Post-Election Violence In Venezuela Was Hatched In Pre-Election Days

Mainstream media focused on the post-election violence in Venezuela. But perpetrators of this violence, the gang members of the right wing candidate Capriles, were not identified.

With the death of seven persons and injury of more than 61 the post-election right wing violence turned fatal. The right wing groups burned homes of United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) leaders, community hospitals, and mercales, subsidized grocery stores, attacked Cuban doctors, state and community media stations, and threatened National Electoral Council (CNE) president Lucena and other officials. Maduro and senior government officials have warned that the opposition is attempting a coup d'etat. PSUV legislators have suggested they may pursue legal action against Capriles for promoting instability. (Dan Beeton, “Deadly opposition violence in Venezuela: The first major destabilization attempt since 2002-03”, Americas Blog, April 16, 2013)

Violence by the right wingers was planned in pre-election period. Citing Nicolas Maduro, vice-president Arreaza, defense minister Bellavia and internal affairs and justice minister Reverol, Ryan Mallett-Outtrim in “Venezuelan Government Foils Destabilisation Plans” (April 12, 2013) presented a few facts, which are mentioned below:

1. A plot to violently destabilize Venezuela during election and post-election period has been foiled by the Venezuelan security forces. The plot involved Salvadorian mercenaries’ plan to intervene and disrupt the country.

2. Two groups of Salvadoran mercenaries operating in Venezuela is funded by drug trafficking with links to far right terrorists including Luis Posada Carriles. Now stationed in Miami Luis Posada Carriles has been convicted in Panama of a number of terrorist attacks including the 1976 bombing of a Cuban airline that claimed 73 lives.

3. A group of students were arrested after attempting to “storm” the Generalisimo Francisco de Miranda Airbase in Caracas. The group also tried to enter the National Guard headquarters near the capital.

4. Arrest of Colombian paramilitaries operating in Venezuela. The paramilitaries had in their possession Venezuelan military uniforms, explosives and other military materiel including high capacity assault rifle magazines. The paramilitaries “came to kill”.

5. An employee of the state run oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA) was shot outside a PDVSA office. Workers there were engaged in a pro-Maduro program. The employee later died.

Mining and oil minister Ramirez warned the oil sector is a potential target for destabilizing forces.

In “Venezuelan Government Releases ‘Evidence’ that Opposition is Planning to not Recognise Election Results” (April 10, 2013) Tamara Pearson presented the following information:

1. On April 10, 2013, PSUV leader Cabello presented evidence including phone recordings, documents, and emails proving that the opposition planned to not recognize the presidential election results. Cabello played an audio recording of a phone conversation in which Joao Nunes, Capriles’ bodyguard and driver said that Capriles won’t recognize results if he loses.

In the recorded conversation, which lasts just over a minute, Nunes talks with another person, “Michell”, who says “It’s looking to be full on, man”. Nunes responds, “Man, they’re going to rob it from them in the streets...” Michell then says, “Looking at it from here, here what they are saying is that he’s not going to recognize [the elections] if he loses... there’s going to be problems, full on problems”.

2. Cabello showed an email sent from Amando Briquet, of Capriles’ campaign team, to Guillermo Salas, member of the organization Esdata, which has reported on Venezuela’s electoral process since Chavez was elected in 1998.

In the email, dated April 6, 2013, Briquet wrote, “...we need everything set out in Washington for checking over by the [Capriles campaign]. It's necessary that all documentation is presented internationally if we decide to take the road of not recognizing the results."

Opposition umbrella group MUD’s secretary, Aveledo had requested documentation from Salas “in order to be able to support their decision not to recognize the results”.

3. Cabello mentioned an alleged meeting between the head of private, opposition supporting newspaper, El Nacional, Miguel Otero, with Capriles and Briquet. Cabello accused the three men of meeting in order to “discuss not recognizing the elections”.

4. Cabello said an organization called Patriotic Board (Junta Patrotica), which includes Guillermo Salas, signed a document which they sent on April 7 to Vicente Diaz. Diaz is a CNE director known to side more with the opposition. In the document the Patriotic Board allegedly expressed its decision to not recognize the CNE’s reports.

Cabello told press he’d made the information public in “order to guarantee peace; this is a ...warning so that they know we know what they are planning to do”.

5. Public prosecutor Ortega and head of strategic command of the National Bolivarian Armed Forces Barrientos informed that 17 persons were “caught red-handed” sabotaging electricity facilities in Sucre, Monagas, and Aragua states. Blackouts have been more common over the last two weeks across Venezuela.

6. In Merida, opposition supporters, after a rally where Capriles spoke, attacked the offices of the government youth, INJUVEM, of public radio YVKE Mundial, the state government building and its workers, and privately owned shops. Some of the perpetrators were drunk, and some wore balaclavas, making it likely they were part of the violent Movement 13 group based on Merida's University of Los Andes.

7. In a suburb of Caracas, Maduro supporters were attacked by the opposition group JAVU, which then went to the press and blamed “Castro-communists” for the violence.

8. A conversation, recorded by Venezuela’s intelligence organizations and released by government, revealed the use of “mercenaries” by the Venezuelan opposition to create chaos in the lead up to the elections. The “mercenaries” already in Venezuela and being coordinated by the Central American right wing with some sectors of the opposition had three objectives: to sabotage electrical grid, increase number of murders, and assassinate Maduro. Foreign minister Jaua claimed the “mercenaries” are led by a retired colonel of the Salvadoran armed forces, David Koch, and coordinated by Salvadoran right-wing politician Áubuisson.

Beeton, International Communications Director of the Washington DC based Center for Economic and Policy Research, in the article cited above said: “The campaign of violent protest, in conjunction with opposition candidate Henrique Capriles' refusal to recognize the election results, represents the first major extra-legal destabilization attempt by Venezuela's opposition since the failed coup in 2002 and oil strike in 2003. It is also significant in that the US is backing Capriles' position, thereby helping to provoke conflict in Venezuela -- even though most Latin American nations and many other governments around the world have congratulated Maduro on his victory and called for the results to be respected.”

External interference provoking internal conflict in Venezuela is not new. However, the opposition is still weak.

“Some in the opposition”, as Beeton said, “have hinted that Capriles' cries of ‘fraud’ are not credible. Opposition-aligned CNE rector Vicente Diaz has said that he has no doubt in that the results given by the CNE are correct. Diaz made comments to this effect on opposition station Globovision on April 15, 2013; the TV hosts then quickly concluded the interview. Opposition blogger Francisco Toro has criticized the opposition strategy of crying fraud.... Three opposition legislators, Ricardo Sanchez, Carlos Vargas, and Andres Avelino, publicly broke with Capriles last month, decrying what they described as a plan to stoke instability by refusing to accept the election results, and use students as ‘cannon fodder’ in a violent protest campaign. The incident was ignored by major foreign media outlets.”

Results the snap election helps continue the transformation process initiated by Hugo Chávez. It’s the society’s journey with democracy. Maduro, the candidate of the Bolivarian revolution, stands for implementing the Socialist Plan of the Nation 2013-2019. The plan was formulated by Chávez.

In an election rally in Caracas, Maduro told “imperialism and the decadent and parasitic bourgeoisie” thought that “the revolution was over” following death of Chávez. But, he said, there will be Chávez in this free and independent nation. Maduro said: “I’ll be the president of the poor, the humble, of those in need, of the children.” Maduro roared: If they try to stage a coup, we’ll make an even deeper revolution.

Determination expressed in Maduro’s pronouncements – reflection of a deep rooted line of conflict drawn long ago – is not taken easily by the opponents of the Venezuelan people. The determination creates problem in the “mind” of the rich. There is “democracy” program initiated by the rich and their institutions. The program is designed to safeguard property and privileges of the rich. But the poor deny going under the umbrella of the program.

Now, in Venezuela, none can deny working people’s interests. At least, lip service to the working souls has to be provided. Even, the person always harboring a dream in the deep of heart to safeguard interests of the rich is compelled to say something favoring the poor, the working people.

So, as Chris Carlson informed in “Both Candidates Promise to Raise Venezuela’s Minimum Wage”, Capriles had to promise a one-time 40 percent general raise in wages, “not just of the minimum wage,” in response to government’s three-stage wage increase. He promised to sign the wage increase into law on his first day in power.

How many times the rich uttered such promise – “a general raise of 40 percent in all the wages” and “signing the wage increase into law on the first day of power” – in Venezuela or in other countries? It’s very difficult to find out. It’s working people-power, it’s the space created by the working people through their awareness and mobilization under the leadership of Chávez that has done it.

This reality, the gradual awakening of the masses of people, “allures” imperialism and its mercenaries to intervene – a bloody path – in Venezuela.

Capriles, in an election rally, said, there will be a new Venezuela.

A new Venezuela is there, where Chávez is not present physically, but Chávez is present with his spirit and dreams, with his call to war against enemies of the poor. Chávez initiated a journey with dignity, a journey for creating space for participatory democratic practice by the people. It’s a journey of the people for getting aware and mobilized. The election is a reaffirmation to continue the journey, to keep on the work of widening and consolidating the space created under the leadership of Chávez.

Chávez won’t go

CHÁVEZ won’t go. Class conflict-ridden history shall not allow Chávez to go. He is part of history, part of people struggling against dispossession, exploitation and poverty, part of people struggling for democracy and dignity. ‘Those who die for life can’t be called dead,’ said Nicolas Maduro, the Venezuelan vice-president. This makes Chávez live forever among the people.
Venezuela’s president Hugo Chávez has passed away ‘after battling a tough illness for nearly two years.’ A number of persons celebrated the news by honking their car horns. Reaction of his class enemies tell the cause Chávez stood for. Identity of his class enemies tell the class position Chávez chose. The cause and the class position make Chávez part of people, part of people’s history, part of class struggle toilers carry forward.
It was not his personal cause. It was a cause an old republic created with its failures, a cause determined by society’s history. It was a cause the multitude demanded. It was a cause to which exploitation and inequality, injustice and lies, all practised by the elite, provided the rationale. The cause was not driven by personal vendetta.
So, Chávez stood for the excluded, for the poor, for the prisoners of poverty, for the captives of starvation. So, Chávez stood for the shackled, for those compelled to live with indignity and dishonour. So, Chávez stood for labour tied to the yoke of capital, to the yoke of capital’s dictatorship and tyranny. So, began the historic political journey by Comandante Chávez.
Thus, a ‘sin’ was committed in the court of the rich, the propertied classes, the appropriators, the land speculators, the oil wealth thieves, the world capitalist system. Hence, Chávez turned a sworn-in class enemy of the powerful, of the key keepers of property, of the custodians of undue privileges.
Chávez united workers, peasants, small and medium business people, women, indigenous communities, youths and students, professionals, members of the military, and activists and almost the entire leadership in the camp striving to make a forward journey, a new political practice for exercising national sovereignty and the independence free from all external influences and interferences. He forged the largest progressive social-political force in Venezuela. Over the years, he led a struggle so that power belongs to the people, not to the rich.
He engaged the armed forces en masse into activities aimed at social protection and national development. An archaic state machine was pressed to gear a transformation process, frustrating at times, yet a challenging task.
Chávez made unique effort by cementing a Bolivarian civic-military political force relying on the people’s yearning for freedom and dignity. The aim was to reconstruct state institutions, a transformation process, and claim people’s sovereignty with the goal of transforming the social, political and state structures.
He mobilised the poor and the most excluded parts of the society. This was his constituency and strength. In response, the rich tried to flood mass psyche with lie-stuffed media, and employed Guarimba, violent mobilisations using firearms to provoke the government to resort to repressive measures.
Despite conspiracies the people of Venezuela achieved victories over the years. The latest victories include the people’s patience and unity in the face of propaganda on the health condition of Chávez and electoral victory by the United Socialist Party of Venezuela in 20 of 23 states.
Chávez initiated unique experiments. With the existing reality these are difficult indeed. These provide people spaces for learning, getting mobilised, taking leadership role, initiating plans, increasing awareness.
Venezuela can be called a land of cooperatives. Thousands of cooperatives are being organised in spheres of society. There are thousands of farming cooperatives. It’s an initiative to change the way food is produced and to move towards sustainable and community-based food production. Lands expropriated from land speculators are being used to achieve food sovereignty. There are cooperatives of taxi drivers, janitors, small producers.
Chávez initiated projects for the benefit of the people, especially the poor. At the centre, it’s the Bolivarian Revolution. There are missions, projects, for heath, education. The housing program constructs dignified homes for the poor. More than half-a million houses for the poor have already been constructed. The public housing programme plans to construct two million homes in the next 6 years. The project of community urban agriculture with an aim to produce food free of agro-chemicals by not damaging soil and recycling organic waste has been initiated. The project contributes to attaining food sovereignty, and break down alienation in community. People are initiating ‘socialist’ direct community production enterprises. Alternative, free and community media aims feminism, gender diversity, and wages anti-patriarchal fight. There is effort to initiate a new type of policing aimed at dealing with the problem of crime through prevention and community engagement.
Mass debate over Venezuela’s Socialist Plan of the Nation 2013-2019 was initiated. People participated in hundreds of assemblies to specify the draft plan proposed by Chávez. On this plan he was re-elected as president. It is part of the struggle he began.
The struggle, a persistent fight to collectively transform society, goes on. Thousands of revolutionary social movements join hands to consolidate the Great Patriotic Pole, a platform of all the popular organisations and political parties supporting the Bolivarian Revolution. Peasant organisations with thousands of people are struggling for ‘democratic radicalisation’ and land reform, and against bureaucracy as bureaucracy sabotages socialism. It’s people’s fight against bureaucracy. Their demands include acceleration of the land reform program and the elimination of corruption and obstacles to construct of a socialist economy. Workers are struggling to run industrial units properly. They are getting mobilized.
These are part of a fight for what Chávez called the 21st century socialism. It’s a long struggle. A bitter and longer struggle is there in the coming days. Already there are news of destabilisation plans by the right wing and their international masters.
People are rallying to mourn the death of their president. They are expressing the defiant hope: ‘The struggle has already been ignited.’ People gathered in Plaza Bolivar, in front of Miraflores Palace, in central squares across the country voiced ‘Chávez lives, the struggle continues’, ‘people united will never be defeated’, the Venezuelan bourgeoisie ‘will never return to the Miraflores Palace’. These hopes keep Chávez alive.
It is people, their steadfastness, awareness, organization, unity that will determine the future path. Still, the voice of the people is saying to the Comandante, Alo Presidente (Hello President), ‘Nobody is Surrendering Here.’

Chávez Wins, Chávez es el pueblo , Chávez Is The People

Frustrating status quo-aspiration and falsifying most of the mainstream expectation coated with predictions, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has won a fourth term in office. It's a victory of the under-classes. His new six-year term will begin next year, on the 10 th of January, and the common people expect: the Bolivarian revolution, as Chávez identifies, will continue.

“The revolution has triumphed”, Chávez told the jubilant citizens from the people's balcony , a balcony of the Miraflores presidential palace in the capital city Caracas . “ Venezuela will continue its march toward the democratic socialism of the 21st century. Viva Venezuela ! Viva the fatherland! The battle was perfect and the victory was perfect”, Chávez said.

From Argentina , President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner tweeted: “Your victory is our victory! And the victory of South America and the Caribbean !”

With a turnout of about 81% voters Chávez had won more than 54% of the votes while his opponent Henrique Capriles was able to bag about 45%. A subdued Capriles, leader of a coalition of about 30 parties opposing Chávez and standing for the interests of the rich, admitted defeat. Capriles and his cohorts are also close to the empire and opposed to Cuba .

The information in the four paragraphs above provide, in brief, the perspective of the election victory in Venezuela, an old republic striving for a new society based on equity and equality, dignity and fraternity, and standing opposed to the strongest empire in human history – the US. The struggle is within the country and in the external arena. The perspective leaves no confusion concerning the tone of politics and its debates.

Wide expectation in the mainstream was that Capriles, the Justice First candidate, would kick out Chávez as the country is being oppressed by an overvalued currency, slow moving industry, crumbling infrastructure, alarming murder rate, corruption and inefficiency.

Oil accounts for more than 90% of the country's foreign currency inflows, but the economy is still to be diversified. Inflation in the fifth largest economy in Latin America is 20% a year. “Soaring inflation and government spending – coupled with currency and capital controls – have created a widening fiscal deficit”, informed Consensus Economics, a survey organization. “The authorities are increasingly reliant on external debt to finance this.”

The China Development Bank, Bloomberg news agency informs, has lent Venezuela $42.5bn over the past five years.

Arturo Franco of the Center for International Development at Harvard University cites Venezuela as “the worst performer in GDP per capita growth.”

And, there are similar other statistics that can be easily cited as evidence of underperformance of the state Chávez leads.

During election campaigns, Capriles, who had a privileged upbringing, opposed nationalization. His argument: Nationalization discourages investment. His other arguments against Chávez included increasing autocracy, harassment of the private sector, government's involvement in the economy, which is detrimental to private sector, spiraling crime and power cuts. Capriles also referred to scandals that surface occasionally.

The line of criticism and the argument for opposition to Chávez is clear: Neoliberalism that puts everything to the “pity”, “benevolence”, cruelty and greed of capital that seeks profit only. To the poor Venezuelans, Capriles is an agent of oligarchy and the US .

A closer look into the performance by Chávez makes the demarcation line, along opposing class interests, clear: Poverty has decreased, health indicators have improved, thousands have got jobs in the expanding state sector. A house-building program has sheltered thousands of families in new homes. Billions of dollars have been channeled into misiones , social programs for the poor: healthcare, education, low-price shops, transport, cooperatives. Now, with a gradually decreasing income inequality all the citizens have a more equal slice of the cake. Venezuela is having the fairest income distribution in the region.

Chávez, who casts himself as the unlikely friend of the wealthy, who always claims somos la mayoría , we are the majority, has nationalized strategic industries and expropriated millions of hectares of land that the rich kept idle with the only purpose of speculation with land. The constitution framed under his leadership addresses social exclusion, and facilitates participation, transparency and accountability.

Chávez, who declared himself a socialist and whose campaign slogan was Chávez es el pueblo , Chávez is the people, is close to the poor, and is alienated from the elites. His opponents called him a monkey. Rich Venezuelans are angry with Chávez.

Prior to the emergence of Chávez, two political parties were peacefully altering state power. Poverty and corruption was wide and deep. A plunderocracy was reigning. Opposing the corrupt system and the elites' squandering of the oil wealth Chávez promised pro-poor social policies. He now plans to build three million homes by 2018 for the low-income people.

Capriles dared not antagonize the poor. He had to say, during campaign, he would not automatically return expropriated assets to private owners. He praised a number of programs initiated by Chávez. He had to commit he would, if elected, push building health clinics and schools for the poor.

The stage is set: the poor are aspiring for a better life for them while despising the rich for their predatory and squandering lifestyle. In a country divided between the rich and the poor with respective politics Chávez's voice against the wealthy is well-known: “predatory oligarchs”, the rotten elites, “squealing pigs”, “vampires”, who looted the oil wealth, corrupt servants of international capital, living in “luxury chalets where they perform orgies, drinking whisky”.

His opponents propagate a contradictory demand. They oppose his programs while they say he could and should have done more.

With petrodiplomacy, PetroCaribe program, standing close to Cuba , organizing ALBA with soft loans to neighbors, Chávez takes a stand for solidarity, mutual cooperation and fraternity among countries. This position can't endear him to a section in the world arena, the sections that practices Shock Therapy .

It's not an easy task to steer an old state machine on a new socio-economic-political path. All parts of the machine are old. Efforts for a gradual transformation are being made. Reality imposes a lot of limitations. There are limitations within the social forces upholding the dream for change. Chávez is operating within this limitation.

It would be a utopia to expect a corruption-free Venezuela overnight. A comparison will tell the truth: billions of dollars are “traceless”, unaccounted in two war fields. Is the amount of Venezuelan corruption to that level? Corruption in other countries that are integral part of the world system, Ben Ali's Tunisia or Mubarak's Egypt or some other similar country needs no mention. Is speculators' corruption, of rating agencies and banks, being exposed through the Great Financial Crisis comparable? Should not one compare “efficiency” of banks and real estate developers that are getting exposed at the center of the world system and in countries near to the center with the Venezuelan inefficiency? A comparison between Venezuelan power cut and power cuts in countries integrated with the world system will provide a hard truth. Should not one compare the number of schools being closed and teachers being thrown out of jobs in an advanced capitalist country and the number of schools being established and students being enrolled in Venezuela ? Should not the number of homeless families and the number of families being evicted from homes in advanced capitalist countries and the number of poor families getting home in Venezuela be compared?

Despite the facts mainstream don't refrain from its task: vilify people's efforts to build up a dignified, decent life. This reality compels one to say Chávez es el pueblo , Chávez is the people as people turn tired of inequality, deception, corruption, wasteful luxury, and as Chávez inspires the poor.

Agitating Argentine Oil

Argentine hydrocarbon-initiative is now agitating capital. It is more agitating to capital-interests as it energizes a trend – national control over national resources. To these interests, it’s “Chavez model”. It seems these interests are being haunted by a Chavez-spirit. A section of mainstream is making almost similar claim.

Capital disapproves people’s rights over people’s resources. Argentina’s move related to local oil company Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales (State Petroleum Reserves, YPF), controlled by Repsol, Spanish oil and gas company, is thus creating furor among all concerned with capital.

In mid-April, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, the Argentinean president, introduced a bill in congress that would give Argentina a 51% stake in YPF, the largest oil producer in the country. Cristina said the measure is aimed at recovering the nation’s sovereignty over its hydrocarbon resources, and it “is not a model of statism”. Governors of oil-producing provinces have already withdrawn about 15 oil leases, representing 18% of YPF’s crude production. They complained the company failed to keep its promises to develop them.

Declaring exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons “national public interest” in order to “guarantee economic development with social equity” Cristina’s bill says building up the country’s supply is a priority. The bill proposes that out of the YPF controlling stake taken over, 51% will be held by the central government and the rest will be distributed to the oil-producing provinces. The government will not extend its hands to the 17.09% of YPF shares traded on stock exchanges. About the 25% stake held by the private Argentine Grupo Petersen is undecided.

Legislative process for recovering of sovereignty will be completed within weeks. There is widespread public support to the initiative: referring to opinion polls the Buenos Aires daily La Nación informed 80% support. A number of opposition lawmakers supported the move. The movement for the recovery of Argentina’s energy sovereignty is also in “complete agreement”. People celebrated the move.

But people and capital-interest don’t move hand-in-hand. The EU turned furious; the European block condemned Argentina’s move; the EU parliament called for Argentina-sanctions; and one conservative member of the European Parliament questioned whether Argentina should be allowed to remain in the G-20. The European Commission warned that nationalizing YPF would be bad for investment climate in Argentina, and said the EC backs Spain, Argentina’s largest foreign investor.

Opposition also came from the usual circle. Robert Zoellick, the World Bank president, and Alain Juppé, the French foreign minister, strongly criticized the Argentine initiative. “It is mistake and the wrong thing to do”, Zoellick said. Felipe Calderón, the Mexican president, said nationalization plan would only damage chances for investments in Argentina and hurt Repsol, in which Mexico’s state-run oil company Pemex holds a 10% stake.

Spain got confused with the US position. A State Department spokesperson explained remarks made earlier by Hillary Clinton, who said that she wanted to study the matter before commenting on it. “She spoke about the need for diverse markets, and certainly that’s one of our core beliefs: diverse energy markets,” the spokesperson said. José Manuel García-Margallo, the Spanish foreign minister, felt disappointed about the US position.

Regular expression is there. The Spanish establishment condemned the move. Soraya Saenz de Santamaria, the Spainish deputy prime minister, reaffirmed “keep looking for new measures” to put pressure on Argentina. The Spanish foreign minister said Spain would respond with “forceful measures”. But he refrained from elaborating. José Manuel Soria, the Spanish industry minister, assured “there will be more actions against Argentina”. In an interview with a conservative Spanish daily, Soria said Spain “will not be announcing the measures; it will just adopt them and keep moving.”

Spain has already decided to limit the import of Argentine biodiesel. A trade war, it seems, is being initiated by Madrid. Spanish newspapers report the EU could boycott Argentine soy and meat, two of Argentina’s biggest exports. Probably, the dream is to strangulate Buenos Aires and teach Cristina a lesson. Mosaddegh-memory is fresh in masters’ minds.

Rating agencies joined the move to warn Argentina. Standard and Poor’s, the famous rating agency with questionable past, downgraded Argentina’s economic and financial outlook to “negative”, after the YPF-initiative. Fitch warned Argentina of “diplomatic isolation” and shortages in foreign direct investment in key sectors – energy, utilities, and telecom.

As capital’s sentinel mainstream media was not silent. In an April 20 editorial The Washington Post observed “The [Argentine] president’s further lurch toward the left […]”, which it said “is bad news”. It echoed the conservative voice: remove Argentina from the G-20 and replace by Chile. (“Argentina’s president rejects stepping into the future”) It seems they are the lords of the world to do and undo everything.

There are more harsh and crude voices. Repsol Executive Chairman Antonio Brufau said the measure “will not go unpunished” and threatened to “take all legal actions within its reach.” Spanish officials predicted Argentina risks becoming “an international pariah”. In a responsible tone, Cristina reciprocated: “This president is not going to answer any threat, is not going to respond to any sharp remark. I am a head of state and not a hoodlum.”

It’s “resource nationalism”, the mainstream considers. The world business and investors smell risky situation. To a section in the mainstream, Cristina’s initiative is nothing but an attempt to cover up domestic problems.

However, the song of condemnation failed to echo in all the corners of the world. Voices of solidarity reverberated. Venezuela’s foreign ministry and the state oil company expressed support to Argentina’s move. The company expressed its willingness to help strengthen Argentina’s oil industry: “Venezuela puts all its technical, operational, legal and political experience of Petroleos de Venezuela at the disposition of the government of Argentina and its people to strengthen the state oil sector”. Evo Morales, Bolivia’s president, said: “It is an issue between Argentina and Spain.” Daniel Ortega, the Nicaraguan president, expressed solidarity: “President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner … is exercising the right of the State of Argentina to defend its patrimony.” He rejected the EU’s reaction, saying the EU has acted with “arrogance, bravado and thuggery against the decision of a sovereign people and government in Argentina.” “What we can advise the EU is that they should stop their bullying, stop the threats. Look for dialogue, negotiate with the Argentinean government and look for a way out where the legitimate rights of the people of Argentina are recognized,” Ortega said. Jose Mujica, the Uruguayan president, told he respected Argentina’s decision, saying “it falls within the framework of sovereignty, whether you like it or not.” Regarding the EU’s condemnation and threat, Mujica expressed “solidarity with Argentina, in good and bad times” and lashed out at the “arrogance of wealthy Europe.” Haroldo Lima, the head of Brazil’s National Petroleum Agency, hailed the move as “excellent news for Latin America.” He called the decision “historic” and said “it was not against Spain... It was not against anyone. It was in favor of Argentina.” Chilean officials reacted cautiously. Chile government was studying the effects on Chilean investments in Argentina, in particular in one of Repsol’s wells. However, the Chilean opposition Socialist Party, hailed the move as sovereign action saying that as an independent nation, Argentina “has the right to decide how to exploit its natural resources for the benefit of its citizens.”

Seemingly to increase pressure on Argentina, US Senator Richard Lugar, member of the Subcommittee on Latin America, asked questions on Argentina during a congressional hearing. A report from Hillary Clinton reviewed the Argentina-IMF relation and trade “barriers”, restrictions on remitting of benefits and dividends overseas, implemented by Argentina.

Argentina is having a difficult relation with the IMF. The US considers Argentina is obliged to submit its economic statistics to be validated by the IMF, and US will support the IMF. Citing a report La Nación informed the US is “most disappointed” as Argentina having suspended such annual submission since 2006.

Once again, the battle line has been drawn. Trenches are being dug. Two interests stand opposed to each other, and a trend turns stronger providing example to peoples and ruling elites in other countries.

Argentina has a version different from that of the Repsol, Spain, EU and Co. The country’s petroleum production fell 27% between 2001 and 2011 turning the country an importer of oil. Repsol was not producing enough oil to meet the country’s needs. This year Argentina estimates to import more than $10 billion worth of gas and LNG, almost equal to the country’s trade surplus last year although it is an oil-producing country, and it was self-sufficient for over two decades. This exposes the efficiency of Repsol, and also of private capital.

“We are the only country in Latin America, and […] in practically the entire world, that doesn’t manage its own natural resources,” Cristina mentioned as a burning fact. Argentina’s proven reserves have fallen by 50% since 2001, although YPF has not posted losses because it has spent so little on reinvestment. The company more than doubled its sales since 1999, making net profits of nearly 16.5 billion dollars since then, and distributing dividends of 13.2 billion dollars. Argentina had a deficit of $3 billion last year partly due to energy imports. The center of gravity of the EU’s position is clear.

The oil company, YPF, was privatized in two stages, in 1993 and 1999, under the former president Carlos Menem. Since then the state has held less than one percent of the shares of YPF.

Buenos Aires accuses Repsol of sucking YPF’s profits out of the country instead of investing in Argentina’s future. Repsol has used its profits to fund investments in Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea and North Africa. If this policy continues – draining fields dry, no exploration and practically no investment – “the country will end up having no viable future, not because of a lack of resources but because of business policies,” said Cristina.

Aníbal Fernández, an Argentine Senator, said the government “will pay the real price […] of YPF and not what Repsol’s chairman wants.” Repsol chairman has a bargain tag in his bag. Argentina and Spain are now setting a price on the transaction.

Cristina said the real problem was not about foreign companies or their profitability, but the lack of investment. She cited her government’s positive relationship with foreign automotive companies. Italy’s Fiat and the US’ General Motors receive soft loans from the Argentine state to boost local production and keep workers in jobs, Cristina said.

Argentina has minimized Spain’s retaliatory decision to reduce bio-diesel imports. Argentina “is in condition to absorb” that production. “We won’t question Spain’s sovereign decision, no matter which one it takes. They are going to pay their businessmen a more expensive bio-diesel and I don’t know how that will impact their economy”, Cristina said. “We’re not going to appeal to the World Trade Organization nor are we going to complaint about the decision to block Argentine exports. We don’t act that way. We are […] very respectful of other peoples’ sovereignty”, she said. The difference between Argentina and the EU, the organization that is failing to manage its own affairs but always is delivering sermons to the Third World countries on democracy, etc., on the principle of non-interference is clear.

All interests are not happy with Cristina’s initiatives. Argentina has already issued legal warnings to banks involved in the Malvinas Islands’ oil industry. In 2008, Cristina nationalized Anses, privately run pension funds with many Spaniards’ investment. She also nationalized Aerolíneas Argentina airline, owned by a Spanish firm now bankrupt. An alliance of organizations, American Task Force Argentina, is making effort to resolve Argentina’s $132bn debt default in 2001.

The country is having resources that allure capital from other lands. Edison Investment Research, a research firm, has claimed that the Falklands stood to benefit from a $176bn tax windfall as the result of oil and gas drilling. Of the four major prospects under way, the largest, Loligo, potentially holds more than 4.7bn barrels of oil. Argentina has recently found huge unconventional oil and natural gas reserves. A few months ago, YPF announced a large oil find known as the Vaca Muerta field that Repsol officials estimated could yield four billion barrels. BP now produces 74,000 barrels of oil daily in Argentina. Its natural gas production is more than its European operations combined.

Argentina is the world’s main supplier of bio-diesel almost exclusively from soy oil, and the country produces bio-diesel “at a cheaper price than Spanish manufacturers”. Last year exports reached 1.7 million tons of which 700.000 tons, equivalent to 985 million dollars were exported to Spain. Around 120 British companies including HSBC, Unilever and GlaxoSmithKline are now operating in Argentina.

Initiatives, in many forms, within existing limitations including class equation and historical perspective, are there in Latin America. These are trying to assert sovereignty, claim fair share of resources. An emerging political stream is trying to change resource map in Latin America in favor of people. Political leadership’s acumen, its capacity to mobilize people, its management efficiency are vital questions related to managing resource. It’s a long, complicated struggle. Initiatives should not be brushed aside with rhetoric. At the same time, class composition behind initiatives should be taken into account. Bureaucracy, a bulky burden, is there. Instead of expecting a perfect set up one should find out the reality within which a leadership has to move. The leadership carries marks of history. Ignoring these factors will send one to frustration, and to adventurism.

The initiative is operating in a geopolitical reality, where Europe is struggling within, where EU’s options regarding Argentina are limited, where competition within a crisis-reality has put masters of the world in a difficult position, where masters are facing problem in their home-turf.

Argentina will be an experience useful to the countries and the movements struggling to recover people’s resources, assert sovereignty over public resources, and aspiring to challenge neo-liberalism in respective economy.

Onward, Commander! Chavez Is Determined To Win His Fight

“Onward, Commander” were the words conveyed to Hugo Chavez, Venezuelan President, now fighting cancer. Chavez has assured his full recovery.

Chavez said on television Tuesday that he is determined to “be victorious in this new battle that life has placed before us.”

He admitted his mistake of not taking better care of his health. “What a fundamental error,” he said.

Chavez said: “Now I want to speak to you from this steep hill, from which I feel that I’m coming out of another abyss.” “I want to speak to you now with the sun of daybreak that I feel is shining on me. I think we’ve achieved it.”

“I invite you all to continue climbing new summits together.” Concluding the speech, Chavez recited a revolutionary slogan often used by Castro: “Forever onward toward victory. We will be victorious.”

Chavez said that when he arrived in Cuba he had intended to have a simple checkup for a knee injury that had forced him to use a cane in recent weeks. But Castro had questioned him “like a doctor” and that tests confirmed the need for urgent surgery. After that initial operation, doctors began to suspect other problems, and Castro gave him the news of the tumor. Tests confirmed an abscessed tumor with the presence of cancerous cells making it necessary a second operation completely extracting the tumor.

After telecasting the speech by Chavez, Venezuelan vice president Elias Jaua said on television: “There is no time for sadness, but rather for courage and for work. Unity is what’s needed at this time.”

AP reports: “In videos released Wednesday, Chavez smiled and discussed with Castro Latin American history and his days as an army paratrooper. Two of Chavez’s daughters and a granddaughter joined in the encounter as the two men sat chatting.”

Andres Izarra, Venezuelan Information Minister, joked that a section of opponents, particularly those speculating about the health condition of Chavez were suffering from “Chavez abstinence syndrome”.

Chavez in his speech said: “Throughout my life I came to commit one of those errors that could easily fit perfectly in that category to which a philosopher called “fundamental errors” neglecting the health and also very reluctant to screening and treatment. No doubt what so fundamental mistake! Especially in a revolutionary with some modest responsibilities as the revolution came to me more than 30 years ago.”

In the speech he said that he was trying to ignore pain in his left knee for several weeks. But “Fidel, the man who has already exceeded all times and all places” identified the pain and questioned “almost like a doctor”, and Chavez “confessed almost like a patient, and that night all the immense medical breakthrough that the Cuban Revolution has achieved for his people, and much of the world, was put in our readiness, initiating a series examinations, diagnoses.”

“Thus was found a strange formation in the pelvic area that required emergency surgery at the imminent risk of a generalized infection”, he said.

“An operation was done. Another series of special studies confirmed the existence of a tumor abscess with presence of cancer cells, which made it necessary to perform a second surgical procedure that allowed complete removal of the tumor. It was a major intervention, performed without complications, after which I continued to recover successfully, while receiving complementary therapies to combat the various types of cells found and continue on the path of my full recovery.”

He called upon his beloved people:
“I invite you to stay together to scale new heights, there on the hill and sing a beautiful song for us from eternity”

Chavez concluded his speech with:
Gracias pueblo mío! Thank you my people!
Hasta la victoria siempre! To victory!
Nosotros venceremos! We win!

His speech mentioned the following dateline:
Havana, a beloved and heroic Havana,
June 30, 2011.

Chavez added:
For now and forever we will live and win!
Hasta el retorno! To return!