• Venezuela’s Opposition Is Calling for Foreign Intervention in the Country’s Political Crisis
• • Mark Rivett-Carnac  @mrivettcarnac 
   
      March 4, 2016

• The opposition has been honing a strategy to oust President Maduro

   

     

  Venezuela’s opposition coalition decided Thursday to call on the Organization of American States to help resolve its power struggle with the government of President Nicolás Maduro.
• The legislature invoked an article that allows the regional organization to launch initiatives for restoring democracy when an “unconstitutional alteration of the constitutional regime” threatens a member state’s order, according to Agence France-Press.

• The opposition has been honing a strategy to oust President Maduro since it took control of the National Assembly in December, a landmark win against years of socialist rule that began under the late Hugo Chávez in 1999. But Venezuela’s Supreme Court has curtailed the opposition’s power.

   

  Amid the political struggle, Venezuela is in the throws of a major economic crisis, fueled by failing oil prices and expensive social policies. The oil-rich nation’s economy shrunk 5.7% last year.

3 more annotations...

• Evo Morales loses referendum in Bolivia to extend presidency

   

   

  With 99.5% of the votes in, 51% voted No

   

      The Associated Press  <script>  if(!CBC) { var CBC = {}; }  if(!CBC.APP) { CBC.APP = {}; }  if(!CBC.APP.SC) { CBC.APP.SC = {}; }  CBC.APP.SC.authors = "The Associated Press";  </script>    Posted: Feb 23, 2016

• Bolivian voters have handed Evo Morales his first electoral defeat as president, rejecting by a slim margin a constitutional amendment that would have let him run for a fourth consecutive term in 2019.

   

  After the announcement by electoral officials Tuesday night, celebrants poured into the streets in the eastern city of Santa Cruz, where opposition to Morales is strong. But fireworks also sounded in La Paz, where there is weariness of corruption in the governing party.

   

  The ballot measure in Sunday's referendum was voted down 51 per cent to 49 per cent, with 99.5 per cent of the ballots counted, a margin of just over 150,000 votes. The outcome also blocks Vice-President Alvaro Garcia from running again.

• Morales is Bolivia's first indigenous president and he helped lift millions out of poverty since first taking office a decade ago by more equitably distributing natural gas revenues, spurring the creation of an indigenous middle class.

   

  But Bolivians have been losing patience with his now-entrenched Movement Toward Socialism.

• The vote also closely followed a revelation that Morales may have been personally involved in influence-peddling.

   

  "Evo's traditional opposition among the affluent and middle class was joined by a wide swath of voters who have long been a part of his political support," said Jim Shultz, executive director of the left-leaning Democracy Center political advocacy group.

   

  "Their turnaround isn't about moving rightward," but rather a rejection of corruption that reflects a belief "that 20 years is too long for one person to be president," he added.

• Until Sunday's ballot, Morales had prevailed in nationwide elections, including a 2009 rewrite of the constitution, with an average 61.5 per cent of the vote.

   

  The margin of defeat coincided almost exactly with two unofficial "quick count" samples announced Sunday by polling firms.

   

  The result proved allegations of vote fraud by some members of the opposition to be unfounded, said Jose Luis Exeni, a member of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal.

   

  The vote count had been unusually slow and the vice-president had said earlier Tuesday that the outcome would be a "cliff-hanger."

• He claimed a right-wing conspiracy was "trying to make disappear by sleight of hand the rural vote that favours Morales," but provided no evidence to back the claim.

   

  Organization of American States observers reported no evidence of fraud, and the delegation leader, former Dominican Republic President Leonel Fernandez, left Bolivia on Tuesday.

   

  Early in his presidency, Morales crushed the right-wing opposition with an anti-colonialist agenda that championed Bolivia's long-downtrodden native majority. He expelled the DEA and a U.S. ambassador, thriving on anti-Yankee rhetoric.

   

  Morales, who leads a coca-growers union, also upset drug warriors with a less violent coca-eradication program in the world's No. 3 producer of cocaine.

• Morales denied influence peddling

   

  But a more formidable opposition eventually emerged from within his own movement and it stung in March 2015 municipal and regional elections, when opposition mayors won in eight of Bolivia's 10 biggest cities.

   

  "The cost of corruption has been high," said political scientist Marcelo Silva of the Universidad Mayor de San Andres. He said infighting in the governing party over a successor could now weaken it even further.

   

  The unprecedented economic boom over which Morales presided, in which gross domestic product per capita rose by nearly one-third, has now waned. Bolivia's revenues from natural gas and minerals, making up three-fourths of its exports, were down 32 per cent last year.

   

  Looking shaken as early results showed the ballot question losing, Morales expressed confidence Monday that he would prevail and blamed "a smear campaign" on his poor showing in cities, where 70 per cent of the electorate now lives. He also suggested social networks bore some responsibility by spreading unreliable information.

• The vote's timing could not have been worse for him.

   

  He was stung this month by an influence-peddling scandal involving a former lover that analysts said cost him dearly. The girlfriend, it was revealed, was named sales manager of a Chinese company in 2013 that has obtained nearly $500 million in mostly no-bid state contracts. Photos of her mansion in a wealthy southern La Paz enclave spread online.

   

  Morales denied any impropriety and claimed he last saw the woman in 2007. But a picture of the two together last year emerged, casting doubts.

   

  Most harmful among scandals plaguing the governing party was the skimming of millions from the government-managed Fondo Indigena, which runs agricultural and public works in the countryside.

   

  Judicial corruption has also been endemic and freedom of expression suffered under Morales, with critical media and environmentalists complaining of harassment by the state.

6 more annotations...

• Especialista en WikiLeaks revela intromisión de EE.UU. en Bolivia
• Publicado en 18 febrero, 2016 por Betsy Alvarado

• Informes de WikiLeaks, conocidos este jueves en La Paz, revelan la intromisión de Estados Unidos en Bolivia y su apoyo financiero a organizaciones opositoras, a sabiendas de que preparaban actos de violencia para dañar al gobierno de Evo Morales.

   

  El investigador noruego Eirik Vold, quien estudió los documentos de WikiLeaks de 2006 a 2009, denunció que según esos textos la Agencia para el Desarrollo (Usaid) entregó cuatro millones de dólares al movimiento separatista de la región de la Media Luna (Santa Cruz, Tarija, Beni y Pando) para mejorar su estrategia contra el gobierno nacional.

• Estados Unidos tenía pleno conocimiento de planes terroristas por parte de grupos de la oposición y, aun así, no los denunciaron, dijo Vold a Prensa Latina.

   

  Entre los planes de las agrupaciones violentas figuraban volar tuberías de gas en el país para obligar al gobierno a aceptar la separación de esos departamentos.

   

  Según los cables de WikiLeaks, Washington consideraba probable un asesinato al presidente Evo Morales y estaba consciente de la posibilidad de un golpe de Estado, y, sin embargo, no advirtió de ello al gobierno.

• Periodista Carlos Valverde conspira con EEUU

   

  Los documentos también revelaron que el periodista Carlos Valverde, autor actualmente de una serie de acusaciones contra el presidente por supuesto tráfico de influencias, contactó en 2007 a la embajada norteamericana para alertarle que Evo Morales pretendía dar un autogolpe, disolver el parlamento y gobernar por decreto.

   

  “El tiempo pasado desde 2007 para acá demuestra que la acusación era falsa y es extraño porque ese señor debe saber que lanzar una acusación así contra su propio país, a un gobierno con una política hostil hacia Bolivia, conllevaría a un riesgo más grande de intromisión”, dijo Vold a esta agencia.

   

  Hay en total más de 14 mil documentos de WikiLeaks que mencionan al presidente Evo Morales, lo cual -dijo- da a entender la importancia de Bolivia, país rico en hidrocarburos y otros recursos naturales, para la estrategia estadounidense.

• En opinión del periodista noruego, esos documentos revelan las acciones del gobierno norteamericano para mantener su hegemonía en la región, en particular en países progresistas que defienden y protegen sus recursos naturales, la dignidad y soberanía de sus territorios.

   

  WikiLeaks (en inglés filtración) es una organización mediática internacional sin ánimos de lucro que sorprendió al mundo hace varios años cuando publicó cientos de miles de mensajes secretos de la diplomacia estadounidense.

   

  El Ministerio de Comunicación del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia auspició la presentación de las investigaciones del periodista noruego sobre ese portal, en un encuentro al que asistieron autoridades del gobierno, legisladores, representantes de movimientos sociales y diplomáticos.

   

  Prensa Latina/La Radio del Sur

4 more annotations...

• The Truth About Hugo Chávez: “Bernie Sanders is Wrong — Hugo Chávez was no Dictator”
•  

   

  By Gabriel Hetland

   

  Global Research, September 22, 2015

   

  Jacobin 20 September 2015

• Bernie Sanders is wrong — Hugo Chávez was no dictator.

   

  Dear Bernie,

   

  Like millions of Americans, I’ve been watching your campaign with growing excitement. You’re spot on about the pernicious effects of rising inequality and absolutely correct that the United States now resembles an oligarchy more than a democracy. I applaud your willingness to directly and repeatedly denounce the billionaire class that runs this country. And I wholeheartedly support your call for universal health care.

   

  It’s been a joy to watch you make Hillary Clinton squirm as your poll numbers rise. I smile every time I imagine the possibility of a self-described socialist calling for a political revolution winning the Democratic nomination. I’m encouraged that you have made fighting racism a priority in your campaign, alongside the rest of your progressive agenda.

   

  So I was surprised and dismayed to see you label the late Hugo Chávez a “dead communist dictator” last week. I would expect this from candidates like Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, or Hillary Clinton — not from someone who supported the Sandinistas in the 1980s and accepted discounted heating oil from Chávez for low-income Vermont residents.

• I know you’re busy these days, Bernie, so I’ve compiled a list of ten reasons why you might want to think twice before calling Chávez a dictator.

   

  1. Hugo Chávez was democratically elected. Not once. Not twice. Butfive times over the course of fourteen years.

   

  2. Chávez won these elections by massive margins. He prevailed in the 1998 presidential election with 56% of the vote. He was reelected in 2000, netting 60% of votes cast. In 2004, Chávez won a recall referendum with 59%. In 2006 he was again victorious, receiving a whopping 63% of the vote. And in the 2012, while dying of cancer, he still triumphed, this time garnering 55%.

• 3. On the rare occasions when Chávez suffered a political defeat (e.g., the December 2007 referendum on constitutional changes), he accepted the loss immediately. It’s true that Chávez engaged in certain practices that are open to criticism, such as gerrymandering and using executive decrees to get around congressional opposition. But these practices are common in many actually-existing democracies, including the US, and hardly constitute evidence that Chávez was a dictator.

   

  4. Chávez’s electoral success was not due to electoral fraud. The Venezuelan opposition (which supported a military coup against Chávez in 2002) and US mainstream media frequently level this charge, but there is no credible evidence to support it. Jimmy Carter has said, “Of the 92 elections that we’ve monitored [at the Carter Center], I would say the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world.”

• 5. The reason Chávez was so successful politically is because he implemented some of the same sorts of policies you support. After Chávez took office, the Venezuelan state more than doubled spending on health and education. (Sure this was made possible by the high price of oil from 2003 to 2008, but it was also possible because of Chávez’s success in reasserting state control over the oil sector, which was quasi-privatized in the 1990s.)

   

  6. The policies implemented under Chávez led to vast improvements in access to health care, education, housing, and pensions. Poverty in Venezuela was cut in half between 2003 and 2008, with extreme poverty falling by 72%.

   

  7. Chávez also made progress on the issue you care the most about: inequality. By 2012 Venezuela was the most equitable country in Latin America.

• 8. While you haven’t declared that you want to build “twenty-first century socialism,” Chávez’s Bolivarian Revolution bears at least some resemblance to the type of “political revolution” you claim to favor. In 1998, when Chávez was first elected, turnout was just 63%, one of the lowest percentages in Venezuela’s democratic history. In Chávez’s last election, it was 81% — the highest percentage since 1988, when voting in Venezuela was still mandatory. In December 2013, 59% of registered voters went to the ballot box for local elections — a higher turnout than every US presidential election since 1968.

   

  There was also a significant increase in Venezuelans’ interest in politics during Chávez’s time in office. In the three years before Chávez took office, Venezuelans’ interest in politics was consistently below the Latin American average (by 7–8% each year). Since 2003, Venezuelans’ interest in politics has been consistently above the Latin American average. In 2013, the year Chávez died, the percentage of Venezuelans who expressed interest in politics (47%) was the highest in Latin America and far higher than the Latin American average (28%).

• 9. Under Chávez, Venezuela made significant, if contradictory, progress towards the goal of becoming a “participatory and protagonistic democracy.” This was done through the establishment of numerous types of participatory institutions: communal councils, health and water committees, communes, participatory budgeting, and more. These institutions are not perfect, but they have undoubtedly fostered greater decision-making power for ordinary Venezuelans.

   

  I learned this firsthand through a year of research in various cities in Venezuela, including Torres, a municipality in central-western Venezuela where ordinary citizens decide how to spend 100% of the city’s investment budget. Miriam Gimenez, a grassroots activist from Torres, told me about the improvements she saw when Chávez was in office: “Life has changed substantially for our people because this process has given society a place to speak, to study, to work, to struggle. Now we know that we’re living, that we’re worth something, and that we can have hope of a dignified life and country.”

   

  10. Portraying Chávez as a dictator is a profound insult to the millions of Venezuelans who supported him. Chavistas were not mindless drones who offered their unconditional support to a “great leader.” They were and are active participants in a messy and imperfect but inspiring and profoundly important attempt to forge a radical transformation.

• I hope you’ll take some time to consider these points. Not only because bad things tend to happen to Latin American countries when US presidents call their democratically elected leaders dictators, but because Chávez engaged millions of people in a democratic process of far-reaching reform. And even if you’re setting your sights a bit lower than Chávez, you more than anyone else should recognize that redbaiting will just end up hampering your own reform efforts.

   

  Sincerely,

   

  Gabriel

   

   

   

   

  The original source of this article is Jacobin

   

  Copyright © Gabriel Hetland, Jacobin, 2015

7 more annotations...

• An open letter to Bernie Sanders about Hugo Chavez

   

  September 17, 2015

     

   

  by Jonathan Nack

   

  Sent via U.S. mail and email

   

  Dear Sen. Bernie Sanders,

   

  I am shocked and I denounce your description of the late president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, as a “dead communist dictator.” I expect better from you, but perhaps I need to re-evaluate such expectations.

   

  I’m a longtime supporter going back to the days when you were running for re-election as mayor of Burlington, even though I live in Oakland, California. I’ve made a modest financial contribution to your current campaign and expressed support for your call to build a grassroots movement to take on the power of the billionaires and their corporations – what you’ve referred to as a “political revolution.”

   

  You’ve said that this is what your campaign is about. It was precisely such a stance that got Hugo Chavez elected and re-elected president of Venezuela.

• President Chavez was neither a communist nor a dictator. If you don’t know that, you should.

   

  Your use of the term “communist dictator” is code designed to pander to those who favor and justify U.S. intervention in Latin America and the Caribbean and around the world. U.S. intervention in the politics of other countries, including bloody military interventions, is an absolute disgrace.

• It has resulted in the needless suffering and death of millions. It resulted in the imposition and maintenance of real military dictatorships throughout Latin Americas and much of the world. Most of these military dictatorships have only been overcome by democratic movements in the last 25 years.

   

  It is the shameful history of U.S. intervention and how it is driven by the interests of billionaires and their corporations that you need to address, not denunciations of those who rise to leadership in their countries because of their opposition to it.

   

  I’m not going to get into a detailed defense of President Chavez. It is sufficient to say that it is a fact that Hugo Chavez was elected and re-elected president of Venezuela in what international observers, including former President Jimmy Carter, have described as basically free and fair elections. No dictator holds such elections. It is sufficient to say that Pres. Chavez identified himself as a socialist and specifically said that he was not a communist.

• President Chavez was neither a communist nor a dictator. If you don’t know that, you should.

   

  I do not rise to defend President Chavez against all criticism. All politicians and political leaders deserve to be criticized for the bad things they say and do, as well as praise for the good, including you.

   

  I am a socialist and a supporter of the Green Party. I stand for social justice, the protection of our environment and for real democracy. My donation to your campaign and the good things I’ve said and written about you are expressions of my support. This open letter is an expression of my criticisms.
• I have defended you against charges that you are not really a socialist, pointing out the fact that there are many types of socialists. Even though I am a more radical socialist than you, I think you have a right to label your politics and that right should be respected, as long as it is within reason. The legacy of President Chavez also deserves that respect.

• In general, I think you have failed to articulate foreign policy positions that distinguish you from those of Hillary Clinton, President Barack Obama or the leadership of the Democratic Party, all of whom are true advocates and instruments of the foreign policies driven by the interests of the billionaires and their corporations – in other words, U.S. imperialism.

   

  How is it that you attack the billionaires’ control of domestic policies but not the interventionist and militarist foreign policies which they also control? How is it that you oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership but not other imperialist policies?

   

  My parents taught me to be a critical thinker. Specifically, they taught me to pay attention to what politicians say, but also be aware that they often make promises that they have no intention nor ability to keep. They also taught me to never expect that politicians will do better than what they say they’ll do.

• I think you have a right to label your politics and that right should be respected, as long as it is within reason. The legacy of President Chavez also deserves that respect.

   

  With those lessons in mind, I will continue to praise and respond to your call to build a grassroots political movement to take power away from the billionaires and their corporations, but I have to denounce your support of U.S. imperialism, its wars, both overt and covert, the military industrial complex, the so called “Homeland Security” apparatus, and all interventions in the political affairs of other countries. These foreign policies are driven by the interests of the billionaires and their corporations, not the interests of our people, nor the people of the world.

   

  Sincerely yours,

   

  Jonathan Nack

   

  Oakland, California

• Here is the text of Bernie Sanders’ fundraising email:

   

  “I don’t have a Super PAC, Jonathan. I am not going to travel around the country begging millionaires and billionaires for money. That’s just not going to happen.

   

  “But the success of our campaign certainly has the billionaires’ attention.

   

  “Yesterday, one of Hillary Clinton’s most prominent Super PACs attacked our campaign pretty viciously. They suggested I’d be friendly with Middle East terrorist organizations, and even tried to link me to a dead communist dictator.

   

  “It was the kind of onslaught I expected to see from the Koch Brothers or Sheldon Adelson, and it’s the second time a billionaire Super PAC has tried to stop the momentum of the political revolution we’re building together.

   

  “They’ll keep trying … unless we make them pay a price for their attacks.

   

  “Make the Super PACs pay for attacking us by making a $100 contribution to our campaign today. Let’s send a powerful message that we have had ENOUGH of the billionaire class buying elections.

   

  “If we stand together to fight back against these ugly attacks, we can ensure this election is about who has the best ideas, and not who has the biggest donors.

   

  “They should not underestimate us.

   

  “Bernie Sanders”

6 more annotations...

• US Presidential Hopeful Bernie Sanders Slams Chávez in Reposte to Clinton Attack

   

  <!-- /#content-header -->   

     

          

    

    

               

  <!-- /#symbols -->   

    By Lucas Koerner

• Caracas, September 17, 2015 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Democratic presidential contender Bernie Sanders lashed out at the late Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez this week in response to a Clinton super PAC email linking him the late socialist leader.

   

  “Yesterday, one of Hillary Clinton’s most prominent Super PACs attacked our campaign pretty viciously,” the independent Vermont senator told his supporters in a campaign fundraising email.

   

  “They suggested I’d be friendly with Middle East terrorist organizations, and even tried to link me to a dead communist dictator,” the email continued, referring to Venezuela’s three time democratically-elected former president Hugo Chávez.

• The statement came in response to a email circulated on Monday by the pro-Hillary Clinton super Political Action Committee (PAC) Correct the Record, comparing Sanders to the newly elected head of Britain’s Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn.

   

  Following Sanders’ praise for the left-leaning Labour MP upon his victory this past Saturday, the Clinton campaign took aim at the self-proclaimed democratic socialist politician, seeking to link him with Corbyn’s “most extreme comments”.

   

  Corbyn has been branded a “national security threat” by UK Prime Minister David Cameron for his foreign policy postures, which include opposition to NATO and support for the “electoral democratic credentials” of Hugo Chávez’s Bolivarian Revolution.

• Breaking with its hitherto standing policy of refraining from criticizing Sanders, the Clinton campaign sought to draw links between the two anti-party establishment progressives, pointing to the Vermont independent’s role in negotiating a 2005 deal with the Bolivarian government to bring free and discounted home heating oil to the poor in northeastern US cities.

   

  However, Sanders’ distancing from Chávez, labeling him a “dead communist dictator” has caused disenchantment in some circles, who reject what they view as an offensive characterization of the immensely popular, democratically-elected late president, whose socialist government has won eighteen internationally recognized elections since 1998.

• “Venezuela has become . . . the bad guy. We’re the villain,” Venezuela’s chargé d’affaires in Washington, Maximilien Sanchez Arvelaiz, told reporters.

   

  In March, President Obama issued an executive order branding Venezuela a “national security threat” and imposing sanctions over unproven allegations of “human rights violations”.

   

  Sanders, who has surpassed Hillary Clinton in the Iowa and New Hampshire polls, has up until recently avoided issuing statements on US foreign policy, preferring to focus on confronting economic inequality.

• "For the left, Hugo Chavez is/was a reference,” Sanchez asserted, noting that Jeremy Corbyn recently won a landslide victory notwithstanding his public endorsement of the revolutionary Venezuelan leader and his democratic socialist project.

   

  Meanwhile, the Sanders campaign has made fresh statements in response to the Clinton attacks, further disavowing any links with Chávez.

   

  “To equate bringing home heating oil to low-income Vermonters with support for the Chavez government is dishonest,” Sanders spokesperson Michael Briggs told the Huffington Post.

4 more annotations...

• Argentina Reaches Debt Deal With 2 Hedge Funds

   

      

  By ALEXANDRA STEVENSON and JONATHAN GILBERTFEB. 5, 2016 

   

    Inside 

   

   

• Argentina has offered to pay $6.5 billion to a group of hedge funds holding bonds it defaulted on 14 years ago in a historic effort by the nation to put a bitter legal battle behind it.

  Montreux Partners and Dart Management, two of the hedge funds, have accepted the proposal, which would pay three-quarters of a $9 billion claim on defaulted bonds, according to emailed statements from Daniel A. Pollack, a court-appointed arbiter, and Argentina’s finance ministry.

  The news comes after a week of high-profile talks between senior Argentine government officials and principals at a group of holdout hedge funds, so named for their refusal to partake in Argentina’s debt restructurings after its 2001 default and who have sought billions in bond repayments, according to a statement from Mr. Pollack.

• Noticeably absent from the deal on Friday was NML Capital, a hedge fund owned by the billionaire Paul E. Singer, which has led the holdouts in years of litigation. Without the agreement of all six hedge funds, Argentina will continue to be locked out of international markets and foreign investment.

  “The negotiations were intense, but civil, and I am pleased to report that enormous progress has been made,” Mr. Pollack said.

  The legal fight has pitted a larger group of hedge funds against Argentina, a nation of about 43 million people. They have sought Argentina’s assets around the world, at one point seizing a navy ship in Ghana as collateral. At a low point of the standoff, neither side would talk to the other.

• Earlier this week, Argentina struck a deal to pay $1.35 billion to another group of holdouts — Italian investors who had held onto defaulted bonds, paving the way for an agreement with some of the hedge funds. The fact that Argentina has been able to settle with some of the holdout hedge funds could apply pressure on the remaining hedge funds to resolve the dispute.

  The legal battle harks back to 2001, when Argentina defaulted on billions of dollars in debt. Bondholders were given two chances to exchange the defaulted bonds for new, cheaper ones over the years, but some rejected the restructurings.

  “This litigation has gone on for nearly 15 years, since the original Argentine default of 2001, and the proposal by Argentina is a historic breakthrough, which, if the conditions mentioned above are met, will allow Argentina to return to the global financial markets to raise much needed capital,” Mr. Pollack said. He added that he hoped the other hedge funds and Argentina would be able to “resolve their differences” and also reach an agreement.

• Mauricio Macri, Argentina’s newly elected president, has pledged to resolve the dispute with the hedge funds as part of a broader plan to reform his nation’s economy.

  It is unclear how soon Argentina would complete the offer, which requires congressional approval. Argentina’s Congress does not reconvene from a summer recess until March 1, although Mr. Macri has called special sessions in the Senate for Feb. 11 to expedite his appointment of Supreme Court judges and other officials.

   

  Advertisement

   

   Continue reading the main story 

   

   

  Advertisement

   

   Continue reading the main story 

  If there is significant progress between the government and creditors over the proposal in the coming days, there is a chance the offer may also be debated during these special sessions, said Juan Cruz Díaz, a director at the Cefeidas Group, a political risk analysis firm in Buenos Aires.

• Mr. Macri does not have a majority in either the Senate or the lower house, but he was bolstered this week when a group of lawmakers once loyal to former President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, a political opponent of Mr. Macri, defected from her bloc in the lower house. They have promised to be collaborative, making Mr. Macri’s negotiations to pass pivotal legislation an easier task. Mr. Macri has also been maneuvering to gather cross-party support in the Senate.

  Dart Management could not be reached for comment. A spokesman for Elliott Management, which owns NML Capital, declined to comment. Michael Straus, a principal of Montreux Partners, said he had nothing to add to the publicly issued statements of the special master and the government of Argentina.

• Senators respond largely to the interests of state governors. Across the political spectrum, these governors are keen to increase funding by issuing their own debt in international markets, Mr. Díaz said. “I believe Macri is very close to securing congressional support for the offer,” he added.

  Twelve years ago, NML Capital sued Argentina seeking full repayment — principal and interest. In 2011, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled that whenever Argentina paid one group of bondholders, it would also have to pay the holdouts.

  The deal with New York creditors hit rock bottom under Ms. Kirchner, after the country defaulted on its debt again in 2014, after it failed to make a $539 million interest payment on newer discounted bonds.

• “Default is not a mere technical condition, but rather a real and painful event that will hurt real people,” Mr. Pollack said at the time, after failed attempts to get NML Capital and the administration of Ms. Kirchner to sit down together.

  The move left Argentina largely cut off from the international markets. Mr. Macri’s pledge helped usher in new talks and raised hopes for an agreement.

  In addition to senior government officials, Luis Caputo, Argentina’s finance secretary, traveled to Manhattan this week for the talks. It was not always apparent that a deal would emerge. To start, Mr. Macri promised to publicly announce a proposal for the hedge funds this week. But those holdouts had requested that Argentina sign a nondisclosure agreement to not to reveal the details of the negotiations publicly.

• Another sticking point for both sides has been just how much interest Argentina would be willing to pay to the hedge funds.

  Earlier this year, Argentina’s economic minister, Alfonso Prat-Gay, foreshadowed potential friction between the two parties. Speaking at a news conference with reporters in Buenos Aires, he estimated that the debt owed to holdout bondholders — including NML Capital and the Italian bondholders — totaled $20 billion, adding that 60 percent of that amount fell under New York jurisdiction.

  For holdout creditors who want Argentina to pay significantly more in interest than on the original amount of the debt owed, Mr. Prat-Gay said, “You’d perhaps have to go before Christ to get a such a big return.”

     

7 more annotations...

• 10.12.15
• Chavism Loses a Battle --
  Can It Recover and Rectify? 
   by Chris Gilbert 

  Chavism received a serious blow in the parliamentary elections this last Sunday, December 6. The strength of the blow is such that the movement is still reeling. The Venezuelan opposition, loosely organized in an electoral bloc called the Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD), achieved not just a majority of seats in the National Assembly but also the qualified majorities needed to call for referendums, initiate constitutional reform, and reorganize the judicial branch. The long-term consequences of this setback, which are likely grave and possibly disastrous, will depend on the Chavist movement's capacity to both maintain internal order and also renovate itself.
• Faced with these electoral results, President Nicolás Maduro has been among the first to call for self-critique and renovation in Chavism. This is something the late leader Hugo Chávez tried to launch with the “3Rs” campaign (Revision, Rectification, Re-impulsing) some five years ago. Yet serious self-criticism has always eluded the Bolivarian movement. More than an ethical issue, it is a problem of organization: who will critique whom and with what force? History has shown the difficulty in balancing democracy and centralism within the left's universally subscribed framework of democratic centralism. Effective critique usually comes only when a new internal force emerges, such as the Chinese Red Guards of the mid-1960s, typically supported by some fraction of the old guard. No such thing has ever happenned in Chavism.
• Self-criticism also has to face facts and interpret them without prejudice. The key fact is that Sunday's well-attended election's saw two million more voters opting for the opposition bloc than for Chavism. Is this because, as President Maduro has said, there is an "economic war" against Venezuela and against his government? At best the explanation is partial. An economic war, such as the ones carried out against Salvador Allende's Chile or Revolutionary Cuba, is not necessarily successful. If Cuba has resisted more than 50 years and with fewer resources, then the Venezuelan government's conduct facing its own economic war must be erroneous. The key factor is surely that, despite the government's constant alerts about economic aggressions, it has never proposed a coherent strategy to defeat them. That would mean clearly defining the enemy, locating its headquarters, and then organizing actions to attain a strategic victory.

• The fact that Maduro has proposed no such strategy is likely the main reason that so many working-class voters, including those in historically Chavist sectors such as the famed 23 Enero barrio of Caracas, voted against Chavism last Sunday. The Venezuelan people have shown their resilience and loyalty in situations that were far more grueling such as the Oil Stoppage of 2002-3, but when there is no end in sight because the leadership lacks a strategic plan, then it is almost impossible for leaders to preserve credibility and followers to maintain faith.

   During the upcoming year, Venezuela's serious economic problems, which are structural and have much to do with the global economic crisis, will continue, despite the Democratic Roundtable's false promises that voting in their favor would lead to a rapid resolution. This means that 2016 will be marked by a discursive battle over who is responsible -- in a split-power situation -- for the persistence of the economic difficulties. Here Chavism will start out with a disadvantage, since as the recent voting result indicates, it is presently held responsible. Yet as the opposition's false promises come to light -- along with its internal division and incoherence, to say nothing of its profoundly fascist and genocidal tendencies -- it will come under greater scrutiny and criticism by the masses.

• Chavism will have to look to preserve its most treasured advances and legacies. These include the social programs and expanded democracy, which will all come under attack. Yet just as important are the ideas and the political example. These must not be allowed to be buried under the detritus of a hundred compromises and retreats, if the Chavist legacy is to continue inspiring people worldwide. The recent campaign saw Chavism engaging in miserable clientist practices (giving away phones and cars) and a fear campaign (“The right-wing will take your house and your computer”) that paradoxically resembled the opposition's anticommunist propaganda against Chávez in 2006-7. It should be remembered that the opposition and imperialism want not only to defeat Chavism on the ground but also to erase its legacy. The latter is best achieved through an involution of the movement, as happened when European socialist movements became first “social-democractic” and then neither socialist nor democratic. For that reason, Chavists should work to resist such degeneration, even at the risk of losing state power. 

   

  ---

   Chris Gilbert is professor of Political Science at the Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela.

4 more annotations...

• Venezuela President Gets Rare Live TV Criticism

   
   
  • By hannah dreier, associated press
   
  CARACAS, Venezuela — Jan 15, 2016

• In a stunning display of Venezuela's tense new political order, President Nicolas Maduro suffered through a long scolding from the head of the country's new opposition Congress Friday after presenting his state of the nation address.

   

   Congress leader Henry Ramos wagged his finger inches from the embattled president's head in a rebuttal that was broadcast live across the South American country — unprecedented media access for an opponent of the country's socialist revolution.

   

   It had already been a night of firsts. Neither Maduro nor his predecessor the late President Hugo Chavez ever had to contend with a hostile audience for their state of the nation speeches. Critics of the administration took control of the institution last week for the first time in 17 years.

• Maduro himself had mostly bad news to share.

   

   Hours earlier, the Central Bank released key economic data for the first time in more than a year, showing an economy in shambles and for the first time acknowledging what analysts have long said: That annualized inflation has surged into triple digits.

   

   Maduro described the numbers as "catastrophic" and devoted most of his three-hour speech to what he called a "monstrous attack" on the economy by business owners and other foes of the leftist government.

   

   In his rebuttal, Ramos took a professorial tone as he laid out the opposition's view that Maduro himself is responsible for the crisis.

   

   "If you don't want to hear this, close your ears or leave," he warned as Maduro sipped from a coffee cup and checked his watch in the next chair.

   

   "If you give in to the desire to have more and more bolivars with the same number of dollars, your bolivars are going to lose value," Ramos said, referring to the country's plummeting currency.

• The sight of an opposition leader lecturing the president on a live television feed all networks were required to carry shocked even ardent supporters of the sharp-tonged new congressional leader. Maduro rarely exposes himself to questions from independent reporters, much less questioning from political opponents. And few broadcast networks carry opposition events.

   

   Maduro had taken an unusually conciliatory tone in his address, calling for dialogue even as he warned the opposition that it could easily get overconfident and lose the next election. He also vowed to block one of its key initial projects: Giving people who live in government housing the title to their homes.

   

   "No, no and no, we will not permit it," Maduro said during one of the most dramatic moments of his speech. "You'll have to get rid of me first."

   

   The opposition has pledged to do just that, issuing a six-month deadline to hold a recall election.

• Maduro mentioned in passing that his newly appointed Vice President Aristobulo Isturiz had spoken this week with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden and a high-ranking U.S. diplomat.

   

   Ahead of his speech, Maduro declared an economic emergency giving him 60 days to unilaterally enact sweeping reforms. He later hand-delivered the decree to the head of Congress to be debated next week, but it's not clear that the government will wait for approval to enforce it.

   

   Venezuela, which has the world's largest oil reserves, has suffered enormously as the price of oil has crashed from above $90 a barrel two years ago to just $24 today. Analysts say that means Venezuela is dangerously close to just breaking even on the oil it produces, which accounts for 95 percent of export earnings.

   

   The country's economy contracted by 7.1 percent during the quarter that ended in September 2015, and inflation reached 141.5 percent, according to the new Central Bank data.

   

   Maduro echoed many Venezuelans' fears Friday when he said he hoped the coming year would see peace, "not senseless violence that could lead anywhere."

3 more annotations...

• 15 January 2016
• Housing in Venezuela Could Be About to Get Bad, Really Bad    

      

   

   

  0

      + 

   

       

                

  Venezuela's housing situation could be about to get worse. Much worse, if the new right-wing National Assembly gets its way. Among the first concrete demands to emerge from the right-wing has been a call for people who have received housing to also receive property deeds. Just days after the new National Assembly began being sworn in, the proposal was presented on January 12 by Julio Borges, from the majority right-wing coalition, the Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD).        
•      

                

  Borges has claimed this major reform to public housing would basically be a “democratization of property,” giving residents greater control over their lives. Borges and other advocates of the reform claim it will stimulate construction in the housing sector, easing the housing problems in many of Venezuela's major cities.               

  None of this is even vaguely true.               

  Venezuela's Housing Problem               

  First of all, it's important to note that Venezuela's housing program is quite unique. The housing units Borges wants to hand over to residents were all constructed under the Great Venezuelan Housing Mission (GMVV). The initiative has long been one of the flagship social missions of the socialist government, with poor families being prioritized for getting their own homes.               

  The housing mission began as a disaster relief program, but has since emerged as pillar of government efforts to alleviate Venezuela's housing problems.               

• Almost all of Venezuela's major cities have been facing housing shortages for decades. Indeed, among the first sights that hits most visitors to Caracas are the barrios – shanty towns crawling up the hillsides of the city's peripheries. These barrios had become a permanent fixture of the capital by the 1980s, when poor Venezuelans from the countryside flocked to the city in search of work. These poverty stricken rural migrants were totally priced out of Caracas' housing market, forcing them into substandard dwellings. The situation has dramatically improved in recent years, but the housing market is still a major source of frustration for ordinary Venezuelans. There is a severe shortage of rental properties in many cities including Caracas, and average prices there are now above the minimum wage. Even middle class Venezuelans can struggle to find decent, affordable homes.               

  Given these circumstances, it's no surprise the Housing Mission has been extremely popular.               

  Through the mission, residents are given low cost homes under a permanent lease system. The houses are built by the state and / or local communes and communal councils. The residents own the home permanently to live in, but are generally barred from sale.               

• What is the MUD Proposing?               

  The MUD's proposal would effectively allow these residents to easily sell the homes they were given by the state. The suggestion is certainly an unusual one: how many countries can you think of where public housing residents can sell those houses?               

  In the Venezuelan context, there's a good reason why residents aren't currently entitled to sell their homes: the spectre of speculation. After the 2008 global financial crisis, the risks associated with unbridled speculation in the housing sector should be abundantly clear. Assuming the supply of housing remains relatively stable, it's also a no brainer that deregulation of public housing will lead to an increase in housing prices, as some residents will seek to cash in on their new property deeds. Of course, the vast majority of housing mission homeowners are unlikely to sell their homes anytime soon. In a high inflation economy like Venezuela, people tend to prefer investing their savings in assets that won't lose value as fast as the currency. For example, Venezuela is one of the few countries where buying a car is actually a half-decent investment decision, as even vehicles lose value slower than the currency. Naturally, housing is even more desirable as an investment than a car.               

• Further, those awarded housing actually really need it. The priority system, while imperfect, gives priority to single mothers with children and other families with children who don’t have their own home, to people living in high-risk housing – such as on steep slopes that are liable to collapse, and to people living under tin roofs or without basic services like running water.               

  The claim that deregulating state built housing will lead to lower property prices also makes very little sense. This claim largely rests on Borges' belief that deregulation will somehow lead to faster construction.               

  It's hard to see how this will happen overnight. Venezuela's private sector productivity has been weighed down for decades by Dutch Disease, and isn't likely to suddenly explode anytime soon. But for argument's sake, let's assume the MUD somehow manages to stimulate the construction sector overnight. Even then, building more houses probably won't help much. Increasing supply of products used for speculative investment doesn't always reduce consumer prices. For evidence of this, look no further than Australia's housing market.               

• The Australian Comparison               

  For years, Australia's housing market has seen both a construction and investment boom, alongside soaring prices and dwindling home ownership for ordinary Australians. According to a 2014 International Monetary Fund report, Australia now has the world's third highest housing prices. In the country's largest city, Sydney, housing prices surged five times faster than average wages in 2013 and 2014, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The reason for the simultaneous increases in both supply and prices was due to a problem that many Venezuelans should immediately recognize: speculation.               

  As Kate Shaw from the University of Melbourne told housing website Domain, prices kept going up due to “infinite demand.”               

  “Speculative property investment … is creating extraordinary churn. We are buying, selling, demolishing, rebuilding, selling, buying more than ever before, and this is pushing up prices,” Shaw explained in mid 2015.               

  Since then, housing prices have begun to stabilize, but not because the country finally built enough houses to satisfy infinite demand. Instead the slowdown was precipitated largely by new regulatory measures.               

• More Housing Doesn't Mean Cheaper Houses               

  Broadly speaking, the differences between Venezuelan and Australian housing markets are like night and day, but the Australian experience clearly shows that construction booms don't necessarily lead to cheaper housing. While increased supply can reduce costs, it doesn't always, especially in conditions where chronic speculation has taken hold. Venezuela is an economy rife with speculative business practices. This is a country where unscrupulous businesspeople routinely hoard all kinds of consumer products for speculation. People buy basic products like cooking oil while they're cheap and plentiful, only to sell them at inflated prices when supply dwindles. The real kicker here is that these hoarders play a role in exacerbating supply problems in the first place, by purchasing in bulk before ordinary Venezuelans can get their fill. It's hard to believe these same people wouldn't take advantage of a deregulated housing market to hoard newly available state built homes – just like they currently hoard everything from canned sardines to spare vehicle parts.               

• Will Reform Hurt the Broader Economy?               

  In short, deregulation of state housing will have no positive impact on Venezuela's housing market, even if the MUD can snap its fingers and end decades of low private sector productivity and varying inflation. A more likely scenario is that deregulation will lead to more speculation in the housing market, pushing up prices and gouging consumers. Poor Venezuelans that are currently struggling to pay their rent will be at risk of being forced back into substandard housing, and middle class families will see a decline in disposable income.               

  This, in turn, will deal a major blow to one of the cornerstones of Venezuela's economic development over the past decade: effective demand. One of the few things that everyone on all sides of the political spectrum can agree on is the simple fact that throughout the 2000s, Venezuelan effective demand (the amount of cash Venezuelans are spending on stuff) has been on the rise. Once poverty stricken rural migrants moved towards the middle income, and began supporting businesses by purchasing more than they needed for basic survival. However, increased housing prices will inevitably harm effective demand elsewhere in the economy. When Venezuela eventually recovers from its current economic downturn, consumer demand should have a role to play. However, if consumers have already had their hands tied by a speculative housing market, this could harm prospects of an economic recovery.               

• The Sad, Sad Irony               

  The reason behind the calls for housing reform appear fairly straight forward: the notion of handing out property deeds is widely seen as a vote winner. After all, who doesn't want a free house that can be sold? The irony of this shouldn't be lost, though. For years, the MUD has accused Venezuela's socialist governments of Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro of pursuing populist policies that have undermined the economy. Then, as one of their first moves in power in the National Assembly, the MUD has sought to undermine an economic policy that almost everyone agrees has been hugely beneficial. It's hard to escape the fact that the MUD is seeking to sacrifice Venezuela's economic interests purely to boost poll figures. It's astoundingly ironic, but by no means a joke. state housing reform could be a disaster for ordinary Venezuelans.                   

8 more annotations...

• Venezuela Opposition Leader: Image Made Simon Bolivar ‘Mulato’
• 15 January 2016 (
• The portraits of liberator Simon Bolivar and former President Hugo Chavez were removed from parliament by opposition leader Henry Ramos Allup's orders.

      

             

  Venezuelan opposition leader and National Assembly head Henry Ramos Allup said Friday that his political rivals had tried to make South American independence leader Simon Bolivar “mulatto” in the portrait previously hung in the National Assembly.            

  Ramos Allup, who ordered the removal of portraits of Bolivar and former President Hugo Chavez from the hall after taking over as National Assembly president early this month, justified the removal saying that there should be no images of former leaders in the parliament.            

  He added that if Bolivar is featured, it should be a traditional depiction of the liberator and not a “darkened” version as he claims the portrait was. The portrait was a 3-D reconstructed image of Bolivar created in 2012 based on a study of the liberator’s remains.            

• Hundreds of Venezuelans protested the removal of the portraits and condemned the move as disrespectful.            

  Bolivar is a key symbol of Venezuela’s socialist Bolivarian Revolution, launched by Chavez with the namesake of the South American liberator. Like most Venezuelans, he was of mixed Indigenous and European descent.            

  ANALYSIS: Tackling Racism In Venezuela to Build a Society of Equals            

  Over half of Venezuela’s population is mixed race, around one-fifth is of European ancestry, one-tenth of African origin, and about 2 percent from indigenous groups. Despite that diversity, Venezuela’s oil wealth and power structures were long dominated by a minority, and mainly white, elite.            

  Hugo Chavez was the first president in Venezuela's history to claim his Indigenous and African ancestry and championed policies to counter racism and honor African descendent heritage in the country.              

• Overcoming long-held structural racism remains a challenge in Venezuela.            

  In October, Ramos Allup criticized the government’s decision to replace a monument of Christopher Columbus in Caracas with a statue of famed historic Indigenous chief Guaicaipuro. The replacement of the monument was meant to be a reclamation of history to honor those that resisted colonization, instead of the colonizers, as was also done in Argentina.            

  Ramos Allup vowed to take down the Guaicaipuro if the opposition won the National Assembly, a promise President Nicolas Maduro slammed as racist.            

  Ramos Allup has said the main priority of the right-wing controlled assembly will be to oust President Nicolas Maduro within six months            

3 more annotations...

• Opinion       

   

  WikiLeaks Reveal What the US Really Thinks of Henry Ramos Allup

     

        

    <!--<a class="her">    </a>--> 

         

                  By: Eva Golinger
• Published 6 January 2016
• Henry Ramos Allup is described as "rude," "repellent" and always "asking for money" in a secret U.S. document.

• In a document classified as secret by the U.S. Embassy in Caracas, Venezuela, Ambassador William Brownfield had strong words about the newly elected president of Venezuela’s National Assembly, Henry Ramos Allup. “Accion Democratica’s main problem has a name: Henry Ramos Allup," the document reads. Brownfield, who was ambassador to Venezuela from 2004-2007 called Ramos Allup "crude, abrasive, arrogant and thin-skinned“.            

  The secret embassy cable was sent on April 17, 2006, eight months before the presidential elections in Venezuela that resulted in the reelection of Hugo Chavez. During the previous year, Ramos Allup had led opposition calls for abstention in the parliamentary elections that took place in December 2005. Brownfield stressed in his text that "Ramos Allup has become perhaps the most vocal advocate of electoral abstention ... Ramos Allup said those who advocated participation in the December 2006 presidential elections would be voting 'with their pants around their ankles. " He has disparaged those who have declared themselves as candidates.”            

• It’s ironic that the same electoral process Ramos Allup boycotted and denigrated in 2005 has today enabled him to lead parliament.            

  Accion Democratica, one of the traditional political parties in Venezuela known for corruption, clientelism and neoliberalism has been a major recipient of international financing, violating Venezuelan law that prohibits foreign financing of political parties in the country. Ambassador Brownfield criticized Ramos Allup's reliance on international support. In a section of the secret document entitled "Solve Our Problems For Us," Brownfield wrote, “Rather than court Venezuelan voters, Ramos Allup’s principal political strategy has been to seek help from the international community." Brownfield also revealed that representatives of Accion Democratica (AD) "have explicitly and repeatedly sought funds and favors from the Embassy. When refused by one Embassy official, they ask another."            

  In his text, Brownfield cites a specific example:            

• “AD first vice president, Victor Bolivar, who solicited funding from political officer (poloff) organized a meeting in December 2005 with the political counselor (PolCouns) to make the same pitch. When PolCouns changed the subject, Bolivar and his fellow AD officials made the same long, detailed request in English, in case poloff did not understand."            

  Ambassador Brownfield then recalled more examples of AD’s constant requests for money and favors from the US government: "Former AD National Assembly deputy Pedro Pablo Alcantara calls and visits the Embassy regularly with requests for visas, scholarships for friends, etc. He calls different sections of the embassy if he does not receive what he requests."            

• Although Henry Ramos Allup has only been the new president of the National Assembly of Venezuela for two days, his authoritarian tendencies are clear. Ramos Allup already flagrantly violated a decision by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ) regarding the election of three legislators from Amazonas state, swearing them into office while the election results are still under review. The opposition leader has also abruptly shut off the microphones of socialist legislators, removed the paintings of Simon Bolivar and Hugo Chavez from the National Assembly grounds and has indicated that his main objective is ousting President Maduro within the next six months.            

  His dictatorial propensity is well known by the US government. Ambassador Brownfield underlined that Ramos Allup "does not support alternative views ... Not only is AD extremely vertically organized, it is also dictatorial."            

  Finally, Brownfield referred to Ramos Allup in his secret cable, which was sent to the US Secretary of State, the US Southern Command and over a dozen US Embassies in Latin America and the United Nations, as "delusional" and "a relic of the past".            

• Unfortunately for Venezuela, it’s a past that has returned to haunt the present.            

  Despite full knowledge of Henry Ramos Allup’s dictatorial and anti-democratic intentions, the State Department congratulated the new “democratic” National Assembly of Venezuela and its "important role advancing and promoting a national dialogue." Far from promoting dialogue, what Ambassador Brownfield described in his cable indicates that Henry Ramos Allup's National Assembly will further divide and destabilize Venezuela.            

  It’s not new for Washington to support dictatorships and authoritarian governments and leaders in Latin America, so long as they serve US interests and are subordinate to US agenda. Through USAID and NED, the US government has invested millions of dollars in Henry Ramos Allup’s party and his opposition coalition. Never mind if he’s a "delusional", "repellent" and "crude" dictator, because he’s Washington delusional, repellent and crude dictator.            

  The secret document published by Wikileaks can be found here.

6 more annotations...

• Venezuela has changed, and so should U.S. policy

    Vanessa Marcano-Kelly  11:07 p.m. CDT March 29, 2015

• America’s foreign policy reached a new low recently as President Barack Obama invoked emergency powers to declare “a national emergency with respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by the situation in Venezuela.”

  U.S. interference in Venezuela’s affairs has further strained an already troubled diplomatic relationship harking back to the Bush era. Washington has spent political capital it earned by improving relations with Cuba by supporting right-wing protesters behind the anti-government riots in Venezuela in 2013, a tragedy that took the lives of 43 Venezuelan citizens, mostly police and government supporters.

• While Venezuela has historically struggled with corruption, it has taken swift steps in prosecuting security personnel for human rights abuses, acknowledging the need to reform police training and combat corruption within the force. Washington’s altruistic pretenses towards Venezuela are suspicious given U.S. aid to the regimes of Honduras and Mexico, which have engaged in systematic human rights violations. While all human rights abuses merit attention, the Obama administration’s selective indignation aimed at Caracas, and lack of criticism of violent anti-government demonstrations, raises questions about the motives of the U.S. towards Venezuela.

  How would police forces in Iowa react if protesters burned government buildings, hospitals, buses and schools? Would there be sympathy for protesters blocking transit with trash and burning tires? It is unlikely police would show the leniency afforded violent protesters in Venezuela.
• Does Venezuela threaten U.S. national security? Venezuela isn’t at war and hasn’t been since gaining independence from Spain. Venezuela was chosen by Latin American and Caribbean nations to represent the region as a non-permanent member of the U.N. Security Council and has been helping mediate talks between Bogota and the FARC rebels in Colombia to bring the longest-running civil war in the hemisphere to a negotiated solution.
• Venezuela has provided discounted heating fuel to low-income Americans in the northeast and to 26 states in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and since, Citgo and Venezuela donated a half-billion dollars in oil. In 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry boasted, at the Organization of American States in Washington, that the time when the U.S. imposed its will on Latin American countries, as in the 19th century, had ended and he celebrated a new “inter-American partnership.” Two years later, we are treated to a cruel spectacle of hostile language towards Venezuela, a Catholic developing nation of 30 million, whose passion and love for baseball matches the enthusiasm Americans show for this sport.
• Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s support comes not from violent terrorists, but from the largely excluded poor who now have access to housing, nutrition, health care and education. Times are hard for them, too, but they prefer the ballot box as the means of settling political differences. The Venezuelan Electoral Commission and its fully automated electoral system have a solid record and are second to none, with even former President Jimmy Carter praising it as “the best in the world.”
• All political parties are using the commission to run their primaries, establishing both its credibility and transparency. Polls in Venezuela show that most oppose extra-constitutional regime change and prefer the democratic process to deal with differences. It is critical to note that campaigns for legislative seats in Venezuela’s National Assembly are beginning, and these elections, which include opposition candidates, do not pose a threat to America. As established in the constitution, the opposition can trigger a referendum in 2016 to try recalling the president.

• America can benefit from a new partnership with Latin America, but it must be based on mutual respect for sovereignty, not “arm twisting” to impose disadvantageous trade practices. Obama’s announcement creates economic uncertainty and alienates American business interests in the region. Iowans can help put a stop to this by contacting legislators about this ill-advised policy, which will cost American taxpayers and drown economic development in the region.

  VANESSA MARCANO-KELLY is a native of Venezuela who has lived in Iowa for three years. Contact: vanessacarolinamarcano@gmail.com.

6 more annotations...

• Capriles slammed in Venezuela for rejecting "The Solution" of Leopoldo Lopez

     

    Published December 26, 2015

  EFE

• "When I read that Capriles says the new National Assembly (legislature) should forget about starting 'The Solution, part 2' because it's one of the great national flops, I say thanks be to God he's just a state governor and not one of the brave new lawmakers," the father of Leopoldo Lopez told reporters.

  Capriles, governor of the central state of Miranda, has said, since the opposition won the legislative elections last Dec. 6, that its priority must now be to deal with the economic crisis to avoid a "social explosion" and only secondly bother about the political diatribe against Maduro.

  If "The Solution" and the "guarimbas" (barricades) promoted by Lopez had been pursued, "we wouldn't have won the victory of last Dec. 6," is the repeated observation of the former opposition candidate for president, defeated in October 2012 by the later deceased Hugo Chavez (1999-2013) and by Maduro in April 2013.
• The rejection by twice-presidential candidate Henrique Capriles of "The Solution," championed by imprisoned opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez as the form of political activism that should be waged against President Nicolas Maduro, has been slammed by the opposition in general and particularly by Lopez's father.

• The opposition won at the beginning of this month 112 of the 167 seats in the National Assembly, and next Jan. 5 will elect for the first time in over 15 years a speaker opposed to the so-called Bolivarian Revolution of Chavez and Maduro.

  The father of Leopoldo Lopez expressed his hope that Henry Ramos Allup, another anti-Chavista politician distanced from Capriles, will preside over the Assembly.

  Sentenced to almost 14 years in jail for arson, incitement and criminal association as a result of the violence that left three people dead at the end of a march he led as part of "The Solution" on Feb. 12, 2014, Lopez promotes the struggle against Maduro "on all fronts."

• "The Solution" left an official result of 43 dead in the first six months of 2014 and a rift between Lopez and Capriles that is echoed by divisions in the opposition leadership following the elections three weeks ago as the Christmas season approached.

  "I have decided to confront this dictatorship on all fronts, legitimately protesting in the streets and in elections and on moral grounds," Lopez told the America Group of Daily Newspapers this week from the military prison where he has been locked up since February 2014. EFE

3 more annotations...

• Venezuela responde a Macri y le recuerda que es una nación líder en DD.HH.
• 21 diciembre 2015
• La canciller Delcy Rodríguez ratificó que en su nación existen poderes públicos que deben ser respetados por la comunidad internacional. 

      

                   

  La canciller venezolana, Delcy Rodríguez rechazó las declaraciones injerencistas del presidente de Argentina, Mauricio Macri, quien abogó por la liberación de los responsables de los actos violentos que se registraron en Venezuela durante 2014 y que dejaron un saldo de 43 fallecidos.                  

  "Usted está haciendo injerencismo sobre los asuntos de Venezuela", aseveró Rodríguez durante la XLIX Cumbre del Mercado Común del Sur (Mercosur) que se desarrolla en Paraguay.                  
• La ministra de Relaciones Exteriores explicó ante los presentes que entre las personas a las que Macri defiende se en encuentra Leopoldo López, y un grupo de personas que organizaron las conocidas guarimbas en las que se que se usaron bazucas, incendiaron sedes de instituciones gubernamentales y centros de servicios públicos y atentaron contra el acceso de los venezolanos al servicio de alimentación y educación.
• Con relación a esto y a las pretensiones de injerencia de Macri, la representante de Venezuela destacó que en su país existen poderes públicos que deben ser respetados por la comunidad internacional, las cuales actuaron dentro del marco de la ley a la hora de juzgar a los que hoy se encuentran en prisión.

• La funcionaria venezolana resaltó que existe el derecho a la autodeterminación de los pueblos y que en su nación prevalece el respeto a los derechos humanos.                   

  Asimismo, expresó su sorpresa por la reciente imputación de la presidenta de Madres de Plaza de Mayo, Hebe de Bonafini, por llamar a la manifestación pacífica en contra del gobierno de Macri.                  

  Recordó además los crímenes que han quedado sin resolver desde la dictadura argentina.                   

• Vea aquí→ Macri atenta contra Venezuela y pide pactar con la UE                   

  "Si nosotros vamos a hablar de derechos humanos de forma franca como lo pidió el presidente Macri, tenemos que hacerlo sin doble estándar y sin doble moral, tenemos que hacerlo con sinceridad. No podemos hablar de derechos humanos para defender a los violentos causantes de hechos de naturaleza terrorista, y para criminalizar o penalizar las protestas sociales", sentenció la canciller.

• Seguidamente, añadió que desde su nación han propuesto que se acepte el acceso gratuito a la educación, a la salud y vivienda como un derecho humano fundamental.                  

  Aseguró también que en materia de derechos humanos “Venezuela es modelo hoy en el mundo, no existe país que tenga programas sociales como los que tiene Venezuela, por encima de las agresiones mediáticas”, concluyó.                  

• Crecimiento de la economía regional                  

  Durante su alocución, Rodríguez instó a las naciones del Mercosur a fortalecer la economía suramericana y la moneda local, más allá de apoyar las medidas extranjeras que perjudican a los países emergentes.                  

  La canciller venezolana invitó a los presentes a cuestionarse "¿por qué no hemos fortalecido el Banco del Sur pero estamos fortaleciendo organismos internacionales financieros que atentan directamente contra nuestros pueblos"?.                  

  Ante este escenario, invitó a los países miembros del Mercosur a complementar sus potencialidades económicas, comerciales y financieras en beneficio de los pueblos y no de las transnacionales.                  

  "Se trata de empoderar al pueblo. El poder político en manos del pueblo ejerciendo directamente el poder (...) La complementariedad de nuestras potencialidades económicas, comerciales, financieras en beneficio de nuestros pueblos, no de transnacionales. Dos modelos están presentes acá", expuso.                  

• Indicó que la debacle de los precios petroleros, entre otros aspectos de la economía nacional e internacional, no debe ser utilizado como excusa para recurrir a los modelos neoliberales, que han hecho daño a los pueblos.                  

  Lea también→ Evo Morales: América Latina debe ser vista como mercado por excelencia

8 more annotations...

• Basic Goods 'Suspiciously' Begin to Appear in Venezuela Stores
• People on social media are denouncing the right-wing opposition for being behind a U.S.-backed economic war on Venezuela.

      

             

  In 1970, U.S. President Richard Nixon ordered the CIA to make the “Chilean economy scream,” a conspiracy to overthrow the first democratically elected socialist government of Latin America that was accompanied by disappearing basic products from the shelves of stores across the country.            

  The same plan was implemented against Venezuela. And the fact that after the Dec. 6 victory of the right-wing opposition, according to many social media users in Venezuela, basic products are beginning to appear in stores throughout the South American nation, suggests that the right-wing opposition, backed by the U.S., implemented the same plan.            

• And as it happened in Chile after the CIA-backed coup and murder of socialist President Salvador Allende Sep. 11, 1973, basic products have begun to appear on the shelves of stores in Venezuela.            

  Through social media, people in Venezuela have begun to denounce the suspicious reappearance of some staple goods in some markets following the Dec. 6 elections.            
• The social media users have indicated that the sudden reappearance of these goods and the fact that they have expired dates on them expose that there have been no issues with production, but rather with distribution, which many right-wing business people control.

• ​They also said the reappearance of certain products is evidence of the economic war the U.S. and the political opposition in Venezuela launched to destabilize the country and which was denounced on many occasions by the socialist government of President Nicolas Maduro.            

  The reactions on social media have included photos of the reappearance of previously “missing” products and demands to the government asking them to take the necessary legal measures against those responsible for hoarding and the economic war.            

• ​In some tweets, social media users note the link between food company Heinz and the economic war, as the U.S. food processing firm announced it would begin production again after months of inactivity.            

  Recently, Maduro ordered an investigation into Heinz after workers at the company's plant in the central state of Carabobo reported that although the food processor was fully operational, the owners were refusing to produce certain goods.            

• On Saturday, the leader of the Heinz workers' union, Hernan Garcia, said that after various months of failed attempts to sign a collective contract with the company on Dec. 9 they finally achieved their objectives and that they would begin working again.            

  This fact has been considered by many Venezuelans as evidence that Heinz participated in the economic war.            

  Street vendor Rene Holanda commented on teleSUR that the opposition has always resorted to “punishing the stomach of the people to blame the government for shortages. But also the gringos (U.S. government) have blocked the commercialization of raw materials and products.”            

  Most comments regarding the reappearance of basic foods blame the United States for interfering in Venezuela and depriving the people of basic foods in order to push forward its political agenda, which is likely linked to the country's resources, such as oil.            

  “I don't believe the industrialists conspired alone against the Venezuelan people ... that help was more than likely from the United States,” said Silbano Pita.            

5 more annotations...

• Another law would “decentralize” public services, handing them over to local authorities and giving these the right to subcontract private service providers. The plan, according to the MUD, is to “suppress monopolies and reservations the state has made in the provision of public services to their detriment, ... with strategic partnerships with private or mixed companies by granting concessions.”            

  A third law in this area would open up concessions for large infrastructure projects to foreign investors and multilateral financing institutions. The socialist government worked hard to end these types of deals with outsiders to enhance sovereignty and what it sees as foreign intervention into domestic affairs, especially from the United States, which has a history of meddling in the region’s politics to protect its usually capital-based interests in the country.            

  RELATED: Venezuela Opposition Mayor Aims to Dismantle State Electricity Firm

• The MUD specifically mentions services such as roads, water supply, garbage collection, ports and airports, for which it plans to “allow and encourage multilateral funding, which would be repaid by exploiting concessions, private companies associated with the state, to develop large-scale projects and the high investment necessary for the (services’) best performance.”            

  Venezuela’s very real crime problem, which the MUD’s document calls “one of the most serious problems facing everyday citizens in Venezuela,” would be tackled, according to the MUD plan, by giving more power to municipal and state police forces, which are often controlled by opposition local governments. In 2002, it was municipal police in Caracas that played a key role in the failed U.S.-backed coup attempt against then President Hugo Chavez, who had begun a socialist revolution three years earlier.            

  OPINION: Venezuela's Incoming Parliamentary Opposition Is the Only Hope, by Romain Migus            

  In terms of the media, the opposition majority in the National Assembly proposes a law to “end hegemony” in the public media and ensure the “independence” of those in charge of those media outlets.            

  OPINION: The Media Battle a Resurgent Right Wing in Latin America, by Joe Emersberger            

  The MUD claims these changes, which were originally approved by in the constitution by the public, will lead to “a better quality of life.”            

1 more annotation...

• Venezuelan Election Results: The Electoral System and Democracy
• By Arnold August

   

  Global Research, December 12, 2015

• The December 6, 2015 election resulted in a clear victory of the opposition over the Bolivarian alliance led by the Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela (PSUV). The opposition won 112 seats, obtaining votes from 67.7% of the approximately 74% of the electorate who voted. The Bolivarian coalition won 55 seats and garnered 42% of the votes. This provides the opposition with one more seat than the minimum 111 needed to be declared a full majority. The 112-seat block holds 20 seats more than a simple majority. This status provides the opposition with the control of the unicameral National Assembly.

   

  By obtaining two-thirds of the National Assembly (NA), the opposition may approve organic laws, propose reforms and make constitutional amendments, to replace members of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, the National Electoral Board and other public authorities, but only with the approval of other legal bodies. The NA, to be installed in January 2016, must comply with its powers already enshrined in the Constitution. The system of Venezuela is not parliamentary, but mixed, as there are checks and balances between the five branches of government. The Assembly cannot remove other powers, even with the backing of a two-thirds majority, if there is not a previous ruling by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, from the Citizens’ Power or the authority established for each case. Nor can the NA legislate against the principle known as improving human rights, which states that the rights are improved or left untouched, but never removed or limited.

• This is the second time in the 20 elections held since the 1998 election of Hugo Chávez that the Chavista forces have lost. There was peaceful voting at the polls on December 6. This was followed by the results and the immediate acceptance of them by Nicolás Maduro. The respect for the results was never in doubt. What does this show? It indicates once again that the Venezuelan electoral system is not only fair but one of the best in the world. It provides proof for the world to view the electoral system as being solid and transparent. In this sense, it is a so-called “victory”; it is, however, a pyrrhic one.

   

  This is because, it seems, one cannot declare that it was victory for democracy. The electoral system as mainly a legal process is one thing, while the concept of democracy is something else. Democracy cannot be assessed in the abstract. Democracy in the Venezuelan context means the political power of the people in a Venezuela that is sovereign and independent in the face of US imperialist attempts to gain control of the country of Bolívar once again. Who and what forces represent this people’s political power? It is the political alliance led by the PSUV. Most importantly, people’s power springs from the concept that political power resides in the hands of the people as enshrined in the Constitution: “Sovereignty resides untransferably in the people [cannot be transferred], who exercise it directly in the manner provided for in this Constitution and in the law, and indirectly, by suffrage, through the organs exercising Public Power. The organs of the State emanate from and are subject to the sovereignty of the people” (article 5). Thus, the situation is very complex both for the opposition and the Bolivarian revolutionary forces.

• Taking this into account, democracy today is based on the approximately 42% of the electorate. It voted, in general, to continue the Bolivarian Revolution. Moreover, voting day is for the Bolivarian force just one day in their daily ongoing struggle for their social, economic, cultural and political rights for the poor and others. Voting day is just a part of the participatory democracy that Venezuelan leaders from Chávez to Maduro have been striving to develop. In fact, it is successful to the extent that the new experiments in participatory democracy in Venezuela constitute a basis for its further development, even since December 6. This is so despite the shortcomings the new situation has to face. It still offers lessons to other countries as well.

   

  However, this force in favour of people’s power or democracy lost to those who seek to turn the clock back on recent Venezuelan history since December 1998. As such, it was a major defeat for democracy. The opposition is fiercely against the Bolivarian Revolution and in favour of the Venezuelan oligarchy and further US penetration and control. This is in flagrant violation of democracy. Yet, the opposition easily won.

• Nevertheless, the democratic force of millions of Venezuelan revolutionaries has become, and is today, a material force. Under certain conditions, consciousness can be converted into a material force. It does not consist merely of ideas. Even though its numbers have drastically fallen, it is still a solid force despite being the minority. Many of those inside and outside of Venezuela who support the Bolivarian Revolution do not think very highly of those among the most disadvantaged sections of the society who voted for the opposition. This sentiment is understandable and justified.

   

  However, there is the other side of the coin. While important sections at the base were duped by the media war against the Chavistas, those who were not stood up very strongly and resisted the media terrorism. This highlights that those millions of Venezuelans, while now a minority, should be considered more solid than ever. They have to be appreciated more now than before December 6. Their December 6 option represents a heroic resistance to the all those Venezuelan and international forces that targeted the Bolivarian Revolution in an attempt to bury it. The revolution is not dead. December 6 is not even a nail in the coffin of the revolution.

• The Bolivarian Revolution as the bearer of democracy in Venezuela is a democracy in motion. It has its ups and downs. Although December 6 represents a serious downswing, it challenges the revolutionary forces to further innovate and improve the notion that sovereignty resides in the people and cannot be transferred. Its first task is to resist all attempts to roll back the gains of their revolution, as Maduro has pointed out. As for those who voted for the opposition, but should not have, they can also learn by the positive example of the democracy in motion in the streets, neighbourhoods, workplaces and educational institutes. This is bound to contrast with their experience alongside the opposition forces that now control the National Assembly.

   

  Compared to this compact material force, based on a clear ideology tempered in battle since 1998, what does the opposition represent today? It is a mixed bag of different outlooks and classes. This shaky coalition is based first and foremost on the determined efforts of the oligarchy and their ideology, which revolves around capitalism and dependence on the US. This is relatively solid and will not change significantly until they are eventually overthrown by the further development of the Bolivarian Revolution.

   

  On the other hand, the forces from the base that adhered so massively for the first time to the oligarchy on December 6 did so for a variety of reasons. They mainly stem from the economic war and its accompanying media war led by the US and its allies in Venezuela. These forces probably did not all vote to “punish” the Maduro government. Rather, many were animated by a general dissatisfaction resulting from the economic war. This materialized in a vague hope of seeking relief, for example, from the seven-hour lineups to obtain necessities at increasingly higher prices.

• This opportunist electoral alliance is no match in the long run for the forces of the Bolivarian Revolution. It has a huge responsibility at this time. There is, of course, the domestic situation. However, December 6 is also a direct challenge to maintaining, let alone further developing, the regional integration of Latin America and the Caribbean, one of the greatest legacies of Hugo Chávez. It is also a threat to international cooperation such as demonstrated by PetroCaribe, which is based on the use of the oil industry for the people of Venezuela and neighbouring countries. Given this, the results also defy the new developing multipolar world in resistance to the unipolar one led by the US.

   

  Can the Bolivarian Revolution successfully face up to these momentous domestic and international challenges? In the long run, yes. Seventeen years is a relatively short period in a revolution that is continuously developing. One cannot underestimate the Venezuelan base. After all, this incipient democracy in motion was largely responsible for defeating the 2002 US-inspired coup d’état against Hugo Chávez. He was brought back to power and democracy was reinstated in the main by the masses in the street.

   

  Arnold August, a Canadian journalist and lecturer, is the author of Democracy in Cuba and the 1997–98 Elections and, more recently, Cuba and Its Neighbours: Democracy in Motion. Cuba’s neighbours under consideration are the US, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. Arnold can be followed on Twitter @Arnold_August.

6 more annotations...

• Cracks Show in Venezuela's MUD
• 10 December 2015
• Venezuela's right-wing coalition is struggling to maintain unity in the wake of Sunday's elections.

      

             

  Venezuela's right-wing opposition was shaken by infighting Wednesday, just days after winning a majority in legislative elections.            

  In the latest volley of vitriol aimed within the right-wing MUD coalition, party leader of Democratic Action (AD) Henry Ramos accused former presidential candidate Henrique Capriles of running “his own (political) campaign.”            

  “It would be unheard of for us to disrespect the demands of the people ... after they have given us their confidence,” Ramos said, after he accused Capriles of failing to uphold the coalition's political priorities.            

• Capriles first sparked controversy when he failed to appear at the MUD's initial press conference responding to the results of Sunday's National Assembly election.            

  Then on Tuesday, he infuriated many on the right when he held his own news conference at the same time the MUD had called their own. The incident prompted the MUD to initially postpone their conference. When the official coalition talk began, Capriles' speech was suddenly pulled from the MUD's official YouTube stream—a move that grated on some Capriles supporters.            

  Capriles was once widely viewed as the de facto opposition leader, after running as the MUD's candidate in presidential elections in 2012 and 2013.            

• Since Sunday's election, Ramos has repeatedly called for opposition unity, though he himself has sparked his own public spats with other opposition personalities.            

  Earlier this week Ramos appeared to catch other MUD leaders off guard when he told CNN Spanish the coalition plans to gut the AN's broadcasting service, ANTV.            

  Other MUD figures quickly moved to downplay his remarks.            

  “ANTV won't be touched,” said Julio Borges, a MUD-aligned legislator.            

  The MUD has long been wracked by infighting, with individual personalities vying for dominance of the right-wing coalition of over two dozen parties.            

  The coalition is only just recovering from deep fractures caused by a wave of anti-government violence in 2014. While some sectors of the MUD supported the violence as a way to pressure President Nicolas Maduro to resign, others argued it could harm the right-wing's future electoral ambitions.                

3 more annotations...

• Maduro Calls for New Revolutionary Strategies
• Venezulean President Nicolas Maduro says the Bolivarian Revolution must formulate new political and economic strategies following his party’s recent electoral defeat. 

      

             

  Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro took time to address participants attending the country’s Community Congress Thursday in order to discuss strategies moving forward following his party’s defeat during the recent National Assembly elections.             

  During his address, Maduro emphasized the importance of addressing the country’s current economic woes by proposing to hold a popular economic congress next Wednesday, which will provide a platform for supporters and grassroots movements to formulate strategies to rectify the current economic challenges Venezuela is facing.            

  The Venezuelan leader took on a tone of self-reflection, calling on his party and supporters to examine the reasons behind the electoral defeat during the country’s parliamentary election last Sunday. The election saw the opposition Movement for Democratic Unity (MUD) win a super-majority in the National Assembly.            

• "We experienced a reversal. And we must respond by calling for an open debate in order to reevaluate, reformulate and present new strategies to advance the country’s political revolution in light of these circumstances,” Maduro stated.             

  Thursday’s Community Congress, organized by the ruling socialist Great Patriotic Pole coalition which includes Maduro’s PSUV party, saw hundreds of people from various social movements and collectives come together to reflect on the loss and to unite around an agenda to move the socialist movement forward in Venezuela and the rest of Latin America.            

1 more annotation...