Haiti/Venezuelan Updates (49 Kb worth)

[first Haiti, then on to the prize: Venezuela.]

1. Venezuela's U.N. Ambassador Resigns (March 4, 2004)
2. US Says Aristide Exit a Lesson for Failed Leaders (March 4, 2004)
3. Aristide Details His Kidnapping from Exile from
   informationclearinghouse.info (March 5, 2004)
4. Chavez Tells U.S.: 'Get Your Hands Off Venezuela!' (March 5, 2004)
5. Jeffrey Sachs on Haiti in LA Times (March 4, 2004)
6. Venezuela Equals Haiti? by Alan Cisco on iraqwar.ru (March 7, 2004)
7. Chavez Vows 100-Year War if U.S. Invades (March 7, 2004)

===

Venezuela's U.N. Ambassador Resigns
Thu Mar 4, 1:05 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040304/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/un_venezuela_1
By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS - Venezuela's U.N. ambassador said Thursday he was
resigning to protest human rights violations and threats to democracy in
the South American nation.

Milos Alcalay, a career diplomat who has represented his country for 30
years, made his announcement at a news conference where copies of a letter
to Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jesus Arnaldo Perez were handed out.

Alcalay said his diplomatic career has been guided by the principles of
protecting human rights, operating through a transparent democratic
process and supporting an open dialogue for international diplomacy.

"Sadly, Venezuela now is operating devoid of these fundamental principles,
which I still remain intensely committed to. Therefore, it is with a heavy
heart today that I am resigning from my position,"  he said in his
statement.

Alcalay's resignation came amid opposition protests of the National
Elections Council's decision to reject a petition for a recall vote
against President Hugo Chavez.

On the issue of democracy, the ambassador said he believes the arguments
set forth by the Elections Council violate "the spirit and the purpose" of
Venezuela's constitution "and rob Venezuelans of the right to effect
change through the democratic process."

He also denounced the Chavez government's human rights record.

"We've seen army and police repression, unacceptable loss of life,
disappearance of political leaders and there have been allegations of
torture," Alcalay said. "A peaceful demonstration of citizens is no longer
feasible in Venezuela and brutal repression must stop."

The ambassador warned that "the increasing bipolarization and problems we
are experiencing at home in Venezuela have impacted our relationships
around the world."

"I cannot remain indifferent before the sad events in my country, the loss
of many lives and the outcry of the Venezuelan people whose political and
civil rights are under threat," he said.

The South American nation of 24 million people is torn between Venezuelans
who say Chavez has become increasingly autocratic and those who say he
speaks for the poor.

===

US Says Aristide Exit a Lesson for Failed Leaders
Thu Mar 4, 2004 06:22 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040304/wl_nm/haiti_usa_dc_1
By Saul Hudson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States on Thursday rejected pressure for
an investigation into whether it pushed former Haitian President
Jean-Bertrand Aristide to resign and said it would not prop up "failed"
elected leaders.

After days of criticism that Aristide was ousted in a U.S.-assisted
coup, the Bush administration's new defense of his "rescue" stoked fears
its Haiti policy set a precedent for other leftists in Latin America,
such as Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said that even if the United
States "recognized a leader had been elected," he could not rely on U.S.
support against an armed revolt if America considered he had misgoverned.

"We can't be called upon, expected or required to intervene every time
there is violence against a failed leader," Boucher told reporters. "We
can't spend our time running around the world and the hemisphere saving
people who botched their chance at leadership."

"I do not think that's something the American government and the
American people want, nor do I think it's ultimately good for democracy
in the hemisphere," he said.

The new U.S. defense shifted from denying it forced Aristide out to
explaining why the administration allowed him to fall as rebels were
closing in on the capital.

Washington blamed the crisis on Aristide, whom it restored to power a
decade ago with an invasion. After failing to mediate a settlement with
the opposition, the United States rejected his pleas for police
reinforcements, questioned his ability to govern and finally warned him
U.S. Marines sent to Haiti would not protect him.

KIDNAP OR RESCUE?

On Thursday, South Africa joined Caribbean nations as well as black
activists and Democrats in calling for an investigation into how the
United States flew Aristide to exile in Africa early on Sunday in what
he has called a kidnapping.

"We certainly don't encourage or believe there is any need for an
investigation," Boucher said. "We ended up rescuing him by taking him
out of the country in the face of almost certain violence."

Larry Birns, of the Washington-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs,
blamed the Bush administration for Aristide's exit. With a tilt to the
left in Latin America in recent years, he worried it would encourage
right-wing U.S. officials to go after leaders such as Chavez.

"Haiti was not about a flawed president but about a flawed (U.S.)
foreign policy," said the director of the liberal think tank. "The Haiti
pattern shows this administration is capable of anything. It will have
an enormous negative reaction throughout Latin America and Chavez has
cause to lose sleep."

U.S. officials have struggled this week to stave off concerns Chavez
could meet Aristide's fate. In 2002, the Bush administration initially
appeared to welcome a short-lived coup against the friend of Cuban
leader Fidel Castro and has persistently criticized him while backing
opposition demands for a recall vote against him.

Boucher singled out Venezuela as an example of how Washington has
supported democracy in the region. "We've stood up *for* threats to
democracy in Venezuela, whatever side they might be coming from," he said.

===

Aristide Details Last Moments In Haiti, Calls For Stop To Bloodshed In
First Address To Haitian People From Exile
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5816.htm
Commentary, Jean-Bertrand Aristide,
Pacific News Service, Mar 05, 2004

EDITOR'S NOTE: President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who left a tumultuous
Haiti under shadowy circumstances Feb. 29, has delivered an impassioned
address "To the Haitian People and the World" by cell phone to a Haitian
journalist in the United States working with a radio station in Berkeley,
CA. In the address recorded early Friday, Aristide aims his words at
Haitians, urging them to "stand in solidarity and stop the spread of
death." He delivers a detailed account of what he calls his "kidnapping"
from a palace surrounded by heavily armed "white men." He refers to the
leader of a massive slave insurrection of l791, Toussaint L'Ouverture, a
national hero who died in a French prison. Aristide spoke from the Central
African Republic where he has been under a virtual house arrest in the
days since he was delivered from Port-au-Prince on a U.S. plane. The
address was recorded by a Haitian radio producer known to Aristide for
some 20 years and broadcast Friday, exclusively on Pacifica Radio's
Flashpoints News Magazine based at KPFA . Six Haitians and Americans who
know Aristide listened Friday to excerpts from the message, delivered in
Creole, and confirmed the voice is that of the president, said the
Flashpoints program host and Pacific News Service contributor, Dennis
Bernstein ([email protected]), who supplied this translation
exclusively to PNS.

"In overthrowing me, they have uprooted the trunk of the liberty. It will
grow back because its roots are many and deep." In the shadow of Toussaint
L'Ouverture, the genius of the race. I declare in overthrowing me they
have uprooted the trunk of the tree of peace, but it will grow back
because the roots are L'Ouverturian.

Dear compatriots, it is with these first words that I am saluting our
brothers and sisters from Africa, while I am standing on the soil of the
Central African Republic. Allow me to salute you by repeating that same
declaration that is, "In overthrowing me, they have uprooted the trunk of
the tree of peace." During the night of the 28th of February 2004, there
was a coup d'etat. One could say that it was a geo-political kidnapping. I
can clearly say that it was terrorism disguised as diplomacy. To conclude,
this coup d'etat and this kidnapping are like two quarters and 50 cents
side by side.

I have always denounced the coming of this coup d'etat, but until the 27th
of February, the day before, I didn't see that the crime was going to be
accompanied by kidnapping as well. The 28th of February, at night,
suddenly, American military personnel who were already all over
Port-au-Prince descended on my house in Tabarre to tell me first that all
the American security agents who have contracts with the Haitian
government only have two options. Either they leave immediately to go to
the United States, or they fight to die. Secondly, they told me the
remaining 25 of the American security agents hired by the Haitian
government who were to come in on the 29th of February as reinforcements
were under interdiction, prevented from coming. Thirdly, they told me the
foreigners and Haitian terrorists alike, loaded with heavy weapons, were
already in position to open fire on Port-au-Prince. And right then, the
Americans precisely stated that they will kill thousands of people and it
will be a bloodbath. That the attack is ready to start, and when the first
bullet is fired nothing will stop them and nothing will make them wait
until they take over, therefore the mission is to take me dead or alive.

At that time I told the Americans that my first preoccupation was to save
the lives of those thousands of people tonight. As far as my own life is
concerned, whether I am alive or whether I am dead, that is not what's
important. As much as I was trying to use diplomacy, the more the pressure
was being intensified for the Americans to start the attack. In spite of
that, I took the risk of slowing down the death machine to verify the
degree of danger, the degree of bluff or the degree of intimidation.

It was more serious than a bluff. The National Palace was surrounded by
white men armed up to their teeth. The Tabarre area -- the residence --
was surrounded by foreigners armed to their teeth. The airport of
Port-au-Prince was already under the control of these men. After a last
evaluation I made during a meeting with the person in charge of Haitian
security in Port-au-Prince, and the person in charge of American security,
the truth was clear. There was going to be a bloodbath because we were
already under an illegal foreign occupation which was ready to drop bodies
on the ground, to spill blood, and then kidnap me dead or alive.

That meeting took place at 3 a.m. Faced with this tragedy, I decided to
ask, "What guarantee do I have that there will not be a bloodbath if I
decided to leave?"

In reality, all this diplomatic gymnastics did not mean anything because
these military men responsible for the kidnapping operation had already
assumed the success of their mission. What was said was done. This
diplomacy, plus the forced signing of the letter of resignation, was not
able to cover the face of the kidnapping.

>From my house to the airport, everywhere there were American military men
armed with heavy weapons of death. The military plane that came to get me
landed while the convoy of vehicles that had come to get me was near the
tarmac at the airport. When we were airborne, nobody knew where we were
going. When we landed at one place nobody knew where we were. Among us on
the plane was a baby of one of my American security agents who has a
Haitian wife. They could not get out. We spent four hours without knowing
where we were. When we got back in the air again, nobody knew where we
were going.

It was not until 20 minutes before we landed in the Central African
Republic that I was given the official word that this is where we would be
landing. We landed at a French Air Force base but fortunately there were 5
ministers from the government who came to welcome us on behalf of the
President there.

We know there are people back home who are suffering, who are being
killed, who are in hiding. But we also know that back home there are
people who understand the game, but will not give up because if they give
up, instead of finding peace, we will find death.

Therefore, I ask that everyone who loves life to come together to protect
the lives of others. I ask everyone who does not want to see bloodshed to
come together so that it is life that flourishes instead of blood that has
been spilled, or bodies falling. I know it's possible that all Haitians
who live in the tenth department [Haitians living abroad] understand what
tragedy lies hidden under the cover of this coup d'etat, under the cover
of this kidnapping. I know and they know if we stand in solidarity we will
stop the spread of death and we will help life flourish. The same thing
that happened to a President who was democratically elected can happen at
any time, in any other country too. That's why the solidarity is
indispensable to protect a democracy that works together with life.

The constitution is the source of this life. It's the guarantee of the
life. Let's stand together under the constitution in solidarity so that it
is life that unfolds, and that it is peace that flourishes and not death
as we are seeing it. Courage, courage, courage! From where I am with the
First Lady, we have not forgotten what Toussaint L'Ouverture has said, and
that's why we saluted all of Africa with his words, and we are saluting
all Haitians everywhere with the conviction that the roots of the tree of
peace, with the spirit of Toussaint L'Ouverture inside, are alive. They
can cut the tree as they have done with the machete of the coup d'etat,
but they cannot cut the roots of peace. It will sprout again because it
has the spirit of Toussaint L'Ouverture inside.

Copyright (c) 2004 Pacific News Service

===

Reuters
March 5, 2004
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4508564
Chavez Tells U.S.: 'Get Your Hands Off Venezuela!'
By Pascal Fletcher

-Chavez...appealed to the international community to
condemn what he said was the second U.S. attempt in
two years to topple him.
-"Mr Bush's government is financing this mad
opposition, I have quite a lot of evidence," Chavez
said.

CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - Venezuelan President
Hugo Chavez told the United States on Friday to "get
its hands off Venezuela" as he accused Washington of
backing a wave of opposition protests seeking a recall
vote against him.

Chavez, who sent troops onto the streets to control a
week of protests in which at least eight people were
killed, appealed to the international community to
condemn what he said was the second U.S. attempt in
two years to topple him.

"In the name of the truth, I have to ask the
Washington government to get its hands off Venezuela,"
the left-wing leader told foreign ambassadors whom he
summoned to the presidential palace.

U.S. Ambassador Charles Shapiro was not present and
was represented by his deputy.

"Mr Bush's government is financing this mad
opposition, I have quite a lot of evidence," Chavez
said, without immediately giving details. He repeated
charges that Washington had backed an April 2002 coup
that briefly ousted him.

President Bush's government has persistently denied
repeated accusations by the outspoken Venezuelan
president that it is trying to overthrow him. It says
Chavez's anti-U.S. rhetoric is an attempt to distract
attention from his domestic problems.

Venezuela, the world's No. 5 oil exporter, is one of
the top four suppliers of petroleum to the United
states. The state oil firm PDVSA says its operations
and shipments have not been affected by the
anti-government protests.

Opposition demonstrators, who accuse Chavez of
manipulating electoral officials to block a petition
for a referendum, took to the streets of Caracas and
other cities in the last week to set up burning
barricades and battle with troops.

Opponents say Chavez, a former paratrooper elected in
1998, is ruling like a dictator. But the Populist
leader still enjoys support among Venezuela's poor.

The disturbances have subsided in recent days,
although several hundred anti-Chavez demonstrators
marched in Caracas Friday to protest about opposition
supporters who were killed.

Emergency service officials put the casualty toll so
far from the clashes at eight shot dead and 182
injured. But opposition leaders and local media say
the figure is higher.

Both sides have accused each other of using firearms.
Washington says it is worried about the violence in
Venezuela and supports the idea of a referendum to try
to solve the political conflict between followers and
foes of Chavez.

In a move to prevent further deaths, Venezuela's
government on Friday suspended for nine days permits
allowing civilians to carry firearms.

"What we want to do is preserve the security of
everyone," said Defense Minister Gen. Jorge Garcia.

The suspension will remain in force until March 14.

The opposition is planning another major protest march
on Saturday in Caracas.

Many Venezuelans carry firearms and Garcia said those
caught carrying guns during the suspension could face
jail terms of between 3 and 4 years.

===

Los Angeles Times
Thursday, March 4, 2004
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-sachs4mar04,1,4184344.s tory?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

>From his first day in office, Bush was ousting Aristide

by Jeffrey D. Sachs

If the circumstances were not so calamitous, the American- orchestrated
removal of former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide from Haiti would be
farcical.

According to Aristide, American officials in Port-au-Prince told him
that rebels were on the way to the presidential residence and that he
and his family were unlikely to survive unless they immediately boarded
an American-chartered plane standing by to take them to exile. The
United States made it clear, he said, that it would provide no
protection for him at the official residence, despite the ease with
which this could have been arranged.

Indeed, according to Aristide's lawyer, the U.S. blocked reinforcement
of Aristide's own security detail. At the airport, Aristide said, U.S.
officials refused him entry to the airplane until he handed over a
signed letter of resignation.

After being hustled aboard, Aristide was denied access to a phone for
nearly 24 hours, and he knew nothing of his destination until he and his
family were summarily deposited in the Central African Republic. He has
since been kept hidden from view. Yet this Keystone Kops coup has
apparently not worked entirely according to plan: Aristide has used a
cellphone to notify the world that he was forcibly removed from Haiti at
risk of death and to describe the way his resignation was staged by
American forces.

The U.S. government dismisses Aristide's charges as ridiculous.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has offered an official version of
the events, a blanket denial based on the government's word alone. In
essence, Washington is telling us not to look back, only forward. The
U.S. government's stonewalling brings to mind Groucho Marx's old line,
"Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"

There are several tragedies in this surrealistic episode. The first is
the apparent incapacity of the U.S. government to speak honestly about
such matters as toppling governments. Instead, it brushes aside crucial
questions: Did the U.S. summarily deny military protection to Aristide,
and if so, why and when? Did the U.S. supply weapons to the rebels, who
showed up in Haiti last month with sophisticated equipment that last
year reportedly had been taken by the U.S. military to the Dominican
Republic, next door to Haiti? Why did the U.S. cynically abandon the
call of European and Caribbean leaders for a political compromise, a
compromise that Aristide had already accepted? Most important, did the
U.S. in fact bankroll a coup in Haiti, a scenario that seems likely
based on present evidence?

Only someone ignorant of U.S. history and of the administrations of
George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush would dismiss these questions. The
United States has repeatedly sponsored coups and uprisings in Haiti and
in neighboring Caribbean countries.

Ominously, before this week, the most recent such episode in Haiti came
in 1991, during the first Bush administration, when thugs on the CIA
payroll were among the leaders of paramilitary groups that toppled
Aristide after his 1990 election.

Some of the players in this round are familiar from the previous Bush
administration, including of course Powell and Vice President Dick
Cheney. Also key is U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Roger Noriega - a
longtime aide to Jesse Helms and a notorious Aristide-hater - widely
thought to have been central to the departure of Aristide. He is going
to find it much harder to engineer the departure of gun-toting rebels
who entered Port-au-Prince on Wednesday.

Rarely has an episode so brilliantly exposed Santayana's famous aphorism
that "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

In 1991, when Congressional Black Caucus members demanded an
investigation into the U.S. role in Aristide's overthrow, the first Bush
administration laughed them off, just as this administration is doing
today in facing new queries from Congressional Black Caucus members.

Indeed, those who are questioning the administration about Haiti are
being smeared as naive and unpatriotic. Aristide himself is being
smeared with ludicrous propaganda and, most cynically of all, is being
accused of dereliction in the failure to lift his country out of
poverty.

In point of fact, this U.S. administration froze all multilateral
development assistance to Haiti from the day that George W. Bush came
into office, squeezing Haiti's economy dry and causing untold suffering
for its citizens. U.S. officials surely knew that the aid embargo would
mean a balance-of-payments crisis, a rise in inflation and a collapse of
living standards, all of which fed the rebellion.

Another tragedy in this episode is the silence of the media when it
comes to asking all the questions that need answers. Just as in the war
on Iraq's phony WMD, wherein the mainstream media initially failed to
ask questions about the administration's claims, major news
organizations have refused to go to the mat over the administration's
accounts on Haiti. The media haven't had the gumption to find Aristide
and, in failing to do so, to point out that he is being held away from
such contact.

With a violence-prone U.S. government operating with impunity in many
parts of the world, only the public's perseverance in getting at the
truth can save us, and others, from our own worst behavior.

Jeffrey D. Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia
University, is a former economic advisor to governments in Latin America
and around the world.

===

Venezuela Equals Haiti?
07.03.2004 [20:00]
http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=39912&lang=en&lang=en

Venezuela will be the next Haiti, or at least that's the hope of the
desperate Venezuelan opposition, whose "leaders" and media try to draw the
analogy. Their fury is nominally based around signatures for a recall
referendum on President Hugo Chavez. In the 1999 constitution, product of
the constituent assembly fostered by Chavez, there is an unprecedented
measure allowing for a recall vote on any elected official after half their
term of office has expired, if it is petitioned by 20% of the electorate.
Half of the Chavez's six year term ended last August 19, 2003.

The controversy is based around the decisions of the National Election
Committee (CNE) on signatures collected for the referendum. The commission
has five members, two from the Chavez side, and two from the opposition,
but it took months to find a consensus candidate choice for the president,
who would have the deciding vote.. Finally the nod was given to Chavez
sympathizer Francisco Carrasquero, a grey haired law professor of
indigenous heritage with a reputation for impeccable integrity.

The petition drives for the recall elections were held at the end of
November 2003. In the first round the Chavez supporters collected about six
million signatures to recall some 37 opposition Congressional deputies.
Then, from Nov 28 to Dec. 1, the opposition claimed to have collected the
required 20% signatures for about 2/3 of the 30 deputies they tried to
recall, and 3.4 million signatures against Chavez, more than the 2.4
million, or 20% of the electorate needed to solicit the recall vote.

The Chavez supporters, who had observers at every petition table to tally
the signatures, alleged that the opposition had only collected 1.9 million
signatures, and that the remaining 1.5 million were the result of a
"megafraud". Recently obtained FOIA documents have documented that SUMATE,
the main opposition group organizing their collection of signatures,
received tens of thousands of dollars from the Republican Institute and the
Endowment for Democracy.

The CNE was originally to announce the preliminary results on February 13,
but the work of verifying the total of over 10 million signatures and
compare them to the electoral rolls, termed a "superhuman" effort by the
Jimmy Carter Center, could not be completed until Feb 28. Announcement of
the preliminary results were then delayed to consult with both sides, in
the presence of representatives of the Carter Center and the OAS as
facilitators.

On March 2, the CNE finally reported the preliminary results. It turned out
that there were only slightly more than three million possibly valid
signatures delivered, of which 143,000 were declared invalid because the
supposed signers were either dead, under age, foreign born or otherwise
ineligible. The main debate, however, is over some 876,000 signatures on
sheets where the signers' data, except for the signatures, are filled out
in the same handwriting. The instructions for filling out the forms, agreed
upon by the CNE, and disseminated in the information provided by the CNE
and the opposition SUMATE, stated that each person had to fill out their
own data, unless physically incapable of doing so. The opposition claims
that these were done to save time, and all must be accepted as signatures
in "good faith."

After much debate the CNE, in a 3 to 2 vote, decided not to invalidate
these signatures, but rather to have a 5 day period of "repair", when those
with questioned signatures would reaffirm their intentions in any of the
2700 centers to be set up around the country for this purpose. The "repair"
process, publishing the identity card numbers of all those who signed and
allowing for corrections was always planned so that the electors could
confirm that they did or did not sign, and thus prevent mistakes or fraud.
A total of about one million signatures will be subject to revalidation in
the repair process, and if the just over 600,000 people confirm their
signatures, the referendum will go forward. This appears to be feasible, as
the all the centers used to collect signatures during the original petition
drive will also be used for the repair process, and the CNE appears to be
willing to accommodate suggestions from the opposition on how to improve
the process.

The indignant opposition has insisted that all the signatures on the forms
with the same handwriting must be accepted, and claims that Chavez is
simply dictating to the members of the CNE in order to avoid the
referendum. For the several weeks the radio, TV and newspapers, almost all
controlled by radical elements of the opposition, have been full of quotes
to the effect that there will either be a referendum or a rebellion, and
that they would create chaos and anarchy and make the country ungovernable
unless the recall referendum was approved.

The threat was realized on Friday, February 27. The opposition called a
march to protest the biased decisions of the electoral commission and
planned to go to the site where the G-15 group was meeting to deliver a
protest letter. As the meeting included the presidents or prime ministers
of Argentina, Brasil, Colombia, Iran, Jamaica and 10 other high-level
delegations, the government told the opposition that the march could get no
closer than about 1000 yards from the site of the meeting. The opposition
insisted that they were going to march to where the G-15 was meeting. When
they got to the point where the large contingent of National Guard had put
up barriers, they began to throw stones, bottles, fireworks and homemade
rockets, and sling-shot marbles at the Guard, and some fired guns. One
guardsman is still alive because his helmet partially stopped a bullet. The
battle raged for hours, with the National Guard firing clouds of teargas
and buckshot to keep the stone and bottle throwers away, but they kept
advancing. Some opposition leaders were on TV egging on their protesters,
while others were seen in the thick of the conflict, later boasting of the
rocks they'd thrown. Another was seen leading the destruction of house
belonging to a Chavez supporting political party. After the events the
opposition leaders praised their valiant heroes and the private media, in
unison, condemned and repudiated the actions of the National Guard. Some 30
people were injured, and many more were treated for teargas inhalation. One
65 year old protester was shot and killed far from the site of the battle
by a bullet from an unknown gun, but not the type used by the National
Guard. There were several other gunshot wounds, but these were not caused
by the National Guard, who are armed only with teargas and rubber buckshot.

This six hour battle on Friday afternoon initiated the opposition's
strategy of urban guerilla disruptions. Small opposition groups, generally
5- 25 people, set up barricades of burning tires and garbage in the
streets, blocking traffic in their own upper middle class neighborhoods. .
Cars not respecting the blockades can be scraped, fired upon, or have
bricks thrown through their windows. Most of these disturbances are
occurring in the middle class neighborhoods, where the mayors belong to the
opposition. Their police forces do nothing to impede the barricades, and
even protect the protesters. There are reports that they also distribute
the tires and gasoline. Some kids detained admitted that they were imported
from the poorer barrios and paid to make trouble.

On Saturday night, February 28, trucks were stopped on the main highway
through Caracas, their drivers held by heavily armed opposition bands, and
their tires slashed. In a few areas somewhat larger groups have running
battles with the National Guard, who try to keep traffic moving. They throw
bottles, stones, and Molotovs, burn cars, trucks and buses, and
increasingly, fire high powered weapons at the Guard. They also frequently
have shooters in adjacent buildings. The tendency of the opposition now
seems to be towards the use of guns. When opposition leaders or adherents
are detained with high powered weapons, the media discredits the arrest and
repeats reports that the guns were planted. The media, maintains a live
coverage of the skirmishes, and at the same time criticizes the government
for their violent repression and detention of the peaceful protestors. They
repeatedly show footage of the national guard manhandling the demonstrators
or shooting, but never show what the demonstrators did, or who what's in
the building they are shooting at. Their news tries to present two
contradictory elements: 1) that the whole country is in violent rebellion
against the government, and 2) that the government is showing its brutal
totalitarian and repressive nature by abusing the human rights of the
populace to peacefully protest. As shown in the movie on the April 2002
coup, "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," deceptions, manipulations and
outright lies are no problem for the Venezuelan media. The opposition
leaders urge their faithful to increase the resistance to a full-scaled
rebellion, and the most virulent commentators insult the military for not
staging a coup, something that seems very unlikely. This week many streets
and neighborhoods were blocked, children couldn't go to school, and
businesses were closed. The middle class of Caracas is held captive in
their neighborhoods by the barricades of these small violent groups, and
there have been deaths when people couldn't get to a hospital

The opposition has good reason to be desperate. If it can be shown that
they didn't obtain enough valid signatures for the referendum, they'll have
no constitutional way to get rid of Chavez until 2006. Further, if their
own deputies are revoked, which is likely, the Chavistas will have much
more than their current slim majority in the National Assembly. The
opposition could also lose several of their most prominent governors and
mayors in the upcoming July and August elections. From recent polls, and
the number of petition signatures obtained support for the opposition
appears at less than 25%, and six months from now they could be
considerably weakened as an effective political grouping, so this may be
their last best chance.

The real problem for the opposition is that they've been losing support,
partly because they have yet to propose any serious plans, except that that
by simply ousting Chavez they will somehow fulfill their promises of full
employment and the elimination of poverty. The marches they call have been
drawing less and less people. The march on February 27 that started the
violence had less than 30,000 participants. A supposedly megamarch two
weeks earlier, extensively promoted by their media was clocked by
international media at about 30,000, a figure confirmed by local observers,
yet the organizers said they had 264,000, and one, claimed there were over
500,000. The all-news, all-opposition TV station, Globovision, showed
supposedly live coverage of a massive march, which unfortunately appears to
have been footage from a big demonstration that occurred over a year ago,
before the strike, when the opposition really had popular support. Their
two month strike in December 2002 through 2003 turned out to be a political
disaster as they bankrupt many of their supporters, and got their 18,000
striking oil company employees fired. The oil company is now much more
efficient after eliminating a bloated managerial class, and is producing
and expanding. Besides, the price of oil is up, and therefore the economy,
which, owing to the strike, contracted severely in the first semester of
2003, grew at a rate of greater than 9% in the last quarter. A recent
report from First Boston/Credit Suisse predicted a 9.8% growth rate in
2004. In 2003 the Chavez government also began an extensive series of
social programs directed at developing the 80% of the population that live
in poverty: campaigns to eradicate illiteracy, get people studying for high
school diplomas, new and urgently needed public universities, and paying
thousands of Cuban doctors to live and serve in the poor barrios. It is
also giving out many micro-credits, especially to increase agricultural
production. Unemployment has gone down, and most sectors of the economy,
except private construction are growing. There are many public construction
works in progress though, including several rail lines connecting strategic
commercial points in the country, and ambitious new railroads that will
connect Caracas with relatively distant surrounding poorer bedroom
communities. Venezuela may already have built the best sports facilities in
South America. This vigorous attempt, after 40 years of corrupt,
incompetent and squalid governments, to confront Venezuela's problems has
even earned the begrudging and cautious respect of many former opposition
supporters.

The strategy of the Chavez government in dealing with this "urban guerilla"
seems to be to use the National Guard very cautiously to keep the main
traffic routes open, arresting only those carrying guns or being especially
obstructive, and just keep things under control and wait for the tire
burners and stone throwers to exhaust themselves. People caught on camera
in illegal acts or inciting violence, including opposition leaders, may be
prosecuted. However, there is an increasing tendency of all kinds of guns
being used against the National Guard who only teargas and buckshot. . Two
police from the Caracas borough controlled by an opposition mayor were
arrested at the Friday demonstration carrying guns and the gun powder on
their hands showed they were recently fired. Because most of the barricades
are in upper middle class neighborhoods, where opposition mayors have
instructed their police forces to do nothing, the people are essentially
held captive, and will likely take out their frustrations on their mayors
in upcoming elections. An overnight poll by a US firm found that 89% of the
people in these neighborhoods were opposed to the barriers, and 56% were in
favor of the armed forces forcibly removing them. The violent groups are
small, and with a word from Chavez, the armed multitudes from the barrios
could sweep down and have done with the rebellion, but unlike in Haiti, the
Venezuelan masses are politically mature, and Chavez appears to have
forbade violent responses of any kind from his people. Chavez has, besides
the armed forces and all that petroleum, the support of about 50% of the
populace, a large part of whom are politicized, organized and disciplined.
On Sunday, Feb 29, the Chavistas had a march with the theme "Venezuela is
to be respected." Although none of the private TV stations gave it much
attention, and it didn't make the front page of the major dailies on
Monday, it was likely one of the biggest demonstrations ever seen in the
Americas. Hundreds of thousands, three million by some estimates, were
singing and marching for peace and sovereignty, and the chance to develop
the country. Not a single disturbance occurred. In his fiery speech Chavez
openly called for opposition to US intervention, and extensively quoted
Simon Bolivar admonitions on the same topic. Other leaders linked the Bush
administration to the local "rebellion." Chavez also challenged Bush to a
bet to see who would remain in the presidency longer. The radical
opposition news station Globovision didn't bother to put a camera on this
massive demonstration, but for a few minutes on Sunday afternoon they
showed coverage from the cameras of the government TV station, over the
caption, "Hellow Sheeps."

The opposition threatened that if the CNE announced anything but approval
of the recall referendum, the real rebellion would begin, but after the
announcement on March 2, with the extensive process to permit the
reconfirmation of the signatures, some opposition leaders instead stated
that they never instigated the violence, and were only for peaceful and
democratic means of removing Chavez.. A few foci of disturbances remain,
and some blockades may be there for a few days, but at this point it
appears that the rebellion will be controlled. However, there has been a
national university student strike called for this week, and the government
talks of paid instigators, including foreign mercenaries and Colombian
paramilitaries. If the opposition will now mobilize for the reconfirmation
process, what was the need for all the violence, or do they have a two
sided strategy? One interpretation could be that the opposition leaders
thought they could use the referendum and the recent events in Haiti to
mobilize all the opposition that supported them before the strike into a
generalized revolt, in which everyone would follow their foci into the
streets. This would be much easier if they could get some decent martyrs,
even if they have to kill some of their own supporters if it could be
blamed on the Chavistas, or provoke a more vigorous repressive response
from the government. It is still possible that with some strategic deaths
and the increasing campaign by the media, the revolt could grow. One
problem, however, is that they didn't dare do anything in the Chavista
poorer barrios, so had no choice but to set up their blockades and
skirmishes in the middle class neighborhoods, which only alienated most of
their potential base. This has further discredited them so that they now
only have the support the most violent, radical elements of the opposition,
and are unlikely to be supported by more than 20 - 25% of the population.
The opposition may yet get enough signatures for referendum, but there is
every indication that Chavez would survive the vote. This may not really
matter, as the people in the streets, who don't stop screaming that Chavez
is antidemocratic, apparently don't respect the democracy that brought
Chavez to power. It is also possible that the opposition will try to
convince the populace that, even though they don't like the opposition
leaders, the violence will continue until Chavez leaves, which would make
it similar to Haiti. The opposition leaders currently in front of the
cameras seem simply disposable flunkies. The real power of the opposition
is the media, especially the tv. The leaders for the post-Chavez phase are
being kept out of the current fray so they won't be discredited for their
later roles. The problem for the Chavez government is how to react to
neutralize the media and the violent foci without drawing criticism for
censorship and repression.

The current coup attempt began on February 27, the fifteen anniversary of
the Caracas uprising in 1989 against IMF measures instituted by President
Carlos Andres Perez of the Democratic Action party, recently elected with a
platform that specifically rejected the same measures. For two days there
was a spontaneous and general uprising of the poor in the country against
the increase in the price of gasoline and public transport. After ignoring
it for the first day, Perez sent out the troops, who killed hundreds as
they violently suppressed the riots and looting. Chavez tells of how
affected he was by the armed forces firing on their own people, and that
this was a big impetus to organize the 1992 coup attempt, and the
subsequent political project. Although opposition commentators have tried
to say that the current uprising is of the same character, they fail to
mention that the alignment of forces is the same, but the Democratic Action
party and the elite and the neoliberals are now the ones rebelling against
Chavez and great majority of this rich but impoverished country, who are in
power, democratically elected, with a progressive constitution, and
torrents of energy to develop the country for all its citizens, including
those in the opposition.

(The author would like to thank his dear neighbors sympathetic to the
opposition. Were it not for their blocking the entrance to his development
with burning tires, and preventing his going to work, this article would
not have been possible.)

Alan Cisco is an American living and working in Caracas.

===

Venezuela Leader Vows War if U.S. Invades
Sun Mar 7, 8:30 PM ET
By ALICE M. CHACON, Associated Press Writer
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040308/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_chavez

CARACAS, Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez on Sunday vowed to freeze oil
exports to the United States and wage a "100-year war" if Washington ever
tried to invade Venezuela.

The United States has repeatedly denied ever trying to overthrow Chavez,
but the leftist leader accuses Washington of being behind a failed 2002
coup and of funding opposition groups seeking a recall referendum on his
presidency.

Chavez accused the United States of ousting former Haitian President
Jean-Bertrand Aristide and warned Washington not to "even think about
trying something similar in Venezuela."

Venezuela "has enough allies on this continent to start a 100-year war,"
Chavez said during his weekly television show.

He added that "U.S. citizens could forget about ever getting Venezuelan
oil" if the United States ever tried to invade.

Venezuela provides about 15 percent of U.S. oil imports, but relations
between the two countries are rocky over Chavez's friendship with Cuban
President Fidel Castro, his criticism of U.S.-led negotiations for a free
trade zone in the Americas and his opposition to the war in Iraq (news -
web sites).

The United States was slow to condemn the 2002 coup, initially accusing
Chavez of provoking his own downfall.

Chavez has increasingly railed against U.S. meddling in Venezuelan affairs
as his opponents step up protests to demand the recall vote.

On Saturday, at least 500,000 Venezuelans marched in Caracas to protest
the National Elections Council's ruling last week that an opposition
petition for the recall vote lacked enough valid signatures. Opponents
turned in more than 3 million signatures Dec. 19, but the council ruled
only 1.8 million were valid. The council ordered more than 1 million
citizens to confirm they signed and rejected more than 140,000 signatures
outright.

Rioting over the decision killed eight people and hurt scores more. The
violence subsided after the Organization of American States and the
U.S.-based Carter Center pledged to help give citizens a fair chance to
prove they signed.

Venezuela is deeply divided between those who fear Chavez is trying to
impose Cuba-style socialism and those who say he has given an
unprecedented political voice to the impoverished majority.

Chavez insists the recall petition is fraud-ridden. He claims many
signatures belong to dead people, minors and foreigners.

On Sunday, Chavez promised his government would investigate the deaths and
injuries from last week's violence. Opposition leaders accuse National
Guard troops of committing abuses while trying to keep rock-throwing
protesters from blocking roads with burning tires. Chavez accuses his
opponents of instigating chaos.

"The government is investigating all the acts of violence and especially
those in which people died," Chavez said. "Violence only takes place when
a group of the opposition leaders decide there will be violence."
_______________________________________________
heads mailing list
[email protected]
http://ballistichelmet.org/mailman/listinfo/heads/
http://ballistichelmet.org/donate/