Actualité - Chavez: US Slow Fuse for Venezuela

Caracas, Jun 19 (Prensa Latina) Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced that the intelligence services have evidence on the existence of a US-orchestrated plan aimed at destabilizing the country, and called it a "slow fuse."

In a phone call to "Venezolana de Television," Chavez pointed out the intention is to pave the way for a large-scale conflict, and allow for international condemnations.

"They have tried to attract some military sectors but, fortunately, the Armed Force is well consolidated," he said.

The president indicated that an extreme rightwing ploy orchestrated by the US, to try to weaken the country and overthrow him, lays behind the recent student protests.

US contacts with students are unlikely to be direct, but evidence corroborates there is a covert strategy to incite violence, Chavez commented.

It is not a new ploy, but a change of strategy, stated the president.

(Prensa Latina News Agency)

Actualité - Chavez annonce une nouvelle étape de la Révolution énergétique

ZULIA, le 17 juin. – Le président du Venezuela, a annoncé le début d’une nouvelle étape de la Révolution énergétique, dont l’objectif sera le remplacement de presque 27 millions d’ampoules inefficientes par des ampoules basse consommation, dans les secteurs commercial, industriel et officiel, durant l’inauguration de l’usine de cycle combiné de la thermoélectrique Trermozulia, dans l’ouest du pays.

Chavez a insisté sur la nécessité de modifier les modèles de consommation, qui tendent au gaspillage de l’électricité et du combustible, et affirmé que les efforts entrepris aujourd’hui par son pays ont comme objectif de préserver l’environnement.

Depuis ce dimanche a débuté le changement de 26,7 millions d’ampoules, une campagne qui concernera les 13 états les plus puissants industriellement.

Après le remplacement de 53,2 millions d’ampoules incandescentes dans les foyers vénézuéliens, la demande a été réduite de 1 400 mégawatts.

Dans des états comme Nueva Esparta, Amazonas et Delta Amacuro, où les coupures de courant étaient fréquentes, aucune ne s’est produite depuis des mois, et l’amélioration du service a profité à de nombreux foyers.

« Depuis le début de la Révolution énergétique, en novembre dernier, le peuple vénézuélien a commencé à rompre les modèles concernant l’utilisation de l’énergie », affirme Manuel Deza, coordinateur de la Mission énergétique.

L’utilisation de la Trermozulia, qui réduit au minimum les émissions dans l’atmosphère, est une autre action de la Révolution énergétique, laquelle comprend en outre le remplacement du pétrole par le gaz naturel dans la production d’électricité, le changement des airs conditionnés par d’autres de moindre consommation, et l’utilisation de sources renouvelables.

(Granma International, par Suarez Rivas et Alberto Borrego)

Actualité - Les États-Unis attaquent le Venezuela : la « liberté de presse » en tant que prétexte pour une intervention

La secrétaire d’Etat Condoleezza Rice a profité de l’ouverture de l’assemblée générale de l’Organisation des Etats américains (OEA) le lundi 4 juin à Panama City pour intensifier la propagande américaine contre le gouvernement nationaliste de gauche du président du Venezuela, Hugo Chavez.

Après que le gouvernement vénézuélien ait décidé de ne pas renouveler le permis de diffusion de RCTV, une chaîne de télévision vénézuélienne qui était impliquée en avril 2002 dans une tentative avortée de putch contre Chavez inspirée par Washington, Rice a appelé l’OEA à lancer une enquête immédiate sur cette décision et sur l’état de la liberté d’expression au Venezuela.
Rice a déclaré : « La liberté d’expression, la liberté d’association et la liberté de conscience ne sont pas des épines dans le pied du gouvernement. Etre en désaccord avec votre gouvernement n’est pas non patriotique et, très certainement, ne devrait pas être un crime dans aucun pays, particulièrement une démocratie. »

Le ministre vénézuélien des Affaires étrangères, Nicolas Maduro, a rejeté l’attaque, accusant Washington de violer la souveraineté de son pays et ridiculisant les efforts de Rice pour faire la leçon au Venezuela sur les droits de l’homme. « L’OEA devrait former une commission spéciale pour se pencher sur la violation quotidienne des droits de l’homme à la frontière sud des Etats-Unis, a-t-il dit. Combien de prisonniers y a-t-il à Guantanamo ? Où les ont-ils kidnappés ? »

Prenant la parole à Prague le mardi suivant, le président Bush a aussi attaqué le Venezuela. « Au Venezuela, des dirigeants élus ont recours à un populisme superficiel pour démanteler des institutions démocratiques et pour resserrer leur emprise sur le pouvoir », a-t-il dit.
Le Sénat américain a aussi critiqué le Venezuela, votant une résolution en défense de RCTV qui fut soutenue par les deux candidats en avance dans la course pour choisir le candidat présidentiel du Parti démocrate, Hillary Clinton et Barack Obama.

Plusieurs organisations de défense des droits de l’homme se sont aussi jointes au concert des critiques, y compris l’organisation douteuse Reporters sans frontières, dont une part substantielle du financement provient du National Endowment for Democracy (Fondation nationale pour la démocratie), une agence fondée par Washington pour la réalisation d’opérations politiques autrefois dévolues à la CIA.

Les inquiétudes de Washington quant à la liberté de presse sont très sélectives. Il vaut la peine de souligner que la campagne de dénonciations sur le sort de RCTV se produit au même moment où le silence règne sur les attaques tous azimuts sur la presse d’un des alliés clés de Washington dans la « guerre au terrorisme ». Le dictateur pakistanais, le général Pevez Musharraf, a promulgué un décret le lundi 4 juin donnant à son gouvernement le pouvoir de fermer tout réseau indépendant de télévision. Le régime a systématiquement bloqué la diffusion de chaînes de télévision qui faisaient des reportages sur la crise constitutionnelle grandissante suivant le limogeage du juge en chef du Pakistan par Musharraf.

L’hypocrisie de l’administration Bush sur la question de la liberté de presse a clairement été montrée dans une conférence de presse du département d’Etat du lundi 4 juin. Le porte-parole du département a dénoncé « les gestes anti-démocratiques du gouvernement du Venezuela », il a réclamé que le RCTV « soit de nouveau en opération » et a fait l’éloge des manifestations organisées en grande partie par les formations anti-gouvernementales de droite qu’il a qualifiées de lutte pour la « démocratie ».

Lorsqu’on lui a demandé quelques minutes plus tard ce qu’il pensait de la répression des médias au Pakistan, le porte-parole est resté très circonspect, se limitant à déclarer que Washington « suivait la situation de proche ». Il a continué ainsi : « C’est une question qui concerne le peuple pakistanais et le gouvernement pakistanais doit le résoudre dans le cadre de sa propre loi. »
Mais c’est précisément le cas au Venezuela. Les problèmes ont été résolus légalement, le gouvernement ayant le pouvoir d’accorder ou de refuser le droit aux sociétés de diffusion privées d’utiliser les ondes publiques, dans la mesure où cela est bénéfique à la population.

RCTV n’a pas été démantelé, ses directeurs n’ont pas été arrêtés ni son équipement confisqué. Son permis est échu et n’a tout simplement pas été renouvelé. Sa fréquence hertzienne a été offerte à une nouvelle station de télévision publique, TVes — Venezuela Social Television.
Il est aussi à noter que moins de deux mois auparavant, le gouvernement d’Alan Garcia au Pérou a retiré d’un coup les droits de diffusion de deux stations de télévision et de trois stations de radio, car ces dernières auraient soutenu une grève. Encore une fois, aucune indignation de Washington.

Le fait que RCTV, davantage reconnu pour ses soap-opéras (telenovelas) et ses jeux télévisés que pour ses commentaires politiques, se voit refuser le renouvellement de son permis n’est certainement pas une attaque sur la liberté de presse. La chaîne est libre de continuer à diffuser sa programmation via le câble ou le satellite, mais ne peut utiliser les ondes publiques. De plus, la compagnie conserve les droits de diffusion pour deux stations de radio.

La véritable question à se poser est pourquoi cette station n’a-t-elle pas été fermée plus tôt et pourquoi sa direction n’a-t-elle pas été arrêtée et poursuivie en justice et pourquoi un traitement similaire n’a-t-il pas été imposé aux autres diffuseurs qui profitent toujours du permis refusé à RCTV.

RCTV fait partie d’un réseau étroitement lié de sociétés médiatiques qui appartiennent à l’oligarchie financière et de propriétaires terriens du Venezuela et qui reflètent ses intérêts.

La principale raison évoquée par le gouvernement dans son refus de renouveler le permis de RCTV sont les agissements de la chaîne durant le coup d’Etat droitier soutenu par l’administration Bush qui avait brièvement destitué Chavez, le président du pays élu par vote populaire, et porté au pouvoir une junte d’officiers militaires et de dirigeants patronaux. Le coup d’Etat fut déclenché le 11 avril 2002, sous le prétexte d’une présumée répression gouvernementale contre des manifestants anti-gouvernementaux, et se termina deux jours plus tard face à une rébellion massive des travailleurs vénézuéliens et des couches opprimées opposées à la junte. Chavez, qui avait été fait prisonnier par les leaders du coup d’Etat, fut relâché et reconduit au palais présidentiel.

Il faut noter que Washington n’essaya même pas de cacher sa satisfaction face au coup d’Etat qu’il avait aidé à préparer, déclarant légitime la junte qui remplaça brièvement Chavez et n’émettant aucune protestation alors que cette dernière abolissait la constitution, démantelait l’Assemblée nationale et forçait la fermeture des médias télé, radio et imprimés que l’on croyait être des partisans du gouvernement Chavez.

Le décret gouvernemental refusant le renouvellement du permis de diffusion de RCTV cita sa « participation active dans le coup d’Etat d’avril 2002 » et ses « appels à des actes de sabotage de l’économie nationale ».

La station joua un rôle direct d’appui lors du renversement illégal d’un gouvernement élu. Il diffusa d’abord délibérément une fausse description des événements qui fut utilisée comme prétexte pour le coup d’Etat, à savoir les affrontements entre une manifestation organisée par l’opposition (défendue activement par RCTV) et les partisans du gouvernement Chavez, le 11 avril 2002. Des coups de feu qui causèrent la mort de 18 personnes et qui en blessèrent 150 autres furent présentés comme l’oeuvre de tireurs pro-Chavez, alors qu’en réalité des tireurs avaient fait feu dans la foule qui défendait le palais présidentiel de la manifestation de l’opposition.

La chaîne rapporta ensuite que Chavez avait démissionné volontairement, alors que les propriétaires de la station savaient bien que le président vénézuélien avait été arrêté illégalement et était détenu à une base militaire. Au cours des événements d’avril, la station se transforma en un centre de propagande pour les planificateurs et les partisans du coup d’Etat.
Ensuite, lorsque des centaines de milliers de travailleurs vénézuéliens manifestèrent pour s’opposer au coup d’Etat et exiger le retour au pouvoir de Chavez, RCTV ne présenta plus aucune nouvelle, diffusant plutôt des dessins animés et de vieux films.

Lorsque l’opposition, encore avec l’appui de Washington, organisa une grève des employeurs et un arrêt de l’industrie pétrolière fin 2002 et début 2003, RCTV prit encore une fois ouvertement la défense de ces actes.

Mais il faut noter que le comportement de RCTV ne diffère pas, ou à peine, de toutes les autres grandes chaînes de télévision privée au Venezuela, incluant Venevision, propriété du magnat cubain-vénézuélien des communications, Gustavo Cisneros, et Globovision, l’affilié vénézuélien de CNN, qui en avril 2002 avait donné les ondes à l’amiral Hector Ramirez, alors chef de la marine vénézuélienne, pour diffuser un appel à tout le personnel militaire à se joindre au coup. Les deux possèdent encore leur permis de diffusion.

Venevision, qui va bénéficier significativement de la perte par RCTV de son permis, a conclu une entente avec le gouvernement Chavez qu’elle allait cesser de faire de l’agitation directe pour son renversement. RCTV avait rejeté toute discussion avec le gouvernement et maintenait son hostilité ouverte. Globovision est également tombé dans la ligne de feu du gouvernement, qui l’accuse de diffuser des messages subliminaux faisant la promotion d’actions anti-gouvernementale et même de l’assassinat du président.

Les sondages ont indiqué qu’une majorité de Vénézuéliens s’oppose à la fermeture de RCTV, et l’opposition de droite a saisi l’occasion pour tenter de ressusciter le mouvement pour le renversement du gouvernement. Depuis que RCTV a été retiré des ondes, il y a eu plusieurs manifestations étudiantes, organisées et dirigées en large mesure par les partis d’opposition. Un certain nombre d’entre eux ont dégénéré en émeutes et bagarres avec la police.

L’opposition est capable de faire de l’agitation sur la question de la « liberté d’expression » en relation avec RCTV, essentiellement parce que le gouvernement Chavez a attendu plus de cinq ans avant d’agir contre la compagnie pour son rôle dans le coup de 2002. Et il n’a encore rien fait pour traduire en justice les responsables de la tentative de renversement. Le refus de traduire en justice les organisateurs du coup en faveur d’une politique de « réconciliation » et de « dialogue » avec la droite est une indication claire de la nature de classe du gouvernement Chavez.

Alors que le programme limité de réformes sociales et de nationalisations de Chavez a reçu un large appui populaire, il dirige un gouvernement nationaliste bourgeois qui, en dernière analyse, repose sur des sections de l’élite dirigeante capitaliste du Venezuela et de l’armée. Malgré ses prétentions socialistes, toutes les institutions essentielles de l’état capitaliste, l’armée, le parlement et la bureaucratie gouvernementale, demeurent intactes, alors que les principaux leviers économiques du pouvoir, particulièrement le capital financier, demeurent entre les mains de l’oligarchie dirigeante traditionnelle du Venezuela.

Les leçons de l’histoire de l’Amérique latine sont claires. Dans la mesure où les masses ouvrières vénézuéliennes placent leur confiance dans ce gouvernement pour contrer une autre tentative de coup, ils font face à d’énormes dangers.

Il faudrait rappeler que la campagne de déstabilisation de la CIA au Chili, culminant en 1973 avec l’un des plus sanglants coups dans l’histoire de la région, avait commencé avec une campagne fabriquée en défense de la « liberté de la presse » autour du quotidien de droite El Mercurio, le porte-étendard d’un réseau de journaux, de stations de radio et d’agences de publicité. La CIA avait dépensé des millions de dollars dans le journal, l’utilisant pour diffuser sa propagande de désinformation antigouvernementale, tout en coordonnant une campagne internationale dénonçant le gouvernement du président Salvador Allende pour sa soi-disant suppression de la « liberté d’expression ». Cette fausse accusation avait été lancée suite à un arrêt de travail et la décision du gouvernement de réduire ses achats de publicité dans le journal.

Le tumulte actuel généré par les États-Unis à propos de RCTV a toutes les caractéristiques d’une campagne de déstabilisation similaire. Il ne devrait y avoir aucun doute que le but ultime de Washington est l’imposition d’un régime fantoche qui garantirait aux conglomérats américains de l’énergie un contrôle illimité des vastes réserves de pétrole et de gaz du Venezuela. A cette fin, ils font encore une fois la promotion d’un coup et préparent ultimement une intervention militaire américaine directe.

La lutte pour contrer de telles menaces est uniquement possible par la mobilisation politique révolutionnaire des masses ouvrières vénézuéliennes indépendamment du gouvernement Chavez.

(World Socialist Web Site, par Bill Van Auken)

Actualité - Communal power versus capitalism in Venezuela

Led by the country’s socialist president, Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan revolution is sending shockwaves through the corporate elite both within Venezuela and internationally. The Venezuelan people are waging a struggle to gain sovereignty over the country’s natural resources in order to rebuild the nation along pro-people lines.

From April 30 to May 9, a range of Australian trade unionists, including an official delegation from the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), participated in the 2007 May Day solidarity brigade to Venezuela. This was the fifth official solidarity brigade, and the second May Day brigade, organised by the Australia-Venezuela Solidarity Network (AVSN). It was the first brigade from Australia to visit Venezuela since Chavez’s announcement of a new phase in the Bolivarian revolution following his re-election on an explicitly socialist platform in December last year with the largest vote in Venezuelan history.

Chavez followed his re-election with the insistence that “now we build socialism”. He has announced a series of moves, including plans to renationalise previously privatised companies, an “explosion of communal power”, and the construction of a new, mass, revolutionary socialist party that would unite all militants across the country to help lead the construction of “socialism of the 21st century”.

While the brigade was going on, the Chavez government carried out the nationalisation of oil ventures worth US$17 billion owned by multinational corporations in the Orinoco Belt. Also, the mass registration drive for the new United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) began on April 29, and they have already signed up hundreds of thousands of people — nearly 30% above the national target.

Green Left Weekly spoke to the brigade’s coordinator, Federico Fuentes, who also served as a GLW correspondent in Caracas in the second half of 2005, about the brigade and the recent developments in Venezuela’s Bolivarian revolution.

Fuentes told GLW: “The brigade had either official representation or members participating in a personal capacity from the Electrical Trades Union from three different states, the Community and Public Sector Union, the National Union of Workers, the Australian Services Union, [and] the Rail, Bus and Tram Union, as well as perhaps one or two others.

The brigade was an extremely important way to cut through the lies in the corporate media and give Australian unionists a sense of what is really happening in Venezuela.” The brigade was especially important because “this was the first time the ACTU [has] sent an official delegation to Venezuela, on a fact finding mission to gather information on the UNT [the National Union of Workers, the pro-revolution trade union federation established in 2003 after the right-wing Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CTV) backed attempts by the elite to overthrow the Chavez government], and the battle occurring inside the International Labor Organisation between the UNT and CTV about which federation has the right to represent Venezuela in the organisation, and about whether the Chavez government is pro- or anti-union”.

As well as extensive discussions with a range of unionists, Fuentes said the brigade was able to visit a range of community organisations, as well the popular health-care clinics that provide free care to the poor. The clinics are part of the Barrio Adentro health care program, one of the many government-funded social missions that allow the poor majority to enjoy the benefits of the nation’s oil wealth.

Fuentes explained that the brigade got to witness the elections for one of the communal councils in Barrio 23 de Enero, a large, impoverished neighbourhood in Caracas that is a revolutionary stronghold. The communal councils are currently Venezuela’s most important experiments in popular power. More than 18,000 councils have been established, based on communities of no more than 400 families.

Fuentes explained the depth of the social gains achieved by the revolution, telling GLW that an article published during the brigade revealed that the purchasing power of the poorest wage income category has increased dramatically over the last year (in Venezuela the categories are rated from A, the richest, to E, the poorest). “This is a phenomenal figure, and is on top of figures already showing a significant drop in poverty before this period. This doesn’t even include the gains associated with the mass provision of free health care and education. They are continuing to reach out to more and more communities; there are still some of the social missions that have yet to achieve national coverage. The minimum wage was increased once again on May Day, by 20% — higher than the rate of inflation.”

Fuentes said that returning to Venezuela he had been struck by “a feeling among the people that, post Chavez’s election victory, now was the time for serious inroads into the capitalist system, that now was the time the revolution would significantly deepen. And this has been expressed especially through the real surge of community organising.

“It is a powerful dynamic developing centred on the creation of the communal councils, with the community and workers increasingly organising to take power into their own hands. This is being constructed side-by-side with the process of the formation of the PSUV, built from the grassroots up. This has created a lot of discussions in Venezuelan society — what type of socialism, what type of party, what type of program for the party? These discussions are only just beginning, but this will undoubtedly come more and more to the fore through the year. There was a real sense that this is going to be a decisive year, perhaps one that breaks a bit of the deadlock that has existed.”

Fuentes explained that the discussion on socialism “was much deeper than in 2005", when socialism was identified mostly with providing for people’s basic needs, such as free education and health care. He said the discussion was “still very open”. “There is a willingness to discuss and debate all different kinds of ideas”, especially what had failed in previous attempts to build socialism.

Fuentes said there are a variety of perspectives on what form socialism should take, however “there is a very strong view that having property formally state-owned doesn’t resolve the key question, which is how do you ensure that people feel the property really belongs to them? How do you not simply reproduce the old relations of production?”

Giving a sense of how the government is promoting this as a mass discussion, Fuentes pointed out that one of the “five motors” to advance the revolution announced by Chavez is the concept of “education everywhere”. Fuentes said this involves “the massive expansion of education into all areas of life, not limiting it to the existing universities and schools. The government is saying we don’t just want the ideological formation of just some people, but that everywhere is the site of this discussion.”

To this end, the government announced new legislation on May Day that by 2010 will cut the working week from 44 to 36 hours, and will also mean that “every week workers will be paid by their bosses for four hours to take part in classes on socialism and the nature of the Bolivarian revolution”.

Fuentes said that this had already begun in the ministry for labour. There are plans to expand it to the rest of the work force over the next two years. Fuentes told GLW: “One group we met as part of the brigade was the Bolivarian Schools of Popular Power. They would work with the communal councils to go out into the communities for discussions on what sort of socialism they are trying to build, and [encourage] each communal council to have an ongoing school that can train council members to then go out into the community and give workshops.”

Fuentes said he was able to attend a meeting in Petare, the largest barrio in Venezuela, aiming to create a federation of communal councils in the area. “I was able to get a real sense of both the exciting potential of the communal councils, as well as some of the problems they face. What was very clear was the push by those leading the process of constructing popular power to explain to people that the councils were not the end point, but were the means to achieve something much more fundamental. The formation of the councils is seen as a process through which a sense of community spirit can be formed, and humans can develop themselves. This is in a community that has one of the highest murder and crime rates in Caracas.”

The revolutionary movement still faces serious obstacles, especially the role of the old state structures and the bureaucratic and corrupt practices that dominate it, as well as sections of the pro-Chavez camp. Fuentes told GLW that this “underpins the current push to ‘deepen’ the revolution”. He highlighted the “inability of the revolutionary government to push forward on a lot of its programs, because of the fact that they have inherited an old state bureaucracy that was never built to carry out the types of programs the Chavez government is pushing. It has created a very dangerous dynamic where the needs and wishes of the people are often not being met, where the results of the revolution are falling short of people’s expectations.

“This is why you see the combination of the push around the communal councils, which seeks to organise the entire Venezuelan society, along with the formation of the new revolutionary party, which attempts to group together the real leadership emerging out of real struggles across the country. That is, those whose authority stems not from past struggles, but the real organic leadership developing today, which needs to be given space to develop. We are seeing a whole new layer of revolutionaries that are yet to impose themselves on this process, but are beginning to do so through the combined dynamic of the communal councils on the one hand, and the new party on the other.”

Fuentes says this “scares the pants off” some in the pre-existing pro-Chavez parties, who realise they stand to lose out through this process. Many of those currently in official positions would not be elected by the grassroots because “ they haven’t done the work”. However, Fuentes said there were a number of officials who had used their positions to promote popular power, “and the classic example is Chavez as president. He describes himself as the ‘subversive within Miraflores [the presidential palace]’. He uses his position to undermine the old state bureaucracy.”

While the PSUV is still in its early days, Fuentes pointed out that already “over 2 million people have demonstrated their willingness” to join it, and it is expected at the end of the registration process that more than 4 million will have joined. “This is having a tremendous impact on the grassroots of the parties that have held back from joining the PSUV”, Fuentes said. So far, For Social Democracy (Podemos), Homeland for All (PPT), and the Venezuelan Communist Party (PCV) — the three largest pro-Chavez parties after Chavez’s Movement for the Fifth Republic, which has already dissolved — have held back from joining the PSUV. “Last I heard, Podemos [generally regarded as the most right-wing and consciously reformist pro-Chavez party] was down to around 30% of its original membership. This is ordinary members leaving en masse for the PSUV, saying clearly that they believe the Podemos leadership is heading for the camp of the counter-revolutionary opposition. I’d say the PPT has lost a similar proportion of members.”

Fuentes said Chavez “constantly talks about the need for unity”, not to prevent discussion and debate, but to promote united action. “Among the grassroots there is 100% support for this idea.”

GLW asked Fuentes about the value of the brigade both for building solidarity with the Venezuelan revolution and for those who participate. He explained that “those who participate in these brigades do so as friends of the revolution. However, that doesn’t mean they come without preconceptions and questions. Many participants get a real shock when they see exactly how far this revolution has developed and what has already been achieved. It is one thing to read about the revolution, it is another altogether to see it, live it and be able to speak to people who are breathing this revolution every day.” He said this enabled those who participate to come home as “ambassadors” for the revolution, to tell their stories as widely as possible.

Fuentes told GLW that the Venezuelan people realise the importance of this international solidarity, and are very keen to tell their stories to international visitors. He said, “The most important social gain that I could see has been the growth in feelings of dignity among the Venezuelan people”. They feel like Venezuela is no longer “just a hole in the ground for people to come and extract oil”. He said this feeling of pride and self worth “is the thing the old elite will never be able to take back”.

(Green Left Weekly, par Stuart Munckton)

Actualité - Le Venezuela ouvreune nouvelle ère dans le panorama médiatique latino-américain

CARACAS, le 28 mai (PL).- La nouvelle chaîne de télévision Televisora Venezolana Social (TEVES ) a commencé à émettre sur le canal numéro 2 du spectre radioélectrique du Venezuela, ce qui ouvre une nouvelle ère dans le panorama médiatique d’Amérique latine.

Avec l’apparition de son signal dès les premières minutes de la matinée, TEVES a fait disparaître l’image de la chaîne privée Radio Caracas Television (RCTV), qui durant 53 ans a exploité cette fréquence au profit exclusif de la famille et du groupe économique propriétaires.

Cela a constitué, en outre, l’aboutissement d’un patient travail du gouvernement vénézuélien dans sa lutte pour la démocratisation des moyens d’information dans ce pays sud-américain.

RCTV a pris l’antenne au moment même où prenait fin la concession de l’utilisation de l’espace radioélectrique, laquelle n’a pas été renouvelée pour permettre le lancement d’une chaîne publique comme TEVES.

De cette manière aussi a été remportée une importante bataille de la guerre menée par le gouvernement du Venezuela – et d’autres pays de la région – contre le pouvoir démesuré atteint par des secteurs économiques à travers ce qu’on appelle la dictature médiatique.

Selon le président vénézuélien, Hugo Chavez, le comportement de RCTV durant tant d’années a répondu aux intérêts d’une oligarchie qui « nous a rogné l’histoire, ignoré et méprisé la créativité qui existe chez notre peuple ».

Du point de vue légal, le non renouvellement de la concession s’appuie sur plusieurs procédures judiciaires auxquelles a été soumise RCTV pour des pratiques déloyales (2003, 2004 et 2005) et diverses infractions.

La liste comprend des sanctions de fermeture temporaire de transmissions, appliquées durant les gouvernements antérieurs (1976, 1980, 1981, 1984, 1989 et 1991).

Mais la page la plus sombre de ses agissements a été écrite en avril 2002 quand son gérant a entrecoupé ses programmes quotidiens d’appels au soutien d’un coup d’Etat contre le président Hugo Chavez et son gouvernement démocratiquement élu.

On se rappelle ici que cette chaîne a participé à ce qu’on a appelé le premier coup d’Etat médiatique du monde et interdit à ses reporters de transmettre des informations sur l’échec du putsch.

L’attribution du canal numéro 2 à la chaîne à TEVES s’abrite derrière l’article 108 de la Constitution, lequel oblige de garantir « des services publics de radio, de télévision et des réseaux de bibliothèques et d’informatique, avec l’objectif de permettre l’accès universel à l’information ».

De son côté, l’Union international des télécommunications reconnaît « dans toute son étendue le droit souverain de chaque état à réglementer ses télécommunications pour la sauvegarde de la paix et du développement économique et social des Etats ».

Pour sa part, la toute nouvelle TEVES est confrontée au défi de rompre des modèles et de divertir tout en faisant preuve de respect et de dignité, selon le point de vue du vice-président du Venezuela, Jorge Rodriguez.

Elle doit démontrer qu’il est possible de faire une télévision pluraliste, divertissante, enrichissante culturellement, et de rompre le modèle selon lequel le populaire serait synonyme de vulgarité, a-t-il indiqué.

(Granma International, par Victor M. Carriba)

Actualité - Venezuela Caps Energy Shares

Caracas, May 11 (Prensa Latina) The Venezuelan government has taken control over nearly 93 percent of the Electricity Company stocks, state PDVSA oil company (Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A.) announced Friday on its website.

After the Public Auction, the State held 92.98 percent of total shares in the Distrito Capital first electricity company, PDVSA informed, and added the package includes the American Depository Shares in the Bank of New York, grouping more than 3.6 billion shares.

That process is part of the Venezuelan government s program to get control over strategic economic sectors.

The total cost of the operation amounts to 836.93 million dollars.

(Prensa Latina News Agency)

Actualité - 5TH ALBA Summit reinforces integration

TINTORERO, Lara, Venezuela April 29.—At a remove from all protocol and in the presence of social movements from 20 countries of the continent, the 5th Summit of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) ended here after two days of exchange.

Although the event took place in the Trinitarias Hotel main salon in Barquisimeto, capital of the western state of Lara, the participating heads of state and government affirmed that no integration is possible without unity of the peoples, and thus decided to close the summit in the neighboring area of Tintorero, alongside delegates to a meeting of social organizations.

The Summit ended with the signing of a far-reaching strategic plan and a political statement that includes a condemnation of the release of terrorist Luis Posada Carriles.

Presidents Evo Morales (Bolivia), Daniel Ortega (Nicaragua), and Carlos Lage, vice president of the Cuban Council of State, accompanied Bolivarian leader President Hugo Chavez.

Also invited as guests were René Préval, president of Haiti; María Fernanda Espinosa, Ecuadorian foreign minister; and delegations from Uruguay, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St. Kitts and Nevis, and the Commonwealth of Dominica.

Those present highlighted the solidarity of the Cuban people and President Fidel Castro. “Fidel is here, at the helm,” Chávez affirmed; “the country most attacked by imperialism is the one that is most in solidarity with the peoples,” added Evo Morales; and Daniel Ortega concluded that Cuba’s resistance “has been a determining factor for our struggles.”

The first ALBA Summit took place in Havana on December 14, 2004, when leaders Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez signed its founding statement. The others were in 2005 and 2006, likewise in the Cuban capital, and the fourth in January in Nicaragua when this nation joined the integrationist initiative.

(Granma International, par Ronald Suárez Rivas)

Actualité - Where energy resources will be the basis of development

L'Amérique latine forme dorénavant une alliance stratégique et politique pour mettre en commun les ressources naturelles de leurs pays. Baptisée, l'Union des Nations de l'Amérique du sud, ce rassemblement vise à former un bloc économique pour contrer les multiples efforts d'exploitation des pays nord-américains. Avec la hausse constante des besoins pétroliers et gaziers, les pays du sud risquent de donner du fil à retorde aux Américains, grands consommateurs de ces matières premières. Une belle façon de préserver un contrôle de ses richesses...

WHILE the empire promotes wars of aggression with the complicity and extreme apathy of the rich and industrialized North in order to guarantee via blood and fire the oil resources it needs to satiate its unbridled consumerist society, just south of the Rio Grande the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) has emerged, a strategic political alliance reaffirming that same energy as a common asset, a pillar of the social well-being and development of our peoples.

Presidents Hugo Chávez and Luis Inácio Lula da Silva, accompanied by theircolleagues from Paraguay, Nícanor Duarte, and Bolivia, Evo Morales, place the first stone for the region’s most modern petrochemical complex, a joint project between the Venezuelan company Pequiven, and the Brazilian Braskem.

This transcendental development took place in the city of Porlamar on the Venezuelan island of Margarita, with the joint sponsorship of the 12 governments that comprise South America, eight of which were represented by their presidents in the 1st Energy Summit, convened by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, and which was described as successful by the participants.

Those attending included presidents Alvaro Uribe of Colombia; Néstor Kirchner, Argentina; Evo Morales, Bolivia; Hugo Chávez, Venezuela; Luis Inácio Lula da Silva, Brazil; Michelle Bachelet, Chile; Rafael Correa, Ecuador; and Nícanor Duarte, Paraguay, as well as representatives of Uruguay, Suriname, Guyana and Peru.

The meeting was planned in Cochabamba, Bolivia, last December after the most recent presidential meeting of the South American Community of Nations served as a space for analysis and discussion on the energy issue and its importance for the integral development of our nations.

Following up on that issue with the aspiration of institutionalizing the agreements reached – while bearing in mind a number of joint projects already underway – was the task set for this 1st Energy Summit.

It should be noted that the event took place at a crucial moment for the future of humanity, when the rich and industrialized North is becoming desperate in face of the inevitable reality of the exhaustion of many natural resources for energy production, such as oil, gas and water.

Latin America is thus becoming the region on which imperialist greed is focusing like never before, given that it holds some of the world’s greatest reserves of oil, gas, water and forests, and above all when it is known that in the next 20 years, demand for the first two will grow by 22% and 62%, respectively.

The issue is, then, to reach consensus on a policy of integration that rises above the commercial aspect of energy and becomes an irreplaceable vehicle for the region’s economic and social development; meanwhile, nobody doubts that in today’s world, there can be no development without a guarantee of energy.

And in our case, it is imperative if we consider that colonialism, first, and then neocolonialism and neoliberalism have all hindered our economies by making us into agro-exporters.

It is a question of consensus, of reversing that situation of dependence and underdevelopment by utilizing our natural resources as a guarantee of our own sovereignty and independence and to the benefit of our peoples.

Sufficient reasons for the Isla Margarita Summit, after a frank, cordial and open discussion among its participants, to adopt four extremely important agreements:

1. - To name this integration effort by member states as the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR).

2. - To establish the creation of an Energy Council, with the mission of presenting a proposal on the matter for the 3rd Summit of South American Nations. The Council will be comprised of the energy ministers of each country, who will base their work on the principle that energy integration should be utilized as an important tool for promoting social and economic development, as well as eradicating poverty.

3. - To designate a Permanent Secretariat that will have its offices near the Mitad del Mundo Monument in Quito, Ecuador.

4. – To entrust the foreign ministers with designating the Permanent Secretary and transforming the High-Ranking Officials Commission into a council of delegates or a political commission charged with drawing up a draft agreement for the UNASUR constitution.

Another of these proposals —which in and of themselves, according to analysts and commentators, made the regional meeting worthwhile — was to create a South American Energy Treaty, with the goal of having, in the near future, a tool for the cohesion of a system of production, distribution and supply of guaranteed energy for the continent’s peoples, according to President Chávez.

These agreements come at a time when integration projects are underway like the Great Gas Pipeline of the South, which has become a mega-project transporting gas from the Venezuelan Varibe to the Río de la Plata in Argentina, crossing Brazil’s immense territory.

It is also in that direction that the so-called Transoceanic highway is supposed to run, from Venezuela to Colombia’s Pacific Coast and Panama, with plans to extend it to Nicaragua.

Just a few hours before the Summit was opened by the Brazilian and Venezuelan presidents, Lula and Chávez, respectively, the cornerstone was placed for the region’s most modern petrochemical complex in the state of Anzoátegui, for processing oleochemicals and polypropylene. It is a joint project of the Venezuelan company Pequiven, and its Brazilian counterpart Braskem.

It was an important event, considering that more than a few media agencies — precisely those that tend to echo imperialist lies — had repeated over and over that supposed disagreements between Lula and Chávez, above all on the recent issue of ethanol production, would cause the Summit’s failure, and South American integration’s return to the realm of dreams.

The issue, on the contrary, served to clarify positions and win supporters in the sense that, as the Bolivarian leader said, nobody is against ethanol; rather, they are against the U.S.
president’s macabre idea of the mass conversion of the production of corn and other cereals and grains into biofuels for automobiles.

So much so that Chávez himself expressed his readiness to buy ethanol from Brazil free of import tariffs — as opposed to those imposed by the United States — to use as an additive for Venezuelan gasoline.

It is also significant that the final declaration of the Margarita meeting includes the need to develop programs and cooperation activities in terms of energy conservation and efficiency, when none of the alternatives sought by the rich North are in the direction of conservation or rational use of that resource.

In that document, the maximum representatives of the statements issued by the 12 countries confirm their will to promote cooperation among the national oil companies of member states, including the industrialization of hydrocarbons, as well as energy-related commercial transactions, with the goal of contributing to the development and competitiveness of the South American region and increasing the well-being of the peoples in the framework of complementariness, solidarity and equity.

Likewise, they acknowledge the initiatives taken by various countries for greater cooperation and coordination of efforts related to energy, such as Petrosur, Petrocaribe, Petroandina, Petroamérica, Petrolera del Cono Sur and others.

The 1st Energy Summit, no doubt, was an event of transcendental importance and the basis for new efforts on the road to true integration, which is also the building of a new America.

(Granma International, par Nidia Diaz)

Actualité - Bush Orders More CIA Activity in Venezuela

Caracas, January 19, 2007 — During a briefing before the United States House of Representatives Committee on Intelligence, current CIA chief General Michael V. Hayden revealed President George W. Bush had requested his agency “pay more attention” to the activities of President Hugo Chávez and his government in Venezuela.

General Hayden’s commentaries were directed to the House Committee on Intelligence after outgoing Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte had addressed the congressional group. Negroponte, now sub-secretary of State under Condoleezza Rice, indicated to the committee that the United States was in a “good position in terms of intelligence” regarding Venezuela and Cuba, implying that the recently-created special CIA Mission Manager on Venezuela and Cuba, overseen by veteran intelligence officer Norman A. Bailey since November 2006, was active and functioning effectively.

Bailey, a Cold War operative and Reaganite, was an intelligence officer and specialist in Latin America for over two decades. The new CIA Mission in Venezuela and Cuba, officially created in August 2006 by Negroponte’s National Directorate of Intelligence, is designed to enhance U.S. intelligence operations, information gathering and analysis in the two countries. An August 16, 2006 press release by Negroponte’s office declared the new CIA mission was “critical today, as policymakers have increasingly focused on the challenges that Cuba and Venezuela pose to American foreign policy.”

During the January 18, 2007 intelligence briefing in the House of Representatives, Republican congressman Darrell Issa requested that Negroponte and CIA Director Hayden speak about how the United States is handling the “Chávez phenomenon” and whether or not the intelligence specialists could guarantee that Venezuela will not become a “serious threat in our own hemisphere.” Intelligence czar Negroponte responded that Venezuela “is probably the second country in the hemisphere where we have concentrated the majority of our intelligence and analysis efforts.” According to Negroponte’s comments, Cuba maintains its position as the “top” intelligence priority of the United States Government in this region.

Negroponte further remarked that US policymakers should be “worried about Mr. Chávez,” considering that “he has literally spent millions and millions of dollars to support his extremist ideas in various parts of the world…despite the fact that there is an enormous amount of poverty in his own country.”

Negroponte did not comment on how many millions upon millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars were being used to undermine Venezuela’s re-elected President, who won the most recent presidential elections in December 2006 with a landslide 63% of the vote and record low voter abstention rates (around 25%).

Through the congressionally-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the State Department’s United States Agency for International Development (USAID), U.S. taxpayers pour more than $7 million of their dollars into funding Venezuela’s undemocratic and unpopular opposition movement each year.

Since 2001, almost 50 million in U.S. taxpayer dollars have been authorized by Congress and distributed through the NED and the USAID to fund a very unsuccessful coalition of anti-Chávez political parties, NGOs, private media groups, labor unions and business associations, to aid in their efforts to oust Venezuela’s democratically elected and majority supported government.

These U.S.-funded groups led a failed coup against Chávez in April 2002 and later used taxpayer dollars to try and force the Venezuelan president from office through a 64-day media war and business lockout that sabotaged the oil industry and the economy. Subsequently, the millions of U.S. dollars have been used to fund the opposition’s electoral and media campaigns to try and oust Chávez through elections, despite clear violations of both Venezuelan and U.S. laws that prohibit the foreign funding of political parties and campaigns.

This funding does not include the millions that have been authorized by the Director of National Intelligence, the CIA, and the Pentagon to aid intelligence activities and covert action in Venezuela. Per CIA director Hayden’s revelation that under “President Bush’s instructions, we have increased our work in Venezuela,” it is clear the U.S. government views Venezuela as a major focus of attention and a threat to U.S. foreign policy in the region.

The recent elections in Ecuador, Nicaragua and Bolivia indicate a growing trend towards a more socialist-cooperative oriented foreign and national policy in Latin America that follows Venezuela’s lead and a clear rejection of U.S. domination in the hemisphere.

(Venezuelanalysis.com - Eva Golinger)

Actualité - Venezuela Warns of Violent Plans

Caracas, Jan 22 (Prensa Latina) - A plan to escalate violence in Venezuela with support from overseas is being concocted as response to the official refusal to renew the contract of RCTV Channel on May 27.

President Hugo Chavez denounced RCTV Channels unlawful behavior with the release of subliminal propaganda and its support of the April 2002 48-hour coup.

A column in VEA newspaper signed by Marciano adds that RCTV owner Marcel Granier is trying to replace the governor of Zulia, ex presidential candidate Manuel Rosales as leader of the opposition.

Marciano has been calling "Plan de Mayo" meetings at hotels and other venues as encouraged by "plenty of money and fantasy."

The opposition plans to organize marches and disturbances using so-called freedom of speech as pretext, joining a campaign from overseas led by the Inter-American Press Society.

They involve contacts in Miami, in Spain with pro-fascist groups linked to the Popular Party of Jose Maria Aznar and Colombian paramilitary groups.

VEA also talks of provocation like wiretapping Movimiento V Republica officials to affect the constitutional reforms announced by Chavez to embrace socialist development.

(Prensa Latina News Agency)

Actualité - Venezuelan Parliament reflects on indigenous languages law

(14 January 2006) - The Committee of Indigenous Peoples of the Venezuelan National Assembly presented a draft for an Indigenous Languages Law in December, 2006. It is intended to preserve the 34 native languages existing in the country.

According to the committee's president, Noelí Pocaterra, indigenous deputies are also preparing an Organic Election Bill for the election of indigenous representatives.

Thirty-four indigenous languages are spoken in the nation and we are obliged to pass legislation to preserve them, contrary to what happened in the past, Pocaterra explained.

She said that it is important for the indigenous population to learn Spanish and other languages, but without forgetting their own.

Regarding the election bill, the deputy said the complex legislation is related to the National Electoral Council but that the representation of the indigenous population is required in the National Assembly under the 1999 Venezuelan Constitution.

(Shunpiking)

Actualité - The Case of Venezuela's RCTV

No single news item emerging from Venezuela has made foreigners, and especially North Americans, more queasy than the recent decision by the Chávez government not to renew the broadcasting concession previously granted to Radio Caracas Television (RCTV). Perhaps with some justification, many have a severe allergy to anything that smells of an attack on "free speech." Such hyper-sensitivity, however, obscures a crucial detail of the matter: the non-renewal of RCTV's concession is simply not about free speech.

The claims of the opposition and the foreign press, which assert a veritable "trampling" of human rights and press freedom, rest on a series of faulty claims:

1) The Venezuelan government is behaving abnormally.

Central to the opposition's framing of the issue is the broad background of a slide toward authoritarianism and fascism. According to many, Venezuela has stepped decidedly outside the democratic norms governing behavior in the post-Cold War world, and the non-renewal of RCTV's concession is proof of this ab-normality.

This, however, could not be further from the case. The Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 does boast the most stringent requirements imposed by any constitution on the private media, enforcing above all a broad notion of "responsibility" on the latter. Media magnates have expressed a clear concern over this provision, and with good reason, since they had been operating irresponsibly for quite some time.

Were this constitutional provision fully enforced and legislated, the private media might be able to claim that their existence is somehow more difficult than other media outlets the world over. But as it stands, legal requirements and enforcement are hardly out of the ordinary. The Ley Resorte, or media responsibility law, has as its objective the "social responsibility of radio and television service providers," and has been credited with both protecting the rights of children and increasing the amount of domestically-produced programming.

However, the idea that media concessions entail responsibility is not at all unique. Even the U.S. FCC maintains a similar position, notwithstanding the swift de-regulation during the early years of the Reagan administration. As we all know, the FCC maintains certain content restrictions on broadcasting (more strict, it should be mentioned, than in many European nations), and is not unwilling to silence those who infringe upon these restrictions. Moreover, ever since the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction," the enforcement of such restrictions has been ratcheted up (as in, e.g., FCC efforts to shut down infamous radio host Howard Stern, not to mention the continuous closure of smaller outfits).

And we are only speaking here of so-called "obscenity," which doesn't even compare to the charges against RCTV, which as is well-known, actively participated in a conspiracy which brought about several deaths and used those deaths to provoke a coup in April of 2002. This was followed by an equally active participation in the oil sabotage of December of the same year, which crippled the Venezuelan economy toward the same end.

While this provides little justification, it is worth mentioning how many FBI visits have been occasioned by "threats" against George W. Bush, despite the fact that these have been isolated and individual incidents, not the sort of organized rebellion and premeditated murder endorsed by the Venezuelan media.

2) "Human rights" are being violated.

In his first significant intervention since being named vice president, Jorge Rodriguez spoke on the subject of RCTV at the swearing-in of Chávez's new ministerial train. He began from the dictionary definition of "concession": "the juridical means by which the administration cedes to a person the privative use of something in the public domain, or the management of a public service, for a determinate period of time and under certain conditions." Rodríguez added that "this is not Hugo Chávez saying this, this is in the dictionary."

And yet opposition media outlets attempt to paint the issue of the non-renewal of a concession as the violation of a human right. This "right" presumably means the right of a large private media conglomerate to have unrestricted access to a public good, to use and abuse this public good for profit without acquiring any responsibility. When RCTV head Marcel Granier wants to tug on liberal heartstrings, he adds in the claim that the human rights of the workers are being violated.

Yes, you heard right, RCTV (a division of business group 1BC) is concerned above all with their workers' rights. The government has been quick to point out in response that the concession is not being denied to the workers, and has actively encouraged RCTV workers to organize into a collective and request that the concession be granted to themselves.

3) The government is "closing" a media outlet.

Many, moreover, have claimed that the government is unilaterally "closing" a media outlet, and that to do so represents a sort of quantitative attack on free speech. The fewer media outlets there are, so the argument goes, the less free the press.

As dubious as such arguments are in and of themselves, it should be clear that they don't even apply to the situation in question. Channel 2 is not being closed; broadcasts will continue. The concession to one private corporation is not being renewed, and will instead be granted to either another private corporation, a mixed public-private corporation, a collective of workers, or some other combination.

In his speech, Rodriguez was clear on this point: "Is the Bolivarian government closing down a television station? Is it violating the freedom of expression? No, it's not even revoking a concession The only television station that was closed during the eight years of this government was Venezolana de Televisión on that tragic night of April 11th."

Despite the current rhetoric, the media magnates running RCTV as well as other opposition outlets like Venevisión and Globovisión demonstrated little concern for "free speech" when they supported this short-lived coup d'etat which immediately closed down the only media outlet representing the poorest majority of the population (as well as various community media outlets like Catia-TV).

Indeed, the very fact that RCTV will be free to continue cable and satellite broadcasts demonstrates that what is at issue is the privative use of a public good (see #2 above) rather than the "silencing" of a media outlet.

4) The gesture is "anti-democratic."

The claim that the non-renewal of RCTV's concession violates democratic norms is very much tied into those claims mentioned above, as it similarly invokes an indisputable "right" that private corporations have to a public good.

Speaking on Vive TV, influential Venezuelan intellectual Luis Britto García recently made clear that this is indeed a question of democracy, but one which runs contrary to the claims of the opposition media. The non-renewal of RCTV's concession is a step toward the democratization of the airwaves. What socialism could we be constructing, asked Britto, and especially what sort of democratic socialism, if access to the airwaves remained in the hands of a small oligopoly of magnates with international backers?

What could be more democratic than handing Channel 2 over to the 63 percent of Venezuelans who voted for Chávez? What could be more democratic than allowing RCTV workers to organize their own station? And what could be more democratic than allowing access to the airwaves for those traditionally excluded by the media oligarchy?

And, it should be mentioned, if we are speaking of "democracy," RCTV head Marcel Granier has little to say. After all, he and other media leaders actively participated in an anti-democratic and oligarchic coup against a repeatedly-confirmed democratic leader in April of 2002 (for an overview of the role of the media in the coup, see the film The Revolution Will Not Be Televised).

5) In short, this is an issue of "free speech."

In a recent statement, the head of the Organization of American States, José Miguel Insulza, criticized the Venezuelan government for undermining "the pluralism of the media." Despite recognizing that this is an issue of domestic juridical competencies, Insulza nevertheless felt comfortable arguing that the move "seems to be a form of censorship against the freedom of expression."

Hugo Chávez replied in trademark style: "Insulza is an idiot, from the 'i' to the 't'." The Venezuelan government has interpreted the OAS chief's words as an intervention into what is a sovereign issue, and has called for his resignation (we should bear in mind that Venezuela was among those nations who fought the hard battle to get Insulza confirmed for the position in the first place).

If there remained any doubt about the issue, about whether the non-renewal of RCTV's concession constitutes an attack on free speech, one need only follow the logic of such an argument. In a session of the National Assembly devoted to discussing Insulza's comments, an MVR deputy did just that, pointing out that the OAS head would have Venezuela restore other similar "concessions," specifically those traditionally granted to the multinational oil companies who had looted Venezuela for decades.

There is no qualitative difference between the two sort of concession: both have been traditionally and undemocratically granted to large corporations which have been given free rein to reap unlimited profits from what is undeniably a public good. No, this is not a question of "free speech," but rather in the words of Venezuelan foreign minister Nicolás Maduro, it's about "revoking the disgusting privileges of a communications oligarchy allied with international financiers."

George Ciccariello-Maher is a Ph.D. candidate in political theory at UC Berkeley. He lives in Caracas.

(CounterPunch.com - George Ciccariello-Maher)

Actualité - Confused About Venezuela?

Over the past few days, major newspapers in the United States, such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal, have published editorials aggressively and harshly criticizing recent declarations and decisions made by re-elected President Hugo Chávez and his cabinet. A large percentage of the content of these editorials, which reflect the viewpoints of the newspapers, are based on a distortion and misconception of new policies being implemented in Venezuela and the overall way government is functioning. In the Washington Post’s “Venezuela’s Leap Backward”, published on January 10, the editorial board intentionally and mistakenly portrays the recent presidential elections this past December in Venezuela as illegitimate and unfair. By falsely claiming that Chávez conducted a “one-sided campaign that left a majority of Venezuelans believing they might be punished if they did not cast their ballots for him”, the Post wants its readers to think Venezuelans who voted for Chávez did so under duress and fear. Nothing could be further from the truth. A majority of Venezuelans publicly express their sincere admiration and approval of President Chávez in an open and fearless way on a daily basis in this country. Most Venezuelans believe Chávez is the best president the nation has ever had, and statistics prove that his government has built more bridges, railroads, hospitals, clinics, universities, schools, highways and houses than any administration in the past. The Post editorial also attempts to downplay the “only 7 million votes” Chávez received, not mentioning that those seven million votes represent more than 63% of total votes – a landslide victory to the opposition candidate’s 37% - and that no president in Venezuelan history has ever, ever received such a large number of votes in an election.

The New York Times editorial, also published on January 10, attacks a recent statement made by President Chávez regarding the nationalization of one telephone company, CANTV, and an electric company. However the Times doesn’t explain that the CANTV is the only non-cellular telephone company in the country, giving it a complete monopoly on national land-line telecommunications and control over a majority of Internet service as well. Furthermore, the CANTV was privatized only in 1991, during the second non-consecutive term of Carlos Andrés Pérez a president later impeached for corruption who implemented a series of privatization measures, despite having run for office on a non-privatization platform just three years before. In fact, as soon as Carlos Andrés Pérez won office in 1988 after convincing the Venezuelan people he would not permit “neo-liberalism” on Venezuelan shores, he immediately began to announce the privatization of several national industries, including telecommunications, education and the medical and petroleum sectors. This deception led to massive anti-privatization protests during February 1989 during which the government ordered the armed forces to “open-fire” on the demonstrators and arrest and torture those not killed. The result was the “Caracazo”, a tragic scar on contemporary Venezuelan history that left more than 3,000 dead in mass gravesites and thousands more injured and detained. The re-nationalizing of Venezuela’s one landline phone company is a strategic necessity and an anti-monopoly measure necessary to ensure that Venezuelans have access to telecommunications service. (Take it from someone who lives here. You can’t even get a landline if it isn’t already installed in your residence. The waiting list is over 2 years and you have to bribe someone to actually do the job). And furthermore, the new Minister of Telecommunications, Jesse Chacón, announced that any company “nationalized” will be fully compensated for its shares and property at market value.

The third issue put forth in the editorials is the recent announcement by President Chávez that the license of private television station RCTV to operate on the public airwaves is up for review in May 2007 and most likely will not be renewed. The government has based its denial of the license renewal on RCTV’s lack of cooperation with tax laws, its failure to pay fines issued by the telecommunications commission, CONATEL, over the past twenty years, and its refusal to abide by constitutional laws prohibiting incitation to political violence, indecency, obscenity and the distortion of facts and information. The public airwaves, as in the case of the United States, are regulated by government. Television and radio stations apply for licenses from the telecommunications commission and are granted those licenses based on conditional compliance with articulated regulations. When a station does not abide by the requirements, it generally is fined and warned, repeatedly, until compliance is assured. In the specific case of RCTV, the station and its owner, multi-millionaire Marcel Granier, have refused to comply with the law and have continued to abuse and violate the clear and concise regulations that are supposed to guarantee Venezuelan citizens their constitutional right to “true and accurate information” (Article 58 of the Constitution).

RCTV’s owner, Marcel Granier, played a key role in the April 2002 coup d’etat against President Chávez and has used his station to engage in an ongoing campaign of anti-Chávez propaganda and efforts to destabilize the nation through distorting and manipulating information to create panic, apathy, fear and violence in Venezuelan society. The station’s clear violations of the telecommunications regulations and the Constitutional guarantees that protect freedom of speech and access to true and accurate information provide sufficient reason to deny the renewal of its license to use the public airwaves. Unlike the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times (Fidel Chávez?, January 11, 2007) mistakenly claims, Chávez and his government are not “shutting down” the private media station. RCTV can continue to operate on the private airwaves, i.e. cable and satellite television. As would be the case in any country where law and order are respected, RCTV will not receive a renewal on its license to remain on the public airwaves because it repeatedly violated the law during more than a decade.

Unfortunately, international groups that allegedly protect freedom of the press and of speech around the world, have fallen under the influence and manipulation of RCTV president Marcel Granier, who through his close relationship with Washington, is conducting a campaign to defend his station by user the banner of freedom and liberty. But consistent lawbreakers and coup leaders should not receive the support of international press watchdog groups and human rights defenders. Rather, those groups should praise the decision of the Venezuelan government to maintain the public airwaves in the hands of the public. The license so abused by RCTV will most likely be granted to various community and alternative media groups and stations in Venezuela that have emerged over the past few years as a result of the direct encouragement and support of the Chávez administration.

Finally, the editorials in the Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal, all criticize President Chávez’s announcement to create a new political party in Venezuela: the United Socialist Party of Venezuela. The editorials inaccurately claim that Chávez will dissolve all political parties in the country and allow only one party to operate. This is a dangerous and false inference. What Chávez really declared was the formation of a new revolutionary party that would be open to all parties that support the revolution. There will be no closing down or abolishing of other political parties in the nation; they can all remain as they wish and those that choose to merger or support the new party can also freely do so. Furthermore, Chávez indicated that the reason for the designing of a new political party is to break free from the old corrupt hierarchical party structures of the past that concentrate power in the hands of few and exclude and ignore the vast majority of supporters. Chávez remarked that the new party he seeks to promote will be formed by grassroots community movements, and that there will be no power structures that isolate and marginalize constituents.

If you only read the US press, you must be very confused about Venezuela. The extreme levels of distortion, lack of fact checking and source verification and outright manipulation of information in the US media on Venezuela is quite troubling and dangerous in a nation that has waged wars based on false data and misleading policies.

(Venezuelanalysis.com - Eva Golinger)

Actualité - Chavez annonce des mesures pour approfondir la révolution bolivarienne

Caracas, 8 janvier — Le président Hugo Chavez a annoncé de nouvelle mesures pour approfondir la révolution bolivarienne et son cheminement vers le socialisme, comprenant la nationalisation de secteurs qui ont été nationalisés par des gouvernements antérieurs.

Le président a fait prêter serment à son nouveau cabinet pour le mandat qui débute le 10 janvier et il a souligné que rien ne pouvait faire changer le cours du processus bolivarien vers le socialisme.

Il a incité les ministres à emprunter de nouvelles méthodes de travail pour renforcer la participation populaire et il a annoncé une partie de la stratégie à suivre dans la phase d’approfondissement du processus qu’il dirige et qui sera centré sur cinq lignes fondamentales.

La première sera la présentation d’une loi d’habilitation qui donnera à l’exécutif des pouvoirs spéciaux pour créer un ensemble de législations similaires à celles qui ont déjà été implantées en 2001.

Celles-ci incluront la nationalisation d’importantes propriétés, privatisées dans le passé, comme la Compañia Anonima Nacional de Telefonos (CANTV) et du processus d’amélioration du pétrole brut de la Ceinture de l'Orénoque, aujourd’hui aux mains d’entreprises étrangères.

Les autres lignes seront la réforme socialiste constitutionnelle, l’éducation populaire, pour favoriser les valeurs éthiques, la création de ce qu’il a appelé «une nouvelle gomatrie du pouvoir» afin de démonter les vieilles structures de la IVe République et la stimulation du pouvoir communal dans le but de «transformer progressivement l’état bourgeois» en un autre socialiste et bolivarien.

Chavez a lancé un appel à l’unité des forces de la Révolution autour d’un parti unique et à livrer une guerre à mort contre la corruption, la bureaucratie et autres courants qui freinent le développement du processus.

Jorge Rodriguez, le nouveau vice-président a aussi prêté serment tandis que José Vicente Rangel qui a occupé ce poste durant les quatre dernières années, était récompensé avec l’Épée du Libertador.

(Granma International - Ronald Suarez Rivas)

Actualité - New U.S. Chief Spy for Cuba and Venezuela

Norman Bailey, the new "chief spy" whom Bush has appointed against Cuba and Venezuela is a genuine relic from the Reagan regime, in which he was a privileged advisor.

He infiltrated the Noriega government in Panama whilst the U.S. invasion was being prepared; he advised Duhalde in Argentina when the country was heading towards economic disaster; he confesses to being a buddy of Lyndon LaRouche, the controversial ultra right-wing U.S. politician.

Everything would indicate there was no other recourse left available to Bush than rummaging 'round in his father's closet when the time came to recruit high-ranking officials for his declining government.

Norman Bailey, whom John Negroponte -- another leftover from the Reagan connection and currently national director of U.S. intelligence -- has recently named as head of the U.S. intelligence mission for the two sister nations, has a longstanding curriculum with the CIA, that is certainly not lacking in inconsistencies and foolish mistakes.

His official biography indicates that Bailey is an "economic consultant" and "professor" of Washington's Potomac Foundation, a conservative think-tank embedded within the network of low-ranking Republican officials.

Former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan for international economic affairs and a member of the National Security Council (NSC), he urged the National Security Agency -- the electronic espionage agency that monitors the post -- to spy on the movement of money on a worldwide scale.

He has his own lobbying office -- Norman A. Bailey Incorporated -- that has even advised the Mobil Oil firm.

But aside from all his titles and covers, this rotund sexagenarian, who was trained in military intelligence and graduated from Colombia University, has acted for many decades as a beachhead for the CIA, most notably with respect to Latin American governments which, after having placed their trust in him, have seen their own downfall.

In 1989, when the U.S.. invasion of Panama was being prepared, it was he who handled the plans of George Bush Sr. in the State Department and the CIA.

It is said that it was thanks to his indiscretions, perhaps inspired by Otto Reich, that journalist Seymour Hersch published a veritable flurry of alleged crimes committed by Manuel Noriega in The New York Times, which gave rise to a widespread international campaign of discredit and a series of undercover operations.

He then advised Noriega and "accompanied" him to the disastrous denouement of the crisis that took the Panamanian president straight to a U.S. jail cell, in the midst of a veritable massacre of poor Panamanians from the most marginal neighborhoods in the capital.

With the same shamelessness, he developed a close relationship with Argentine president Eduardo Duhalde, in the guise of a great U.S. financial expert -- his favorite role -- following the abrupt end of the De la Rúa government in December 2001, when the Argentine economy was in tatters.

On March 8, 2002, the Clarín daily, with admirable innocence, announced that "the president is now receiving advice from his American consultants" and that the previous day at the presidential palace he had met with Norman Bailey, "who advised [George W. Bush] in his campaign" with the aim of "improving his contacts in the USA."

He recommended that the vulnerable president fiercely repress social unrest or, if a strong hand did not work in the short term, to call elections as a means of diversion. He also recommended that Duhalde issue trusteeship bonds for state land.

Shortly after receiving such great advice from an "independent" advisor who belonged to both the CIA and the most intimate circles of the current occupant of the White House, Duhalde ended up in the inexorable archives of history.

He continued his links with Latin America. It is said that he made an appearance during the dollarization process in Ecuador and also participated in the conception of Plan Colombia.

But the thing that stands out most on his résumé is his confessed friendship with Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., former presidential candidate and prominent member of the far right in the U.S., who runs an intelligence network, the breadth and efficiency of which he has publicly praised.

In December 1999, in a cable from Washington which condemned the appearance of "new threats to the security of the United States in Latin America," the U.S. Associated Press agency quoted Bailey rudely attacking Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who had been democratically elected the previous year.

In his lecture, Bailey declared that the government of Ecuador was "totally bankrupt," suggesting that "military intervention" should not be ruled out. Speaking of Panama, he said then that it was a country that was vulnerable to guerilla incursions and that possibilities for sabotaging the Canal are "enormous" allowing him, of course, to dream of another adventure in that nation.

In March 2001, in The Washington Times, the current Chief Spy against Cuba and Venezuela openly expressed his desire for a drop in oil prices which, he commented, would have "disastrous consequences" for Venezuela.

Bailey then blurted out an example of his unsubtle vision of Latin America: "Thinking that Bush needs Kirchner to contain Chávez is idiotic."

Reports of U.S. troops being sent in alleged "humanitarian" missions to Peru, Panama, Paraguay and other Latin American countries may be a new scheme, Bailey-Bush style, to subvert the newly-elected governments and their neighbors in the region.

(Prensa Latina News Agency)

Actualité - Venezuela Backs Ecuador, Censures US

Caracas, Dec 20 (Prensa Latina) - Venezuela voiced support to Ecuadorian opposition to borderfumigation in Colombia and pointed to the United States as the true cause of drug trafficking.

In welcoming the president-elect of Ecuador, President Hugo Chavez criticized efforts to clean out coca plantations with the highly toxic glyphosate.

Chavez called to set up a joint South American policy to fight drug traffic, based on common interests and avoid US-imposed provocation. He also called on Colombia to seek new methods.

The statesman recalled that each year Venezuela eradicates thousands of acres of illegal crops by hand and rejects using the scourge as a pretext to harm the environment and humans.

President Chavez recalled that the United States has used drug trafficking as an excuse to penetrate countries and harass the peoples as well as justifying its military presence, as it did in the past with Communism.

Chavez also accused US Ambassador William Brownfield of telling “a great lie” that drug traffic increased in Venezuela after it terminated cooperation with the US Drug Enforcement Agency.

He added that these ties came to an end because the DEA ran secret bases and blackmailed police and National Guard to do political intelligence and support destabilization attempts.

In addition, the true source of drug traffic is the profits the banks reap by laundering billions in drug money and no one says a word.

After Venezuela ended ties with the DEA, drug confiscation in the country doubled, and he called on the US to respect the truth and show respect to the people and government of Venezuela.

(Prensa Latina News Agency)

Actualité - Venezuela Recovers Oil Sovereignty

Caracas, Dec 19 (Prensa Latina) - President Hugo Chavez noted on Tuesday that Venezuela has recovered oil sovereignty and can offer foreign investors "solid and transparent" terms.

In Anzoategui, accompanied by visiting Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, Chavez toured the extra-heavy crude oil processing plant in Faja Petrolifera del Orinoco.

This joint venture of Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA), Total (France) and Statoil (Norway) has a daily output of 180,000 barrels.

Chavez mentioned the possibility that Petronas (Malaysia) and Petroecuador (Ecuador) will join in prospecting the rich Faja del Orinoco reserves.

They would join corporations from Argentina, Iran, Belarus, Brazil, China, India, Spain, Russia, Uruguay and Vietnam.

Badawi showed interest in the legal framework of investments in Venezuela and the living standards of oil industry staff.

Actualité - Chavez a gagné ! Il a dédié cette victoire à Fidel et au peuple de Cuba

Caracas, le 3 décembre. Le comptage des voix vient de confirmer ce que les sondages, les analystes et les immenses foules rassemblées avaient déjà prédit : Hugo Chavez restera président du Venezuela durant les 6 prochaines années.

Selon le premier communiqué du Conseil national électoral (CNE), après le dépouillement des 2/3 des bulletins (78,31%), le leader bolivarien possède une confortable et irréversible avance sur les 13 autres candidats.

A 22 h 30, Tibisay Lucena, présidente du CNE, a annoncé que Chavez possédait 61,35% des voix (5 936 141 voix).

Manuel Rosales, l’ex-gouverneur de l’État de Zulia et principale figure de l’opposition, de son côté, a obtenu 38,39% des voix (3 715 292 voix).

On attend ce mardi les résultats des plus de 33 000 bureaux de vote restants mais ceux-ci ne devraient pas changer beaucoup les résultats.

Des centaines d’observateurs internationaux ont confirmé la transparence des élections qui, selon eux, se sont caractérisées par la tranquillité, la coexistence et la paix, les trois éléments indispensables dans un processus de ce type.

Des porte-parole et des dirigeants de plusieurs partis politiques de l’opposition, ont admis la validité de celles-ci et se sont engagés à respecter le verdict du CNE.

C’est la quatrième fois, depuis 1998, que les Vénézuéliens légitiment leur dirigeant dans les urnes, et la onzième fois qu’ils se rendent aux urnes. Sans soute la période la plus démocratique de son histoire.

Le Venezuela est en fête. Après l’annonce des premiers résultats par le CNE, les partisans du dirigeant ont envahi les rues pour célébrer la victoire. Les cris de Vive Chavez ! et les feux d’artifice ont rompu le silence de la nuit.

Le leader charismatique est sorti sur le balcon pour saluer les dizaines de milliers de personnes qui s’étaient rassemblées sous la pluie pour le saluer. Il a là-bas exhorté ceux qui ont voté contre lui à se joindre à la construction de la nouvelle patrie, et leurs dirigeants à avoir un comportement responsable.

« La grande victoire de la Révolution, de la paix et de l’espérance, est consommée », a-t-il affirmé.

« Ce 3 décembre est un point de départ. Une nouvelle époque commence et elle aura comme ligne stratégique fondamentale, l’approfondissement de la Révolution bolivarienne, dans la voie vénézuélienne vers le socialisme.

« Nous avons donné aujourd’hui une leçon de dignité à l’impérialisme nord-américain ».

Le président Chavez a déclaré la guerre à mort contre la corruption, et mis l’accent sur la nécessité de créer une nouvelle morale bolivarienne. Il a dédié la victoire aux martyrs de la patrie, à Bolivar, qui comme le dit le poème de Neruda, se réveille tous les 100 ans, quand le peuple s’éveille. Et aussi à Fidel et à Cuba.

« Je répète ce que j’ai dit voici quelques jours, nous dédions cette victoire au peuple cubain et au président Fidel castro. Frère, camarade, compañero. D’ici, une accolade à Fidel et au peuple souverain et frère de Cuba ».

(Granma International)

Actualité - Venezuelan opposition's bogus poll plot

Manuel Rosales faces almost certain defeat in Venezuela’s elections but he has told his supporters: “It is true, we are winning.”

With only days to go before Venezuela’s presidential elections, President Hugo Chavez has a massive lead over his US-backed rival, Manuel Rosales. The six most recent polls conducted by recognised firms put the gap between the two candidates as follows: Zogby — University of Miami: 29%, Associated Press — IPSOS: 32%, Datanalysis: 27%, Datos: 27%, Consultores 21: 17%, Evans McDonough: 22%.

Faced with almost certain defeat, one might have expected Rosales to rally his supporters with typical politician’s bluster about how victory was still possible. Instead, he issued a very curious statement: “Every single important pollster has reported we have an apparent lead over the other candidate. It is true, we are winning.”

One such “important pollster” is Alfredo Keller of Keller and Associates. On November 2, Keller released a poll that purported to show that the candidates were neck and neck. Later, it emerged that the interviewees had never actually been asked how they would vote. Keller simply took a guess based on their answers to other questions. Keller is an opposition supporter.
Another “important pollster” is Survey Fast Venezuela. They published a poll on November 21 that predicted a statistical dead heat. I had never heard of this so-called pollster, so I decided to type their name into the Google search engine. They attracted a mere 35 references (all of which related to their November 21 poll) and did not appear to have either a website or an identifiable track record or methodology. In other words, Survey Fast is a bogus firm and a front for the Rosales campaign. By contrast, when I googled the unimportant pollsters, i.e. the major firms that all show Chavez way out in front, I was rewarded with tens or hundreds of thousands of references.

And then there are the really, really important pollsters. Pollsters like Victor Manuel Garcia, director of Ceca, who released a poll showing that Rosales was a full 10 points ahead. Garcia, like his presidential hopeful Rosales, was a key participant in the failed 2002 coup that briefly overthrew Chavez and abolished parliament.

So why do a handful of dodgy polls matter?

To answer that question, we must go back to August 15, 2004. That was the day of the referendum to decide whether Chávez should be thrown out of office midway through his presidential term. Whilst voting was still taking place, a New York-based firm called Penn, Schoen & Berland produced an exit poll which claimed that Chavez had lost by 18 points. The opposition went wild and declared victory. When the actual result was announced — Chavez had won by 18 points in an internationally certified free and fair election — the opposition claimed fraud, citing as evidence this exit poll.

Penn, Schoen & Berland say that their exit polls have a margin of error of under +/- 1%. So how could they have been off by a margin of 36 percentage points? Simple. They had subcontracted the conduct of the poll to a US government funded, anti-Chavez group called Sumate, whose leader participated in the 2002 coup. The poll was entirely bogus, but it served the purpose of casting a shadow over the democratic credentials of the Chavez presidency and the left in general.

Past performance is the best guide to future performance, so I’ll end this piece with a prediction. Chavez will win Sunday’s election by a landslide and the result will be declared free and fair by election observers from the EU, the OAS and the Carter Centre. The following day, opposition extremists will pour onto the streets screaming fraud in a vain attempt to stage a Ukrainian-style “orange revolution” and unseat the man they couldn’t remove through the ballot box.

And how will all this be justified?

“We were robbed by the computerised voting machines”, they will tell us.

And the proof?

“Every single important pollster had us ahead.”

(Green Left Weekly - Calvin Tucker)

Actualité - Hugo Chavez Holds Commanding Lead Eight Days Before Election

Hugo Chavez holds an insurmountable lead in two late November polls -- one by Ipsos Venezuela, the AP-Ipsos Poll, and the other by Zogby International-University of Miami. Both were released on November 24 and are the most current and reliable data available and are consistent with most independent poll results for months. This is in stark contrast to several fraudulent U.S. National Endowment of Democracy (NED)-financed oligarch-run ones published to create a false perception of public sentiment in preparation for cries of fraud once the election results are in.

This is now standard U.S. operating practice in all developing countries when Washington fears an unacceptable electoral outcome, so it tries to subvert the democratic process by engineering one in its favor. That's how it's playing out in Venezuela now where things are in place to create the myth of what's impossible to achieve in fact to help Washington pull off its scheme to remove the main "threat" to its hegemony in the hemisphere. It's not likely to work any better now than in the failed 2002 coup attempt, but there will be mass-staged street protests that may get violent before it's over proving it.

Here's what's now going on. The Washington-based and NED-funded Penn, Schoen & Berland polling organization is part of the scheme to depose Chavez and has set up camp in Venezuela working with the opposition to do what they're expert at -- putting out phony polling data currently showing main opposition candidate Manuel Rosales closing the gap and almost pulling even with Hugo Chavez as the December 3 election date approaches. Baloney, but that doesn't stop the Venezuelan corporate media from reporting it saying "The momentum is clearly with Rosales," and it looks like he can win.

If past Penn, Schoen & Berland tactics are prologue, expect their pre-election poll number-rigging to be supplemented with equally fraudulent exit polls on election day showing the same kind of cooked results. More baloney, smell included. That will be following by blasting them all over the Venezuelan corporate media airwaves and front pages to convey the false impression Rosales may have won to shape public perception in preparation for whatever Washington-concocted scheme is planned likely beginning on December 4.

Rosales has no chance whatever of even coming close to winning on December 3, and the Venezuelan people know it. They'll never tolerate a result made in Washington that's contrary to the way they'll vote that's pretty obvious from some "real" polling data. Here's what the oligarchs, corporate media and Washington suppress -- and for good reason because it's so lopsided in favor of Hugo Chavez.

The latest Ipsos/AP poll shows Chavez getting overwhelming support from 59% of likely voters with Rosales trailing far behind at 27%. The margin of error is from 2.2-2.9%. Zogby International confirms this showing Chavez at 60% and Rosales at 31%. It's margin of error is 3.5%. Both polls thus show Chavez with an insurmountable 2-1 lead with eight days to go before the election. Moreover, these polls are consistent with nearly all independently-run pre-election surveys showing Washington-selected Rosales has no chance to win (something he knows), and Hugo Chavez will be reelected for another six year term as president with an impressive margin of victory -- because the great majority of Venezuelans love him and won't allow anyone else to serve as their president as long as he wants the job.

Here's the rub. That's not what the Bush administration wants, virtually guaranteeing post-election cries of fraud followed by staged street protests with likely violence and a fourth Washington-directed attempt to oust Chavez to prevent him from continuing as president. The people of Venezuela won't tolerate this kind of interference, and that sets the stage for a turbulent period just ahead -- the many millions of Venezuelans vs. George Bush and his failed administration visibly consumed in the burning sands of Iraq. If some variety of that template is the way to defeat a hegemon, it bodes well for democracy in Venezuela but not without a struggle to achieve it. History shows even superpowers are no match for mass people-action when it's determined enough to prevail. We'll soon know if it proves so Venezuelan-style again.

(Global Research - Stephen Lendman, November 25, 2006)