Populist Advances Economic Reforms Across Latin America
SECOND IN A SERIES ON LATIN AMERICA
By Christopher Bollyn
The economic reforms and nationalist policies being advanced by Hugo Chavez, the populist president of Venezuela, are liberating Latin American nations from the suffocating grip of the international financial oligarchy.
The wide-ranging reforms promoted by Chavez are being financed by the immense oil wealth of Venezuela, the world’s fifth-largest exporter of oil. The year 2006 brought increased state control of Venezuela’s oil production.
Venezuela, with the largest proven oil reserves outside of the Middle East, produces more than 3 million barrels of oil per day. On Jan. 1, Venezuelan Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez announced that 32 privately operated oil fields had come under state control with the start of 2006.
In 2001, Venezuela passed a law requiring oil production to be carried out by companies in which the government held the majority share. The deadline for the oil companies to convert their operations to joint ventures in which the state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA) has the controlling stake expired at midnight on Dec. 31, 2005.
The oil fields that came under state control on New Year’s Day produce about 500,000 of Venezuela’s declared production of 3.2 million barrels a day. The Venezuelan state could own as much as 90 percent in some of the new ventures, depending on how much the private companies had invested in the field.
The soaring price of crude oil has allowed Chavez to support other nations and economic reforms across the region. From Argentina, for example, Venezuela purchased more than $1 billion in bonds in 2005 and may buy as much as $2 billion more.
“Venezuela has been supporting Argentina in freeing it from International Monetary Fund debt, and we will continue, as much as we can, to help Argentina end its dependence on the IMF,” Chavez said.
The Venezuelan investment allowed Argentina’s President Nestor Kirchner to completely pay off its $9.8 billion debt to the IMF on Jan. 3.
“With this payment, we are interring a significant part of an ignominious past,” Kirchner said.
Many Argentines believe that the IMF was responsible for the disastrous economic policies that caused the financial crisis of 2001 and then abandoned the country to recover on its own.
BANK OF THE SOUTH
Chavez has proposed the creation of a new multilateral bank to free the region from IMF influence and the increasing “dollarization” of the region. He called on Brazil and Argentina to contribute some of their international reserves to help fund the new regional bank.
During a recent speech in Brazil, Chavez called for the creation of the “Bank of the South” to “allow us to manage all this money for our own interests,” he said. “Venezuela would bring a part of its reserves; Brazil would bring a part of its reserves, Argentina, too, and other countries.”
Chavez said South American countries should disinvest from rich countries that “manipulate, lend and make a lot of money off our resources.”
Venezuela’s central bank, for example, sold $10 billion of U.S. bonds and other U.S. assets in the first half of 2005.
“How stupid we’ve been,” said Chavez. The Bolivian president-elect, Evo Morales, met Chavez in Caracas as he began a seven-nation world tour. Morales said he and the Venezuelan president were united in a “fight against neo-liberalism and imperialism.”
Morales and Chavez represent a growing number of Latin American leaders who are opposed to U.S. attempts to impose a “free trade” agreement on the region.
Morales, a Socialist, is the first Bolivian politician to be elected with an absolute majority having won 54 percent of the vote. Morales is also the first Indian to come to power in Bolivia where 85 percent of the population is indigenous.
During the trip, Morales discussed his plans to nationalize Bolivia’s vast natural gas holdings, the second largest in South America. “Hydrocarbons and their nationalization—we’re going to talk about that,” Chavez said as he met Morales at Caracas’s international airport.
If the United States “wants bilateral diplomatic and commercial relations, it will have them, but without submission, without subordination, without conditions and without blackmail,” Morales said in Cuba.
On his return from Cuba, Morales held a private meeting with U.S. Ambassador David Greenlee. Representatives declined to give details.
“We join in the task of Fidel [Castro] in Cuba and Hugo in Venezuela to respond to the needs of the national majorities,” Morales said in Caracas the following day, Jan. 3. “The time of the people has arrived. This is the new millennium of the people.”
“We are going to change Bolivia. We are going to change Latin America,” he said. Chavez referred to the three nationalist presidents as “an axis of good.”
Chavez offered to provide Bolivia with diesel fuel, trade benefits and financial assistance for the social reforms Morales has proposed. Venezuela provides some 200,000 barrels a day of subsidized oil to Cuba and 12 other nations in Central America and the Caribbean Basin.
Chavez said Venezuela would supply 150,000 barrels of diesel fuel monthly to Bolivia. “I won’t accept you paying us a cent, you are going to pay us in agricultural products,” Chavez said.
Venezuela will also donate $30 million to Morales’s government following his Jan. 22 inauguration, Chavez said. Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad welcomed a proposal from Chavez to develop three-way cooperation between Tehran, Caracas and La Paz on energy.
Chavez proposed cooperation in the field of oil and gas and asked Iran to supply Bolivia with the technical assistance required to help the Morales government nationalize its oil and gas industry. Morales said he intends to nationalize Bolivia’s vast natural gas holdings but not touch foreign oil and gas companies.
“I don’t want to prejudice anybody. I don’t want to expropriate or confiscate any wealth,” Morales said on a recent trip to Santa Cruz, the center of Bolivia’s gas production. “I want to learn from the businessmen.”
(Issue #3, January 16, 2006)
Link: http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/chavez_influence_growing.html
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
The Global March of Islamic Banking
By Phar Kim Beng
Next month Birmingham, the home of one of the United Kingdom's largest Muslim communities, will become the headquarters of the Islamic Bank of Britain; in London, there is already an Islamic stock brokerage. The spread of Islamic banking and finance throughout the world may not provide the exciting headlines that result from extremist Islamist terrorism, but it is arguably of farther-reaching importance - and enjoys the support of the Koran itself.
Islamic banking operations now exist in about 100 countries, with an estimated US$300 billion in assets, and are growing at 10-15% a year, according to Gohar Bilal, a former visiting scholar at the Islamic Legal Studies program of Harvard Law School.
Like any bank that complies with Islamic law, the new bank in Birmingham will not pay or charge interest on its transactions. Naturally, it will also appeal for its business primarily to European Muslims, who number nearly 2 million in Britain alone.
This is not to say that non-Muslim banks are ignoring this market. For example, Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corp (HSBC) in England already offers pension and home-loan schemes and a stockbroking service that comply with Islamic law (Sharia).
Still, the introduction of Islamic banking in Europe is tentative at the moment, meaning that it will at first focus on high-net-worth customers so as to recoup investments as soon as possible. In the long run, however, given the growth of the Muslim community in Europe, and the fact that non-Muslims will not be excluded from these services, Islamic banking and finance could turn out to be a useful bridge across societal gaps.
The growth of Islamic banking might seem remarkable in the context of the current image of Islam as an atavistic religion of terror and violence, a condition aggravated by the attacks of September 11, 2001, when the world watched in horror the acts perpetrated by the extremists. Indeed, Muslims themselves have for decades ignored the advances in Islamic banking, distracted by ideologues bent on creating Sharia-compliant states.
Yet Islamic banking is no less important than Islamic law at the state level, as it was mentioned in the Koran in four different revelations. According to Professor Muhammad Ariff of the Malaysia Institute of Economic Research (MIER): "The first revelation emphasizes that interest deprives wealth of God's blessings. The second revelation condemns it, placing interest in juxtaposition with wrongful appropriation of property belonging to others. The third revelation enjoins Muslims to stay clear of interest for the sake of their own welfare. The fourth revelation establishes a clear distinction between interest and trade, urging Muslims to take only the principal sum and to forgo even this sum if the borrower is unable to repay. It is further declared in the Koran that those who disregard the prohibition of interest are at war with God and His Prophet."
A pioneering effort led by Ahmad El Najjar took the form of a savings bank based on profit-sharing in the Egyptian town of Mit Ghamr in 1963. This experiment lasted until 1967, by which time there were nine such banks in the country. These banks, which neither charged nor paid interest, invested mostly by engaging in trade and industry, directly or in partnership with others, and shared the profits with their depositors. Thus they functioned in essence as saving-investment institutions rather than as commercial banks. The Nasir Social Bank, established in Egypt in 1971, was declared an interest-free commercial bank, although its charter made no reference to Islam or Sharia.
Islamic banking has been adopted at the national level in Pakistan, Sudan and Iran, and those countries have decided to Islamize the whole of their banking systems. In Malaysia, where progressive Islamization is being carried out, total assets of the Islamic banking industry rose by $3.5 billion or 20.8% to $20.5 billion by the end of 2003.
Islamic banking is not restricted to Islamic institutions purely. In 1996 Citicorp set up CitiIslamic Investment Bank in Bahrain. Following this precedent, financial institutions ABN Amro, American Express, ANZ Grindlays Bank, Chase Manhattan, Deutsche Bank, Nomura Securities and Union Bank of Switzerland now all have in-house Islamic units.
In the past, Islamic banking has been held back by complacency - the tendency to sit back and wait for Muslim investors to walk in the front door. Recently, however, a number of institutions have aggressively developed the market, including Dar Al-Mal Al-Islami Trust, Islamic Development Bank, Al Rajhi Banking and Investment Corp, Al Baraka Group and Kuwait Finance House.
In predominantly Muslim countries, the central bank has a Sharia board, whereby panels of Islamic jurists seek to advise both the central bank governors and private commercial banks on what is legal and prohibited in Islam.
Yet despite the monumental advances in Islamic banking, one hardly hears any Islamic preachers, least of all extremists, calling for more of them, or acknowledging Islamic banking as a clear form of progress made in the name of Islam. Rather, they insist that implementing Islamic law and Islamic states constitute the two platforms of building "true" Islam.
Such a fixation is curious, if not pernicious. After all, while the Prophet Mohammed, whom all Islamic extremists insist Muslims must emulate, was a great law giver and statesman, facts that history does not dispute, he was also a merchant. In fact, prior to becoming the Prophet of Islam, he was known as an affable, able and honest trader by all the Arab tribes - two qualities that attracted Khadijah, a businesswoman of prominent standing, to make a marriage proposal to the Mohammed, to which he accepted.
In pursuing a form of puritanical Islam, Islamic extremists have sadly politicized the corporate memory and culture of Islam. They have also reduced the repertoire to which Islam could appeal to further its revival, such as through innovations in Islamic banking and finance.
Next month Birmingham, the home of one of the United Kingdom's largest Muslim communities, will become the headquarters of the Islamic Bank of Britain; in London, there is already an Islamic stock brokerage. The spread of Islamic banking and finance throughout the world may not provide the exciting headlines that result from extremist Islamist terrorism, but it is arguably of farther-reaching importance - and enjoys the support of the Koran itself.
Islamic banking operations now exist in about 100 countries, with an estimated US$300 billion in assets, and are growing at 10-15% a year, according to Gohar Bilal, a former visiting scholar at the Islamic Legal Studies program of Harvard Law School.
Like any bank that complies with Islamic law, the new bank in Birmingham will not pay or charge interest on its transactions. Naturally, it will also appeal for its business primarily to European Muslims, who number nearly 2 million in Britain alone.
This is not to say that non-Muslim banks are ignoring this market. For example, Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corp (HSBC) in England already offers pension and home-loan schemes and a stockbroking service that comply with Islamic law (Sharia).
Still, the introduction of Islamic banking in Europe is tentative at the moment, meaning that it will at first focus on high-net-worth customers so as to recoup investments as soon as possible. In the long run, however, given the growth of the Muslim community in Europe, and the fact that non-Muslims will not be excluded from these services, Islamic banking and finance could turn out to be a useful bridge across societal gaps.
The growth of Islamic banking might seem remarkable in the context of the current image of Islam as an atavistic religion of terror and violence, a condition aggravated by the attacks of September 11, 2001, when the world watched in horror the acts perpetrated by the extremists. Indeed, Muslims themselves have for decades ignored the advances in Islamic banking, distracted by ideologues bent on creating Sharia-compliant states.
Yet Islamic banking is no less important than Islamic law at the state level, as it was mentioned in the Koran in four different revelations. According to Professor Muhammad Ariff of the Malaysia Institute of Economic Research (MIER): "The first revelation emphasizes that interest deprives wealth of God's blessings. The second revelation condemns it, placing interest in juxtaposition with wrongful appropriation of property belonging to others. The third revelation enjoins Muslims to stay clear of interest for the sake of their own welfare. The fourth revelation establishes a clear distinction between interest and trade, urging Muslims to take only the principal sum and to forgo even this sum if the borrower is unable to repay. It is further declared in the Koran that those who disregard the prohibition of interest are at war with God and His Prophet."
A pioneering effort led by Ahmad El Najjar took the form of a savings bank based on profit-sharing in the Egyptian town of Mit Ghamr in 1963. This experiment lasted until 1967, by which time there were nine such banks in the country. These banks, which neither charged nor paid interest, invested mostly by engaging in trade and industry, directly or in partnership with others, and shared the profits with their depositors. Thus they functioned in essence as saving-investment institutions rather than as commercial banks. The Nasir Social Bank, established in Egypt in 1971, was declared an interest-free commercial bank, although its charter made no reference to Islam or Sharia.
Islamic banking has been adopted at the national level in Pakistan, Sudan and Iran, and those countries have decided to Islamize the whole of their banking systems. In Malaysia, where progressive Islamization is being carried out, total assets of the Islamic banking industry rose by $3.5 billion or 20.8% to $20.5 billion by the end of 2003.
Islamic banking is not restricted to Islamic institutions purely. In 1996 Citicorp set up CitiIslamic Investment Bank in Bahrain. Following this precedent, financial institutions ABN Amro, American Express, ANZ Grindlays Bank, Chase Manhattan, Deutsche Bank, Nomura Securities and Union Bank of Switzerland now all have in-house Islamic units.
In the past, Islamic banking has been held back by complacency - the tendency to sit back and wait for Muslim investors to walk in the front door. Recently, however, a number of institutions have aggressively developed the market, including Dar Al-Mal Al-Islami Trust, Islamic Development Bank, Al Rajhi Banking and Investment Corp, Al Baraka Group and Kuwait Finance House.
In predominantly Muslim countries, the central bank has a Sharia board, whereby panels of Islamic jurists seek to advise both the central bank governors and private commercial banks on what is legal and prohibited in Islam.
Yet despite the monumental advances in Islamic banking, one hardly hears any Islamic preachers, least of all extremists, calling for more of them, or acknowledging Islamic banking as a clear form of progress made in the name of Islam. Rather, they insist that implementing Islamic law and Islamic states constitute the two platforms of building "true" Islam.
Such a fixation is curious, if not pernicious. After all, while the Prophet Mohammed, whom all Islamic extremists insist Muslims must emulate, was a great law giver and statesman, facts that history does not dispute, he was also a merchant. In fact, prior to becoming the Prophet of Islam, he was known as an affable, able and honest trader by all the Arab tribes - two qualities that attracted Khadijah, a businesswoman of prominent standing, to make a marriage proposal to the Mohammed, to which he accepted.
In pursuing a form of puritanical Islam, Islamic extremists have sadly politicized the corporate memory and culture of Islam. They have also reduced the repertoire to which Islam could appeal to further its revival, such as through innovations in Islamic banking and finance.
Letter From Venezuela
By Christopher Bollyn
American Free Press
2-17-6
The Bush administration, which has demonstrated an appalling disregard for the rule of law and the welfare of its own people, is viciously attacking Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez, a populist leader who is using his nation's immense oil wealth to improve the lives of his people and his neighbors including many Americans.
ISLA MARGARITA, Venezuela The ongoing war of words being waged between the Bush administration and Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez was in full swing as I traveled from Miami to Caracas, the capital of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made the outrageous comparison of Hugo Chávez with Adolf Hitler in the beginning of what The Washington Post reported as having been "an especially ugly week in the hostile relationship" between the Bush administration and the increasingly popular Chávez.
The week started with Venezuela expelling a U.S. naval attaché on charges of spying, which led to the expulsion of a senior Venezuelan diplomat from Washington, and ended with the U.S. blocking a deal in which Venezuela was to buy coastal patrol boats from Spain. While Spain had initially said it would replace the U.S.-made components on the boats with French-made parts, by the end of the week Spain had suddenly cancelled the lucrative contract with no explanation provided.
Rumsfeld, who serves under a president who was, in fact, not elected by the people, made a rather odd comment comparing two legally elected leaders: "Chávez was elected legally, just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally," Rumsfeld said, "And then consolidated his power." The "populist leadership" of Chávez, which appeals to "masses of people," Rumsfeld said,
is "worrisome" to the Bush administration.
After a week in Venezuela, however, I have yet to meet a Venezuelan who has expressed any worries or concerns about the populist reforms initiated by Chávez. The Venezuelans and foreigners I have met have nothing but praise for the wide-ranging improvements Chávez has brought to the people. They talk frequently of the improved public hospitals and schools where medical treatment and education are now provided free of charge.
Venezuelans often ask if I am American. When I tell them that I am from Chicago they seem pleased and go out of their way to be helpful. I am writing from Playa El Yaque on the south coast of Isla Margarita, where American windsurfers in 1984 first discovered ideal sailing conditions with consistent strong winds and smooth seas. Since then it has become an international haven attracting windsurfers and kite-surfers from all over the world.
Driving through Caracas in a large American-made car from the 1980's, the taxi driver told me that Venezuela's cheap gasoline was "a gift" from Chávez. A gallon of gas costs less than 280 Bolivars, the equivalent of about 12 U.S. cents, and it costs less than $2 to fill the tank. Likewise, Venezuela provides subsidized oil and gas to dozens of nations throughout the Caribbean Basin and Latin America.
"Chávez is making friends while Bush is earning enmity," was the title of Andres Oppenheimer's article in The Miami Herald on February 9. "You don't have to be a genius to figure out why Washington is losing influence in Latin America," Oppenheimer wrote. "While Chávez is making headlines with vows to give about $3.7 billion a year to his neighbors, the Bush administration wants to cut back its estimated $1.2 billion in U.S. foreign aid to the region."
Hundreds of thousands of poor Americans in five Northeastern states have been on the receiving end of Venezuela's generosity. This winter alone, hundreds of thousands of low-income Americans from Pennsylvania and New York to Maine and Vermont have received more than 25 million gallons of subsidized heating oil for their homes.
"LYNCHING" CHÁVEZ
Late last year as oil prices spiked, a dozen U.S. senators asked 10 major oil companies to donate a portion of their record profits to help the poor. As USA Today reported, "Only Citgo [a subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company] responded, dispatching tankers to housing projects in New York and Massachusetts in what Felix Rodriguez, the company president and chief executive, called a purely 'humanitarian' gesture.
"Rodriguez said that Chávez had ordered the giveaway so poor Americans wouldn't have to choose between food and heat."
But rather than showing appreciation, the USA Today article by David J. Lynch carried a photo of motorists pumping gas at a Citgo gas station with the alarming caption, "Chávez could destroy the U.S. economy in 90 days, an energy banker said."
"What if Chávez closed Citgo's refineries?" the CIA-linked newspaper asked?
"He'd only have to do that for 90 days, and he'd destroy our economy," Matthew Simmons, "a prominent energy investment banker," told Lynch. "He actually has our livelihood in his hands," Simmons said.
"At the high point of oil and gas prices, a dozen U.S. senators of both parties appealed to oil companies' 'sense of corporate citizenship' to help less fortunate Americans get through the winter in the face of cuts in federal assistance," Fadi Kabboul of the Venezuelan Embassy in Washington wrote to USA Today in response to the Lynch article. "Citgo did its part. No other oil company has done so. It makes the criticism in the article seem petty."
So why is the Bush administration so hostile to Chávez? Why is a government that shares its oil wealth with its people and neighbors considered a threat? Why is the foreign leader who was first to offer help to the hurricane ravaged Gulf Coast viewed as harboring evil intentions by the controlled media and the federal government whose own response to the dire plight of its citizens has been called "late, uncertain and ineffective," by Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine)?
The answer to these questions is obvious. Venezuela, the world's fifth-largest oil exporter with the largest proven reserves outside of the Mideast, has long been considered by the "big oil" companies as America's own privately-run gas station. Chávez, however, has put an end to foreign control and plundering of Venezuela's oil resources and the immense profits they generate. One does not have to look far to see that, over the decades, very little of this nation's oil wealth has trickled down to the average Venezuelan.
Venezuela is particularly strong in refining capacity. As I rode past the sprawling refinery outside of Puerto de la Cruz, I was amazed at the size of Venezuela's second largest refinery, which covers thousands of acres. Venezuela's largest refinery, the Paraguana Refining Center is five times larger with a capacity of nearly 1 million barrels per day.
Venezuela also owns a 50 percent equity interest in the Hovensa refinery on St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands, which has a capacity of 500,000 barrels per day, and it leases the huge Emmastad refinery on the nearby island of Curacao. Over decades, most of the products produced at these refineries have been exported to the U.S.
The Bush administration and the "big oil" money behind it are clearly displeased with the change in ownership, the nationalization of Venezuela's oil fields, which Chávez brought about. These plutocrats are now engaged in an international political and propaganda campaign to malign the popular leader who has stood up to their global tyranny.
New Year's Day 2006 saw the return of Venezuelan state control over 32 privately operated oil fields. Venezuelan oil minister Rafael Ramirez said the state successfully completed "the recovery" of the 32 fields whose control had been ceded to private hands in the 1990s under concessions allowing companies to independently pump oil under contract.
In 2001, Venezuela passed a law requiring oil production to be carried out by companies majority-owned by the government. The deadline for converting the privately-owned operating agreements into joint ventures in which the state oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA), would hold the controlling stake was Dec. 31.
While other oil companies went along with the conversions, Exxon Mobil Corp. of Irving, Texas, resisted the contract changes, the Associated Press reported on Jan. 4. The conversions to joint ventures with PDVSA "will significantly reduce the oil companies' share of profits and control over operations and could also undermine the value of their Venezuelan assets," AP reported.
Venezuela's stake could be as much as 90 percent in the new ventures. The amount of investment made by the private companies in the fields will determine the amount of control they have, Ramirez said
American Free Press
2-17-6
The Bush administration, which has demonstrated an appalling disregard for the rule of law and the welfare of its own people, is viciously attacking Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez, a populist leader who is using his nation's immense oil wealth to improve the lives of his people and his neighbors including many Americans.
ISLA MARGARITA, Venezuela The ongoing war of words being waged between the Bush administration and Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez was in full swing as I traveled from Miami to Caracas, the capital of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made the outrageous comparison of Hugo Chávez with Adolf Hitler in the beginning of what The Washington Post reported as having been "an especially ugly week in the hostile relationship" between the Bush administration and the increasingly popular Chávez.
The week started with Venezuela expelling a U.S. naval attaché on charges of spying, which led to the expulsion of a senior Venezuelan diplomat from Washington, and ended with the U.S. blocking a deal in which Venezuela was to buy coastal patrol boats from Spain. While Spain had initially said it would replace the U.S.-made components on the boats with French-made parts, by the end of the week Spain had suddenly cancelled the lucrative contract with no explanation provided.
Rumsfeld, who serves under a president who was, in fact, not elected by the people, made a rather odd comment comparing two legally elected leaders: "Chávez was elected legally, just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally," Rumsfeld said, "And then consolidated his power." The "populist leadership" of Chávez, which appeals to "masses of people," Rumsfeld said,
is "worrisome" to the Bush administration.
After a week in Venezuela, however, I have yet to meet a Venezuelan who has expressed any worries or concerns about the populist reforms initiated by Chávez. The Venezuelans and foreigners I have met have nothing but praise for the wide-ranging improvements Chávez has brought to the people. They talk frequently of the improved public hospitals and schools where medical treatment and education are now provided free of charge.
Venezuelans often ask if I am American. When I tell them that I am from Chicago they seem pleased and go out of their way to be helpful. I am writing from Playa El Yaque on the south coast of Isla Margarita, where American windsurfers in 1984 first discovered ideal sailing conditions with consistent strong winds and smooth seas. Since then it has become an international haven attracting windsurfers and kite-surfers from all over the world.
Driving through Caracas in a large American-made car from the 1980's, the taxi driver told me that Venezuela's cheap gasoline was "a gift" from Chávez. A gallon of gas costs less than 280 Bolivars, the equivalent of about 12 U.S. cents, and it costs less than $2 to fill the tank. Likewise, Venezuela provides subsidized oil and gas to dozens of nations throughout the Caribbean Basin and Latin America.
"Chávez is making friends while Bush is earning enmity," was the title of Andres Oppenheimer's article in The Miami Herald on February 9. "You don't have to be a genius to figure out why Washington is losing influence in Latin America," Oppenheimer wrote. "While Chávez is making headlines with vows to give about $3.7 billion a year to his neighbors, the Bush administration wants to cut back its estimated $1.2 billion in U.S. foreign aid to the region."
Hundreds of thousands of poor Americans in five Northeastern states have been on the receiving end of Venezuela's generosity. This winter alone, hundreds of thousands of low-income Americans from Pennsylvania and New York to Maine and Vermont have received more than 25 million gallons of subsidized heating oil for their homes.
"LYNCHING" CHÁVEZ
Late last year as oil prices spiked, a dozen U.S. senators asked 10 major oil companies to donate a portion of their record profits to help the poor. As USA Today reported, "Only Citgo [a subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company] responded, dispatching tankers to housing projects in New York and Massachusetts in what Felix Rodriguez, the company president and chief executive, called a purely 'humanitarian' gesture.
"Rodriguez said that Chávez had ordered the giveaway so poor Americans wouldn't have to choose between food and heat."
But rather than showing appreciation, the USA Today article by David J. Lynch carried a photo of motorists pumping gas at a Citgo gas station with the alarming caption, "Chávez could destroy the U.S. economy in 90 days, an energy banker said."
"What if Chávez closed Citgo's refineries?" the CIA-linked newspaper asked?
"He'd only have to do that for 90 days, and he'd destroy our economy," Matthew Simmons, "a prominent energy investment banker," told Lynch. "He actually has our livelihood in his hands," Simmons said.
"At the high point of oil and gas prices, a dozen U.S. senators of both parties appealed to oil companies' 'sense of corporate citizenship' to help less fortunate Americans get through the winter in the face of cuts in federal assistance," Fadi Kabboul of the Venezuelan Embassy in Washington wrote to USA Today in response to the Lynch article. "Citgo did its part. No other oil company has done so. It makes the criticism in the article seem petty."
So why is the Bush administration so hostile to Chávez? Why is a government that shares its oil wealth with its people and neighbors considered a threat? Why is the foreign leader who was first to offer help to the hurricane ravaged Gulf Coast viewed as harboring evil intentions by the controlled media and the federal government whose own response to the dire plight of its citizens has been called "late, uncertain and ineffective," by Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine)?
The answer to these questions is obvious. Venezuela, the world's fifth-largest oil exporter with the largest proven reserves outside of the Mideast, has long been considered by the "big oil" companies as America's own privately-run gas station. Chávez, however, has put an end to foreign control and plundering of Venezuela's oil resources and the immense profits they generate. One does not have to look far to see that, over the decades, very little of this nation's oil wealth has trickled down to the average Venezuelan.
Venezuela is particularly strong in refining capacity. As I rode past the sprawling refinery outside of Puerto de la Cruz, I was amazed at the size of Venezuela's second largest refinery, which covers thousands of acres. Venezuela's largest refinery, the Paraguana Refining Center is five times larger with a capacity of nearly 1 million barrels per day.
Venezuela also owns a 50 percent equity interest in the Hovensa refinery on St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands, which has a capacity of 500,000 barrels per day, and it leases the huge Emmastad refinery on the nearby island of Curacao. Over decades, most of the products produced at these refineries have been exported to the U.S.
The Bush administration and the "big oil" money behind it are clearly displeased with the change in ownership, the nationalization of Venezuela's oil fields, which Chávez brought about. These plutocrats are now engaged in an international political and propaganda campaign to malign the popular leader who has stood up to their global tyranny.
New Year's Day 2006 saw the return of Venezuelan state control over 32 privately operated oil fields. Venezuelan oil minister Rafael Ramirez said the state successfully completed "the recovery" of the 32 fields whose control had been ceded to private hands in the 1990s under concessions allowing companies to independently pump oil under contract.
In 2001, Venezuela passed a law requiring oil production to be carried out by companies majority-owned by the government. The deadline for converting the privately-owned operating agreements into joint ventures in which the state oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA), would hold the controlling stake was Dec. 31.
While other oil companies went along with the conversions, Exxon Mobil Corp. of Irving, Texas, resisted the contract changes, the Associated Press reported on Jan. 4. The conversions to joint ventures with PDVSA "will significantly reduce the oil companies' share of profits and control over operations and could also undermine the value of their Venezuelan assets," AP reported.
Venezuela's stake could be as much as 90 percent in the new ventures. The amount of investment made by the private companies in the fields will determine the amount of control they have, Ramirez said
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
