Oil Cash Waning, Venezuelan shelves lie bare - New York Times

By William Neuman,

JAN. 29, 2015

CARACAS, Venezuela — Mary Noriega heard there would be chicken. She hated being herded “like cattle,” she said, standing for hours in a line of more than 1,500 people hoping to buy food, as soldiers with side arms checked identification cards to make sure no one tried to buy basic items more than once or twice a week.

But Ms. Noriega, a laboratory assistant with three children, said she had no choice, ticking off the inventory in her depleted refrigerator: coffee and corn flour. Things had gotten so bad, she said, that she had begun bartering with neighbors to put food on the table.

“We always knew that this year would start badly, but I think this is super bad,” Ms. Noriega said.

Traffic in Caracas, where inexpensive fuel keeps old gas guzzlers on the road.Venezuela May Meet New Reality, and New Price, at the PumpJAN. 20, 2014

Venezuelans have put up with shortages and long lines for years. But as the price of oil, the country’s main export, has plunged, the situation has grown so dire that the government has sent troops to patrol huge lines snaking for blocks. Some states have barred people from waiting outside stores overnight, and government officials are posted near entrances, ready to arrest shoppers who cheat the rationing system.

Because Venezuela is so dependent on oil sales to buy imports of food, medicine and many other basics, the drop in oil prices means that there is even less hard currency to buy what the country needs.

Even before oil prices tumbled, Venezuela was in the throes of a deep recession, with one of the world’s highest inflation rates and chronic shortages of basic items.

One of the nation’s most prestigious public hospitals shut down its heart surgery unit for weeks because of shortages of medical supplies. Some drugs have been out of stock for months, and at least one clinic performed heart operations only by smuggling in a vital drug from the United States. Diapers are so coveted that some shoppers carry the birth certificates of their children in case stores demand them.

Now economists predict that shortages will get even more acute and inflation, already 64 percent, will climb further. The price of Venezuelan oil dropped this month to $38 a barrel, down from $96 in September.

“Things are going to be even worse because oil keeps Venezuela going,” said Luis Castro, 42, a nurse, standing in line with hundreds of others at a grocery store. He had arrived with his wife and 6-year-old son at 6 a.m., but by 11:30 a.m., they had still not entered. “We’re getting used to standing on line,” he said, “and when you get used to something, they give you only crumbs.”

The shortages and inflation present another round of political challenges for President Nicolás Maduro, who has vowed to continue the Socialist-inspired revolution begun by his predecessor, the charismatic leftist Hugo Chávez.

“I’ve always been a Chavista,” said Ms. Noriega, using a term for a loyal Chávez supporter. But “the other day, I found a Chávez T-shirt I’d kept, and I threw it on the ground and stamped on it, and then I used it to clean the floor. I was so angry. I don’t know if this is his fault or not, but he died and left us here, and things have been going from bad to worse.”

Venezuela has the world’s largest estimated petroleum reserves, and when oil prices were high, oil exports made up more than 95 percent of its hard currency income. Mr. Chávez used the oil riches to fund social spending, like increased pensions and subsidized grocery stores. Now that income has been slashed.

“If things are so bad now, I really cannot imagine how they will be in February or March” when some of the lowest oil prices “materialize in terms of cash flow,” said Francisco J. Monaldi, a professor of energy policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.

Mr. Maduro spent 14 straight days in January traveling the globe in an effort to court investment and persuade other oil-producing nations to cut production and push the price back up.

“We have serious economic difficulties regarding the country’s revenue,” Mr. Maduro said to the legislature during his annual address, which had to be pushed back because of the trip. “But God will always be with us. God will provide. And we will get, and we have gotten, the resources to maintain the country’s rhythm.”

After months of toying with the politically taboo idea of raising the price of gasoline sold at pumps here, the cheapest in the world, he said that the time had finally come to do so.

And he reiterated his position that the country’s economic ills are the fault of an economic war being waged against his government by right-wing enemies.

Many economists argue that government policies are a big part of the problem, including a highly overvalued currency, price controls that dissuade manufacturers and farmers, and government restrictions on access to dollars that have led to a steep drop in imports.

Some investors fear Venezuela will default on billions of dollars in bonds, but Mr. Maduro has said the country will pay its debts.

Typically, in an election year like this one, when voters will choose a new legislature, the government showers supporters with goods, like refrigerators and washing machines, or other benefits, like free housing. But now there may not be enough foreign currency to import appliances and construction materials.

In interviews, shoppers did not say they were going hungry. Rather, many said the economic crisis meant eating canned sardines instead of chicken, or boiled food instead of fried because vegetable oil is so hard to get. Many said they ate meat less frequently because it is out of stock or too expensive. Fresh fish can be harder to find, in part, fishermen said, because they find it more profitable to use their boats to sell subsidized Venezuelan diesel on the black market in a high-seas rendezvous instead of hauling in a catch.

But social media in Venezuela is full of urgent pleas from patients trying to find prescription medicine.

Dr. Gastón Silva, the head of cardiovascular surgery at the University Hospital of Caracas, said that because of medical shortages, only about 100 heart operations were performed there last year, down from 300 or more in previous years.

Some patients who had been hospitalized awaiting surgery for a month or more were sent home in November because there were not enough supplies, and the operating rooms remained shut for more than eight weeks, Dr. Silva said, despite a list of hundreds of people awaiting heart operations.

He said the shortages stemmed from the government’s foreign exchange controls, which have kept medical importers from getting access to the money they need to make purchases abroad. 

Now with the low price of oil further restricting the government’s supply of hard currency, he worried the crisis would get worse.“We are getting to a breaking point,” Dr. Silva said. “If one thing is lacking, O.K. If there are no automobile parts, we’ll see. Food, that’s problematic. But health care, that’s more problematic. Where will it end?”

Mr. Silva said that a private clinic where he also works had sharply scaled back heart surgeries in the last four months of 2014 because of limited supplies.

A heart surgeon at another private clinic said that a colleague had smuggled an essential drug from the United States to keep the operating room functioning.

Ana Guanipa, 75, a retired government office worker, said that she had searched numerous pharmacies for her hypertension medicine.

“I’ve been looking all month, and I can’t find it,” she said, adding that a neighbor who takes the same drug gave her some. “I take it one day on and one day off so that it will last longer.”

On a recent morning, hundreds of people stood in line outside a big-box store, similar to Costco. Inside, many shelves were stripped clean. The large appliance and electronics section was empty. One aisle displayed hundreds of boxes of a single brand of toothpaste. There was no fresh meat; a cooler was filled with frozen pigs feet.

Most people came to buy only three items sold at government-mandated prices: laundry detergent, vegetable oil and corn flour.

Most people came to buy only three items sold at government-mandated prices: laundry detergent, vegetable oil and corn flour.

Every purchase was entered into a database, ensuring that shoppers did not try to buy the same regulated staples at the chain for at least seven days.

Soldiers patrolled the line outside, police officers were stationed inside and government officials checked identification cards, looking for fake ones that could be used to cheat the rationing system — or for immigrants with expired visas. An official from the immigration and identification service said that offenders would be arrested.

“This is pathetic,” said Yenerly Niño, 18, adding that she had waited more than five hours to buy the three subsidized products because she could not afford to buy them at the higher prices charged by street vendors.

“You do what you have to,” she said. “If you don’t do it, you don’t eat.”

Here lies VENEZUELA victim of Hugo Chavez

Hugo Chavez and Venezuela ..... This is true!!

How Did Venezuela Become So Violent?

http://fusion.net/leadership/story/venezuela-violent-iraq-365361http://

In the early hours of Monday, Monica Spear became another one of Venezuela's murder victims. The actress and former beauty queen was killed along with her husband during a highway robbery attempt, with her five year old daughter looking on from the back seat of the car as her parents were shot to death.

Because of Spear's fame, and the tragic nature of this murder, the story spread rapidly online and on TV, prompting Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro to call for a special, high-level meeting on the country's security situation. 

Maduro may be trying to do something about Venezuela's crime problem. But this incident also highlights an inconvenient truth for the Venezuelan government. Under the socialist government of Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela has become one of the world's most violent countries. The leaders of that country have spectacularly failed to stop the violence.

This chart of Venezuela's murder rate was compiled by the Venezuelan Violence Observatory, a local think tank. The red line indicates the number of murders per every 100,000 residents.

As you can see, the murder rate in Venezuela has been increasing dramatically since 1999, the year in which Hugo Chavez took office in Venezuela. Murder rates grew through out Hugo Chavez's 13 year tenure, and have continued to climb under that of his successor, Nicolas Maduro.

Venezuela's murder rate now dwarfs those of Mexico or Colombia, countries that have suffered heavily from drug violence in the past decade. Here's a comparison of murder rates in different countries compiled with data from the Venezuelan Violence Observatory and a UN database on global homicide rates:

In 2013 Venezuela also had more violent deaths than Iraq, a country plagued by terrorist attacks and sectarian violence.

So why has Venezuela become so violent?

There are several hypothesis.

One of them is that in Venezuela, criminals have little incentive to change their behavior. Think tanks estimate that only 8% of crimes in Venezuela are prosecuted. This means that murderers, robbers and the like, have a 92% chance of breaking the law and getting away with it.

Venezuelan criminologist Fermin Marmol, says that the government has not prioritized security policies, like flushing out corrupt cops, and increasing the number of well trained prosecutors.

"They have prioritized other things like changing the constitution and exporting the [Bolivarian] revolution," Marmol told Venezuelan newspaper El Universal.

The government says it has tried some security initiatives, including sending the military to patrol the most dangerous parts of Venezuelan cities. When Chavez was alive, he argued that high poverty rates in the 1990s led to broken homes, and the abandonment of kids who are now leading lives of crime.

But many Latin American countries such as Colombia and Mexico also suffered from high poverty rates in the 1990s, and homicide rates in these places are actually going down now.

Some sociologists say that violence in Venezuela is also fueled by class rivalries, which the government promotes in its discourses and TV programs. These analysts argue that by labeling its middle class opponents as "terrorists," "traitors" and "enemies of the state," the government incites violence against these people, giving gangsters from poor neighborhoods a psychological justification for assaulting middle class Venezuelans.

The government denies that it is stoking violence. It argues instead that violence is promoted by materialistic TV shows, and action films like Spiderman, which trivialize death.

Fermin Marmol says the government has a "contradictory" discourse towards gun control, urging gangsters to give up their weapons, while on the other hand encouraging the formation of socialist militias in poor neighborhoods.

He argues that drug trafficking in Venezuelan neighborhoods has increased violence, and claims that a new sort of criminal that is not just looking for goods or money has emerged.

According to Marmol, gaining respect is also extremely important to this "new" sort of criminal. These criminals, who are generally teenagers or men in their early twenties, are willing to kill to gain the "respect" of their peers, Marmol says. They will also see any resistance to robbery as an act of "disrespect" towards them that ought to be punished with violence.

Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and his US Business Partners

Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and his U.S. business partners
Link

EVAZQUEZGER@OTTOREICH.COM

Venezuela is immersed in a political and economic tragedy of catastrophic proportions. As a result of Hugo Chávez’s “21st Century Socialism,” food and other essentials are increasingly scarce, while violence and crime rise exponentially.

The country’s top rulers include people designated as “drug kingpins” by the U.S. Treasury Department, as well as civilians and military officers more interested in acquiring personal wealth than in the administration of civil institutions. It should be no surprise, therefore, that some unscrupulous Venezuelans have made enormous fortunes there recently.

The Venezuelan slur for the beneficiaries of this 21st Century chaos is “ Boliburgueses” or “ Bolichicos.” A rough English translation of the words from the Spanish would be “Boligarchs,” and “Young Boligarchs,” for the new oligarchy that always accompanies revolutions allegedly carried out in the name of the exploited.

In a free economy, like ours, an entrepreneur can accumulate, after much effort and competition, a multimillion-dollar fortune if he or she can create a product or service that people are willing to buy. For example, according to Forbes Magazine, the founder and former CEO of Yahoo, Jerry Yang, has a fortune estimated at $1.2 billion while Aubrey McClendon, co-founder of Chesapeake Energy, the second-largest U.S. natural gas producer, has a fortune estimated at $1.1 billion. No reasonable person in the United States would shun those successful executives and others even more prosperous — for example, Microsoft’s Bill Gates, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, or the late Apple founder Steve Jobs.

In Chávez’s Venezuela, however, a politically favored group (some with no previous experience in complex sectors such as energy and finance) were able to accumulate, sometimes in four years, fortunes that allow them to purchase luxury mansions in the U.S., extravagant estates in Europe, the costliest private jets and automobiles, exceptional racehorses and more.

The exact amount of the fortunes is impossible to estimate, since they were obtained illegitimately and are being hidden by witting or unwitting bankers, mostly overseas.

How does this affect the United States and why should we care?

Because most of the culprits live in or come regularly to this country. They do not pay U.S. taxes on most of their wealth because they only bring in the “few” millions required to maintain their profligate lifestyles. They use U.S. banks to move money and to maintain their extravagant properties. They are aided by prominent public relations consultants, law firms, “private investigation” agencies and tax specialists that help clean up their image and protect their assets but that also intimidate those who might expose their clients.

To cover their tracks and attempt to enjoy the privilege of living in our country, some Boligarchs have launched lawsuits against honest Venezuelan businessmen in American courts. The purpose is to create a smokescreen to hide behind, and prevent the U.S. government from expelling the real offenders. Accustomed to the arrogance of power in their country, they believe that money trumps the law.

Some of their lawyers send threatening letters to journalists and news outlets, to block negative reports about their clients. Apparently, this is what one does when the major cause of the country’s destruction rests on one’s shoulders.

It is essential to point out that the majority of Venezuelans who have come to our shores seeking refuge are honest victims of the Chavista kleptocracy.

Merely having made money in Venezuela does not make one dishonest.

As for the term “Boligarchs,” Venezuelans refer to those who have wittingly benefited from the looting of their nation, who have amassed fortunes exceeding $1-2 billion, in many cases, from illegitimate awards of government contracts, from kickbacks and other gifts to government officials and from other unethical and immoral activities.

The destruction of Venezuelan society is the result of the Venezuelans’ own actions: Those that for the past 14 years have governed by failed policies based on Marxist ideology and class hatred. Those who did not dare speak out in time against the authoritarianism and thievery of Chávez and his cronies. And those who disregarded any sense of morality and instead exploited the absence of the rule of law to build huge fortunes on the backs of their fellow countrymen.

The United States does not bear the responsibility for the Venezuelan tragedy.

But we would be complicit if we remained silent to the looting, especially when we know where much of the money is, and that many of these looters are today enjoying the peace and security that the rule of law underpins in our country.

The U.S. government must stop providing refuge to Chávez’s business partners in the United States. Federal officials know who they are.

Otto Reich is a former assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere Affairs and U.S. ambassador in Venezuela. Ezequiel Vazquez-Ger is a member of the nonprofit organization Americas Forum for Freedom and Prosperity.

Venezuela: Chavez's Authoritarian Legacy

http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/03/05/venezuela-chavez-s-authoritarian-legacy

Venezuela: Chávez’s Authoritarian Legacy

Dramatic Concentration of Power and Open Disregard for Basic Human Rights

March 5th, 2013

After enacting a new constitution with ample human rights protections in 1999 – and surviving a short-lived coup d’état in 2002 – Chávez and his followers moved to concentrate power. They seized control of the Supreme Court and undercut the ability of journalists, human rights defenders, and other Venezuelans to exercise fundamental rights. 

By his second full term in office, the concentration of power and erosion of human rights protections had given the government free rein to intimidate, censor, and prosecute Venezuelans who criticized the president or thwarted his political agenda. In recent years, the president and his followers used these powers in a wide range of prominent cases, whose damaging impact was felt by entire sectors of Venezuelan society. 

Many Venezuelans continued to criticize the government. But the prospect of reprisals – in the form of arbitrary or abusive state action – forced journalists and human rights defenders to weigh the consequences of disseminating information and opinions critical of the government, and undercut the ability of judges to adjudicate politically sensitive cases. 

Assault on Judicial Independence

In 2004, Chávez and his followers in the National Assembly carried out a political takeover of Venezuela’s Supreme Court, adding 12 seats to what had been a 20-seat tribunal, and filling them with government supporters. The packed Supreme Court ceased to function as a check on presidential power. Its justices have openly rejected the principle of separation of powers and pledged their commitment to advancing Chávez’s political agenda. This commitment has been reflected in the court’s rulings, which repeatedly validated the government’s disregard for human rights. 

Lower-court judges have faced intense pressure not to issue rulings that could upset the government. In 2009, Chávez publicly called for the imprisonment of a judge for 30 years after she granted conditional liberty to a prominent government critic who had spent almost three years in prison awaiting trial. The judge, María Lourdes Afiuni, was arrested and spent more than a year in prison in pretrial detention, in deplorable conditions. She remains under house arrest. 

Assault on Press Freedoms

Under Chávez, the government dramatically expanded its ability to control the content of the country’s broadcast and news media. It passed laws extending and toughening penalties for speech that “offends” government officials, prohibiting the broadcast of messages that “foment anxiety in the public,” and allowing for the arbitrary suspension of TV channels, radio stations, and websites. 

The Chávez government sought to justify its media policies as necessary to “democratize” the country’s airwaves. Yet instead of promoting pluralism, the government abused its regulatory authority to intimidate and censor its critics. It expanded the number of government-run TV channels from one to six, while taking aggressive steps to reduce the availability of media outlets that engage in critical programming. 

In response to negative coverage, Chávez repeatedly threatened to remove private stations from the airwaves by blocking renewal of their broadcast licenses. In 2007, in an act of blatant political discrimination, his government prevented the country’s oldest private television channel, RCTV, from renewing its license and seized its broadcasting antennas. Three years later, it drove RCTV off cable TV as well by forcing the country’s cable providers to stop transmitting its programs. 

The removal of RCTV left only one major channel, Globovisión, that continued to be critical of the president. The Chávez government repeatedly pursued administrative sanctions against Globovisión, which have kept the station in perpetual risk of suspension or closure. It also pressed criminal charges against the station’s president, a principal owner, and a guest commentator after they made public statements criticizing the government. 

The sanctioning and censorship of the private media under Chávez have had a powerful impact on broadcasters and journalists. While sharp criticism of the government is still common in the print media, on Globovisión, and in some other outlets, the fear of government reprisals has made self-censorship a serious problem. 

Rejection of Human Rights Scrutiny

In addition to neutralizing the judiciary as a guarantor of rights, the Chávez government repudiated the Inter-American human rights system, failing to carry out binding rulings of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and preventing the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights from conducting in-country monitoring of human rights problems. In September 2012, Venezuela announced its withdrawal from the American Convention on Human Rights, a move that leaves Venezuelans without recourse to what has been for years – in countries throughout the region – themost important external mechanism for seeking redress for abuses when national courts fail to provide it. 

The Chávez government also sought to block international organizations from monitoring the country’s human rights practices. In 2008, the president had representatives of Human Rights Watch forcibly detained and summarily expelled from the country after they released a report documenting his government’s violation of human rights norms. Following the expulsion, his then-foreign minister and now chosen successor, Nicolás Maduro, announced that, “Any foreigner who comes to criticize our country will be immediately expelled.” 

Under Chávez, the government also sought to discredit human rights defenders by accusing them of receiving support from the US government to undermine Venezuelan democracy. While local nongovernmental organizations have received funding from US and European sources – a common practice in Latin America where private funding is scarce – there is no credible evidence that the independence and integrity of the defenders’ work has been compromised by international support. Nonetheless, in 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that individuals or organizations receiving foreign funding could be prosecuted for “treason.” The National Assembly passed legislation prohibiting organizations that “defend political rights” or “monitor the performance of public bodies” from receiving international funding. It also imposed stiff fines on organizations that “invite” to Venezuela foreigners who express opinions that “offend” government institutions. 

Embracing Abusive Governments

Chávez also rejected international efforts to promote human rights in other countries. In recent years, Venezuela consistently voted against UN General Assembly resolutions condemning abusive practices in North Korea, Burma, Iran, and Syria. Moreover, Chávez was a vocal supporter of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, bestowing upon each of these leaders the “Order of the Liberator,” Venezuela’s highest official honor.

Under Chávez, Venezuela’s closest ally was Cuba, the only country in Latin America that systematically represses virtually all forms of political dissent. Chávez identified Fidel Castro – who headed Cuba’s repressive government until his health deteriorated in 2006 – as his model and mentor. 

Selected cases documented in the report “Tightening the Grip: Concentration and Abuse of Power in Chávez's Venezuela”:

After Judge María Lourdes Afiuni granted conditional freedom in December 2009 to a government critic who had spent nearly three years in prison awaiting trial on corruption charges, Chávez denounced her as a “bandit” and called for her to be given a 30-year prison sentence. Although Afiuni’s ruling complied with a recommendation by United Nations human rights monitors – and was consistent with Venezuelan law, she was promptly arrested and ordered to stand trial by a provisional judge who had publicly pledged his loyalty to Chávez. (“I give my life for the Revolution,” he wrote on the website of the president’s political party. “I would never betray this process, and much less my Commander.”) Afiuni spent more than a year in pretrial detention, in deplorable conditions, together with convicted prisoners – including many she herself had sentenced – who repeatedly threatened her with death. In the face of growing criticism from international human rights bodies, Afiuni was moved to house arrest in February 2011. After long delays, her trial opened in November 2012. Afiuni has refused to appear, arguing that she would not receive a fair trial, but the proceedings have continued in her absence.

After the weekly newspaper 6to Poder published a satirical article in August 2011 depicting six high-level female officials – including the attorney general and Supreme Court president – as dancers in a cabaret entitled “The Revolution,” directed by “Mr. Chávez,” the six officials called for a criminal investigation and for the paper to be closed down. Within hours, arrest warrants were issued for the paper’s director, Dinora Girón, and its president, Leocenis García, on charges of “instigation of public hatred.” Girón was arrested the following day, held for two days, then granted conditional liberty. García went into hiding, but turned himself in to authorities the following week, and was imprisoned for two months, then granted conditional freedom. Both remain under criminal investigation pending trial. The newspaper is under a court order to refrain from publishing any text or images that could constitute “an offense and/or insult to the reputation, or to the decorum, of any representative of public authorities, and whose objective is to expose them to public disdain or hatred.”

After the human rights defender Rocío San Miguel appeared on a television show in May 2010 and denounced the fact that senior military officers were members of Chávez’s political party (a practice prohibited by the Venezuelan Constitution), she was accused on state television of being a “CIA agent” and of “inciting insurrection.” The official magazine of the Armed Forces accused her of seeking to foment a coup d’état. The nongovernmental organization that she directs, Citizen Watch, was also named – along with other leading groups – in a criminal complaint filed by several youth groups affiliated with Chávez’s political party for alleged “treason” for receiving funding from the US government. San Miguel has since received repeated death threats from unidentified people. While she does not know the source of those threats, she believes the denunciations in the official media have made her more vulnerable to such acts of intimidation.

After the human rights defender Humberto Prado criticized the government in June 2011 for its handling of a prison riot, Chávez’s justice minister accused him of seeking to “destabilize the prison system” and the vice president claimed the criticism was part of a strategy to “politically destabilize the country.” Within days, Prado began receiving anonymous threats, including phone calls telling him to keep quiet if he cared about his children, prompting him to leave the country with his family for two months. As he prepared to return, he received an anonymous email with the image of what appeared to be an official document from the Attorney General’s Office stating that he was under criminal investigation for “treason.” The prosecutor whose name appears on the letter later told him he had not written or signed it. Prado continued to receive threats from unidentified sources. Like San Miguel, he believes the verbal attacks by Chávez officials have made him more vulnerable to such acts of intimidation.

After Venezuela’s oldest television channel, RCTV, broadcast a video in November 2006 showing Chávez’s energy minister telling his employees at the state oil company to quit their jobs if they did not support the president, Chávez publicly warned RCTV and other channels that they could lose their broadcasting license – a threat he had made repeatedly in response to critical broadcasting. A month later, the president announced his unilateral decision that RCTV would no longer be “tolerated” on the public airwaves after its license expired the following year. RCTV stopped transmitting on open frequencies in May 2007, but continued as a cable channel. Since then, the government has used its regulatory power to drive RCTV off cable television as well. In January 2010, the National Telecommunications Commission (CONATEL) determined that RCTV was a “national audiovisual producer” and subject to newly established broadcasting norms. Days later, Chávez’s communications minister threatened to open administrative investigations against cable providers whose broadcast channels did not comply with the norms. In response, the country’s cable providers stopped broadcasting RCTV International. CONATEL has since denied RCTV’s repeated efforts to re-register as a cable channel. Today, RCTV can only be viewed on the Internet, and it no longer covers news due to lack of funding.

After Globovisión, the only remaining television station with national coverage consistently critical of Chávez’s policies, provided extensive coverage of a prison riot in June 2011 – including numerous interviews with distressed family members who claimed security forces were killing prisoners, Chávez responded by accusing the station of “set[ting] the country on fire…with the sole purpose of overthrowing this government.” The government promptly opened an administrative investigation of Globovisión’s coverage of the violence and, in October, ruled that the station had “promoted hatred for political reasons that generated anxiety in the population,” and imposed a US$ 2.1 million fine, equivalent to 7.5 percent of the company’s 2010 income. Globovisión is facing seven additional administrative investigations – including one opened in response to its reporting that the government failed to provide the public with basic information in the aftermath of an earthquake and, most recently, one for transmitting spots that questioned the government’s interpretation of the constitutional requirements for Chávez’s 2013 inauguration. Under the broadcasting law enacted by Chávez and his supporters in the National Assembly in 2004, a second ruling against Globovisión could result in another heavy fine, suspension of the station’s transmission, or revocation of its license.

After Oswaldo Álvarez Paz, an opposition politician, appeared on Globovisión’s main political talk show in March 2010 and commented on allegations of increased drug trafficking in Venezuela and a Spanish court ruling that referred to possible collaboration between the Venezuelan government and Colombian guerrillas, Basque separatists, and other “terrorist” groups, Chávez responded in a national broadcast that these comments “could not be permitted” and called on other branches of government “to take action.” Two weeks later, Álvarez Paz was arrested on grounds that his “evidently false statements” had caused “an unfounded fear” in the Venezuelan people. Álvarez Paz remained in pretrial detention for almost two months and was then granted conditional liberty during his trial, which culminated in July 2011 with a guilty verdict and a two-year prison sentence. The judge allowed Álvarez Paz to serve his sentence on conditional liberty, but prohibited him from leaving the country without judicial authorization.

After Globovisión’s president, Guillermo Zuloaga, at an international conference in March 2010, criticized Chávez’s attacks on media freedoms and accused the president of ordering the shooting of demonstrators prior to the 2002 coup, the pro-Chávez Congress called for a criminal investigation. Zuloaga was arrested on charges of disseminating false information and offending the president. A judge soon granted him conditional liberty, but in June Chávez publicly insisted that he be re-arrested. Two days later, members of the National Guard raided Zuloaga’s home and the following week a judge issued a new arrest warrant for him on an unrelated case, though he fled the country before it could be executed and has not returned.

After Nelson Mezerhane, a banker and principal shareholder of Globovisión, claimed in a December 2009 interview that people “linked to the government” had spread rumors that provoked withdrawal of savings from Venezuelan banks, Chávez denounced him, called on the attorney general “to open a formal investigation,” and threatened to nationalize Mezerhane’s bank. Chávez warned that, “[i]f a television station crosses the line again, violating the laws, lacking respect for society, the State, or institutions, it cannot, it should not remain open.” Six months later, the Attorney General’s Office seized Mezerhane’s home and shares in Globovisión, while the state banking authority nationalized his bank. The Attorney General’s Office also forbade Mezerhane from leaving the country, but he was abroad when the order was issued and has not returned.

After Tu Imagen TV, a local cable channel in Miranda state, was denounced by a pro-Chávez mayor in November 2010 for being “biased in favor of the political opposition,” CONATEL ordered the local cable provider to stop broadcasting the channel on the grounds that the channel and the provider had failed to comply with regulations requiring a written contract between the parties. Provided with a signed contract a month later, the agency waited eight months before authorizing the cable provider to renew broadcasting the channel. When it did, the channel's director said, the agency threatened to take the channel off the air again if it continued to produce critical programming.

After the soap opera “Chepe Fortuna” ran a scene in January 2011 in which a character named Venezuela who had lost her dog – named Huguito (Little Hugo) – asks her boyfriend, “What will become of Venezuela without Huguito?” and he responds, “You will be free, Venezuela,” CONATEL called on the television channel, Televen, to “immediately suspend” the show on the grounds that it promoted “political and racial intolerance, xenophobia, and incitement to commit crimes.” The charge could lead to civil, criminal, and administrative sanctions, including the suspension or revocation of its license. Televen cancelled the program the same day.

Venezuelan official: Ex-judge 'sold his soul' to the DEA

(CNN) -- An ex-judge who accused Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez of manipulating court rulings is a fugitive who "sold his soul to the devil" when he agreed to talk with U.S. investigators, the nation's foreign minister said Thursday.
"People like him will keep being defeated and his lies will be unveiled," Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro said.
Eladio Aponte Aponte, who was a Supreme Court justice until the Venezuelan government accused him of connections with an alleged drug trafficker last month, told SOiTV that he made rulings in cases based on requests from Chavez and other top officials.
"They just asked for favors that I complied with. And woe be the judge that refused to cooperate. ... They were dismissed," Aponte Aponte said
Top Venezuelan authorities were aware of at least one instance in which a military lieutenant was caught transporting cocaine to an army camp -- and made personal phone calls asking the judge to look the other way, Aponte Aponte told the Miami-based TV network.
CNN has not independently confirmed the former justice's accusations.
In recent years, the U.S. Treasury Department has placed several Venezuelan officials, including the nation's current defense minister, on its drug kingpin list.
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration flew Aponte Aponte to the United States from Costa Rica early Monday morning, according to the head of the Central American country's intelligence agency.
Mauricio Boraschi said U.S. Embassy officials contacted the Costa Rican government after the former judge -- who had been in Costa Rica for about two weeks -- reached out to officials in Washington.
The U.S. State Department told CNN it could not comment on what it called "this law enforcement matter."
Venezuela's foreign minister criticized the United States for attempting to destabilize his country's government.
"It is easy to understand how a fugitive from justice processed for his connections with drug trafficking mafias and removed from his job has sold his soul to the DEA," Maduro said. "The DEA has appeared again as a political actor in Venezuela against Venezuela."
The DEA has not commented on Aponte Aponte. An agency official who watched portions of the interview that aired on CNN en Español said it was "very interesting."
The former justice told SOiTV that high-ranking Venezuelan officials were involved in drug trafficking, but declined to say who or offer evidence.
In one instance, Aponte Aponte said, Chavez's office called and asked for the former judge's help after a military lieutenant was caught with cocaine. So did the nation's defense minister and other top officials, Aponte Aponte said.
They said "he was a good guy, that it was the president's order, that the president was very interested in the case," Aponte Aponte said.
The former judge also described weekly meetings in the Venezuelan vice president's office with the president of the Supreme Court, the attorney general and other top officials.
"That is where the directives of the justice system come from. ... They decide what guidelines to follow depending on the political climate," he said.
Several of his remarks contradicted previous statements by top Venezuelan officials -- including Chavez.
When asked whether there were political prisoners in Venezuela -- something Chavez has previously denied -- Aponte Aponte said yes.
"There are people they ordered not to be released. ... In a nutshell, we had to accept the fact that they were not to be released, so the justice system turned its back on them," he said.
Asked whether he felt that the Venezuelan government had turned against him, Aponte Aponte said, "I think they did that a long time ago. I just didn't realize it."
Venezuelan officials removed Aponte Aponte from his post last month, accusing him of providing a government credential to a man authorities allege was one of the world's top drug lords.
Aponte Aponte, who has not confirmed or denied that accusation, left Venezuela the day he was supposed to face questioning in the Venezuelan National Assembly.
A government ethics commission said the judge had committed "serious misconduct" and a "breach of public ethics" when he allegedly provided a credential to suspected drug trafficker Walid Makled.
Makled is currently on trial in Venezuela, where he is accused of drug trafficking and killing a journalist who was investigating his family. He was extradited to Venezuela from Colombia last year.
The United States designated Makled as one of the world's most significant drug kingpins in May 2009 and had also requested his extradition.
Makled, who denies U.S. accusations of drug trafficking, said in an October interview with Venezuela's El Nacional newspaper that he paid millions of dollars to government officials and top military brass so his family's shipping business could operate at some of the nation's largest ports.
"If I am a narcotrafficker, the whole Chavez government is a narcotrafficker," he told the newspaper.
Chavez has strongly denied those accusations and stood up for his government officials.
Maduro said Thursday that Aponte Aponte's removal from office showed that "in Venezuela the laws work. No one is privileged or protected."
Aponte Aponte told SOiTV that his daughter had invited Makled to her wedding, "but we didn't have any idea of the activities of this gentleman. We only knew him as a reputable businessman."
The former judge claimed Venezuelan officials had unfairly used the Makled case to destroy his reputation.
"I am not going to pay for a crime I never committed," Aponte Aponte told SOiTV, but he said he wants to make up for the harm his rulings have caused.
Aponte Aponte told SOiTV he left Venezuela disillusioned, but has since changed his perspective.
"When I finished packing all my stuff in my office, all my books, I told myself I'd never touch another law book. Justice is nothing, justice is a ball of putty. I say putty because it can be molded, for or against. I didn't want to have anything to do with the law anymore. I said I'd rather have a hotdog stand," he said. "But then, after all my reflection, and I had time to think it over, and after I saw that, that my friends have offered to help me, I now think you need to fight for justice. And that blindfolded lady has to be shown the way."
Saying he felt afraid for his life and betrayed by his colleagues, the former judge said he would go back to Venezuela to face the accusations against him only if officials respect his rights.
"Knowing the system from the inside, and how it works, and how it's handled, I don't think I'd have any rights at all. Not in my case at least," he said.

CNN's Fernando del Rincon, Ana Maria Luengo-Romero, Jamie Crawford and Terry Frieden contributed to this report.

Attack to Maria Corina

This is the video of the aggression against Maria Corina Machado yesterday November 12, in Caracas. It seems that the attacker is a follower of Hugo Chavez, who hasn't said anything related to this aggression. Hugo Chavez doesn't represent the Venezuelans; we want a president that is against crime and not in favor of crime. He had talked of favor of Gadaffi and now on favor of Carlos "The Jackal", but he can't say anything related to the Maria Corina attack?

vdebate reporter

http://youtu.be/fB3onqJ6nMU

Venezuelan Presidential Campain - Leopoldo Lopez

Very good information about Leopoldo Lopez, from The Economist. Arriba Leopoldo, vas por buen camino

vdebate reporter

http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2011/10/venezuela%E2%80%99s-presidential-campaign?fsrc=nlw%7Cnewe%7C10-21-2011%7Cnew_on_the_economist

Venezuela’s presidential campaign
As clear as MUD
Oct 21st 2011, 12:15 by P.G. CARACAS
LEOPOLDO LÓPEZ is free to seek election in 2012 as Venezuela’s next president. But if elected, he will be barred from taking office. Or maybe not. The government had asked the country’s supreme court for a pronouncement on the “applicability” of a ruling last month by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), which overturned an administrative ban on Mr López holding public office. On October 18th the tribunal responded by muddying the waters.
The matter is of more than academic interest. Mr López, the leader of the centre-left People’s Will party, is among the front-runners for the presidential candidacy of the opposition Democratic Unity alliance—known by its initials, somewhat ironically, as the MUD. One recent poll even showed him in the lead. In 2008, when he was on course to become mayor of greater Caracas, he was barred from standing on account of unproven corruption allegations. According to the IACHR that ban, due to last until 2014, was a breach of Venezuela’s international human-rights obligations because it did not arise from a sentence handed down by a court.
That decision produced a strong reaction from Hugo Chávez, the president, who is standing for re-election. He called the IACHR “worthless”. The government condemned what it deemed interference in Venezuela’s internal affairs, saying the ruling would only be applied if the supreme court found it compatible with the Venezuelan constitution—even though IACHR rulings are binding on member states, and the constitution itself, rewritten during Mr Chávez’s presidency, grants precedence to international human-rights treaties.
It was therefore not surprising that the court, which has a record of dancing to the government’s tune, failed to uphold the ruling. The decision, written by justice Arcadio Delgado, accuses the IACHR of acting “as if it were a colonial power” by usurping the role of Venezuela’s own institutions. What did raise eyebrows was the apparent contradiction between Mr Delgado’s reaffirmation that Mr López was “temporarily barred from holding public office” and the opinion expressed by Luisa Estella Morales, the court’s president, at a subsequent press conference. According to Ms Morales, the court will issue a ruling on whether Mr López can take office as president if and only if he wins the election.
In effect, the supreme court is hedging its bets. By leaving open the possibility that the ban might later be overturned, its president may be signaling a willingness to facilitate a transition to a post-Chávez government if necessary. At a time when Mr Chávez was having tests in Cuba to determine whether the cancer operation he underwent in June was successful—he recently declared he is now cancer-free, but one of his former doctors said on October 16th that he probably has no more than two years to live—that speaks volumes about the uncertainty in government ranks over his political future. Suspicious commentators have suggested that the court’s ruling on Mr López might even have been brought forward to distract attention from a news item that seemed certain to weaken the president.
Meanwhile, by leaving the situation unclarified, the court may also have damaged Mr López’s chances of winning the MUD primaries, which are set for February 12th. Many potential voters could be put off by the fear that, if chosen, he would be less likely to win, and that if he won, he might be barred from taking office. Although Mr López himself has insisted he will stay in the race, and rival candidates have publicly supported that position, in private, some opposition members feel he should withdraw in order to minimise the damage to their cause. For the moment, however, he is at least receiving a great deal of free publicity.

Disrespect for the life of the less equal

God is big........ Please help us to live in the Venezuela that helps the Venezuelans, no the one that abuse them.Vdebate Reporter

VenEconomia Oct.18, 2011
Disrespect for the life of the less equal
Last week, the United Nations Human Rights Council issued a series of recommendations for reversing the deviations revealed by the Universal Periodic Review to which the Venezuelan Government was subjected.
The Venezuelan delegation rejected some 38 recommendations made by the Council outright, mainly those referring to the freedom of speech, the Independence of the judicial system, and a reform of the prison system in order to ensure compliance with the minimum standard established by the United Nations when it comes to the treatment of inmates.
This failure to accept certain recommendations is totally in line with the violations of the human rights of more than two dozen Venezuelans who, today, are in prison for different political reasons.
The cynicism and the cruel treatment meted out to these prisoners of the government are beyond belief.
One of these cases is that of the judge María de Lourdes Afiuni, who suffered delays in receiving medical treatment for a breast cyst and hemorrhaging, which could have had unpredictable consequences for her health.
Venezuelan “justice” has proved to be equally inhumane in the cases of former Police Chiefs Iván Simonovis, Henry Vivas, and Lázaro Forero. The health of all three has been severely undermined as a result in delays in providing them with medical treatment.
Even more inhumane is the treatment being meted out to the Metropolitan Police officers who are also serving unjust prison sentences for the events of April 2002. Today, one of those officers, Sergeant Julio Rodríguez, has been diagnosed with prostate cancer, but too late in the day as it had already spread to his lymphatic system; and the government still refuses to authorize his release on humanitarian grounds so that he can be treated at home.
Could it be that these Venezuelans less equal than the President, who has at his disposal the very latest medical advances for treating the cancer from which is suffering?

Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is a Sick Man

Agree 100% with this article of Jerry Brewer vdebate reporter

Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez is a Sick Man
By: Jerry Brewer
President Hugo Chavez’s physical and mental health transcends a myriad of opinions and judgment.Chavez’s ever-growing and strong political opposition stands firm in awaiting what many believe is the end of his socialist version of the Bolivarian Revolution, either by election defeat or he succumbing to his critical physical illness.
Chavez pompously says he will be president through the year 2030.To a man who adores his own “one-way freedom” with the media, he closely guards his medical condition; waffling from just needing one treatment of chemotherapy; and sequentially now reaching his fourth recently conducted again in Cuba.
Bolivia’s leftist President Evo Morales went there to be at the side of his socialist mentor. Morales left Cuba to speak at the United Nations last week- assuming Chavez’s usual anti-US and Israel diatribe. Trying to defend world accusations of his regime’s complicity in drug trafficking and terrorism, he chose to blame the US for rumor-mongering. A pretty heady position by a rogue leftist leader who“kicked”the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) out of Bolivia; following the lead of Chavez who did the same. The region’s drug activity for both nations is very well known to a free world’s acute focus on the truth. How can any savvy, sane and inquisitive, person believe Chavez and Morale’s pathological nonsense? Adjoining Latin American neighbors are not fooled.
Morales is now having his own problems at home with the indigenous Bolivian people violently oppressed while trying to assemble peacefully in disagreement with the government.
Let’s face the fact that Hugo Chavez is Venezuela’s master of lies and thus must keep his regime constantly censoring the media. His one-way media output constantly reflects his physical and mentalfitness, as well as his frequent sound-byte attacks on the US (capitalism and imperialism). This, muchlike the father of lies- Fidel Castro’s lengthy absence from the public eye for around four years. Fidel Castro later would emerge and truthfully state that he was near death.Chavez frequently goes to extreme measures to censor Venezuela media- especially after the Christian Science Monitor exposed and published the steady stream of wealthy Venezuelans abandoning theirformer beloved homeland for Panama. Too, it was reported that Chavez’s top military leaders were involved in contingency plans on a move to Panama- this via one of “Panama’s top real estate developers.” The pathological nature of Chavez’s words and tenure in office as Venezuela’s rogue leftist leader, isgraphically and factually demonstrated by the embarrassment of slim victory for majority rule in the 2010 parliamentary election in Venezuela on September 26, 2010.This sparked a tirade of Chavez anger that led to his usual non-stately and crude political demeanor of confrontation. He quickly embarked on travel to meet with his mentor and revolutionary partner Fidel Castro in Cuba, as well as to the embracing arms of Iran’s Ahmadinejad. Too, his stops did not forget his pals in Russia, Syria, and others.
Chavez recently continued to exhibit his flawed and ill propensities to embarrass a once proud and prosperous democratic populace in Venezuela, by “solidarity wishes to Libya’s“on the run”PresidentMuammar Gaddafi and Syria’s embattled President Bashar-al-Assad whose regime is hunting down and killing street protesters. Chavez, as usual, blames this on“Yankee aggression- allowing his flawed mental capacities to ignore a majority world support of those people of those actions wishing to be free of oppression and lies by their rogue leftist dictators.Chavez’s mental illness, whether temporary or not, also does not allow him to see that the people on thestreets in protest against the murdering regimes of Libya and Syria are their own people in masses.
What part of that does Chavez or his own supporters miss? All they have to do is use the free world media for the facts, and not his own personal blog (Twitter) that spews his tired rhetoric of falsehood and subterfuge. He goes by the name of “Chavez Candanga (literally-“the devil”).”
Now there is acurious mentor for him also.The squandering (and the simple disappearance) of billions of dollars in hard earned oil revenue forVenezuela’s citizens, is Chavez’s rationale to deceive a very savvy (but violently oppressed) Venezuelan people into believing Venezuela is to be invaded by the “Yankees.”
This allows him to buy and hoard massive weapons and issue blank checks to leftist regimes throughout the world that care not one iota for the true welfare of the Venezuelan people. Only Chavez garners the accolades for“his”generosity and personal support of murdering world dictator-like regimes.
The truth is that the world has previously seen leftist leaders and regimes telegraph their true intention sthrough their anger and arrogance while consolidating power. Those acts routinely weaken democratic institutions, and trample on the guarantees of human rights. In the absence of a credible judicial control in Venezuela, the Chavez government has implemented “systematically discriminatory policies that have limited the exercise of freedom of expression of journalists, the right to freedom of association for workers and the civil society capacity to promote human rights in Venezuela. The Chavez government has implemented discriminatory practices against its political opponents and critics.
At times, the president himself has openly endorsed acts of discrimination.”Chavez has further defined his sinister agenda through a manifest disregard of the principle of separation of powers and, especially, the idea of an independent judiciary that is “indispensable for protecting fundamental rights in a democratic society.”
What more proof is necessary? It came with the political take over of the Supreme Court by Chávez and his regime.The people of Venezuela, both supporters and non-supporters of Hugo Chavez, urgently need to implement surgical-like fact finding- the search for the truth and facts from a “world”media. In this manner, they can be sure that they did their own homework; used their own God-given minds; and made the right decisions for their future and families. With a factual search for the truth- a free world believes they will say“Nunca mas,”to Hugo Chavez, or any similar leader of destruction and misery.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATES United States of America—Jerry Brewer is C.E.O. of Criminal Justice International Associates (northern Virginia), a global risk mitigation firm.
Website is located at http://www.cjiausa.org/.
mailto:jbrewer@cjiausa.org
TWITTER:cjiausa
Media archives:www.scribd.com/jbrewer31 and http://mexidata.info/

Violence and Politics in Venezuela

I use to invite foreigners to go to Venezuela, no anymore..... too much crime

vdebate reporter

Violence and Politics in Venezuela
Latin America Report N°38 17 Aug 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Every half hour, a person is killed in Venezuela. The presence of organised crime combined with an enormous number of firearms in civilian hands and impunity, as well as police corruption and brutality, have entrenched violence in society. While such problems did not begin with President Hugo Chávez, his government has to account for its ambiguity towards various armed groups, its inability or unwillingness to tackle corruption and criminal complicity in parts of the security forces, its policy to arm civilians “in defence of the revolution”, and – last but not least – the president’s own confrontational rhetoric. Positive steps such as constructive engagement with Colombia as well as some limited security reform do not compensate for these failures. While the prospect of presidential elections in 2012 could postpone social explosion, the deterioration of the president’s health has added considerable uncertainty. In any event, the degree of polarisation and militarisation in society is likely to undermine the chances for either a non-violent continuation of the current regime or a peaceful transition to a post-Chávez era.
A significant part of the problem was inherited from previous administrations. In 1999, the incoming President Chávez was faced with a country in which homicide rates had tripled in less than two decades, and many institutions were in the process of collapse, eroded by corruption and impunity. During the “Bolivarian revolution”, however, these problems have become substantially worse. Today, more than ten people are murdered on the streets of Caracas every day – the majority by individual criminals, members of street gangs or the police themselves – while kidnapping and robbery rates are soaring. By attributing the problem to “social perceptions of insecurity”, or structural causes, such as widespread poverty, inherited from past governments, the government is downplaying the magnitude and destructive extent of criminal violence. The massive, but temporary, deployment of security forces in highly visible operations, and even police reform and disarmament programs, will have little impact if they are not part of an integrated strategy to reduce crime, end impunity and protect citizens.
The presence of international organised crime groups is also nothing new, but there is evidence of increased activity during the past decade that in turn has contributed not only to the rise in homicides, kidnappings and extortion rates, but also to a growth in micro drug trafficking, making poor and urban neighbourhoods more violent. Venezuela has become a major drug trafficking corridor, and different groups, including Colombian guerrillas, paramilitaries and their successors, have been joined by mafia gangs from Mexico and elsewhere in benefiting from widespread corruption and complicity on the part of security forces, some of it seemingly tolerated by individuals in the highest spheres of government.
The government has displayed a particular ambiguity toward non-state armed groups that sympathise with its political project. Urban “colectivos” combining political and criminal activities, including armed actions against opposition targets, operate largely unchallenged and with broad impunity. The Bolivarian Liberation Forces have established control over parts of the border with Colombia, while the FARC and ELN guerrillas from the other side have long found shelter and aid on Venezuelan soil. In the context of the rapprochement between Presidents Chávez and Santos, the cost-benefit ratio behind the unacknowledged alliance between Colombian guerrillas and the Venezuelan government appears to have changed. However, it is still too early to be certain whether the government is willing and able to translate positive commitments and some initial promising steps into effective, sustainable action against such groups.
Violence and corruption have been facilitated by a steady process of institutional erosion that has become particularly manifest in the justice system and the security forces. While impunity levels soar, highly dysfunctional and abusive police have endangered citizen security. Heavily politicised, the armed forces are increasingly seen as part of the problem, enmeshed with organised crime and pressed by the president to commit themselves to the partisan defence of his “revolution”. The creation, arming and training of pro-governmental militias further increase the danger that political differences may ultimately be settled outside the constitutional framework, through deadly force.
In this highly charged environment, political violence has so far remained more a latent threat than a reality. However, as the country heads into what promises to be a fiercely contested presidential election, with very high stakes for both sides, this fragile equilibrium may not hold. Moreover, uncertainties provoked by the president’s illness have compounded short- and medium-term prospects. The greatest danger is likely to come after the election, regardless of who wins, since the entrenched levels of violence are prone to undermine either peaceful regime continuity, hand-over to a successor or any transitional arrangement. Moreover, whatever the political complexion of a future government, the extensive presence of organised crime networks is likely to seriously threaten medium- and long-term stability. The necessary actions to avoid that scenario must begin with a commitment by all sides to peaceful constitutional means of conflict resolution and with effective government measures to disarm and dismantle criminal structures, restore the rule of law and root out corruption in state institutions.

Bogotá/Brussels, 17 August 2011

The denial of medical treatment as a tool of torture in Venezuela

The following article was published in “La Razón”, a Venezuelan weekly newspaper of national circulation, on 14 June 2011. It has become even more relevant in light of the surgery and complementary treatment President Chávez has received in Cuba in order to cure his own cancer. (Comment and translation into English by Enrique ter Horst).

The denial of medical treatment as a tool of torture in Venezuela.
By Tamara Suju Roa
A number of unjustly imprisoned Venezuelans – political prisoners - have had recourse to public scandal and international protection mechanisms, hunger strikes and other forms of protest in order to secure permission from the Venezuelan state to receive urgently needed medical treatment. The cases that come to mind immediately are the ones’ of Judge Maria Lourdes Afiuni, whose bleeding was allowed to continue for months before she was permitted to have the hysterectomy she needed, as well as the case of Wiiliam Saud, operated for four heart bypasses and treated for skin cancer only after the peaceful protests by the students of Operacion Libertad pressured the government to relent and allow the operation.
The right to health, however, is consecrated in article 83 of the Constitution of Venezuela as part of the right to life and as an obligation of the state, but its arbitrary and systematic denial to those unjustly imprisoned for political reasons clearly constitutes a form of torture. To deny medical attention to someone already psychologically weakened by arbitrary detention, as well as entirely dependent on the whim of those in power, is certainly a form of cruelty. One must imagine someone in such a situation, closed-in between four walls, fearing that treatment quite probably will be denied on purpose, his or her family fearing that the perversion of the power of the state can lead to his death and only able to scream to the world the outrage he or she is being subjected to. That is, if the scream can be heard beyond the prison walls.

The Government of Venezuela not only violates Venezuelan laws ordaining the protection of the right to life and health, but all international conventions and treaties, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, and I dare also include the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Demeaning Treatment or Punishment, as the concept of torture included therein is applicable to the treatment Venezuelan political prisoners are subjected to.

Indeed, according to this Convention, by “torture” shall be understood “…any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity….” (Article 1).

I ask the reader if under this concept the denial by the Venezuelan state to allow Alejandro Peña Esclusa, imprisoned in the dungeons of the SEBIN, the political police, to be treated for his prostate cancer is not torture, in addition to cruel and inhuman treatment? Let us recall that a month before his detention Peña Esclusa was operated for a radical prostatectomy and could not receive the necessary radio therapy for the complete eradication of his illness, and has suffered a relapse of the cancer. In order to benefit from this therapy Peña Esclusa requires a judicial authorization to receive such treatment in an aseptic environment only available in an appropriate health center, a measure of surveilled liberty for humanitarian reasons foreseen in the Criminal Procedure Code and which an independent judge would accord as a matter of routine but which now is arbitrarily denied to him. Is the government waiting for his cancer to methastasize?

Police Commissioner Lázaro Forero urgently requires medical examination to determine the extent of his prostate enlargement and treatment for posible glaucoma. Metropolitan Police Officer Erasmo Bolívar requires to be operated on a knee and to be treated on his left eye after having been operated on his retina. Rolando Guevara suffers from a lumbocyatic hernia since August 2007 (diagnosed by doctors of the SEBIN and the Investigative Police) which has not been treated, and Jose Sanchez suffers from cronic gastritis and severe lumbago and needs rehabilitation treatment.

The government, in particular the Minister of the Interior and Justice, is in full knowledge of all of the above, as the provision of medical attention to the political prisoners mentioned by name are part of the agreement the government reached with the students of the so called Operación Libertad protest organized in front of the OAS office in Caracas. The Venezuelan State is the custodian of each of these prisoners of the Venezuelan “justice” system and is therefore responsible, by action and/or omission, of what might happen to them. These particular cases entail a special responsibility for the government, as in spite of its knowledge of their situation it denies them the right to health.

Chávez Illness Sparks Succession Talk

Chávez Illness Sparks Succession Talk - WSJ

By JOSé DE CóRDOBA in Mexico City and KEJAL VYAS in Caracas

Venezuelan officials scrambled Thursday to reassure compatriots that President Hugo Chávez was not seriously ill after his brother said the president would remain in a Cuban hospital for up to 12 more days, making it likely that Mr. Chávez will be away from the country for nearly a month.
The absence has sparked furious speculation about the president's health and led many in Venezuela to ask: What happens if the former army officer who has ruled Venezuela for 12 years is suddenly incapacitated or even dies?
"Nothing will ever be the same," said Juan Carlos Zapata, a political analyst in Caracas. "This is the first signal that Chávez has an end and that there is nobody to take over. He might come back, but nothing will be the same."
Wednesday night, Mr. Chávez's brother Adan said he had just returned from Havana where Mr. Chávez was "satisfactorily" recuperating from an emergency operation on June 10 to treat a pelvic absess, a pus-filled cavity that can result from injury or infection.
Speculation coming from Cuba and Venezuela has focused on the possibility that Mr. Chávez has prostrate cancer, and has had his prostrate removed. A senior Venezuelan official didn't respond to emailed questions about the speculation.
Mr. Chávez's return to Caracas could take place in 10 or 12 days, his brother said on a television program. Venezuela's Defense Minister Gen. Carlos Mata Figueroa said Thursday that Mr. Chávez was "stronger than ever," and would be back "soon."
Under Venezuela's constitution, Vice President Elias Jaua would take the helm if Mr. Chávez is incapacitated. But whether he could remain in power long enough to preside over presidential elections scheduled for December 2012 is open to question, analysts say.
A populist caudillo—or strongman—whose rule rests on the personal and emotional tie he has developed with many poor Venezuelans, Mr. Chávez has no natural successor, analysts say.
"Chávismo without Chávez is not possible," said Alberto Barrera, a co-author of a biography of Mr. Chávez. "Chávez, who is a great showman, is the emotion through which the people connect to power."
Like many caudillos, Mr. Chávez has built a cult of personality, and dominates the country's airwaves, speaking on television and radio for hours at a time. His visage is plastered on billboards across the country.
Polls show other Chávez supporters are unknown or unliked by most Venezuelans, said Daniel Kerner, a Latin America analyst at the Eurasia Group. "Chávez has made it difficult for anyone to rise to that level where they can be seen as a replacement."
Many analysts say that neither Mr. Jaua nor other top Chávez officials have any of the president's charisma, which is the glue the president has used to build a following.
Mr. Chávez's exit from the political scene would no doubt lead to a fierce succession struggle among leading members of his movement. Mr. Jaua, who analysts say comes from the most leftist branch of Mr. Chávez's movement and has close ties to Cuba, could be challenged by other powerful Chávez followers such as Diosdado Cabello, a former soldier now a powerful congressman who controls much of the political apparatus of Mr. Chávez's socialist party.
Rafael Ramírez, the head of the state oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela, the oil-rich's country piggy bank, is seen by analysts as another would-be contender for power, as is Mr. Chávez's brother Adan.
If Mr. Chávez were to be incapacitated, Cuba's crack security services might play a key role, analysts say. Mr. Chávez, who considers himself to be Fidel Castro's spiritual heir, provides Cuba with up to 100,000 barrels a day of cut-rate oil, making the island's economic survival largely dependent on Mr. Chávez's largess.
"The two Castro brothers, who were Catholics once, must be burning a lot of candles, praying for Chávez's survival," says Riordan Roett, head of Latin American studies at John Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies.
Venezuela's military would also play a crucial role. Much of the military has benefited from perks and money-making opportunities provided by Mr. Chávez. But there is resentment among some officers of Cuban influence in the armed forces, and fear that civilian militias armed by Mr. Chávez pose a threat to the institution and the country.
"These political vacuums are very dangerous. There will be a fight," Mr. Roett said. "There will be military moves. There will be moves among the Bolivarian factions."
Some analysts believe that Mr. Chávez, a master of the grand political gesture, is only biding his time to make a triumphal comeback from Cuba, as if from the dead. Such a return, they believe, could help overpower his political opposition.
The former tank commander-turned president still commands the loyalty of about half of his countrymen. But many Venezuelans have become frustrated by the country's surging criminal violence, its spluttering electrical system, as well as the highest inflation rate in the world.
One key date for Chávez watchers: July 5th, when Mr. Chávez is expected to host a spectacular and long-planned regional summit marking the 200th anniversary of Venezuelan independence July 5th.
But the longer time goes on without specific news on Mr. Chávez's situation, the more anxiety grows. "I'm hearing so many rumors now, I don't know what to believe," said Manuel Acosta, a 47-year-old taxi driver.
"Of course you don't want to wish ill upon anyone but if there is a change in the leaders, we can hope that things will start to change for the better."

Venezuela rated the worst performer in accountability - World Justice Project

According to the World Justice Project's Rule of Law Index - Venezuela rated the worst performer in accountability

The Rule of Law Index was prepared by the World Justice Project -an organization partly funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (created by computer entrepreneur Bill Gates) that regularly reviews compliance with the rule of law and access to independent justice in the world Transparency
Venezuela is viewed as the worst government in the world in accountability and effective checks by its citizens, according to the Rule of Law Index -an annual survey on rule of law around the world released on Monday by the World Justice Project, a US institution.
Venezuela is "the worst performer in the world in accountability and effective checks on the executive power," said the report entitled Rule of Law Index around the World prepared by the World Justice Project, AFP reported.
In Venezuela "corruption is widespread (ranking 54 out of 61 countries), crime and violence are common (ranking 64), government institutions are not transparent and the judiciary system is ineffective and subject to political influence (ranks last, 66.)".
"Venezuela ranks relatively well in terms of religious freedom (ranking 15th), accessibility of the civil courts (ranking 21st), and protection of labor rights (ranking 27th).
"The country also displays serious flaws in guaranteeing respect for fundamental rights, in particular, freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to privacy," the text added.

Makled Inc

After I saw La Reina del Sur (The Queen of South) - a soup opera from Telemundo, and its success related with drugs mafia, I think the Makled Inc case could also be a soup opera, or maybe a movie. It would be a bad propaganda for Hugo Chavez.

Makled Inc.
As many other companies of renowned alleged drug kingpin Walid Makled, Aeropostal went to the hands of the Venezuelan State at the end of 2008

Makled's case
There is no way to have a look at the case file of Venezuelan Aeropostal airlines. "It is in custody." It is like saying that this folder cannot be touched.

As many other companies of renowned alleged drug kingpin Walid Makled, Aeropostal went to the hands of the Venezuelan State at the end of 2008. The Venezuelan government seized this and other goods shortly after finding almost four tons of cocaine in a farm rented by the Makled family in Tocuyito, central Carabobo state. Since then, all that is known about the destination of the property of Makled and his brothers is that it went to the Venezuelan government.

Even in public files of Venezuelan registry offices, everything related to Makled is "in custody." There is no interest to air the details of each of his companies. Perhaps because some of them not even are in his name. Businessman Nelson Ramiz warned against it in a motion for appeal brought on May 16, 2008 at the judicial circuit in Caracas metropolitan area.

Ramiz attested to this situation several months before Makled was prosecuted for the crimes of paid assassination, drug trafficking and money laundering. And he was adamant in his statement now from Miami, on the other side of the phone. "Checks bounced; the sale of Aeropostal was a swindle."

Pleased to meet you, my name is Walid

First time they met, it was a businessman-to-businessman cordial talk. Makled called Ramiz to express his interest in the airline.

The stoppage in December 2007 made Aeropostal's troubles come to the surface. It lasted a few hours. However, the event unleashed another, protracted strike organized not by in-house staff, but by the Venezuelan National Civil Aviation Institute. The board would stop selling tickets in Christmas time as long as the company would make its situation formal.

This is what Ramiz calls "bullfighter's sword thrust." He is positive that they had their eyes on the company. Before spending the corporate reserves, in 2008 a buyer showed up, promising to soothe the headache. He was Walid Makled.

He introduced himself as a concessionaire of Valencia airport and several warehouses at the dock of Puerto Cabello. Everything was apparently running smoothly. Nevertheless, before anybody could object to the sale of the airline, Ramiz warned that two things were needed: "Money and political liaisons." Got it! The seller gave the green light. Apparently the buyer was in possession of the two cards

Some weeks later, Ramiz was signing in New York a conditioned sale agreement in installments together with Basel Makled. Nowadays, the latter shares some of his brother's charges. However, the three million US dollars checks which ensured the key of Aeropostal's offices bounced in the United States. The checks, previously signed in Venezuela by Walid, were bad checks.

"Then, they would tell me that they were having cash flow troubles," Ramiz recalled. "I went to Venezuela, visited Aeropostal's offices at Torre Polar. However, some agents of Carabobo state police would not let me in to speak to Makled."

In this way, the impasse went to the court. Ramiz filed a complaint for fraud at the Public Prosecutor Office and, later on, he filed a motion for appeal against Caracas Fifth Commercial Registry Office.

"They recorded the sale with forged documents. I personally appeared at the Registry Office, but they did not let me do anything."

A washing machine, but not for laundry
"In order to expand their business and legitimize the funds from their operations in Carabobo, they went in quest of a vehicle for them to have clout inside and outside Venezuela and freely move their shipments," reported daily newspaper Reporte in its edition of May 27.

The full-color front page aimed at Makled: "Aeropostal... another chapter of the Syrian Sopranos."

"They have turned Aeropostal into a washing machine, not precisely of dirty clothes," the newspaper admonished on May 27 in an article signed by Luis López/CJ.

jpoliszuk@eluniversal.com

Translated by Conchita Delgado

Former Rep. Joseph Kennedy II is disgusting

Joe Kennedy is supporting the dictator Hugo Chavez. How about the poor Venezuelans? They are poorer than the poor Americans. How about the hate Chavez has for Americans?, and also the fraud in the Venezuelan elections committed by Chavez?

Former Rep. Joe Kennedy teams up with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez — again

Caroline May - The Daily Caller Caroline May - The Daily Caller – Wed Feb 2, 1:39 am ET

For the sixth straight year and with the help of Joseph Kennedy II’s non-profit Citizens Energy Corporation, Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez is again attempting to win over America’s less fortunate with the promise of free energy.
The end of January marked the beginning of the CITGO-Venezuela Heating Oil Program, a Venezuelan initiative to provide energy for needy individuals throughout the United States.
As a subsidiary of government-owned Petroleos de Venezuela, CITGO is synonymous with Venezuela’s anti-American, dissent-crushing president. Despite Chavez's abysmal human rights record, hatred of capitalism, anti-Americanism and blatant anti-Semitism, former Democratic Massachusetts Rep. Kennedy still finds it acceptable to partner with the Venezuelan oil giant.

“Every year, we hear from families who struggle each and every day to put food on the table and heat their homes,” said Kennedy in a statement. “We are deeply grateful to CITGO and the people of Venezuela for their generosity to those who need help keeping their families warm. Every year, we ask major oil companies and oil-producing nations to help our senior citizens and the poor make it through winter, and only one company, CITGO, and one country, Venezuela, has responded to our appeals.”

Despite his wintertime generosity, it is impossible to ignore Chavez’s ruthless leadership. Just a glance at his record since he took office in 1999 reveals mass press censorship (including a 30 month prison sentence for those who insult him) and takeovers, unlawful killings, torture, violent reprisals for political opponents, and nationalizations of private businesses.

His contempt for America is palpable. Speaking at UN headquarters in New York in 2006, Chavez called then President Bush a dictator and the devil (commenting that the podium still smelled like sulfur from when Bush had spoke the day before — several years later he said he believed Obama brought the same “stench”).
Not only has Chavez proclaimed America to be Venezuela’s “real enemy,” he has also said that the U.S. is the “first enemy” of its citizens, because after all, according to Chavez, “Capitalism will lead to the destruction of humanity.”
As if that were not disturbing enough, Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, has identified Chavez as a leader with nefarious intentions where Jews are concerned. This has manifest itself in many ways, including in his alliances with some of the worlds most anti-Jew, radical Muslim leaders, such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hezbollah’s Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
While it may appear that Chavez has merely expanded his propaganda efforts — after all, the program’s website reeks of class warfare, complete with a video of babushka dolls trying to decide between hot water and medicine — the effort does have an impact. According to Citizens Energy Corporation, the program helps an estimated 500,000 people a year in 25 states and the District of Columbia.
Chavez’s words are prominently displayed on the site, telling poor Americans that Venezuelan success will be their salvation.
“We are all americanos, and together we share the Bolivarian mission of giving hope and a better life to the poorest and most vulnerable — whether they live in Venezuela or Vermont,” says Chavez. “Our oil revenues are bringing literacy, health care and job training to millions of Venezuelans and it is our wish to extend this prosperity throughout the hemisphere. This program fulfills a promise I made to the people of the United States, and it is a gift warmly given to our American friends.”
Citizens Energy Corporation did not respond to requests for comment.