|
May 15th., 2009
Cause For
Concern
Chávez’s trip to Argentina has led to
much speculation. Apparently, the presidential agenda is
limited to forging cooperation agreements, but the
reappearance of the suitcase case has been unavoidable.
An Argentinean judge validated the evidence of the USA
trial, conclusions which led to the thesis that the US
$800,000 found with Antonini Wilson were destined to
finance Mrs. Kirchner’s campaign. Argentina is living
intensely with the June elections and some Buenos Aires
journalists allow themselves the question of whether or
not this time Chávez will bear another suitcase.
In his farewell message, Chávez, in
addition to severely attacking the media, complained
about the little importance given to his efforts of
achieving South American integration. The matter is that
the economic situation occupies center stage in the
nation’s worries, now fed by daily nationwide broadcasts
including both TV and radio, mainly dedicated to lessons
regarding the blessings of Marxism in its new version of
“Socialism of the XXI Century”. “The Bolivarian
revolution is an important contribution to the salvation
of humanity, to the salvation of the world.” This is not
just drama or rhetoric. According to the Social Property
Law project, there will be no difference based on
hierarchies in labor relationships, but rather based on
the proportion of work conducted. Chávez expropriates
agricultural lands, alleging that the lands belong to
the nation and that there is no such thing as private
land.
The Manifest has had great impact
with the national crisis, backed by the most renown
economists of the country belonging to diverse
tendencies. According to them, the deterioration of
agricultural production, scarce industrial investment,
generalized corruption, the standstill of oil
production, the collapse of basic Guayana companies and
the lack of solvency of public financial entities, are
symptoms of extremely serious economic problems. They
point out that this crisis has been faced by a Venezuela
which depends almost entirely on oil income and with a
private productive apparatus which has been purposefully
asphyxiated. “To this one must add institutional
deterioration, since public powers are every day more
partial and dependent of the President.” They also
emphasize on the importance of warning the country about
the grave economic, social and institutional situation
present in the country, not with the purpose of
deepening the sense of anxiety among the Venezuelans,
but rather with the intention of informing that the
current unbalances and distortions will have an
important negative impact on the citizens’ lives, due to
serious interpretation mistakes regarding the reality of
the nation and mistakes in design and execution of the
current government’s policies.
SERIOUS PROBLEMS IN PDVSA
The difficulties faced by the
nation’s oil company are daily headlines among means of
communication and analysts. Chávez decreed the
expropriation of companies which render goods and
services to the oil industry and which remained within
the private sector. They were in charge of the water,
vapor or gas injection processes which allow the
increase of energy within the fields and improve their
recovery factor, handle perforation drills, motorboats,
tow trucks, barges and services for plumbing
replacements. After the nationalization of oil, in the
last century, and during Chávez’s ten years, the
activity of those companies which are now affected was
maintained, some from the US and some from the UK, due
to expense economy and because several count with their
own technologies, which PDVSA does not have, as well as
their long experience in key processes for oil
production.
Authorized commentators have
questioned the convenience of the measure, and think the
reasons for it are the financial troubles of PDVSA in
paying pending bills with suppliers and debts with their
workers. They are correct. Chávez had to go himself to
Zulia in order to personally promise the payment of
debts being violently demanded by the mass of workers.
The companies Helmerich Payne and Williams let it be
known publicly that PDVSA owes them $116 million and
$241 million respectively. The companies Halliburton and
Schlumberg announced that the amount owed to them
reaches the thousand million dollars and that the
payments received barely cover 10% of the bill. The
British company Good Group, with 49% participation in
SINCO (Engineering, Maintenance, Construction and
Operations Services) asked for indemnification for the
taking over of their equipments. Good Group and the US
company Williams announced that they are studying the
possibility of suing in International Arbitration
centers.
The country is worried about PDVSA’s
finances. Its liabilities, when the exportation prices
reached their highest historical levels, were above $69
thousand millions. Its accounts receivable, of doubtful
recovery, since they correspond to energy gifts to many
countries, increase $24,2 thousand millions. During the
period of greatest prosperity the financial sinking
occurred, and now, PDVSA, in addition to being
threatened with suits before International Arbitration
centers, faces several operational restrictions which
basically boil down to less production and distribution
capacity. The average price per barrel was of $86 last
year, reason for which an estimated reduction of up to
$40 for this year, within the context of serious
accumulated problems, represents an impact in the social
and economic order. A respected analyst believes that
Chávez gamble on the sustained recovery of oil is risky
business for governing the country.
The situation could have been
different, had there prevailed a minimum amount of sense
and order in the leading of public affairs. If the
government, with elevated prices since 2004, had
destined part of those resources to a stabilization
fund, instead of wasting them in the way that they did,
the effects of the downfall of the oil income could have
been lessened. A rational policy for production and
commercialization was necessary, one in which the
nation’s interest should have prevailed over a
circumstantial geopolitical interest.
OBSESSION AGAINST FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION
Chávez’s struggle against private
television would seem strange if it weren’t for his
obvious opposition with freedom of expression, which was
clearly manifested when he announced: “The owners of 4
national TV channels, RCTV, Venevisión, Televen
and Globovisión, none will be saved, you should
all be in prison, because you are terrorists, coup
leaders.” He ordered them to change their attitudes or
face sanctions, including the revoking of their
concessions. Globovisión, the news channel and
its director Alberto Federico Ravell, are special
targets for the Presidential rage. The accusation is
“media terrorism” because they informed this past May 4th
regarding an earth tremor, given the absence of official
information. CONATEL opened the process for closing down
Globovisión. Ravell proved that his information
had been objective and truthful, telling the population
to keep calm. Nonetheless, the leaders of the PSUV
support the closing, arguing that “the enemy must be
annihilated”. Chávez’s obsession against the media is so
aggressive, that in Argentina he declared: “No one
should be surprised when the State takes decisions
regarding means of communication which practice
terrorism.” In a joint press conference with President
Kirchner he declared that in Venezuela, “some means of
communication still practice terrorism, not criticism.”
This threat has been cause for national and
international rejection. The IAPA protested due to the
threat against Globovisión. Enrique Santos,
President of the IAPA and director of El Tiempo
of Bogota, recalled the closing of RCTV in May
2007, and that their equipment was taken with no
indemnification given. In its last semester meeting, the
IAPA recorded that Chávez’s verbal violence increases
actions of his followers against means of communication
and independent journalists. “The exercise of freedom of
expression is not a concession given by the authorities,
it is an inalienable right of society. Globovisión
should not be held as an enemy of the state because
it holds critical and independent views.”
Other institutions have reacted
before Chávez’s attack against freedom of expression.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR)
called attention to the restrictions for accessing
public information, and the fact that protection
measures in favor of journalists and means of
communication (among others Globovisión) have not
been upheld. Chávez responded in such vulgar terms that
we will not repeat, out of respect towards our readers.
He held that the IACHR belongs to the OAS, and Venezuela
can “leave” this organization. It would be the first and
only country to ever voluntarily leave the OAS. The
European Parliament (EP) expressed enormous concern for
the deterioration of Venezuelan democracy, “which is in
grave danger of collapsing due to concentration of power
and the growing authoritarianism of president Chávez.”
The EP expressed that “legitimacy of origin” does not
avail the democratic nature of a government. This
legitimacy must be supported with a respectful
compliance of the Constitution and the Rule of Law. It
is evident that each day the international file which
characterizes Chávez as a neo-totalitarian model
continues to grow. (Venezuela Today,
April 30, 2009).
|
