Venezuela Watch

Indeed it is, even though the reports are depressing. (I'd like to hear what the Chavez apologists in this thread think about them.)

An updated version of Juan Peron ? Sixty years have passed and Argentina has still not recovered from that "populist" tyrant who also promised a return to "true" democracy. With the currently very high oil revenues, Chavez will undoubtedly be able to maintain the illusion of reform. However, as fbaezer has noted, this cannot last, and the subsequent economic collapse will be the worse for it.

Venezuelan Government To Launch International 9/11 Investigation
Truth crusaders Walter and Rodriguez to appear on Hugo Chavez's weekly TV broadcast

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | March 31 2006

Billionaire philanthropist Jimmy Walter and WTC survivor William Rodriguez this week embarked on a groundbreaking trip to Caracas Venezuela in which they met with with the President of the Assembly and will soon meet with Venezuelan President himself Hugo Chavez in anticipation of an official Venezuelan government investigation into 9/11.

Rodriguez was the last survivor pulled from the rubble of the north tower of the WTC, and was responsible for all stairwells within the tower. Rodriguez represented family members of 9/11 victims and testified to the 9/11 Commission that bombs were in the north tower but his statements were completely omitted from the official record.

Jimmy Walter has been at the forefront of a world tour to raise awareness about 9/11 and has still yet to receive any response to his million dollar challenge in which he offers a $1 million reward for proof that the trade towers' steel structure was broken apart without explosives.

Rodriguez said that he was told an FBI agent had asked the hotel him and Walter were staying in turn over a list of names of residents. Upon hearing this, the National Assembly provided armed military protection for the entirety of the trip. In addition, Walters said that CIA agents were seen surveilling the beach on which he and Rodriguez had handed out free DVD's a day earlier.

The US government attempted to sabotage the trip by putting Rodriguez, who has been decorated at the White House itself, and Walter on a no fly list.

Rodriguez (pictured above) and Walter are educating top Venezuelan officials on the evidence that 9/11 was a self-inflicted wound carried out by the military-industrial complex. They have also appeared on every Venezuelan television and radio station both private and state owned and have given huge presentations to major universities.

Upon visiting, Rodriguez said that the President of the Assembly, Nicolas Maduro's home was brimming with books, videos and documents about the 9/11 cover-up. Maduro, Venezuela's top legislator, intoned that he was ready to create an international investigative committee, looking into the "international crime scene" that is 9/11 and that this would be structured via Hugo Chavez's government.

Rodriguez and Walter are also set to appear on Hugo Chavez's weekly broadcast 'Alo Presidente' - which is often subsequently the source of major international headlines. If there is no coverage of this event then we know for sure that a blackout order is in place.

Rodriguez and Walter offered their full support for Charlie Sheen's recent public stance on 9/11 and were heartened by his efforts. The potential of a government level inquiry endorsed by Hugo Chavez dovetails with Sheen's call for an independent investigation to be carried out by political foreign nationals.

Though the establishment media will no doubt seek to demonize Chavez as a militant with an axe to grind, this is an exciting development and the next step on the road to a genuine investigation that will seek to uncover the truth rather than hide skeletons and whitewash as was witnessed with the staged Kean committee.

There's one born every minute ...

Canadian Press
Published: Wednesday, April 19, 2006

ASUNCION, Paraguay -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez warned Wednesday his government would blow up its own oilfields if the United States ever were to attack -- the latest in a series of warnings against Washington.

U.S. officials have repeatedly denied any military plans against Chavez but also have called him a threat to stability in the region. Speaking with other South American leaders, Chavez said his conflict with the United States is rooted in Washington's thirst for oil.

If the United States were to attack, Chavez said: "We'll do like the Iraqis. We won't have any other alternative -- blow up our own oilfields but they aren't going to take that oil.''

Chavez, however, cited what he called a regular flow of threatening statements and actions from the U.S. government -- from naval exercises behind held this month in the Caribbean to U.S. complaints about Venezuela's deepening ties with Iran.

Chavez rattled off a list of insults he said the United States is trying to pin on him: "tyrant, dictator, abuser of human rights, there is no freedom of expression in Venezuela.''

"The real reason for the open conflict...is energy,'' Chavez said.

"They will never admit that because, of course, they're looking for other excuses.''

Venezuela is the world's fifth-largest oil exporter and remains a major supplier of oil to the United States.

Chavez called U.S. Ambassador William Brownfield, whom he recently threatened to expel, "a constant provocation'' and accused Washington of stirring up suspicions about his country's relations with Iran.

"The latest they've invented is that we're sending uranium to Iran and what's more, yesterday, it came out in the Venezuela press that we're making a secret plan to bring Iranian nuclear missiles and install them in Venezuela,'' he said.

The Venezuelan newspaper 2001 published that report Tuesday, citing unidentified U.S. intelligence sources saying Iran and Venezuela had made a secret deal to ship missiles to Venezuela and Cuba aboard oil tankers. It did not provide any details about its sources and the report was roundly denied by Venezuelan officials as preposterous.

Chavez said the United States seems to be "searching for an excuse for anything'' against Venezuela, noting U.S. warships are holding naval exercises this month in the Caribbean -- "there under our very noses.''

In Caracas, meanwhile, Venezuelan Defence Minister Admiral Orlando Maniglia said the military plans to hold its own exercises soon along its coasts and with neighbouring countries' armed forces.

"We have the same sort of exercises,'' Maniglia said.

"We already have planned some future exercises with the government of Curacao and also with the Dutch, with the navy and armed forces of Colombia...with the Brazilians.''

The dates of the training were unclear but the defence minister suggested Venezuela's military is planning air and naval exercises along its coast in the short-term.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=611bc168-784c-4daa-9f3e-556bf9ba0b93&k=6992

Greg Palast outlines how the IMF basically sucks the lifeblood out of any would-be borrower (The Best Democracy Money Can Buy) and leaves them in a deeper pile of **** than they were originally in. It's not hard to see why anti-Americanism thrives in Latin America.

The data you supply, amigo, is telling.

Fidel, the smartest of the trio, gets the best deal.
Evo gets some needed assistance.
Chavez gets the economic short straw, but heck, he's supposed to be the rich partner and this is a solidarity treaty.

Apart from petroleum in Venezuela and the potential of natural gas in Bolivia, what have these countries to trade with each other? None of them is an efficient producer of anything else, and the backward social and economic policies they promote will ensure that they remain backward. Cuba isn't even an efficient producer of sugar anymore. If American producers of soybeans in the midwest can deliver their product to Colombia at a lower price than Bolivia, then there is no hope or mutual benefit in these sad and backward countries with their tyrannical leaders and the delusions they offer their unfortunate people.

But American producers of soybeans in the midwest can't deliver their product to Colombia at a lower price than Bolivia. Or rather, they couldn't, in a free market. They only can, because they get enormous subsidies. Other countries can't compete because of US tariffs.

So, effectively, the US are subsidizing Bolivia out of the soybean market. What exactly does that have to do with "free trade"?

Another question: Why would you describe Evo Morales as a "tyrannical leader"?

Your point would be valid with respect to sugar and a few other crops which do enjoy artificial market protection in the United States. However this is not true of soy. Agricultural subsidies in the U.S. are truly puny compared to those that prevail in Europe.

I don't really see why you feel compelled to mention Europe in this regard, but I'll doubt that there are any subsidies for soybeans in Europe at all...

However, Bolivia has so far been quite able to compete with the United States on the soybean market. It has sold two thirds of its yearly soybean production to Colombia, worth more than US$ 150 million. In contrast to that, agricultural subsidies in the US for cotton, soybeans, corn, oilseed, oil products and rice exceeded US$ 2 billion last year. That's without mentioning protective tariffs. You can call that puny, if you wish to.

I don't find it too hard to understand why Bolivians are mightily annoyed at the prospect of a "free trade" agreement where the US would flood the market. And can I see why they are mightily annoyed at the prospect of the current bilateral trade agreements. The situation is not too different from the one the US is facing vis-a-vis China. Especially the combination of protective tariffs and the demand that other countries open their markets for US goods seems to be slightly hypocritical.

But that aside, I'd still like to know why you would describe Evo Morales as a "tyrannical leader"....

$2 billion compared to the value of total U.S. production of "cotton, soybeans, corn, oilseed, oil products and rice" is truly puny - hardly a significant percentage of their combined value. What is the source of your data?

If, after signing a free trade treaty removing import tariffs, U.S. soy costs less in Colombia than soy from Bolivia, then I say that my point is made.

You are right - the Europe reference was a cheap shot. However it pleased me to take it.

I don't know much about Eva Morales, and mostly had Castro and Chavez in mind when I made the tyrant reference. However, considering the historical trends in Bolivian politics, and the programs he has promised to enact, I believe that is the likely outcome. I noticed in today's news that he has expropriated the majority control of the Brazilian and French companies operating Bolivia's gas fields - and done so by presidential decree, directing the army to occupy their facilities. So much for Bolivian property rights. This will do wonders attracting foreign capital for the development of his country.

Well, American soy would only be cheaper than Bolivian soy after Colombia and the US signed a bilateral trade agreement.

However, I find it quite strange that you are basically arguing against local free trade agreements (like ALBA) while speaking in favor of tariffs and subsidies or at least denying their impact in a situation where an economical superpower enters into a one-sided competition with a third-world country. Of course, it kinda makes sense from an economic point of view: trying to push the economy through government-directed sanctions at home, and making sure that you reach as many markets as possible, entering into a one-sided competition there. Basically what China is doing to the US right now.

I'd be interested to know what you would see as a favorable course of action for Bolivia in that kind of situation. We know what your president is doing re China: demanding that the yuan be adjusted to the dollar. We hear talk of currency manipulation. Of an erosion of the American manufacturing base. Of punitive tariffs. So why do you think that Bolivians would react in a completely different manner than Americans, and embrace all those consequences that Americans seem to fear?

Now, the state taking control of Bolivian gas fields is a slightly different matter. I'm still not sure about that. However, I notice that nobody complains about the state controlling natural resources when it comes to countries like the Emirates or Saudi Arabia. It only seems to be a problem for American conservatives when the country in question happens to be run by a government from the left side of the aisle.

And you definitely can't argue that Morales hasn't been fair about Bolivia taking control of Bolivia's natural resources. His campaign ran on that issue, and he got elected, in a democratic election, in order to do that. There even was a referendum, and nearly 100 percent of the electorate voted in favor of nationalizing the resources. The companies knew what was coming well ahead, and they have now been given another 180 days to adjust their operations in Bolivia to the new situation.

I admit that I'm not convinced that the nationalization is the right course to take. It could absolutely create a backlash when it comes to foreign investments in Bolivia. Then again, that's not necessarily a given. It really depends on how Morales is going to play his cards.

The process by which one comes to power is not the determinant of the character of the subsequent rule. Hitler was elected in a democratic process as well. The fact that prior to the election Morales promised to expropriate foreign investment and establish state control in vital economic sectors doesn't make this a wise or beneficial policy. Hitler in various ways also, before he came to power, affirmed his intent to carry out the ghastly descent to war and genocide that followed. However I haven't heard anyone use that as an argumment in his defense.

I don't follow your suggestion that an economic superpower is attempting to bully a developing country contrary to its own interests. Despite waves of protectionist rhetoric here we have done more than most developed nations to advance international free trade, even in areas that don't directly benefit us. The U.S. is not a major investor in Bolivia, and it is not U.S. property that has been expropriated by Morales. He has done this to Brazilian and French companies, not American ones. The real economic interest of Bolivia is to develop beneficial economic relationships with those of its neighbors that are most likely to engage in beneficial trade and development with them. For the most part that means Brazil and Chile. Morales has done the opposite by rejecting them in favor of Cuba and Venezuela. Who is the real bully here?

Morales has rejected a regional free trade pact in favor of an agreement with Venezuela and Cuba based in politics. Meanwhile neighboring states have signed on, thus jeapordizing some Bolivian exports (soy in the case raised above). Is this action of the Bolivian ruler, one taken by Presidential fiat, in the interests of the Bolivian people? Certainly the matter is one for them, not me, to decide. However, I don't believe any benefit will flow to them - real economic damage is more likely. They have excluded their natural trading partners in favor of an arrangement, based solely on the political illusions of three like-minded leaders, and with countries that have little to offer Bolivia.

There are several well-precedented and proven methods for Bolivian economic progress and development, including better management of incentives for investment and productive enterprise at all levels of the society, and enhanced trade with its neighbors. Unfortunately Morales isn't taking them. Instead he is following in the footsteps of traditional South American dictators - populist rhetoric; blaming foreigners for domestic ills; nationalization of private property and the creation of state-run corporations in key areas of economic activity. All of this will feed an already corrupt governmental culture and, of course, the personal power of the latest 'people's hero'. Juan Peron did all this long ago in Argentina, and they still haven't recovered from the political and social side effects of it.

There were many options available to Morales with respect to the development of the gas fields that don't involve unilateral expropriation of the property of foreign investors (even French ones). The key result will be the end of voluntary foreign investment in Bolivia. Next Morales will likely turn to the IMF for needed capital. If the past is precedent, he will later repudiate the debt and then blame the IMF for spoiling the Bolivian economy. It is a tiresome and well-worn path. In view of all this I find it remarkable that well-informed people could interpret the situation otherwise.

With respect to China, America faces conflicting imperatives. It is very much in the long-term strategic interest of the Western World to see modern economic development come to China. At the same time the authoritarian character of the Chinese government means that development will not occur with the transparency and legal processes to which we are accustomed. This makes it relatively easy for China to exploit the suituation in the short term. Apparently our bet is that eventually political reform in China will follow the economic development. We have indulged in a bit of protectonist political rhetoric, but, in fact, have done very little to limit their trade with us.

With its relatively freer movement of capital, freer labor markets, and less restrictive immigration, I believe America is better able to adapt to changing world economic conditions than are the much more heavily regulated and somewhat sclerotic economies of continental Europe. Overall I believe that, despite the inevitable contradictions that beset both Europe and the U.S. in dealing with issues such as this, we are pursuing a reasonable policy towards yet another populist South American dictator in the making.

A couple of extras:

1. For the anecdote. Evo Morales made public his decision to nationalize oil and gas as he landed from Hugo Chavez's plane. The Venezuelan president lent him the airplane, back from the "meeting of the revolutionaries" with Fidel Castro.
I am not, quote, am not, saying they have anything to do with the decision (which may end up being good or bad, I dunno).

2. Spain and Brazil are freaked out from Bolivia's decision. Spain has asked the Bolivian Embassy for explanations, and Lula called his cabinet for an emergency meeting.
Yes, oddly enough, the main losers in Evo's deal are not the US imperialists, but two important would-be allies, that happen to be much more moderate than Castro or Chavez.

What "American Imperialists"? That is a hackneyed, nearly meaningless, and certainly shopworn phrase. Those who have limited the freedom and economic development of the people of Bolivia are all to be found within its borders. Morales is but the latest in a sad string of political exploiters and corrupt protectors of special interests in that unfortunate country.

Com'on George, easy up, I'm just using Evo's language and noticing the contradiction between an anti-American speech and actions that affect Spain and Brazil, both led by left wing politicians.

You wrote "the American Imperialists" which implies there are some in Bolivia with the power to alter the situation. Had you written 'the spectre of American Imperialism', I would not have commented.

The truth is that overall in South America there has been much more European investment and control of domestic economic structures than American for a very long time. Moreover I believe that one of the public myths that has for so long politically crippled Argentina, Uruguay, Venezuela, Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, and Equador is the false notion that somehow foreigners are to blame for their persistent failure to solve their own social, economic, and political problems. Entrenched land & wealth owning classes unwilling to allow competition, racial and ethnic discrimination, widespread political corruption, and the illusions created by populist dictators are the real problems of these countries: "American Imperialism" has merely been their excuse for not solving them.

You are correct though in suggesting my overreaction. I know you understand these things, and my irritation was misplaced. Sorry.

Just a comment on the essence of your post:



Well-precedented and proven methods for Bolivian economic progress and development? I don't think so. That's the whole crux with Bolivia, isn't it? That free market economy has, in Bolivian history, done next to nothing to improve the situation of the overwhelming majority of the population.

Add in the fact that Bolivia is, traditionally, a bit suspicious of its neighbors (at least since it has lost some wars and regions). Last time I was in Bolivia, they had a referendum against selling oil to Argentina if Argentina kept selling that oil to their traditional enemy, Chile. Funny, isn't it? I mean, every reasonable person would point out that selling stuff, even to somebody you don't like a lot, is benefitial for your economy. But then agian, think Cuba. Think embargo. Weird, but that's how things are.

That said, I hope Morales is not going down that way of "yet another South American dictator". I had some hopes in him. The first indigenous leader of a South American country. Especially in a place like Bolivia. Somebody who actually might act in the best interest of the people... Nah, we'll see. I personally, think he'd be ill-advised to form too tight a relationship with Venezuela and Cuba. However, I can't see any harm in joining ALBA. Eventually more nations might join, nevermind the ideological side of the agreement. Nicaragua might be interested. Brazil, too.