[NYTr] VIO Venezuela News Roundup Selections - Nov 13, 2007

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

[We have already distributed much of the news described in today's VIO
News Roundup, so we're sending their summary along with a few
selected articles. Most of the mainstream stuff isn't worth repeating,
or we've already distributed it. - NY Transfer]

excerpted from VIO Venezuela Daily News Roundup - Nov 13, 2007

Summary

At a Latin American summit over the weekend, President Chavez put
forth a proposal for energy integration among countries in the region.
Reuters reports that Chavez called on heads of state to cooperate on
energy issues, saying "I propose to you that we unite, that we join
together in mechanisms of cooperation with countries that don't have
oil and who cannot afford to pay $100 per barrel."  Venezuela already
provides reduced-cost energy to Colombia, Bolivia, and other South
American nations along with the Caribbean, the US and the UK.

Also at the summit, harsh words were exchanged between President Chavez
and the King of Spain.  Chavez protested an homage to the former
Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, who supported the coup d'etat
by the opposition in Venezuela in 2002.  The King reacted strongly to
the interruption by Chavez, telling him to "shut up."  However, the
current Prime Minister of Spain downplayed the incident, and neither
country expects the row to affect trade or diplomatic relations,
according to Associated Press reports.

Just one week into political campaigning on the constitutional reforms
in Venezuela, many marches have already taken place, some urging voters
to approve the changes, others asking citizens to reject them.
Editorials in the LA Times and the Houston Chronicle last weekend take
a generally condemning look at the constitutional reforms that
Venezuelans will vote on in early December.  The Houston Chronicle
wrongly states that Venezuelans would lack due process during states of
national emergency.  The LA Times piece, written by an opposition
journalist who elsewhere compares President Chavez to Bin Laden, makes
the unsupported claim that constitutional reforms would cause a global
recession due to higher oil prices.  What both exaggerated accounts
ignore is that voters will choose whether or not to amend the 1999
Constitution, and that the changes would expand the important role that
citizens already play in Venezuela's democratic process.  The Miami
Herald predicts an end to freedom of expression in Venezuela, a myth
dispelled daily by the strength and diversity of opposition voices
represented in the largely private media.

The Washington Post reports on oil, noting that prices approaching $100
per gallon have shifted the global balance of power in favor of
oil-producing countries including Venezuela.  Venezuela's extensive
energy assistance programs abroad are deemed hastily deemed patronage,
a form of buying influence.  Elsewhere, the pro-poor programs have been
recognized as efforts by Venezuela to bring social justice, equality
and solidarity to the region.

Finally, also of interest today, the New York Times runs an obituary
for ex-Venezuelan President Herrera Campins, who led the country during
a harsh economic crash in 1983.  The Times reviews a performance of the
Simon Bolivar Youth Orchestra of Venezuela, an account nearly as
glowing as those received by the group in Los Angeles and San
Francisco.  An informative and moving speech on Venezuela by New York
City Congressman Jose Serrano last week is reproduced in
Venezuelanalysis (distributed yesterday - NYTr). - VIO

                               ***

Reuters via the Washington Post - November 9, 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/09/AR2007110900706.html

Venezuela's Chavez calls for energy alliance

By Pav Jordan

SANTIAGO (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez challenged Latin
American leaders at a summit on Friday to lower regional oil prices,
telling big producers to sell oil cheaply to their neighbors.

Addressing leaders by name, Chavez, a stalwart opponent of the United
States, proposed the creation of a region-wide oil alliance that would
help sustain booming economic growth by sharing energy resources.
Venezuela is Latin America's second-biggest oil producer after Mexico.

"I propose to you that we unite, that we join together in mechanisms of
cooperation with countries that don't have oil and who cannot afford to
pay $100 per barrel," said Chavez, who has used Venezuela's oil wealth
to spread his influence in the region. Oil prices reached record highs
of more than $98 per barrel this week.

Leaders -- most of them leftist -- from Latin America, Portugal, Spain
and Andorra are in Santiago for a three-day Ibero-American summit where
energy has been high on the unofficial agenda.

Many Latin American economies have expanded rapidly in recent years and
energy supplies have been stretched by booming consumer demand and
factory output in countries such as Chile and Argentina.

Chavez and leftist allies in Bolivia and Ecuador have tightened state
control over their energy industries and Bolivia, one of the poorest
countries in the Western Hemisphere, recently forced Argentina and
Brazil to pay more for its natural gas.

PARAGUAY PROJECT

The presidents of Brazil and Paraguay, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and
Nicanor Duarte Frutos, met on Friday and agreed to build a $400 million
power transmission line from the giant Itaipu power plant at the two
countries' border to the Paraguayan capital, Asuncion.

After a meeting between Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa and Spanish
Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, a source from Spain's
Foreign Ministry said both governments were looking for ways to ease
concerns about Ecuador's new windfall royalty tax on revenues for
foreign oil companies.

The tax hike is the latest policy shift by Correa to worry Wall Street.
It would cut energy companies' revenue by about $700 million a year and
Spain's Repsol YPF is the biggest foreign oil producer in Ecuador.

Lula de Silva also was expected to meet Bolivian President Evo Morales
to discuss potential new investments in Bolivia's natural gas industry.

The 19 Latin leaders at the summit are almost all leftists and the
gathering was friendly, despite diplomatic friction between Argentina
and Uruguay over a controversial pulp mill along a shared river.

Uruguay granted a long-awaited start-up permit to a Finnish group for
the pulp mill on Thursday, drawing swift criticism from Argentina and
likely extending a years-long diplomatic dispute.

Chavez drew rebukes from Spanish authorities after he alluded in his
speech to the summit forum to a former Spanish president and a Spanish
businessmen as fascists.

Earlier in the day, Chavez set the stage for his customary
controversial comments by singing the defiant lyrics of a Mexican
ballad after he arrived in Chile.

"I am who I am, if they don't like me, that's their problem," Chavez
crooned to reporters.

On Thursday, anti-Chavez protesters scuffled with Chavez supporters
outside Venezuela's Embassy in Santiago and a right-wing lawmaker tried
to submit a letter declaring him unwelcome.

Chavez was to meet with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe later on
Friday to discuss talks he is mediating with Colombian guerrillas to
help arrange an exchange of hostages in rebel captivity for guerrillas
held in government prisons.

(Additional reporting by Rodrigo Martinez, Monica Vargas and Antonio de
la Jara; Editing by Bill Trott)

                               ***

Green Left Weekly - November 12, 2007
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/731/37903


Venezuela: Reform battle continues as Chavez ally splits

By Federico Fuentes

Hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans took to the streets of Caracas on
November 4, in a massive sea of red, to support the proposed
constitutional reforms adopted by the National Assembly that will be
put to a referendum on December 2. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has
explained that the reforms aim to deepen the Bolivarian revolution that
his government is leading, which has already achieved significant gains
in redistributing wealth and power to the poor majority.

On November 6, Chavez explained to a swearing-in ceremony for activists
involved in the National Zamora Command, launched to campaign in favour
of the proposed reforms, that the referendum "is the most important
battle" of the Bolivarian revolution so far. He said "destabilisation,
abstention and the 'No' vote, are the three principal adversaries we
have to defeat".

Chavez argued that the socialism the reforms aimed at providing a
framework to help construct would be "democratic and humanist". Chavez
explained that "this economic system will be managed by everyone",
claiming that democratising the economy was essential to defeat poverty
and create happiness.

He argued that this conflicted with the interests of capitalism and
imperialism, and that this explained the ongoing offensive against his
government by the US government and local opposition.

Confirming Chavez's speculation in his speech to the November 4 rally
that some leading Chavistas would jump ship and join the
counter-revolutionary opposition, the following day retired General
Raul Baduel, who had been defence minister until July and who played a
key role in defeating the April 2002 US-backed military coup against
Chavez, broke a three-month silence declaring his opposition to the
reforms. He said they represent a "constitutional coup" ? the same
claim made by the right-wing opposition.

During the press conference, to which only pro-opposition media outlets
were invited, Baduel argued that the proposed reforms would "seize
power away from the people". "The only democratic and legal means left
to us is to vote 'No' and defend ourselves [against] this undemocratic
imposition."

Baduel called on the armed forces to "profoundly analyse" the proposed
changes to the structure of the military (transforming the reserves
into a "popular militia" among other steps), declaring "it must be
stopped", adding that "the capacity of Venezuelan military men to
analyse and think" should not be underestimated.

This defection came two days after a sizable mobilisation, organised by
the radical opposition group, the National Resistance Command (CNR) and
supported by a number of opposition parties, called for a boycott of
the referendum. CNR leader Hermann Escarra proclaimed: "This is not
about whether or not to vote, it is about impeding [the reforms]."

The speakers, applauding right-wing students who had led small but
violent protests against the reforms, called for a march "without
return" for November 26.

Speculation spread rapidly about the meaning of Baduel's statements.
Within hours, two former defence ministers, general Jorge Garcia
Carneiro and admiral Orlando Manigilia, spoke against him.

Carneiro accused Baduel of having held "dubious" positions for a while,
and argued his comments would not have any impact in the military.
Manigilia reminded the military that they have the right to exercise
their democratic vote, but not to involve themselves in party politics.

Vice-President Jorge Rodriguez argued that Baduel's speech would have
little effect, "not even a breeze". "Baduel has said the same thing
that the opposition has been saying ? he is not saying anything new."
Rodriquez welcomed, however, Baduel's call to participate in the
referendum.

Chavez declared Baduel a "traitor" and said he had become "a pawn in
this game [of the opposition]. We will be on alert because it is part
of a plan that without doubt aims to fill the streets of Venezuela with
violence".

He added that Baduel's shift to the opposition in the context of the
deepening struggle for socialism was good because it clarified his
position. "It is not strange that when a submarine goes deeper the
pressure is increased and can free a loose screw. The weak points are
going to leave, and I believe it is good that they leave", Chavez said.

Chavez added "I'm completely sure there is no current within the armed
forces that has the necessary strength to carry out a successful coup
d'etat or to lead the country to a civil war". However he explained
that there would be a meeting of the military high command because
"there is nothing innocent about this".

Miranda Governor Diosdado Cabello also criticised Baduel, saying that
his arguments were the same as the opposition's, and that "I believe he
must have met with them". Cabello added that he never swallowed the
story that Baduel was a hero during the 2002 coup.

A different take was provided by Chavista National Assembly deputy Luis
Tascon, who said that it would be "stupid" to say that this was simply
about the betrayal of one person, and would not affect Chavismo. Tascon
argued that Baduel's treachery represented "a division within
Chavismo", adding that Baduel had been widely respected among Chavistas.

Rather than simply attacking Baduel, Tascon argued it was necessary to
politically debate the issues at stake and that there could be further
rumblings within Chavismo. He also pointed to the influence of powerful
groups and business interests behind Baduel's moves.

Immediately after Baduel's press conference, six opposition parties,
some of whom were previously calling for a boycott, called for
"massive" participation in the referendum and registered at the
National Electoral Council to officially become part of the "No"
campaign. They were later joined by another eight, including Podemos ?
a social-democratic party that until this year had been part of the
Chavista camp, but have moved rapidly towards the opposition as more
radical, socialist-oriented measures have been introduced.

The opposition press were quick to point to the potential emergence of
a new opposition leader in Baduel, changing their editorial lines from
supporting a boycott to backing a "No" vote.

As speculation whirls around the possible ramifications of Baduel's
declarations inside the military, most analysts, pro- and
anti-Chavista, agree that it is unlikely that this could lead in the
immediate future to a military coup.

At his press conference, Baduel, who was dressed in civilian clothing
as opposed to his military uniform, made clear he did not speak for the
military and repeatedly emphasised the need to vote "No", which seems
to indicate that his statements were more aimed at giving confidence to
those individuals in the military who are opposed to reforms, and not
necessarily a direct incitement to rebellion. It has been widely
reported that Baduel sought out other military figures to speak out at
the same time, although no one was willing to accept. Given that strong
opponents of the revolution are a small minority in the military, a
premature move would lead to a quick defeat and a further purge of
counter-revolutionaries.

The Venezuelan military has been undergoing a significant
transformation since the uprising of much of the armed forces along
with the poor majority that defeated the 2002 coup against Chavez. This
lead to the clearing out of large sections of those who had been
involved in the coup, with control of the military passing over from
the capitalist elite to the Bolivarian forces. This was further
deepened during the bosses lockout in December 2002-February 2003, when
the armed forces, alongside the people and particularly the oil
workers, worked to regain control of the oil industry and break the
sabotage of the capitalist class.

However, the process is ongoing and not irreversible. As the revolution
deepens, the possibility of increased internal fractures grows.
Comprised of men and women who live in a society, there is no doubt
that the full spectrum of politics in Venezuela is also reflected
within the military. No-one doubts that US imperialism and the
opposition retain some influence within the military, and they hope to
deepen divisions among those that have until now backed Chavez. One
issue in relation to this is the resistance within the military to
moves away from the concept of a "professionalised" armed forces ?
reflected in some of the amendments subsequently made to Chavez's
initial proposals to reform articles of the constitution relating to
the military.

Given Baduel's statement that he would not rule out a future political
career, and the timing of this declaration to coincide with the
beginning of the official referendum campaign, it seems to indicate an
intention to position himself as the new leader of the opposition. His
statement's timing, after three months of public silence, lends
credence to the idea that this is part of a bigger plan around which he
has been conspiring with others.

Presenting Baduel as separate from the thoroughly discredited old
opposition forces, the aim is to win over a section of Chavismo that,
while supporting Chavez, is not convinced, or is opposed to, the
reforms and would prefer to abstain rather than support the opposition.
However, Baduel's mimicking of opposition catch-phrases, such as
"constitutional coup", have undermined this attempt.

Although the full impact of this fracturing of Chavismo is yet to be
seen, it no doubt will have a greater impact than previous splits,
including by Podemos. Baduel was widely seen as a real hero of the
revolution, and many in the civilian left had worked closely with him
in strengthening organisational bonds with sections of the military
around the time of the coup. He continues to proclaim his adherence to
"Bolivarianism" (while rejecting its radical aspects), giving him more
potential than the existing opposition to draw behind him sectors of
Chavismo.

Chavez revealed that in the lead-up to the presidential elections last
year, some Chavistas were campaigning to make Baduel vice-president.
This year, Baduel began to express publicly some disagreements with
aspects of the Bolivarian revolution, raising doubts over what kind of
socialism was being built and defending the need for a "professional"
standing army in counter-position to the proposed reform re-organising
the reserves into a popular militias. Chavez pointed out that behind
all this are business interests and groups of power, fearful of losing
their privileges, and that it reflects the ideological weakness of the
revolution.

These points tend to point to the idea that Baduel's defection, carried
out both in collaboration with the opposition and some of the
right-wing Chavista elements whose position is referred to as "Chavismo
without Chavez" hopes to take advantage of confusion amongst Chavista
ranks and conservative sections of the military. The aim is to crate a
counterweight to the radical course that Chavez, and the majority of
working people, seem determined to take. Part of the plan is to attempt
to slow the revolutionary process by arguing for negotiations with
"moderate" opposition sectors.

Baduel's defection provides further evidence of a new campaign of
destabilisation that is being unleashed by the opposition ? with the
backing of the US ? which has so far failed in a number of attempts at
overthrowing the Chavez government and rolling back the gains of the
revolution.

The violent campaign by small groups of fascist students ? with the
burning of buildings and vehicles, including that belonging to the
environment minister ? continued the day after Baduel's press
conference. The campaign has included a number of shootings on
university campuses. The national and international media have
attempted to portray the students as victims of a "dictatorship",
either implying or outright lying that the shootings were carried out
by Chavista forces.

One example was a highly publicised shooting in the University of Zulia
on November 2 that was initially blamed on Chavista students. Once it
was revealed that the death had been a result of a shoot out between
two rival opposition parties, the overwhelmingly anti-Chavez private
media quickly dropped the story without clarifying the truth. (This
should at least put to rest the lie these days Chavez controls the
media.)

Combined with the growing presence of paramilitaries on the border
region with Colombia, this is further evidence that the opposition has
unleashed a new destabilisation plan with the backing of US
imperialism ? with Baduel a key component. They hope to substitute for
their lack of any mass support base with a climate of tension and
fear ? amplified by the national and international media who are
central to this plan.

If they cannot stop the reforms from going ahead, they hope that they
can encourage or intimidate enough people to either boycott or vote
"No" in order to present the reforms as illegitimate, adding weight to
argument of conservative sectors of Chavismo to slow down the process.

It is in this context that Chavez has described the referendum as the
revolution's "most important battle", because "it is much more
defining" of the fundamental nature of the process than previous
struggles.

Speaking at the November 4 rally, Chavez explained that the 1999
constitution had left in place some obstacles to the "development of
the Bolivarian project and the construction of socialism". The reforms
represent a break with the "false principal that politics is the art of
the possible ? No, politics is the art of making possible tomorrow what
today seems impossible, this is truly revolutionary politics ?."

"By signalling socialism as the goal ? [the reform campaign] began to
generate additional tensions in the process", Chavez explained. He said
that while some argue that it is necessary to reach this objective via
slow moves, "many times these end up being slower every day until it
reaches zero".

"That is why the proposal is a proposal of rupture ? We will never get
to socialism with the bureaucratic trickle down from above ? The reform
overturns this concept; we will only reach socialism by unleashing the
power of the people ? That is the essence of the proposal."

That is why, Chavez declared, that "our campaign strategy, our
principal objective is to approve the constitutional reform in a
resounding manner". He added that popular mobilisation was "the vaccine
against a coup, against destabilisation, against the oligarchy, against
Bush. This is what happened" when the 2002 coup was defeated, it was
"the people in the streets, popular mobilisation, and of course, our
soldiers together with the people."

He added that the "fundamental motor" of the campaign would be the
socialist battalions, the base units of new United Socialist Party of
Venezuela, whose explicit aim is to organise the revolutionary vanguard
into a united fighting organisation to deepen the process.

It is clear that the battle over the next three weeks ? and then
immediately afterwards ? will be crucial for the future of the
revolutionary process. Not just for what a defeat would mean for Chavez
and the opposition respectively, but for the process of change as a
whole. 

                               ***

For those interested here are some links to mainstream stories that
either are several days old or garbage disinfo. (We're not even listing
the more absurd, like Andres Oppenheimer's poison from the Miami
Herald). Other articles referred to by VIO today have already been
distributed:

The Houston Chronicle - November 10, 2007
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/5290890.html
President Chavez betraying Venezuela's democracy

AP via Wash Post - November 10, 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/10/AR2007111000324.html
New Unrest Worries Chavez Ahead of Vote
By Christopher Toothaker

Bloomberg - November 12, 2007
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=abEj3z6DdqEk&refer=latin_america
Venezuela's Baduel Urges No Abstentions in Referendum 
By Matthew Walter

The Los Angeles Times - November 13, 2007
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-schoen13nov13,1,1444441.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
Will Chavez pull the trigger?
By Michael Rowan and Douglas Schoen