo Chávez, as he drafts in ever more Cuban aides to shore up his regime, is fulfilling a longstanding dream of Fidel Castro’s

Feb 11th 2010 | CARACAS | From The Economist print edition

IN A small fishing village on the Caribbean coast of Venezuela stands a plinth. Unveiled by government officials in 2006, it pays homage to the Cuban guerrillas sent by Fidel Castro in the 1960s to help subvert Venezuela’s then recently restored democracy. Almost entirely bereft of popular support, the guerrilla campaign flopped. But four decades later, and after a decade of rule by Hugo Chávez, Cuba’s communist regime seems finally to have achieved its goal of invading oil-rich Venezuela—this time without firing a shot.

Earlier this month Ramiro Valdés, a veteran revolutionary who ranks number three in Cuba’s ruling hierarchy and was twice its interior minister, arrived in Caracas, apparently for a long stay. Officially, Mr Valdés has come to head a commission set up by Mr Chávez to resolve Venezuela’s acute electricity shortage. But he lacks expertise in this field, and Cuba is famous for 12-hour blackouts. Some members of Venezuela’s opposition reckon that Mr Valdés, whose responsibilities at home include policing Cubans’ access to the internet, has come to help Mr Chávez step up repression ahead of a legislative election in September. Others believe he was sent to assess the gravity of the situation facing the Castro brothers’ most important ally (Cuba depends on Mr Chávez for subsidised oil). He has been seen in meetings with Venezuelan military commanders.

Although by far the most senior, Mr Valdés is only one among many Cubans who have been deployed by Mr Chávez under bilateral agreements that took shape in 2003. As well as thousands of doctors staffing a community-health programme, they include people who are helping to run Venezuela’s ports, telecommunications, police training, the issuing of identity documents and the business registry.

In 2005 Venezuela’s government gave Cuba a contract to modernise its identity-card system. Since then, Cuban officials have been spotted in agencies such as immigration and passport control. A group of Cubans who recently fled Venezuela told a newspaper in Miami that they had bribed a Cuban official working in passport control at Caracas airport.

In some ministries, such as health and agriculture, Cuban advisers appear to wield more power than Venezuelan officials. The health ministry is often unable to provide statistics—on primary health-care or epidemiology for instance—because the information is sent back to Havana instead. Mr Chávez seemed to acknowledge this last year when, by his own account, he learned that thousands of primary health-care posts had been shut down only when Mr Castro told him so.

Coffee-growers complain that in meetings with the government it is Bárbara Castillo, a former Cuban trade minister, who calls the shots. Ms Castillo, who was formally seconded to Venezuela four years ago, refuses requests for interviews.

Trade unions, particularly in the oil and construction industries, have complained of ill-treatment by the Cubans. No unions are allowed on Cuban-run building sites. In September last year Froilán Barrios of the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers, which opposes the government, said that “oil and petrochemicals are completely penetrated by Cuban G2,” the Castros’ fearsomely efficient intelligence service. Oil workers planning a strike said they had been threatened by Cuban officials.

The new national police force and the army have both adopted policies inspired by Cuba. The chief adviser to the national police-training academy is a Cuban, and Venezuela’s defence doctrine is based on Cuba’s “war of all the people”. Foreign officials who watch Venezuela closely say that Cuban agents occupy key posts in Venezuela’s military intelligence agency, but these claims are impossible to verify.

Mr Chávez portrays Cuban help as socialist solidarity in the struggle against “the empire”, as he calls the United States. When he was visiting Cuba in 2005 Fidel Castro said publicly to him that their two countries were “a single nation”. “With one flag,” added Mr Chávez, to which Mr Castro replied, “We are Venecubans.” These views are not shared by Venezuelans. In a recent poll 85% of respondents said they did not want their country to become like Cuba. Perhaps Mr Valdés will include that in his assessment.

Feb 10/10 | The OAS Needs New Management Now

2010-02-10T10:55:00.006-04:30

Insulza and Zelaya: What a pair!

PMBComment | Secretary General Insulza seems to have have been consistent in earning disapproval in Washington. The legislative branch, the executive branch and now the town's main newspaper all seem aligned as to the ineffectiveness of his leadership. Keep in mind that both the Busn and Obama administrations have chosen not to support his two bids for the job.

Chastised, Mr. Insulza has promised to tell the world - on March 3rd - what he accomplished during his five year as Secretary General. There would be no need for such post facto justification if many beyond this city were not questioning his merits for reelection, or if his accomplishments were more noteworthy than his obvious failures. His ineffectiveness on the systematic abuses on the part of Chavez and Ortega, and the terrible mess he contributed to in Honduras define him more than any promises he might now make. An Organization with a flippant record on defending democracy in the region cannot afford to be lead astray for 5 more years by a man who, as all can attest, focused mostly on promoting himself and then Eduardo Frei, unsuccessfully, to the Chilean electorate.

Today his chances for reelection rest first and foremost on Sebastian Piñera, the newly elected President of Chile who has been more than reluctant to endorse a man who shamelessly - and violating every norm of the OAS - campaigned against him. The false argument being batted around in Chile by Mr. Insulza's allies is that support for Mr. Insulza is a matter of national interest. It might be good for Chileans to stop and think how could it be good for Chile - as a country - to see its reputation for levelheadedness be dragged into a wasting debate. Mr. Piñera would do well to remain silent as a signal to other countries that he would welcome the chance to review other candidates and as proof he is not beholden to failure just because it was born in Chile. PMB

THE WASHINGTON POST

EDITORIAL

Mr. Obama should press for change at the OAS

Wednesday, February 10, 2010; A16

SINCE ITS founding in 1948, the Organization of American States has defined its two top purposes as "to strengthen peace and security" and "to consolidate and promote representative democracy." On the second count, it is failing.

Despite the adoption in 2001 of a "democracy charter," the OAS has done little to stem what has been a steady erosion of free elections, free press and free assembly in Latin America during the past five years. When Honduras's president was arrested and dispatched to exile by the military last year, the organization was aggressive but clumsy -- and ended up making a democratic outcome harder to achieve. In the case of countries where democracy has been systematically dismantled by a new generation of authoritarian leaders, including Venezuela and Nicaragua, the OAS has failed to act at all.

The embodiment of this dysfunction has been OAS Secretary General José Miguel Insulza. A Chilean socialist, Mr. Insulza has unabashedly catered to the region's left-wing leaders -- which has frequently meant ignoring the democratic charter. Last year, he pushed for the lifting of Cuba's ban from the OAS, even though there has been no liberalization of the Castro dictatorship. When Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chávez launched a campaign against elected leaders of his opposition, stripping them of power and launching criminal investigations, Mr. Insulza refused to intervene, claiming the OAS "cannot be involved in issues of internal order of member states." Yet when leftist Honduran President Manuel Zelaya tried to change his own country's internal order by illegally promoting a constitutional referendum, Mr. Insulza supported him, even offering to dispatch observers.

Now Mr. Insulza is up for reelection; a vote is scheduled for late next month. The United States, which supplies 60 percent of the funding for the OAS's general secretariat -- $47 million in 2009 -- ought to have a prime interest in replacing him with someone who will defend democracy. Yet the Obama administration is paralyzed: It has yet to make a decision about whether to support a new term for Mr. Insulza. Partly because of that waffling, no alternative candidate has emerged.

There is some reason for this. Five years ago, an effort by the Bush administration to promote a couple of friendly candidates backfired, and a U.S.-backed nominee this year would surely trigger pushback by Mr. Chávez and his allies, and by center-left governments such as Brazil. But the potential resistance to Mr. Insulza is growing. Panama, Colombia, Canada and Mexico could be enlisted in the search for an alternative. Even Chile's new center-right president has so far declined to endorse his compatriot.

At a minimum, the administration should embrace the recommendation of a recent Senate report on the OAS drawn up by the staff of Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.). It calls for the OAS permanent council to require that Mr. Insulza make a presentation about his proposals and priorities for a second term, and for any other candidate who steps forward to offer such a presentation as well.

The United States should make clear that it will not support any secretary general whose platform on democracy issues is inadequate. Congress should meanwhile consider whether the United States should continue to provide the bulk of the funding for the OAS when it fails to live by its own charter

Feb 8/10 | This is the way Venezuela is being ruined...a whim at a time

2010-02-08T19:09:00.002-04:30

Chávez: What is that building?

Voice: A building with stores in it

Chávez: Expropiate it!