A Venezuelan Monitor

The Washington Post

Friday, July 30, 2004; Page A18

NEXT MONTH Venezuela will have a chance, maybe its last, to resolve years of political turmoil by peaceful and democratic means. A referendum is scheduled for Aug. 15 on the tenure of populist president Hugo Chavez. If it is fairly held and Mr. Chavez wins, an opposition that in the past has supported a military coup and a general strike in an attempt to force the president from office will be obliged to accept his rule for 2 1/2 more years. If he loses, Mr. Chavez -- a self-styled revolutionary who once led a military rebellion against a democratic government -- will be removed, and new elections for president will be held.

That this democratic opportunity exists at all is due in no small part to a civil society group called Sumate ("join up" in Spanish), which for a year has advocated for and organized the referendum that is provided for in the Venezuelan constitution. The vote itself will have a greater chance of being staged and judged fairly thanks to Sumate, which has recruited tens of thousands of volunteers to monitor the process and conduct independent exit polls and quick counts. So it is disturbing, if not exactly surprising, that Mr. Chavez, who resisted the referendum all along, has instigated an ugly campaign against the organization, including criminal charges against its leaders.
The two founders of Sumate, Alejandro Plaz and Maria Corina Machado, and two of their collaborators are being formally investigated by a state prosecutor for conspiracy to commit treason. Their alleged crime, first raised by Mr. Chavez in a television appearance in February, is Sumate's acceptance of $53,400, or 2 percent of its annual budget, from the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a bipartisan, congressionally funded organization that supports democratic movements around the world. Reports by pro-government media have suggested that the prosecutor may seek the detention of the activists before the referendum takes place; if convicted, they could face prison terms of eight to 16 years.
Why would it be treasonous to accept U.S. funds in an effort to organize a fair election? Surely not because foreign aid is alien to Venezuela: The country's political parties have received it for decades, and Mr. Chavez's own political apparatus has been bolstered by thousands of Cubans dispatched by his principal ally, Fidel Castro. Sumate does not advocate Mr. Chavez's removal but only the resolution of the country's conflict by constitutional means.
But Mr. Chavez does not genuinely accept democracy or the rule of law. He delayed the referendum for a year through legal manipulation and political dirty tricks. Now he flirts with outright political repression in an attempt to determine its outcome. In that sense, Sumate and its leaders are the proverbial canary in the coal mine: If they are prosecuted or jailed, the world will know that Venezuela's referendum is tainted.

Kerry courts Hispanic vote with remarks about leaders

John Kerry says he would be a better friend to Latin America than President Bush, whom he accuses of not promoting democracy in the region.

BY LESLEY CLARK

Miami Herald


Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry is sharpening his criticism of Hugo Chávez, suggesting the Venezuelan president risks becoming an ''outlaw'' if he doesn't ensure that next month's recall referendum on his presidency is conducted fairly.

The comments come as Kerry attempts to portray himself as ''deeply involved'' with Latin America, at the same time accusing the White House of failing to promote democratic reform in Venezuela and elsewhere.

Strategists have suggested the Chávez critique can help Kerry curry support among Cuban-American voters in Florida, who view Chávez as an ally of Fidel Castro. Democrats believe they have an opportunity this year to peel off some reliably Republican Cuban-American voters incensed by the president's recent crackdown on travel and aid to Cuba.

`A REAL CHALLENGE'

In a televised interview that will air Wednesday in 19 Latin America countries, Kerry called the upcoming referendum in Venezuela ''a real challenge to the entire hemisphere'' and said that ''as president,'' he would ``work with the international community to bring pressure in the interest of democracy.

''Global transparency, accountability of government, democracy, I think is critical everywhere, but particularly to our hemisphere,'' Kerry said in the interview with Herald columnist Andres Oppenheimer for the TV program Oppenheimer Presenta. ``If Chavez does not respect that process, then he makes himself an outlaw with respect to those values and those interests.''

The interview with Oppenheimer came as Kerry stepped up his efforts last week to court Hispanics, a critical voting group in several presidential battleground states, including Florida. He lashed out at the Bush administration for not helping Argentina during its 2001 economic downturn and rejected charges that he's ''protectionist'' for suggesting a review of existing trade agreements.

Kerry spent much of last week unveiling Latin American policies and pledging to make immigration reform a top priority.

He gave few details on his immigration policies in the interview but offered his opinion on several Latin American leaders. Asked to name ''three or four'' Latin leaders he respected, Kerry reached back to former Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, who left office in 1990.

Kerry offered voluminous praise for Mexican President Vicente Fox, describing him as ``charismatic, thoughtful, intelligent, articulate, very capable.''

And he accused President Bush of breaking his promise with respect to Fox. ''He said he was going to work with him, do immigration, have this very significant building block or relationship [and it] hasn't happened,'' Kerry said. ``He just got mad at Vicente Fox because he didn't support Iraq. So they didn't have a discussion. Immigration's been dropped completely.''

Asked about the left-of-center Brazilian president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Kerry said he was impressed with da Silva's election, ``by the way he came up through the people, by his roots.''

And he suggested da Silva has been ``incredibly responsible monetarily, fiscally.''

''He surprised some people in the direction that he went and I would be very excited about working with him,'' Kerry said.

He was less enthusiastic about Argentina's left-of-center president, Néstor Kirchner, saying he didn't ``have a great sense of him.''

A spokeswoman for the Bush campaign rejected Kerry's assertion that the administration has put Latin America on a back burner.

''This president has a record that stands tall when it comes to Latin America, and he has very good relationships with the different leaders in this hemisphere,'' said Bush spokeswoman Sharon Castillo.

Republicans have charged Kerry with changing his position on Cuba, and Kerry sought in the interview to clarify remarks he made last month about the Varela Project, the petition signed by more than 30,000 Cubans on the island to hold a referendum on whether to hold free elections.

`MISINTERPRETED'

At the time, Kerry noted the project had ``gotten a lot of people in trouble.''

He told Oppenheimer that the remarks were ''misinterpreted'' and said he would do more to work with dissidents.

''I support the dissidents wholeheartedly in Cuba,'' he said. ``My impression, the reason I said it's been counterproductive, is they've been encouraged, but without the kind of policies that . . . empower and change.''

Chávez Says U.S. Is Fueling His Enemies
By JUAN FORERO

Published: March 11, 2004

CARACAS, Venezuela, March 10 — Under United States pressure to allow a recall referendum against his rule, President Hugo Chávez has in recent days counterattacked, charging that the Bush administration is trying to oust him by aiding his adversaries, including those who briefly overthrew him in a 2002 coup.


Mr. Chávez has seized on the information in reams of United States government documents, made public by a pro-Chávez group in New York that show Washington is trying to strengthen political parties and other antigovernment groups that want to remove the populist firebrand through a recall.

Aid to opposition groups by the National Endowment for Democracy, a nonprofit agency financed by the United States Congress, is not new. Nor is the $1 million spent here last year excessively high for an organization that spends $40 million a year to finance hundreds of organizations in 81 countries.

But the unearthing of 2,000 pages of documents has provided details of how the Bush administration considers the rehabilitation of Venezuela's battered political parties the best way to counter a leader Washington views as erratic and authoritarian.

"The future of Venezuelan democracy depends on the rebuilding of healthy and responsive political parties that can effectively channel citizen demands," says one memo.

Mr. Chávez has lashed out in three recent speeches, telling Washington to "get its hands off Venezuela" and charging that the Bush administration is "financing this mad opposition." He has even gone so far as to threaten to cut off oil exports if Washington gets the "idea of trying to blockade Venezuela, or, even worse, of invading Venezuela."

Relations between the two countries are at their worst since the April 11, 2002, coup, when the White House blamed Mr. Chávez for his own downfall. Bush administration officials were embarrassed when Mr. Chávez was swept back into power in an uprising two days later.

Anti-Chávez groups have abandoned a strategy of general strikes and are focusing on a referendum.

On March 2, the National Electoral Council temporarily disqualified hundreds of thousands of signatures the opposition needed to allow a vote. But opposition groups and diplomats who monitored the signature-gathering say that more than a million signatures were arbitrarily disallowed.

For the United States, which is dependent on Venezuelan oil supplies and has close economic ties to the country, the possibility that the referendum could be scrapped would be a serious blow to a carefully calibrated policy aimed at building feasible political alternatives to Mr. Chávez.

The endowment documents say that "strengthening political parties remains a critical part of any long-term solution" and that the "battered political party system is the only institution capable of restoring democracy by generating solidly democratic leaders and generating sound policies."

Endowment aid had fallen to $257,000 in 2000, as political parties and other beneficiaries in Venezuela were left crippled after Mr. Chávez's sweeping victories in elections. Assistance more than tripled to $877,000 in 2001 as political parties reorganized to counter the president. In 2002, aid rose again, to $1.1 million.

Chris Sabatini, the endowment's director for Latin America, said the agency's goal was to promote democracy. In a phone interview from Washington, he said the endowment had worked in Venezuela with civic groups without political ties, including conflict resolution teams and organizations defending human and civil rights. The endowment's aid to political groups is aimed at strengthening them "to build political space" and calm the shrill political debate in this deeply divided country, he said.

The documents, obtained by a freelance reporter, Jeremy Bigwood, and posted on the Web site of the Venezuela Solidarity Committee, show that much of the aid benefits political parties and groups leading the recall effort. Those benefiting from assistance include Sumate, a group that has staged signature gatherings for a referendum. It received $53,400 last September.

Financing does not go directly to political parties. The endowment channeled nearly $350,000 to the international wings of the Republican and Democratic parties, the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, and the foreign policy arm of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the American Center for International Labor Solidarity. Those organizations ran workshops and training sessions and offered advice to three political parties — Democratic Action, Copei and First Justice — as well as the Venezuelan Workers Confederation.

The leaders of all these organizations have been at the forefront of the anti-Chávez movement.

Mr. Chávez has been suspicious of the endowment's intentions since it was revealed soon after the coup that opposition groups had been receiving funding.

Though the State Department put $1 million in endowment aid on hold in the aftermath, an internal investigation found the groups carried out programs "adhering to U.S. laws and policies," and assistance resumed.

"The government believes it is unacceptable for the United States to be involved in the affairs of Venezuela," said Andres Izarra, a spokesman for the Venezuelan Embassy in Washington.

The Venezuelan parties and the workers confederation that are beneficiaries of aid are important components of the Democratic Coordinator, an anti-Chávez umbrella organization led by politicians, labor leaders, former managers at the state oil company and media executives.

Some groups that receive aid, like the Center for International Private Enterprise, which has ties to the United States Chamber of Commerce, do not hide their loathing of Mr. Chávez.

The enterprise, in explaining its role here, says the "current political crisis in Venezuela has been brought about by the deplorable performance of the Chávez government, which has demonstrated both militaristic and Marxist tendencies." The center received $203,000 last year.

Mr. Sabatini explained that the endowment has helped organizations that are not outwardly political like international private enterprise group, which is monitoring public spending, a journalists' group and conflict resolution organizations. When they conduct programs, it is not an opposition question, Mr. Sabatini said.

Assistance is open to groups allied with Mr. Chávez, he said, and even the governing party received technical assistance from the Republican and Democratic institutes. Independent groups like the N.E.D. have an obligation to support and give a lending hand, Mr. Sabatini said.

From Chavez, Divisive Rhetoric
Embattled Venezuelan's Bluntness Is Fuel for Recall Effort
By Jon Jeter
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, March 11, 2004; Page A23


CARACAS, Venezuela -- When he addresses the nation, President Hugo Chavez sometimes breaks into song. He sermonizes his supporters and taunts his foes. In January he called Condoleezza Rice, the White House national security adviser, "a real illiterate." And last month, he used a profanity to describe President Bush, alleging Bush supported a campaign by Venezuela's political opposition to remove him. Then he issued a challenge.

"We're going to make a bet to see who lasts longer, Mr. George Bush -- you in the White House or Hugo Chavez here in Miraflores," he said, referring to Venezuela's presidential residence. He added that he would make the bet in Venezuelan currency "or in dollars, as you wish."

Chavez's policies, Venezuela's faltering economy and allegations of creeping authoritarianism are ostensibly driving the violent street protests here and the growing efforts to oust the president.

But language also divides this country. Supporters and critics of Chavez have said that the president's salty, earthy and even profane speeches are anything but presidential. While Venezuela's poor, and its black and indigenous minorities, often find Chavez's use of blunt language appealing, wealthy and middle-class Venezuelans find it boorish and embarrassing.

"When Chavez talks, it is like he is one of us," said Pablo Rosales, 53, a black cab driver here. "He is the first president I've seen who talks to the poor and not just the high class. He includes us when he talks."

Said Adriana Ruggiero, 45, a dentist: "He uses such profanity. That is not how a world leader should present himself. He is like a cave man. He makes all Venezuelans look bad."

Class is the principal fault line in Venezuelans' fractured opinion of Chavez. Recent polls indicate that Venezuela's poor, who are nearly 80 percent of the country's 25 million people, are almost evenly split on Chavez. About 41 percent of Venezuelans support Chavez, the vast majority of them poor, said Luis Vicente Leon, executive director of the national polling firm Datanalisis.

But the 59 percent of Venezuelans who disapprove of Chavez include virtually all of the country's most prosperous residents, Leon said.

"There's no doubt that Chavez's strongest support comes from those sectors of Venezuelan society who have typically been the most excluded: blacks, indigenous people and the poor," Leon said.

The son of rural teachers, Chavez has said that he has more support than the polls reflect because researchers avoid the shantytowns and poor neighborhoods where the bulk of his supporters live.

His weekly broadcast program, "Hello President," has a preacher's cadence and is peppered with slang. When the actor Danny Glover visited last month and attended a ceremony to name an elementary school for the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., televised news accounts showed Chavez pointing to his curly hair and broad nose and saying that he, like Glover, was of African heritage.

"He speaks the language of the excluded," said Maximilien Arvelaiz, a Chavez adviser. "He doesn't just speak about the poor. He speaks to the poor."

After returning from a state visit abroad, for example, Chavez has spoken on television using a map and pointer. "He will say this is where I was and it takes X number of hours to travel there by plane from Caracas," Arvelaiz said. "For the rich and the middle class, this is all quite boring because of course they know where Spain is on the map. They think it is stupid. But poor people love this. No one has ever taken the time to explain this to them."

Julio Borges, a spokesman for the campaign to recall Chavez, acknowledges that the president has considerable charisma. But Borges said there had not been any substantial improvements in the lives of the poor since Chavez took office five years ago. Inflation is rising, the economy has lost jobs and crime in urban centers has increased, he said. "He's a demagogue," Borges said.

Elections officials last week validated only 1.8 million of the more than 3 million signatures collected by Borges and other opposition leaders in support of a referendum to recall Chavez. Constitutional provisions require that 2.4 million signatures, representing 20 percent of eligible voters, be validated.

Monitors from the Organization of American States and the Atlanta-based Carter Center said they did not see widespread fraud in the referendum process. But the National Electoral Council ruled that many of the forms were improperly completed and that signatures did not match identification numbers. Chavez said many names were of dead people.

On Wednesday, his opponents condemned the electoral council's action, saying that Chavez's allies on the panel were blocking the referendum with a complex and unfair review process, the Reuters news agency reported. The opponents, a coalition of political parties, labor leaders and civic groups, said their analysis showed that they have enough signatures to force a vote.

Venezuelans Get Sacrificed in Blame Game

By Marcela Sanchez
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, January 9, 2004; 7:26 AM

It is human nature -- not to mention just plain easier -- to blame others for actions that don't make us particularly proud. Politicians have elevated this weakness to an all-too common and unfortunate public practice. And nowhere is this art of pointing the finger in every other possible direction to avoid responsibility grown so old and tired as in Venezuela.

Take President Hugo Chavez. He took office blaming corrupt oligarchs who had long dominated Venezuelan political life for maintaining a system that relegated one-third of the population in an oil-rich land to life on less than $2 a day. Five years into his "Bolivarian revolution," poverty levels today are higher than in 1990. Still, he blames others.

Take the opposition and its allies in the Bush administration. They blame Chavez for everything under the sun, and then some. They accuse him of purposely wanting to increase the number of the poor in Venezuela in order to justify the need for his "Marxist" revolution. Yet the national strike the opposition launched a year ago helped devastate an already weak economy.

Enough is enough. Play the blame-game -- with its accompanying conspiracy theories of murder plots and imperialistic ambitions -- and necessary, rational discussion of Venezuala's problems is lost. In a polarized and troubled nation, finger-pointing not only gets in the way of real solutions, it gets in the way of smart politics as well.

Venezuela's Electoral Council has now begun to verify the signatures collected in two separate drives to recall either Chavez or 37 lawmakers who oppose him. The government claims it collected nearly 4.3 million signatures for recalling the lawmakers, while the opposition says it has 3.4 million in favor of recalling Chavez -- far more than the 2.4 million, or 20 percent of the electorate, needed to force a referendum.

No matter what the council decides, the signature drives make one thing clear: Millions of Venezuelans are disgusted and want something they are not getting today. How deep is their dismay? Nearly one-third of Venezuelans polled by a Washington-based research firm just before signatures were gathered said they would sign both petitions.

And yet who is tapping into this disgust? No one in any creative way. In a country that has been talking about an electoral exit from the current crisis for more than a year, leaders on both sides would rather fuel the discontent than harness it in a way that would drive a political solution.

This is mostly a challenge for the opposition that hasn't quite digested the fact that even if Chavez is recalled, Venezuelans would still be more inclined to vote for a candidate that is more like him and less like his predecessors. Furthermore, the opposition has yet to capture the hearts and minds of those who perceive that their priorities are still better addressed by Chavez, even if his efforts fall short.

Any alternative to Chavez should keep in the forefront the social priorities of the poor. Chavez continues to speak for them, visits their neighborhoods and has launched what are now popular educational and health programs they had never seen. The opposition so far has managed only to criticize those programs for involving Cuban doctors or Cuban educational strategies.

This does not mean, of course, governing on behalf of one group over another. One of Chavez's major mistakes has been his naive belief that he alone could bring about his revolution, even if in the process he alienated other traditional centers of power such as media owners, the church and industrialists.

A more inclusive, conciliatory leadership would be a better match for the country's own peaceful culture, which has shown considerable resilience during Chavez's divisive tenure. Such leadership would appeal to Venezuelans' pride and nationalism without antagonizing nearly the entire international community. The opposition certainly has greater cachet with powers abroad, but its decidedly anti- Castro posturing makes it appear more a Washington puppet and less a conciliatory Venezuelan movement.

To his credit, Chavez was not afraid to push for reforms, in fact he was elected because he promised fundamental changes. He erred, however, in thinking that reform by fiat would not make matters worse. No amount of blame could hide the failure of such a strategy and the damage it has done to democratic institutions.

It is unlikely that Chavez will point to himself anytime soon and utter a Spanish version of Harry Truman's famous line, "the buck stops here.'" Until then, the opposition has the unprecedented opportunity of ending both the blame game and the divisiveness that now cripples Venezuela.

Marcela Sanchez's e-mail address is desdewash@washpost.com.

Política
VLADIMIR VILLEGAS Exige que no se le pida equilibrio informativo al canal 8
“Venezolana de Televisión es una trinchera frente a las mentiras de los medios”
Una entrevista entre dos reporteros con distinta percepción del país se desencaminó de la objetividad en la que ambos fueron formados y se desvió por el desencuentro y el intercambio de gritos.
Aquí se transcribe esa evidencia de la locura de la polarización pero también del intento de entenderse (tras el bochorno y el vaporón que dejan los disgustos)

MILAGROS SOCORRO


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





–Vladimir, yo tengo 20 años de experiencia en el oficio, he publicado cinco libros y, dicho con modestia, soy premio nacional de Periodismo, que recibí de manos de Chávez, y tengo un proyecto para hacer un programa de televisión.

¿Qué debo hacer para transmitirlo por VTV, el canal de todos los venezolanos?
–Tú puedes presentar un proyecto, que se someterá a consideración de un comité de programación, coordinado por el gerente de Programación, Gustavo Arreaza. Se puede ver el perfil del programa.

Eso se acepta o se rechaza, como ocurriría en cualquier canal.

–¿Qué posibilidades tengo de ser aceptada?
–Bueno, depende del programa, de su calidad, del contenido...

–Entonces todos los programas que vemos en VTV han sido aprobados por ese comité.

–Desde que yo estoy al frente de VTV, son pocos los programas nuevos.

Ahora estamos preparando un programa musical con el grupo Madera, con la idea de dar a conocer la música popular venezolana.

–¿Estás contento con la programación de VTV?
–No estoy contento. Yo creo que debemos mejorarla.

–¿Hay algún programa que piensas eliminar?
–Sí. Y si no eliminar, reconceptualizar.

–¿Qué porcentaje de la programación de VTV es información o entretenimiento y cuánto es propaganda del Gobierno?
–No puedo dar cifras pero evidentemente la principal carga de la programación es informativa.

–Y, ¿qué porcentaje es propaganda?
–Una cosa es información y otra es la propaganda, la publicidad.

– Me refiero a la propaganda del Gobierno que es presentada como información.

–Es que la información es una cosa y la propaganda es otra. No podemos confundirlo.

–Está confundido en VTV.

–Yo podría decir que la propaganda de la oposición está contenida en la programación de los canales comerciales.

–Cada vez que se refiere a los medios de comunicación, Chávez dice que son golpistas.

–En lo que tiene mucha razón.

– En mi periódico...

–En el periódico donde tú trabajas...

–Hay unos cuantos periodistas y columnistas chavistas. ¿Cuántos periodistas o conductores de programas hay en VTV que no sean chavistas?
–No sé. Porque no le he preguntado a ninguno si es el del Gobierno o de la oposición. A algunos los conozco y lo sé pero yo no llegué aquí con la idea de hacer maccartismo periodístico ni de fichar a nadie.

-Cuando los periodistas de VTV hacen su trabajo, ¿en cuántos de ellos se expresa un espíritu crítico o de independencia frente al Gobierno?
–Nuestros periodistas se expresan dentro de nuestra política informativa.

Los periodistas de El Nacional saben cuáles son los parámetros informativos de ese diario y dentro de ellos se mueven. Un periodista de VTV sabe dónde está trabajando y cuál es la política informativa.

–Insisto, en El Nacional hay reporteros y columnistas chavistas, no chavistas y de centro; y, porque saben dónde están trabajando dicen lo que quieren.

–Yo no conozco esos periodistas que dicen lo que quieren en El Nacional.

–¿Ah no? ¿Entonces Maripili Hernández no dice lo que quiere?
–Ella es columnista.

–Yo te he hablado de reporteros y columnistas.

– No sé si el tema de la entrevista es El Nacional pero podemos discutir muchas cosas de ese periódico, como la línea informativa, los titulares, la forma como algunos reporteros hacen opinión dentro del reporterismo. Tú misma has dicho que con frecuencia se rompe esa línea que debe separar la información de la opinión.

–Sí, y lo dije en El Nacional , no detrás de una puerta. ¿Cuántos periodistas de VTV pueden decir que son críticos de lo que se hace en su medio de trabajo?
–Un canal de televisión no es un periódico, donde hay una página de opinión.

–Vladimir, qué argumento es ése. Muy bien, hablemos sólo de televisión. El diputado Tarek Saab va día por medio a los canales comerciales, ¿cuántos diputados de la oposición vienen a VTV?
–Es cuestión de verificarlo pero creo que es una exageración eso de que Tarek Saab va día por medio.

–¿Te sirve una vez al mes?
–O una vez cada cuatro semanas.

–Muy bien ¿quién viene aquí de la oposición?
–¿A dónde queremos llegar? Aquí viene Chúo Torrealba, Domingo Alberto Rangel, Teodoro Petkoff.

Ocurre que muchos miembros de la oposición se niegan a venir. Ahora, si me preguntas si yo invito a Enrique Mendoza para que venga a VTV, la respuesta es no, porque él dijo que quería cerrar esta basura.

–¿Por qué dijo Mendoza eso?
–Porque es un golpista.

–Parece que los golpistas pueden ofender a quien les dé la gana. Chávez, golpista del 92, insulta a troche y moche.

–Me estás cambiando de tema.

Estamos hablando de Mendoza y tú me dices algo del Presidente que yo no comparto.

–Ah, Chávez no es golpista.

–No comparto que el Presidente ofenda a todo el mundo ni que tú lo califiques de golpista, porque es el Presidente.

–Y ya no es golpista.

–Él participó en una insurrección militar. Aceptó su responsabilidad y fue a la cárcel.

–¿Es golpista o no es golpista?
–Participó en una insurrección.

–Estoy asombrada.

–Enrique Mendoza, en el marco de un golpe de Estado en el que participó, dijo que iba a cerrar esta basura llamada VTV. ¿Qué te asombra?, ¿que yo diga que a Chávez no se le puede llamar golpista?
–Exacto.

–Rómulo Betancourt también fue golpista pero no vas a pasar toda la vida llamándolo el golpista Rómulo Betancourt, porque participó en la Revolución de octubre.

–Si un golpista señala a otro de golpista para acusarlo, pues claro que hay que recordarle que él también lo es.

–¿Y tú reconoces a Betancourt como un golpista? Respóndeme.

–No respondo porque eso no tiene nada que ver. El presidente de VTV eres tú...

A estas alturas la grabación de la entrevista ya no registra un diálogo sino un gallinero donde dos personas furiosas se acusan mutuamente de cambiar el tema para eludir responsabilidades, de apelar a frases hechas para no llegar al centro del asunto y, sobre todo, de no portarse como periodistas sino como operadores políticos. De pronto, siento vergüenza, es inútil lo que estamos haciendo. Apago el grabador.

Inhibido por su condición de anfitrión y de caballero, Vladimir se queda callado y entonces aprovecho para reprocharle que, siendo los dos reporteros, él se esté comportando como uno de esos voceros que tanto nos chocan, que no dicen la verdad, su verdad, sino que adaptan sus declaraciones al troquel del poderoso. Le echo en cara que me ha dicho muchas tonterías, que nadie le creerá eso de que él no les pide el carnet del partido a los empleados y que los diputados de la oposición no vienen a VTV porque no quieren...

–Demasiadas pendejadas, Vladimir.

–Prende esa vaina, que te voy a decir unas cuantas cosas. Tú me preguntas mi posición ante los maltratos a periodistas y yo, que he sido dirigente gremial, no puedo sino decirte que rechazo esas acciones.

Pero, sin justificar cualquier acción de violencia, hay que decir que los periodistas tenemos que revisarnos.

Muchos colegas se han mimetizado con las líneas informativas de los medios; y, a la hora de entrevistar a los asistentes tienen una pregunta recurrente: “¿cuánto le pagaron?”.

Por qué se irrespeta de esa manera a personas humildes que vienen del interior a un acto de Chávez. Eso es una grosería. Y el tópico para cubrir las concentraciones es hacer la contabilidad de los autobuses que llevan a los asistentes, pero no hacen lo mismo con las movilizaciones de la Coordinadora Democrática.

“Yo estoy en VTV como político, no como periodista. No milito en ningún partido en este momento pero soy un dirigente político. No me oculto detrás del periodismo para hacer política. Voy a ser claro contigo, nosotros estamos en una lucha; tú me preguntabas por el equilibrio informativo de VTV porque ves la planta como un hecho aislado y eso no es correcto. El canal 8 no se ve así, tienes que verlo en una perspectiva que incluya a los canales comerciales. Si yo decido poner en la pantalla de VTV a 10 voceros de la oposición y a 10 del Gobierno, en vez de equilibrar las fuerzas estaría contribuyendo a desequilibrarlas más porque estaría aumentando la suma de intervenciones de la oposición en desmedro de la nuestra. Tú acusas al canal de que hacemos propaganda, bueno, sí, hacemos propaganda, pero también es verdad que estamos en una lucha contra cinco canales que han estado dedicados a conspirar para tumbar el Gobierno.

“Los medios de comunicación y la oposición, en general, le piden a VTV un equilibrio que ellos están muy lejos de exhibir. Yo estoy atrincherado aquí, esa es la verdad, frente a la mentira permanente de cinco canales de televisión. No me pidas equilibrio informativo cuando estamos en una batalla. Y yo en esta batalla no soy imparcial como tampoco lo es VTV. La planta tomó partido. Que VTV es del Estado, bueno, y qué, la señal de los canales comerciales también es el del Estado venezolano, y quienes las tienen asignadas apoyaron y promovieron a las fuerzas que intentaron derrocar al Gobierno y cerrar este canal que, efectivamente, es del Estado.

No podemos ser imparciales, además, porque VTV es un objetivo militar de la oposición; y si alguna vez vienen a tomarla, nosotros vamos a resistir.” “Tú me exiges que reconozca las fallas de la programación de VTV, bueno, sí, tiene fallas. Hemos descuidados muchas cosas por estar defendiéndonos del ataque implacable de los medios comerciales, pero no me pidas que diga que el personal es una mierda...” –Eso lo dices tú. Yo no he dicho eso, ni lo pienso. Lo que sí pienso es que muchos de ustedes cometen el error de ejercer su lealtad con mediocridad, en tu caso, con una pésima programación que, supuestamente defiende al régimen. Pienso que nada es más eficiente que la calidad. Y pienso que todo lo que este Gobierno toca lo convierte en un horror, ahí están tu hermano, Ernesto, y tú para probarlo, a ambos los conozco...

–Y estamos convertidos en un horror.

–No. Están cometiendo pendejadas para justificar lo injustificable.

–No se trata de justificar, Milagros, se trata de actuar conforme a lo que uno cree. Tú me pides que me comporte como un periodista y te dé una buena entrevista. Me has dicho que te defraudé. La equivocada eres tú: tienes que entrevistarme como político, como presidente de una institución política.





Muchos partidos, muchos periódicos
Hely Vladimir Villegas Poljak nació en Caracas el 11 de diciembre de 1961, el penúltimo de diez hermanos. Tal como dice su currículum, “es hijo del desaparecido dirigente sindical comunista Cruz Villegas y de Maja Poljak de Villegas, oriunda de Zagreb, antigua Yugoslavia.” Político desde chiquito, se incorpora a la actividad político estudiantil cuando ingresa al liceo Fray Pedro de Agreda. En 1976 se incorpora a la Juventud Comunista, donde permaneció por doce años. Al graduarse de bachiller (e integrar el comité de Bachilleres sin Cupo) pospone su ingreso en la UCV para vivir durante un año en la Unión Soviética. A su retorno, en 1982, retoma los estudios y la militancia política.

Desde antes de graduarse comienza a ejercer el periodismo en Tribuna Popular, vocero del PCV.

Luego trabajaría en Últimas Noticias, en El Nuevo país, (donde duró un mes), en la revista Élite, en El Diario de Caracasy en El Universal.

En diciembre de 1993 fue electo diputado independiente uninominal, en la lista de La Causa R. Y en 1998 fue reelecto diputado, esta vez como dirigente del partido Patria Para Todos.

En julio de 2002, el presidente Chávez lo nombró embajador en Brasil, cargo que desempeñó hasta diciembre de 2003, cuando es designado presidente de Venezolana de Televisión. Está casado con la periodista Egilda Gómez tiene dos hijos.





“
Hacemos propaganda, pero también es verdad que estamos en una lucha contra cinco canales que han estado dedicados a conspirar para tumbar el Gobierno


“
Yo estoy en VTV como político, no como periodista. No milito en ningún partido en este momento pero soy un dirigente político. No me oculto detrás del periodismo para hacer política”.

This is a report on day 2, as to all the irregularities observed by a voting watch organization. SOme are rather mild, some not so mild!

=== === === === === ===


Reporte Parcial del Proceso de Recolección de Firmas

promovido por la oposición



Día 2: 29 de Noviembre de 2003





Plan República vs. Ciudadanos

La Red de Veedores recibió numerosos reportes de ciudadanos y de algunos de sus veedores sobre el comportamiento hostil y de intervención irregular en todo el país por parte de oficiales del Plan República en el proceso de recolección de firmas y de su actitud intimidante dentro de los centros de recolección de firmas y en sus inmediaciones.


El irregular comportamiento de muchos efectivos del Plan República impuso la nota negativa de hoy, el cual se agudizó con respecto a la jornada anterior. En los sectores populares son permisivos con la presencia de grupos afectos al oficialismo en actitudes provocadoras. Se hace, cada vez, más patente la ausencia de una línea común, pues así como en algunos centros, especialmente, en aquellos donde se encontraban los efectivos de la Aviación, se mostraron apegados a la norma, la constitucionalidad y se limitaron a cumplir su rol, sin embargo, un altísimo número de reportes indicaron los excesos cometidos por los funcionarios del PR. Obviamente, las conductas irregulares fueron promovidas y/u ordenadas por la oficialidad, pues la actitud de los soldados y sub oficiales de rango inferior es de cordialidad.


Se destaca también el hecho del aumento sustancial de efectivos en los CRF; de los seis que estaban asignados y comenzaron ayer, hay centros donde hoy se encuentran apostados hasta cuarenta efectivos.


He aquí algunos ejemplos de conductas que consideramos irregulares o que exceden las normas establecidas por el CNE para el Plan República:


- En Cojedes, reportaron conductas que resultaron obstruccionistas por parte del Tte. Coronel G... (datos en reserva).

- En La Candelaria, el Teniente Coronel C... (datos en reserva), solicitó credenciales a observadores y testigos y permitió la acción de grupos agresivos que amedrentaban a los firmantes.

- Tte. A... (datos en reserva), en el Edo. Aragua: en horas de la mañana, ordenó que retiraran los carteles que identificaban los centros, confiscaron los distintivos de los miembros de mesa e impidieron la entrega del comprobante de la planilla.

- El Gral. N... (datos en reserva) dio la orden de retiro a los funcionarios del centro ubicado en la Crema Paraíso de San Bernardino. Retiro que duró 45 minutos y, luego, se reincorporaron. No obstante, el centro cerró a las 4.30 p.m., a pesar de tener planillas y firmantes en cola, por temor a las agresiones de los simpatizantes del oficialismo que se encontraban en las cercanías.

-En San Bernardino, el Gral. A... (datos en reserva) pasaba en un automóvil con placas TAG... (datos en reserva) e intentó retirar a los efectivos del Plan República de los CRF de la zona.

- El Tte. B... (datos en reserva) en el Colegio de Abogados en el Paraíso, intimidaba a los firmantes e integrantes de la mesa.

- El Sgto. Ch... (datos en reserva) en el Parque Naciones Unidas, de manera arbitraria, pretendió mudar el CRF a otro lugar, obligó a los recolectores a quitarse las franelas de sus partidos y grupos, impidió la entrega del sello: "sí firmo" y se mantuvo junto a los ciudadanos mientras firmaban.


Un caso particularmente ilustrativo resultó el del centro de la Universidad Santa María. El primer día de recolección de firmas se desarrolló con absoluta normalidad y armonía pero en la noche, apareció allí el Cnel. P. V. (Ej.) (datos en reserva), que actuando bajo supuestas órdenes del Ministro Diosdado Cabello, produjo "situaciones", que en la mañana de hoy, degeneraron en irregularidades y conflictos, ya que al extralimitarse en sus funciones, impidió la apertura del CRF y obligó a su mudanza en tres oportunidades.


A este punto, es conveniente resaltar que la resolución 031112-778 del 12 de noviembre establece, con absoluta claridad, las funciones del PR y estas no incluyen decidir dónde se instalan los centros, ni su apertura, ni cómo deben cerrar, ni a cuál hora, ni solicitar documento alguno ni a firmantes ni a miembros del centro de recolección, ni a pedir que se quiten franelas con los colores de la oposición, sobre todo que fue permitido abiertamente la semana anterior. etc. Sus funciones, por lo publicado en gaceta, se limitan a custodiar el material refrendario, velar por la seguridad de las oficinas y centros de adiestramiento, trasladar a los funcionarios del CNE, a los observadores, trasladar las actas de cierre y material de recolección. Cualquier otra atribución es una violación y extralimitación de funciones.

Hostigamiento sostenido:


El hostigamiento a los firmantes de la oposición en algunos sectores fue otra de las notas características de este día. Para la una de la tarde de esta segunda jornada de recolección de firmas, convocada por la oposición, sigue consolidándose lo que en horas de la mañana se perfilaba como la consigna del día: entorpecer y perturbar, desde diferentes niveles, en diversos grados y por distintos personajes, el normal desempeño de la jornada.



Grupos de simpatizantes del oficialismo, instalados al lado de los centros de recolección exhibiendo banderas y gritando consignas en contra de la oposición y los firmantes


Grupos de motorizados en recorridos, atronadores y amenazantes (algunos armados) "paseaban" por la ciudad, se identificaban como "tupamaros", de a dos en Vespas nuevas, sin placas y otros en motos normales con placas de Falcón y DF (datos en reserva)


Simpatizantes del oficialismo eran trasladados en camiones abiertos, algunos con equipos de sonido. circulando alrededor de los centros de recolección de firmas.


Órdenes impartidas a los miembros del Plan República para abandonar algunos de los centros, provocando el cierre antes de hora, por temor a las agresiones..


Visita de personajes oficialistas a sectores populares (alcalde Bernal en Caricuao, prefectos en Mérida, autoridades locales en varios municipios) a las que siguieron presencia de simpatizantes ajenos a la zona, promoviendo agresiones a los firmantes, intimidándolos e intentando espantar a las personas que estaban en las colas.


Lanzamiento de bombas lacrimógenas en el CNE para dispersar a grupos violentos del oficialismo cuando se disponían a declarar los miembros del G-5.


Testigos y observadores del oficialismo provocando situaciones de retraso y excediendo en número al estipulado por las normas. Acoso a los recolectores itinerantes.


Observadores infiltrados provocando la anulación de planillas.


Cierre temporal de varios centros, debido a situaciones violentas y no controladas por los efectivos del PR.


Veamos una muestra variada de lo expuesto, pero con ejemplos y en lugares concretos:


- En San Cristóbal dos heridos en la Casa Sindical (enfrentamiento entre sindicatos y Clase Media en Positivo)

- En Mucurubá -municipio Rangel, Edo Mérida- los oficialistas montaron 4 toldos que impiden el acceso al CRF y dando instrucciones que confunden a los campesinos.

- En el Pedregal, quedó registrado en acta, la actuación de un observador infiltrado que provocó la anulación de planillas.

- En la Hoyada, se produjo una golpiza entre simpatizantes de ambos bandos..

- En el centro de la Plaza Alfredo Sadel, el capitán del PR le levantó acta a la observadora oficialista quien dijo directamente a un agente recolector: "Yo vine hoy a fastidiarte". Trajeron numerosos testigos en procura de entorpecer el proceso. Todo esto en clara violación a la Resolución 03112-779 Art. 8 que establece que "...puede ser revocada la acreditación a aquellos observadores que asuman actitudes que denoten parcialización, injerencia o perturbación en la recolección de firmas"….

- En la UD2 de Caricuao, el CRF instalado allí desde ayer ha estado asediado por un grupo de simpatizantes del oficialismo, que el día de hoy en mayor número, reforzados con personas ajenas a la zona e instalados con equipos de sonido, perturban e intimidan a los firmantes y que al medio día intentaron apoderarse de la planillas y destruirlas.

- En el Pedregal, escuela Juan de Dios Guanche, una infiltrada como observadora de la oposición anuló 6 planillas de los itinerantes, a quienes ella acompañaba. Se registró en acta y fue retirada.

- En los Mecedores, el CRF estuvo sitiado, pacíficamente, por seguidores del oficialismo desde horas de la mañana.

- En Táchira, los ánimos estuvieron muy tensos debido a los camiones de simpatizantes del Gobierno que cercaban los centros. Así mismo, colocaron pancartas al lado de los CRF, provocando tanto a los miembros de mesa, como al PR y a los firmantes.

- Miembros del PR asumen aspectos operativos de las mesas contraviniendo las normas que rigen su participación.

- En Mérida, no quieren salir los itinerantes porque los siguen entre 6 y 8 testigos del oficialismo, incluido el Prefecto de la zona.

- En Palmira, Táchira, se presentó la Notario Cuarta de San Cristóbal, en una de las mesas para revocar a la Dip. Iris Varela, solicitando el "acta de apertura" (tal documento no existe en este proceso); verificó un ciber café de las cercanías e intentó tomar las computadoras allí existentes, dió órdenes a los miembros del Plan República, detuvo temporalmente el proceso, y levantó un acta contentiva únicamente de las declaraciones emitidas por el miembro del oficialismo.

- Tarde nos llegó el reporte del día 28 que informaba que los hermanos Otaiza, en Carabobo, generaron muchos problemas, como en el caso del María Montessori e incluso sustituyeron al observador oficialista que ya estaba trabajando en la mesa. De acuerdo con la norma, el mismo observador que abre, debe cerrar la mesa. Nos queda la duda sobre si tales planillas serán o no anuladas debido a esta situación.

El autoritarismo se contagia.

La actitud arbitraria asumida por algunos oficiales del Plan República y la actitud anti sociedad civil de las autoridades del CNE se contagia a los miembros de la oposición. El coordinador del CRF, ubicado frente al Jacinto Lara, calle 4 de La Urbina, Sr. C... (nombre en reserva) impidió la observación de una de las Veedoras y le dijo que si quería observar lo hiciera desde la acera de enfrente. Hemos de decir que en la mayoría de los CRF, esta semana y la anterior, no se nos impidió la tarea de observación como lo hizo este señor.

La actitud de los simpatizantes del oficialismo:

La semana pasada, durante la recolección de firmas promovidas por el oficialismo, se llevó a cabo sin interferencia ninguna de los simpatizantes de la oposición. Lo único que había alrededor de los CRF del oficialismo eran ventas o reparto de alimentos, azúcar y pollo. Esta semana, hay grupos de iracundos simpatizantes del oficialismo hostigando a los firmantes de la oposición y en algunos casos repartiendo botellazos, insultos. Eso ha llevado, en este proceso y el anterior, a cometer la irregularidad de trasladar planillas de unos centros a otros.


Esta actitud de hostigamiento se manifestó en otros niveles; no hubo presencia mediática de los líderes de oposición, ni eventos de calle que limitaran, impidieran o estorbaran en modo alguno, el ejercicio del derecho constitucional. En esta segunda jornada de recolección promovida por la oposición, en cambio, desde todos los sectores se reportan intentos de interferencia por parte de los simpatizantes del oficialismo.

Sobre normas, su conocimiento y aplicación:

En el día de hoy se ha acentuado lo que ayer, debido al ambiente festivo, la euforia y la desbordada afluencia de firmantes, no tuvo mayores consecuencias; Hoy, es evidente que hay mucho ruido, pero pocas nueces: grandes operativos, abogados, libros, folletos. Sin embargo, los miembros de los CRF, que tienen que lidiar con todas las dificultades, desconocen muchas de las normas y no cuentan con asistencia oportuna y adecuada.


Hay un evidente desconocimiento por parte de muchos miembros de las mesas: de las normas que rigen el procedimiento en todas sus fases, y las labores que corresponden a todos los designados para cumplirlas. Normas tales como los límites de los efectivos del Plan República, las funciones que les están permitidas a los observadores del oficialismo, el rol de los testigos, y las posibilidades de desplazamiento de los itinerantes. Desconocimiento que ha permitido a algunos excederse en sus funciones y ha limitado a otros su tarea.


En el día de hoy, uno de los casos más ilustrativos fue la interpretación de la norma del CNE que prohíbe la utilización de computadoras para verificar el REP (ya de por sí absurda) como que no se debía entregar al firmante una constancia de la planilla y línea en la cual estampó su firma, obligación establecida en el artículo 23 de las Normas sobre Referendo y en el aparte b) del artículo 8 de las Normas sobre los Observadores Nacionales.


Sobre este particular, la Red de Veedores consideró prudente emitir una comunicación a primera hora de la tarde, para proporcionar a firmantes y actores de los centros de recolección, el sustento legal para proceder apegados a la norma. Esta comunicación, hecha con espíritu de servicio intenta cubrir la carencia, en primera instancia del CNE cuya negligencia en este aspecto debe quedar registrada, así como la de los convocantes. Reportes y consultas recibidas en las primeras horas del proceso revelaban inseguridad sobre cómo proceder ante situaciones concretas, inseguridad que fue aprovechada por los factores oficialistas para imponerse aun en contra de la normativa respectiva. Citamos, textualmente, las palabras del reporte de una veedora en uno de los estados andinos: "O se dejan acoquinar, o delegan"

Planillas agotadas e irregularidades:


Desde un principio, se dijo al CNE que imprimir planillas sólo por un equivalente al 66% del REP no iba a ser suficiente. Esto se hace evidente el día de hoy en muchos centros que han agotado la totalidad de las planillas que les fueron asignadas.


Reportes múltiples señalan que se han abierto "centros irregulares" de recolección de firmas. Los veedores reportan que en esos centros, las planillas presentadas corresponden al proceso promovido por el oficialismo y que, sorpresivamente, aparecen circulando irregularmente.

Impresiones, emociones y curiosidades.

Para no concluir con una nota negativa, les comentamos algunas de las anécdotas que permitieron romper la tensión del día:


En Caricuao a las 5 pm., PR, oficialistas, opositores y Veedores, estuvieron todos juntos bajo un toldito protegiéndose del diluvio.


A la salida de un CRF en El Rosal, una vecina obsequiaba a los firmantes con "un dulcito de lechosa".


En algunos centros los miembros de los partidos políticos vestían pantalón amarillo, franelas de AD y gorras de COPEI.


En un CRF de Terrazas del Ávila, uno de los voluntarios se disgustó con una Veedora porque estaba enseñando al observador del oficialismo como usar el teléfono celular para llamar al CNE.


En Guarenas, un Tte. de la Guardia se escondió en la Iglesia cuando una Veedora le fue a entregar la copia de una resolución del CNE.


Se recibió en la tarde un mensaje a través de t-motion: "bombas lacrimógenas en San Bernardino"; se solicitó a quien lo enviaba que confirmara la veracidad y exactitud de la información, y se recibió la siguiente respuesta: "cof, cof, cof..."


Desde San Antonio de Los Altos, reporta un Veedor que un Tte. Coronel se mostró "inquieto" por su presencia y tras mostrarle los formatos de observación, el destino de los informes y la metodología de trabajo, se sintió más tranquilo. A partir de allí, el Veedor no tuvo contratiempos para realizar su trabajo.


Nuestra misión es observar, registrar, informar... y construir un mejor país.

Somos Ciudadanos en Ejercicio.

Somos la Red de Veedores

A Miami Herald article from Oppenheimer on Chavez agressivity towards the US

Posted on Thu, Oct. 30, 2003

Chávez steps up criticism of U.S.
BY PHIL GUNSON AND ANDRES OPPENHEIMER
aoppenheimer@herald.com

CARACAS - Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, a leftist firebrand who
is facing demands at home for a recall referendum, appears to be
doing his best to pick a fight with Washington.
He has hinted that the U.S. ambassador in Caracas is gay and branded
Bush administration officials as ''imbeciles'' and ''criminals,''
while his minions accused the CIA of trying to destabilize the
government.
Venezuelan political analysts differ as to whether Chávez is seeking
to bolster his chances in the recall referendum by playing the
nationalist card, or is looking for excuses to push his ''Bolivarian
Revolution'' further to the left.
Bush administration officials have largely avoided responding to
Chávez' jabs, saying they don't want to fall into any provocations
by Chávez and turn an internal political problem into a
U.S.-Venezuelan problem.
''We want to stop the microphone diplomacy,'' Roger Noriega,
assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, told
The Herald on Wednesday.
Some Washington insiders speculate that there is an even greater
desire to avoid antagonizing Chávez at the Pentagon, where the top
priority is averting any diversions from Iraq, assuring the
continued flow of Venezuelan oil to the United States -- the United
States depends on Venezuela for more than 13 percent of its oil
imports -- and maintaining good relations with the Venezuelan
military.
AT ODDS
Chávez's leftist policies have long put him on a collision course
with U.S. policies in the region. Whether it is the Free Trade Area
of the Americas, U.S. military aid to neighboring Colombia or
relations with Cuba, his government is at odds with the U.S.
position.
Recently, however, he has stepped up his attacks on Washington with
the approach of Nov. 28-Dec. 1, when his opposition will be
collecting signatures seeking a recall referendum on his populist
rule.
He noted that U.S. Ambassador Charles Shapiro had kissed a male
guest at a recent embassy function and said, ''How strange,'' in
what virtually all Venezuelans perceived as calling him a
homosexual.
He has repeatedly accused the CIA of seeking to destabilize his
government -- but offered no evidence -- and warned Washington to
stop meddling in Venezuelan affairs.
A VIDEO
Just last week, pro-Chávez lawmakers made public a video they said
showed U.S. secret agents training dissident military officers and
municipal police in ''terrorist'' tactics. The U.S. Embassy said it
showed agents of the Miami-based Wackenhut security company in a
training session and denied any CIA wrongdoing.
''Mr. Bush,'' Chávez said in an Oct. 5 speech, ``deal with the
problems of the United States, which are plenty, because Venezuela's
problems belong to Venezuela.''
In the same speech, he referred to objections by Washington and
others to his government's confiscation of microwave transmission
equipment from the opposition TV news channel Globovisión.
''They behave like imbeciles,'' he said, ''because without knowing
what's really going on, they start issuing communiqués and saying
the Chávez government is violating I don't know what.'' He went on
to say that those critics were ``criminals, because they're
protecting criminals -- and he who protects a criminal ends up being
a criminal.''
CHILE COMPARISON
Two weeks earlier he claimed that business owners who took part in a
two-month-long strike against his government early this year were
paid by the CIA.
''It's the same thing that happened in Chile under Salvador
Allende,'' he said.
The CIA assertion has since been repeated by pro-Chávez legislators
and even Vice President José Vicente Rangel, all of whom allege that
a series of recent bomb attacks inside military installations was
carried out by the CIA. They offered no evidence.
''What [Chávez] is looking for,'' argues Felipe Mujica, president of
the opposition Movement to Socialism, ``is for [U.S. officials] to
attack him, so that he is left on his own and can do whatever he
likes.''
Chávez even appears to be preparing for a Cuba-styled U.S. embargo
and in recent months has repeatedly stressed the need for ``food
sovereignty.''
FOOD DISTRIBUTION
When the anti-government strike threatened food distribution, he set
up an embryonic government-run food import system, using Cuba as the
intermediary.
''If his regime could survive that way,'' said Elsa Cardozo, a
university professor of international relations, ``he wouldn't care.
He's shown no concern for the fact that the private sector is on the
verge of collapse.''
Under all the leftist theories of foreign policy that Chávez has
studied and now holds, political analyst and Chávez biographer
Alberto Garrido said, ``the final confrontation was always with the
United States.''
But Garrido believes Chávez may feel he's not yet ready for a
showdown, so he is nibbling around the edges of misbehavior in order
to lay the groundwork for an eventual break.
''He's playing on the U.S. weakness, which is oil,'' he said.
Herald staff writer Andres Oppenheimer reported from Miami and
special correspondent Phil Gunson from Caracas.

COMPLETE ARTICLE IN HOUSTON CHRONICLE ON THE VENEZUELAN OIL INDUSTRY PROBLEMS

HoustonChronicle.com

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/energy/2183523

Oct. 27, 2003, 11:53PM

Oil firings in Venezuela take toll down the line
By BRIAN ELLSWORTH
Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle Foreign Service
ARACAS, Venezuela -- With oil prices hovering around $30, those in the energy
business have every reason to be looking for more crude.
But here in Venezuela, famed for its abundant fields, spiking oil prices seem to
be doing nothing for the dozens of contractors who work on everything from pumps
to pipelines. Private contractors who provide equipment or services to
Venezuelan state oil giant Petroleos de Venezuela, or PDVSA, say they are
billing only 60 percent of what they did last year.
In the oil-rich area of Lake Maracaibo, tugs and rigs are sitting idle on the
docks rather than drilling wells or exploring new fields. Contractors who
service wells and equipment say their business has plummeted, and some even talk
about leaving the country.
"I used to repair 200 to 300 pumps per month, but I haven't been called to
service anything since February," said one contractor, who spoke on condition of
anonymity. Buyers complain of high water content of crudes, and contractors
report high sand presence in wells and constant problems maintaining well
pressure.
The business slowdown for contractors, many of whom have ties with Houston, may
be a crucial piece of evidence in the debate over how much oil Venezuela is
actually pumping. And it may mean continued production declines to come.
Even though left-wing President Hugo Chavez survived a crippling two-month
strike by PDVSA workers launched last December, international observers believe
the work stoppage is now taking its toll.
Chavez broke the strike in early February, fired half of PDVSA's workers on Feb.
12 and staged a remarkable comeback that government leaders say has left
Venezuela producing 3.3 million barrels per day.
But agencies around the globe say the damage from the strike and the abrupt
dismissal of 18,000 workers has left PDVSA struggling to maintain an output of
only 2.6 million barrels per day.
Venezuelan authorities assure that this is a manipulation of figures, but 10
contractors reported that their slumping business confirms that production is
declining.
"We're at 60 percent drilling of pre-strike levels," one drilling contractor
said. "Where we should be drilling three holes we're drilling two; each drilling
takes longer and there is more time between each well we drill. That all says to
me that Venezuela can't be producing more than 2.6 million barrels per day."
He and the other contractors interviewed asked not to be identified to avoid
getting in the middle of the war of words between PDVSA and fired employees who
have launched an assault on the national oil company's credibility.
These contractors are probably the only ones in Venezuela who know what is
happening but have no political ax to grind. Many of the contractors even
complained of corruption on the part of former PDVSA employees, who government
leaders accuse of spinning production numbers to discredit the company that
fired them.
Other contractors estimate that 15 to 20 percent of PDVSA's rigs are out of
commission and that 80 to 90 percent of its equipment is due for maintenance.
"We have seen a total paralysis in well maintenance," another contractor said,
alleging that this has caused a spate of accidents, including one last month in
which an oil rig operating in Lake Maracaibo caught on fire.
However, there is little reliable information to compare the current accident
rates with those of previous years.
Venezuela has, in fact, already lost considerable production capacity over the
last five years. Venezuela was producing 3.7 million barrels per day in 1997,
before the start of the four heavy crude upgrading projects that now provide
500,000 barrels per day.
Therefore, even if Venezuela is producing 3.3 million barrels per day as the
government claims, the figure represents a loss of 900,000 barrels per day since
1997.
"Quite apart from what happened in the strike, in the coming months we are going
to see production declines resulting from five years of underinvestment," says
economist Robert Bottome of the business magazine Veneconomy.
And although current production figures are still in dispute, almost all signs
point to continued production slumps.
Venezuelan wells face annual decline of 25 percent, meaning that PDVSA must have
an average of 55 drilling rigs active at any given time to make up for lost
output in older wells.
Baker Hughes' rig count shows between 30 and 40 active drilling rigs -- at a
time when Venezuela is trying to make up for production lost during the strike.
Furthermore, experts indicate that an increasing proportion of drilling rigs are
run by international companies, which by Venezuelan law are required to operate
in marginal fields.
In addition, contractors indicate noticeable declines in work-over rig activity,
which spells considerable future declines in production, especially in western
Venezuela's mature fields.
According to Larry Goldstein, president of the energy think-tank Petroleum
Industry Research Foundation, Venezuela cannot be faulted for not bringing
production back to pre-strike levels, because most expected the strike would
cost the country at least 500,000 barrels per day.
"A company can't fire 18,000 employees without losing the institutional memory
of how to operate its fields," Goldstein said. At this point Venezuela is just
exaggerating the production data.
Goldstein says the primary problem that PDVSA faces is a lack of expertise in
everything from well maintenance to billing.
While PDVSA had the legal right to fire managers who had called for the strike,
doing so stripped the company of those who spent years studying Venezuelan wells
and production methods.
And the strike, which cost the country an estimated $7 billion, has left the
cash-strapped government with few options for reinvesting in future production.
Data on PDVSA's earnings also indicates that production levels are close to 2.6
million barrels per day. Venezuelan Central Bank Director Domingo Maza recently
said that the Central Bank is receiving only $1 billion in oil revenue per
month, rather than the $1.3 billion per month that would correspond to
production of 3.3 million barrels per day.
"Though there may have been a recovery in the production and export of oil,
there is no corresponding recovery in foreign currency payments," Maza told
Venezuela's National Assembly.
Figures provided by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and
the U.S. Department of Energy show Venezuelan oil production close to 2.6
million barrels per day, down from almost 3 million barrels per day in November
2002 and considerably below its quota of 2.9 million barrels per day.
This comes after Venezuela has been one of the most noticeable of the OPEC quota
cheaters, despite Chavez's pro-OPEC rhetoric.
Furthermore, Venezuelan authorities now insist on including upgraded synthetic
crude as part of petroleum production figures, whereas Venezuela previously
categorized synthetic crude as bitumen and therefore not part of quotas. While
Venezuela used to understate its production figures, now it is doing its best to
inflate them.
Leaders of Venezuela's political opposition hope to remove President Chavez
through a recall referendum this spring, which would allow fired workers to
return to the industry.
But no matter who is heading Venezuela's government next year, it looks like oil
production for this crucial OPEC member cannot go anywhere but south.

Gunfire Erupts at Venezuela Rally, Killing One
CARACAS, Venezuela, May 24 (Reuters) — One person was killed and 15 were wounded by gunfire that broke out during a rally held by foes of President Hugo Chávez in a pro-Chávez district of Caracas today, officials said.

Three of the wounded were National Guard soldiers whose patrol came under fire as they took up positions in a security operation to try to prevent violence at the opposition rally.

Government and opposition representatives blamed each other for the shootings.

The gunfire erupted as several hundred supporters of the opposition Democratic Action Party held a rally in a narrow street in Catia, a poor, crime-ridden neighborhood that is a bastion of support for Mr. Chávez.

"This country doesn't just belong to Chávez supporters, but to all Venezuelans," said one of the demonstrators, Ana Maria Colmenares.

Mr. Chávez's opponents accuse him of ruling like a dictator and of trying to install Cuban-style communism in Venezuela, the world's fifth leading oil exporter.

Witnesses said some of the shots appeared to have come from side streets where groups of Chávez supporters had gathered to shout insults at the opposition protesters.

The violence broke out a day after government and opposition negotiators announced they had agreed to a pact to hold a referendum on Mr. Chávez's rule after Aug. 19.

The agreement aims to end months of conflict in Venezuela over Mr. Chávez's presidency. He was elected in late 1998 and survived a brief uprising last year.

Vice President José Vicente Rangel told reporters that 1 person had been killed in the shootings and 15 more wounded, including three National Guard troops.

The authorities had sent 2,000 police officers and troops to the area of sprawling hilltop slum neighborhoods in west Caracas where the rally was to take place.

It was not clear whether the violence might affect the formal signing of the referendum pact, which was scheduled to take place here in the coming week in the presence of the secretary general of the Organization of American States, César Gaviria.

Mr. Chávez, who has said he is willing to submit to the recall referendum allowed under the Constitution, was attending a meeting of Latin American presidents in Peru.

The New York Times


March 5, 2003
Hugo Chávez and the Limits of Democracy
By MOISÉS NAÍM


WASHINGTON - For decades Venezuela was a backwater, uninteresting to the
outside world. It could not compete for international attention with
nearby countries where superpowers staged proxy wars, or where military
juntas "disappeared" thousands of opponents, or where the economy
regularly crashed. Venezuela was stable. Its oil fueled an economy that
enjoyed the world's highest growth rate from 1950 to 1980 and it boasted a
higher per-capita income than Spain from 1928 to 1984. Venezuela was one
of the longest-lived democracies in Latin America.

Venezuela is no longer boring. It has become a nightmare for its people
and a threat not just to its neighbors but to the United States and even
Europe. A strike in its oil industry has contributed to a rise in gasoline
prices at the worst possible time. Hasil Muhammad Rahaham-Alan, a
Venezuelan citizen, was detained last month at a London airport as he
arrived from Caracas carrying a hand grenade in his luggage. A week later,
President Hugo Chávez praised the arrest orders of two opposition leaders
who had been instrumental in organizing the strike, saying they "should
have been jailed a long time ago." Mr. Chávez has helped to create an
environment where stateless international networks whose business is
terror, guns or drugs feel at home.

Venezuela has also become a laboratory where the accepted wisdom of the
1990's is being tested - and often discredited. The first tenet to fall is
the belief that the United States has almost unlimited influence in South
America. As one of its main oil suppliers and a close neighbor has
careened out of control, America has been a conspicuously inconsequential
bystander.

And it is not just the United States. The United Nations, agencies like
the Organization of American States and the International Monetary Fund,
or the international press - all have stood by and watched. In the 1990's
there was a hope that these institutions could prevent, or at least
contain, some of the ugly malignancies that lead nations to self-destruct.
Instead, the most influential foreign influence in Venezuela is from the
1960's: Fidel Castro. The marriage of convenience between Cuba and
Venezuela is rooted in the close personal relationship between the two
leaders, with Mr. Castro playing the role of mentor to his younger
Venezuelan admirer. Cuba desperately needs Venezuelan oil, while the
Chávez administration depends on Cuba's experience in staging, managing or
repressing political turmoil.

Another belief of the 1990's was that global economic forces would force
democratically elected leaders to pursue responsible economic policies.
Yet Mr. Chávez, a democratically elected president, has been willing to
tolerate international economic isolation - with disastrous results for
Venezuela's poor - in exchange for greater power at home.
The 21st century was not supposed to engender a Latin American president
with a red beret. Instead of obsessing about luring private capital, he
scares it away. Rather than strengthening ties with the United States, he
befriends Cuba. Such behavior was supposed to have been made obsolete by
the democratization, economic deregulation and globalization of the
1990's.

Venezuela is an improbable country to have fallen into this political
abyss. It is vast, wealthy, relatively modern and cosmopolitan, with a
strong private sector and a homogeneous mixed-race population with little
history of conflict. Democracy was supposed to have prevented its decline
into a failed state. Yet once President Chávez gained control over the
government, his rule became exclusionary and profoundly undemocratic.
Under Mr. Chávez, Venezuela is a powerful reminder that elections are
necessary but not sufficient for democracy, and that even longstanding
democracies can unravel overnight. A government's legitimacy flows not
only from the ballot box but also from the way it conducts itself.
Accountability and institutional restraints and balances are needed.

The international community became adept at monitoring elections and
ensuring their legitimacy in the 1990's. The Venezuelan experience
illustrates the urgency of setting up equally effective mechanisms to
validate a government's practices.

The often stealthy transgressions of Mr. Chávez have unleashed a powerful
expression of what is perhaps the only trend of the 1990's still visible
in Venezuela: civil society. In today's Venezuela millions of once
politically indifferent citizens stage almost daily marches and rallies
larger than those that forced the early resignations of other
democratically presidents around the world.

This is not a traditional opposition movement. It is an inchoate network
of people from all social classes and walks of life, who are organized in
loosely coordinated units and who do not have any other ambition than to
stop a president who has made their country unlivable. Two out of three
Venezuelans living under the poverty line oppose President Chávez,
according to a Venezuelan survey released in January.

This amorphous movement is new to politics and vulnerable to manipulation
by traditional politicians and interest groups. For example, last year a
military faction took advantage of a huge but civil anti-Chávez march and
staged a coup that ousted the president for almost two days. By rejecting
the antidemocratic measures adopted by the would-be new president, the
leader of a business association, the movement helped bring about his
quick downfall.

Today the Venezuelan opposition consists of several factions, some of
which have participated in talks with the government. Yet it is a mistake
to equate these formal bodies with the widespread and largely leaderless,
self-organizing movement that has emerged in Venezuela. Many foreign
observers discount the opposition as mostly rich or middle class, a
coup-prone coalition of opportunistic politicians.

No doubt some protesters fit this ugly profile. Nor is there any doubt
that the Venezuelan opposition is clumsy and prone to blunders. Still, it
has helped millions of Venezuelans awaken to the fact that for too many
years they have been mere inhabitants of their own country. Now they
demand to be citizens, and feel they have the right to oust through
democratic means a president who has wrought havoc on their country.
It is a measure of Venezuela's toxic political climate that even though
the constitution allows for early elections, and even though President
Chávez has promised that he will abide by this provision, the great
majority of Venezuelans don't believe him. They are convinced that in
August, when the constitution contemplates a referendum on the president,
the government will resort to delaying tactics and dirty tricks. With
international attention elsewhere, Mr. Chávez will use his power to
forestall an election and ignore the constitution.

Venezuela's citizens have been heroically peaceful and civil in their
quest. All they ask is that they be given a chance to vote. The world
should do its best to ensure that they have that opportunity.

Moisés Naím, minister of trade and industry of Venezuela from 1989 to
1990, is editor of Foreign Policy magazine.

The New York Times


March 4, 2003
Maracaibo Oil Region a Crucial Battleground for Chávez as Venezuelan
Conflict Rages
By DAVID GONZALEZ


MARACAIBO, Venezuela, Feb. 28 - In this sun-drenched city built on oil and
agriculture, government workers complain of missed paydays and stalled
projects. Beyond the high-rises and office towers, impoverished families
live in dank, crumbling shanties along bumpy dirt streets.

These scenes in the western state of Zulia make the billboard outside the
government-run oil company seem like a cruel taunt, particularly given
that Venezuela's journey to becoming the world's fifth-largest oil
exporter began here in 1914.

"Social Investment Fund," the sign proclaims. "Improving the Life of All
Zulianos."

Complaints that the central government has exported not just oil from the
region, but increasingly its attendant profits as well, have turned many
residents against President Hugo Chávez, whom they have accused of
withholding $500 million from their state budget over the years.
Only one of the state's 21 mayors supports Mr. Chávez, while the governor,
Manuel Rosales, has easily rallied tens of thousands of people against
him.

In Mr. Chávez's struggle to overcome the devastating effects of a
two-month nationwide opposition strike, Zulia, the country's most populous
state with 3.2 million residents, is a crucial battleground. Mr. Chávez
must not only boost oil production, but also his support in this state
whose people tend to vote as a bloc.

Two weeks ago, with the strike faltering, he set his sights on removing
Mr. Rosales, urging people to demand the kind of recall referendum that
his own critics have sought unsuccessfully against him.

Yet even among the poor, the very group that Mr. Chávez says benefits most
from his Bolivarian Revolution, disenchantment has grown.
"The economy is fatal, and since Chávez came to power it has gotten worse,
because there is no work," said Addis Atencia, who shares a compound of
five shanties with nearly three dozen adults and children. "In a country
that produces petroleum, how can you live like this?"

Zulianos consider themselves a breed apart, which is evident in their
accent, culture and temperament. The differences are a result of having
been cut off from the capital, Caracas, for years, and of frequent contact
with foreigners through the port here. For years before the bridge
spanning Lake Maracaibo was built in the 1960's, residents intent on going
to Caracas had to get a visa, since the ferry stopped first on the Dutch
island of Curaçao.

When Mr. Chavez introduced reforms, including one allowing squatters to
occupy fallow farmland, Zulianos reacted with a strike in September 2001.
For many the reforms were another insult after years of seeing no returns
on the revenue Zulia produced for the country.
"Zulia paralyzed the state and lit the fuse that led to a national
strike," said Tomás Guanipa Villalobos, the local leader of the Primero
Justicia political party. "Zulia has suffered the most under Chávez. The
money which was generated by oil was not invested into making Venezuela
truly productive."

Roads on the outskirts of Maracaibo are potholed, while signs heralding a
commuter rail station rise above empty lots where work has stopped. The
public hospital in the Veritas neighborhood looks rundown, paint flaking
from its walls and weeds blocking one entrance even as patients stream
into the building. A state medical supply store is shuttered.

Mr. Guanipa said that rather than tackle problems like those, Mr. Chávez
devoted most of a brief visit here last month to lambasting the governor
and the opposition as coup plotters.
"He said nothing about any program of investment to elevate Zulia," Mr.
Guanipa said. "He spent hours urging people to eliminate the enemy. It was
the politics of revenge, and that is very dangerous. It will get worse
unless we get out of this fast."

The government insists that production has improved among the oil rigs on
Lake Maracaibo, where soldiers patrol the lake and shores to prevent
sabotage. It estimates that production nationwide is now back up to 2.1
million barrels daily after being paralyzed by the strike. Venezuela
produced 3.1 million barrels a day before the strike.

Alexis Arellano, the coordinator of the oil company's Tía Juana district,
said he was now able to pump almost 800,000 barrels daily, despite having
dismissed 60 percent of his work force during the strike.
Combined with joint ventures that were not affected by the strike, he said
regional production hovered at a little more than one million barrels
daily.
"They said it was impossible to increase production," he said. "The people
who stayed with us see it as a personal challenge to keep on operating and
make the company grow."

But former executives dispute the government's figures and insist that
actual production is half of that claimed.
"If they are producing a million barrels a day with so many less people,
then they should have fired us," joked Tarciso Guerrero, who used to
manage the gas facilities. "They are only saying they reached a million to
show the country that everything is normal."

Outside the oil company's Miranda Building, lines of job applicants file
past a ragtag group of "Commando Reservists," Chávez supporters who have
guarded the area since December, a battered bus their headquarters and
dormitory.

The mood has been tense, especially after two people were injured this
week when unknown assailants tossed a grenade and fired a dozen shots
while the Chávez supporters slept by the sidewalk.
"We are defending these trenches because this institution is ours," said
one of the group, Leonardo Sencial. "Without this we are nothing. If they
try to take it away, we will take to the streets as the president said."

March 3, 2003
Venezuela's Inflation Reached 7.1% Last Month, a 7-Year High
By BLOOMBERG NEWS


CARACAS, Venezuela, March 2 - The Venezuelan monthly inflation rate rose to
a seven-year high in February on increased demand as price controls and
restrictions on dollar sales caused shortages.

Consumer prices rose 5.5 percent in February compared with a 2.9 percent
rise in January, the central bank said in its monthly report, which was
released over the weekend. February's inflation rate was the highest since
a reading of 7.1 percent in June 1996. The 12-month trailing inflation
rate approached 39 percent, the highest since 1997.

In February 2001, prices rose 1.8 percent.
"Controlling prices has had less impact than the authorities expected," a
central bank director, Armando León, said, as quoted in the newspaper El
Universal. "It's caused a fall in the supply of goods."

The government fixed maximum prices for some goods last month to stem
inflation. Producers say they cannot make a profit selling at the fixed
price and have reduced output. Rising prices threaten to further undermine
support for President Hugo Chávez, who is facing wide opposition and calls
for a referendum.

A two-month general strike aimed at ousting Mr. Chávez cut oil exports,
the source of much government revenue, leading to a 17 percent contraction
of the economy in the fourth quarter.

The government banned foreign currency trading in January and expects in
mid-March to begin selling dollars to importers of what the government
considers essential goods.

"We must have development from the inside and not be dependent on outside
forces," Mr. Chávez said in a televised speech.
Venezuela imports about 60 percent of its food, medicine, electronic goods
and clothing. Imports fell 29 percent last year, to $12.3 billion.

washingtonpost.com

Meddle With Mr. Chavez [Editorial]

Saturday, March 1, 2003

U.S. OFFICIALS long sought to play down the danger that Venezuelan President
Hugo Chavez poses by pointing out that his acts rarely matched his words. Mr.
Chavez, who was elected president after promising a socialist revolution for
Venezuela's poor majority, might talk about confiscating property, supporting
leftist guerrillas in neighboring Colombia or admiring Fidel Castro and Saddam
Hussein, but in practice he mostly remained within democratic boundaries.

Yet now the gap between Mr. Chavez's inflammatory rhetoric and his actions is
narrowing. Having survived a strike by his opposition, Mr. Chavez has proclaimed
2003 the "year of the offensive"; so far he has taken steps to bring the economy
under state control, eliminate independent media and decapitate the opposition.
One of the strike's three top leaders has been arrested, while another has gone
into hiding. Even more disturbing have been the unexplained murder of three
dissident soldiers and an anti-Chavez protester and the explosion of bombs
outside the Colombian and Spanish embassies. Government officials have denied
responsibility, but these acts, too, followed Mr. Chavez's words: his labeling
of dissident officers as "traitors" and his attacks on Colombia and Spain for
"meddling."

Without more meddling, and soon, Venezuela will likely see the collapse of what
was once one of Latin America's richest economies and strongest democracies. Mr.
Chavez appears to have tired of his half-baked populism; now he seems prepared
to destroy what remains of civil society and the private sector. He placed
strict controls on foreign currency and has vowed to take away the licenses of
private television stations that supported the opposition. He fired 16,000
employees of Venezuela's state oil company -- the country's economic lifeline --
and moved to bring an institution long known for its professionalism under his
personal control. Independent economists are forecasting a catastrophic drop in
Venezuela's economic output this year; some foresee the virtual disappearance of
the private sector. That would bring Venezuela far closer to Cuba, which maybe
shouldn't be a surprise: Mr. Castro, who is Mr. Chavez's closest ally,
reportedly has dispatched thousands of officials to Venezuela.

Spain recently joined with the United States, Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Portugal
to support a negotiated political solution to the crisis through the mediation
of Cesar Gaviria, the secretary general of the Organization of American States
and a former president of Colombia. The opposition, which at times has supported
anti-democratic means of ousting Mr. Chavez, now endorses Mr. Gaviria's proposal
for a new presidential election or a referendum on Mr. Chavez's recall. The
current constitution would allow for a referendum to be held as early as August;
that may be the easiest and best way out. But Mr. Chavez knows he would very
likely lose a fair vote, and he will likely do everything possible to prevent
it. That's why it is essential that the Bush administration join with the "group
of friends" to insist that Mr. Chavez release his political prisoners, stop his
revolutionary "offensive" and commit to a decisive vote. It may be democracy's
last chance.

The New York Times


February 26, 2003
Venezuela's Lifeblood Ebbs Even as It Flows
By JUAN FORERO


CARACAS, Venezuela - Once more, tankers are setting sail loaded with crude
bound for the United States, while government planners busily rebuild and
reorganize the state-owned Petróleos de Venezuela, pondering how to
function with 40 percent fewer workers.
Oil, the lifeblood of Venezuela, is running again after a paralyzal, took on 25,000 barrels an hour.

But oil analysts and economists say the government's rosy picture hides a
painful truth about a 27-year-old company that was born when Venezuela
nationalized oil production and quickly became one of Latin America's more
highly regarded multinationals.

Petróleos de Venezuela has lost $4 billion in exports and nearly 16,000
workers, fired by the government for taking part in a walkout aimed at
debilitating President Hugo Chávez's left-leaning government. That
financial blow and the loss of workers with, on average, 17 years of
experience could permanently hobble the company, keeping it from assuming
its role as a leading world oil provider, analysts here and abroad say.
"It will not be the company it once was," said Mazhar al-Shereidah, an oil
economist in Caracas who helped write oil regulations for the Chávez
government. "For a country that depends on petroleum, now more than ever,
the challenges are too great. You have to pray for Venezuela."

The dire predictions, if true, would indeed be disastrous for this country
of 24 million, which depends on oil for half of government revenues and 80
percent of exports. It would also leave the United States - which has
counted on Venezuelan oil for decades - without one of its most reliable
suppliers as a possible war with oil-rich Iraq promises to batter energy
markets.

The obstacles are daunting after the strike, which started to fizzle in
February after two months. A lack of maintenance has caused sand to build
up in the gelatinous deposits and the pressure to drop, making some fields
worthless and threatening to cut production capacity by 300,000 or more
barrels a day. And perhaps most troubling is that no one knows what Mr.
Chávez's government has in store, though it has promised a wholesale
revamping of what was once the world's second-largest oil company.

Reports from international analysts are blistering. UBS Warburg predicts
that oil's contribution to gross domestic product will fall 22 percent in
2003, with Venezuela facing "a fiscal crisis of major proportions." Fitch
Ratings says Venezuela's "image as a reliable crude oil supplier has been
undermined" and will he hard to recover.

Analysts say the lack of technical expertise, combined with the financial
straits, means that Petróleos de Venezuela will be unable, in the short
term, to reach production levels of the prestrike days, when Venezuela was
the world's fifth-largest oil exporter. Most recent production has been in
fields that were easiest to restart, leading independent analysts to
predict that Venezuela will, at best, produce 2.3 million barrels daily by
year-end.

"We believe the company's role in Venezuela society has been permanently
altered," a recent Deutsche Bank report said. Assuming average daily
production of 1.7 million barrels for 2003, the bank estimated that oil
revenue would reach only $14.1 billion, down nearly 50 percent from 2001.
The government is already preparing for the worst. The 2003 budget for the
oil company was cut by $2.7 billion, to about $6 billion, while the income
the government draws from oil is forecast by UBS Warburg to fall from
$11.5 billion in 2002 to as little as $5 billion in 2003. The drop will
make it especially difficult to raise the $5 billion the company would
have spent to keep production steady.

Alí Rodríguez, the former leftist guerrilla turned president of Petróleos
de Venezuela, does not gloss over the obstacles. But in an interview, Mr.
Rodríguez said the doomsday predictions originated with dissident
executives who hoped to undermine international confidence in the oil
company to weaken Mr. Chávez.

He predicted that through sharp budget and personnel cuts, the company
would reach 3.1 million barrels a day. And "with its resources," he said,
"it is perfectly possible that it will even surpass that level."
To be sure, the Petróleos de Venezuela now emerging will be a far
different company, in both its management and philosophy.

Gone will be the highly autonomous octopus that Mr. Rodríguez said
functioned with great independence from the state, controlling revenues
and influencing oil policies. The new company, taking advantage of some of
the world's largest oil deposits outside the Middle East, "must give
maximum contribution to the nonpetroleum sector, which is the majority of
the people," Mr. Rodríguez said.

Still, even inside the gleaming office tower in Caracas where the company
is based, the short-term outlook seems dismal as managers pore over
financial statements.
"There is no investment, so there is no doubt that the company at this
moment is very debilitated," Bernard Mommer, a close adviser to Mr.
Rodríguez who is helping guide the restructuring, said in an interview.
"Up ahead, we are going to have problems like how to recover the quality
of the company."

Venezuela will benefit little from the higher world oil prices projected
in coming months, since production capacity remains limited. By the time
Petróleos de Venezuela is producing close to three million barrels daily -
if it ever does - prices are likely to have stabilized, analysts say.
In the meantime, Mr. Rodríguez and his managers are busy splitting the
company into three divisions: a natural gas branch to develop the largest
deposits in Latin America, and companies in the east and west intended to
make obsolete the executive offices in Caracas, where antigovernment
activities percolated.

Venezuela may also unload foreign assets, like refineries in the United
States that operate under the Citgo chain, which is wholly owned by
Petróleos de Venezuela, and other installations in Europe and the
Caribbean.

Publicly, officials deny the companies are for sale. But Mr. Mommer said
Citgo remained overly expensive while providing scant returns.
"The sophisticated part of our business, refining, that's not our
business," Mr. Mommer said. "Exploration and production, that is where the
big money is."

Such a sale would "dismember" the company, warned José Toro Hardy, an
influential former board member, because Citgo refineries are specially
outfitted to process Venezuela's particularly gummy brand of heavy crude.
"There are few refineries in the world that can refine" this crude, Mr.
Toro Hardy explained. "Without Citgo, Venezuela's heavy oil would lose
value."

Oil analysts also warn that the company will be debilitated for years from
the loss of experienced workers. Executives, office workers, engineers and
highly trained technicians joined the walkout and, in some cases, damaged
computers and software and stole files to hinder reactivation efforts.
Mr. Chávez, who has referred to the employees as traitors and fascists,
has promised that they will not be rehired.

But already, oil analysts say, the shortage of experienced workers is
being felt in every corner of the company. In the patents and technology
department, which develops technology for exploration and refining, 800
were fired. The department that trains executives has lost hundreds, as
has the crucial commercialization department, which contracts with oil
purchasers.

"Even if you replace the bodies, you don't replace institutional
memories," said Larry Goldstein, president of the Petroleum Industry
Research Foundation, an industry-supported analysis group in New York.
"It's a hidden loss. You can't touch it or taste it, but it's there."