Extractive Industry Transparency Now United States Law

Originally posted at www.earthrights.org/blog

After nearly two years of work and consistent opposition from big oil, substantive provisions of legislation initially introduced by Senators Lugar (R-IN) and Cardin (D-MD) as the Energy Security Through Transparency Act (ESTT), were signed into law by President Obama as Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act on Wednesday.   Offered by Senator Leahy (D-VT), the provision will require both US and internationally-based companies registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to publish what they pay to governments for the commercial development of oil, gas, and minerals, while creating a new international standard for transparency in the extractive industry.

The provision, which will apply to 90 percent of the largest internationally operating oil and gas companies, made the cut during an all-night House-Senate conference committee meeting over the Wall Street reform bill.

The bill will have significant impacts in countries like Burma, where a lack of transparency has contributed to corruption, authoritarianism, and gross human rights violations, directly linked to the natural gas industry. According to EarthRights International’s new report,Energy Insecurity: How Total, Chevron, and PTTEP Contribute to Human Rights Violations, Financial Secrecy, and Nuclear Proliferation in Burma (Myanmar), the lack of publicly available information on revenues received by the military junta in Burma has facilitated the misuse of these funds, including massive diversion of resource-related public monies.

In fact, data from a leaked IMF report indicates 70 percent of Burma’s foreign exchange reserves are from gas exports and that gas-related payments from corporations, amounting to billions of dollars, contributed only one percent of total budget revenue.  That means that less than one percent of the largest source of income for the Burmese state actually enters the state budget. Had these revenues entered the state budget, they would have accounted for 57 percent of the total 2007/2008 budget.  The majority of the gas revenues are believed to be held in offshore banks, with reports indicating that hundreds of millions are channeled into the personal bank accounts of individuals closely associated with the ruling military junta in two offshore banks in Singapore.

When this new transparency bill takes effect — likely in 2012 — companies including Chevron, Total, the Chinese National Petroleum Corporation, the Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation, and others will be forced to disclose how much they pay the regime in Burma, something they have been resisting for years. For communities and civil society inside and outside of Burma, this information can be used in attempts to hold the authorities in Burma accountable for how these monies are spent.

The reach of this bill is truly global. Communities in Nigeria, Kazakhstan, Algeria, Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico, Russia, Columbia, Thailand, and around the world will know how much their governments receive from corporations including Shell, BP, Chevron, Exxon, Newmont Mining, and most of the other energy and mining majors operating in their countries.

EarthRights International was active throughout the legislative process, lobbying the U.S. Congress directly while providing public education, letter writing, advocacy, and training to other organizations in support of the transparency provision as a member of Publish What You Pay United States, a coalition of 32 nongovernmental organizations that advocated for the legislation.

This bill takes aim squarely at the “resource curse,” the documented pattern in countries rich in natural resources where this wealth leads to negative development outcomes. Senator Lugar (R-IN), one of the main supporters of the transparency provision summarized the importance of this measure quite well, saying: “History shows that oil, gas reserves, and minerals can frequently be a bane, not a blessing, for poor countries leading to corruption, wasteful spending, military adventurism, and instability, and too often oil money intended for a nation’s poor ends up lining the pockets of the rich, or is squandered on showcase projects instead of productive investments.”

While a major victory for communities in resource-rich countries, there are still several stages before the legislation is implemented and companies begin to report their payments. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) must issue proposed rules that provide detailed guidance for companies covered by the bill. This process will take up to one year to complete. Groups like EarthRights International and our Publish What You Pay US colleagues will play an active role in this rule-making process, ensuring that critical information on payments is available in an effective, timely, and complete manner. Once the final rules are issued, companies will be required to disclose payments in their annual filings to the SEC going forward.

We expect that Big Oil will continue to resist these efforts as they did with the legislation. The American Petroleum Institute (API), a national trade association representing about 400 corporate members, including major oil and gas companies, made several misleading claims in a letter to members of the Senate in 2010, stating:  “API feels that requiring only U.S-listed extractive companies to disclose revenues creates a competitive disadvantage for these companies in the global energy marketplace.” Members of the US Senate were not persuaded by this specious claim, with Senator Cardin calling API’s claims, “a red herring.”

This bill may be the beginning of the end for the cloud of secrecy and corruption associated with resource extraction around the globe. With other countries like the UK considering similar measures, there is a great hope that revenue transparency becomes a norm for the industry, and we can begin to see the responsible use of these critical revenues for the benefit of local and national communities.

For more information on the transparency bill, visit www.earthrights.org

In 2009, director Oliver Stone traveled to five South American countries to explore the social transformations that have been taking place in those countries. On that trip, Stone had conversations with Presidents Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, Evo Morales of Bolivia, Lula da Silva of Brazil, Cristina Kirchner of Argentina, her husband and former president Nėstor Kirchner, Fernando Lugo of Paraguay, Rafael Correa of Ecuador, and Raúl Castro of Cuba.

In his latest film, South of the Border, Oliver Stone explores those conversations and reveals a revolution in South America that most of the world does not know about.

In casual conversations with seven sitting presidents, Stone gains unprecedented access to and sheds new light upon the exciting transformations in the region.  Mr. Stone was most struck by the extent to which the presidents are committed to determining the future of their own nations without undue outside influence and control.

I saw a screening of this film last week and highly recommend it. It highlights the often skewed representations of these countries by mainstream US media and attempts to shed light on the political and social movements taking place in South America that often go unnoticed amongst the general American public.

A big focus of the film is that of Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez and the changes taking place in the country. Global Exchange has had a strong Reality Tours program in Venezuela for many years and has brought people together to learn more about the progressive model of socioeconomic development that has been shaping Latin America’s future. This is done by meeting with the grassroots that is really helping to shape and build the foundation for these changes. Find out more about our Venezuela delegations.

See the story of Venezuela and Latin America unfold on the big screen. The film is showing in several cities nationwide and is opening in more cities in the coming weeks. To our Bay Area friends, be sure to head to the theatres this weekend for its opening and see the provocative film that everyone is talking about.

South of the Border Channel on YouTube.

By Lowell Blankfort

It is twilight and, as April and I sit back on their terrace sipping wine with John Pate and his wife, we enjoy a sense of tranquility hardly experienced in our almost three weeks in Venezuela.

Below us lies a verdant valley, framed by a wooded green mountain which mercifully blocks the down-at heels skyscrapers and ragged slum hillsides in downtown Caracas. In Venezuela this is heaven.

A few minutes earlier John had become excited as he drove us into his gated community. “Look,” he exclaimed pointing out the window. “See how these neighbors are able to take a leisurely stroll here without a bodyguard.”

***

John, 62, is an American lawyer, a graduate of Brown University and Boston University law school, and of Tufts University School of diplomacy, who heads a major law firm in Caracas. He has lived 34 years in Venezuela, the last eight of them in his charming hillside home with its tropical garden, decorated largely by Gertie, his professional-artist wife.

Yet, at a stage in life when most successful people are dreaming of retiring and enjoying the fruits of their labors, John and Gertie are seriously thinking of giving up their fabulous home, giving up the law firm, and fleeing their adopted country for the United States.

“Chávez is going after people like us,” he says, talking of the nation’s president, Hugo Chávez. “Many of this country’s successful people — and not just foreigners like us — have already left. Foreign companies, our clients, are pulling out their investments. And now Chávez’s new ‘socialism of the 21st century,’ is threatening us directly. Now he is saying that people with too much property should have to share it with others — i.e., the government would simply install strangers with us in our home,” like the communists did in Eastern Europe in the last century.”

***

Seven hours earlier we are in a taxi. Our driver is Tony Antonetti, Italian-born, who tells us he had come to Venezuela as a teenager 50 years ago. It is a long ride in typically stagnant Caracas traffic and Tony uses the time to give us a sort of political sightseeing trip.

“See that school on the right,” he says. “Chávez built that.” “See that old folks’ home. Chávez built that” “See that clinic. Chávez built that”

“Chávez is good for the poor people that nobody in power used to care about. He cares.”

***

Chávez, 52, who inherited the Latin-American country with the worst gap between rich and poor when he became Venezuela’s president in 1999, is regarded by many Venezuelans as their knight on the white horse, their new Robin Hood, the unchallenged, all-powerful keeper of the cash of the world’s fourth largest oil producer, who is capitalizing on soaring oil prices to elevate the lives of the nation’s long-neglected majority — impoverished people, the class into which he was born — with a new system he calls “21st century socialism.”

Other Venezuelans consider him an instigator of class warfare, a shrewd, ruthless and charismatic megalomaniac, an incipient dictator who is gradually whittling away the nation’s freedoms, an avowed Marxist-Leninist who is chasing away capitalist foreign investment and setting the stage for an economic catastrophe.

The United States considers Chávez’s virulent anti-American rhetoric and his successes in wooing friendships with several other Latin-American countries a threat to U.S. free-trade economic policies and political hegemony on an economically troubled continent already rife with anti-Americanism. And, perhaps most serious, it views him as a threat to U.S. oil supplies because Venezuela long has been — and still is — a major U.S. oil supplier.

***

Who is, really, this flat-faced, pudgy, former paratrooper whose mulatto features reflect Venezuela’s multi-ethnic history (indigenous, Spanish, African) and whose fame goes back to a failed coup he led in the early 1990s, for which Chávez did jail time? First elected president in late 1998 after his behind-bars stint, he was re-elected last December in a 63 percent landslide after surviving a coup in 2002 and a referendum in 2004. He defeated a state governor but the feeble opposition parties offered no candidate.

Just before Chávez first took office, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, shared a flight with him from Cuba to Venezuela. Garcia Marquez was later quoted as having said, “I was overwhelmed by the feeling I had been traveling and chatting pleasantly with two opposing men. One to whom the caprices of fate had given him an opportunity to save his country. The other an illusionist who could pass through history as just another despot.”

***

Recently, the despotic side of Chávez seems to be emerging. Increasingly, his government has been making use of “the list,” the names of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans who signed petitions in the early 2000’s that brought about the a failed anti-Chávez referendum. These people mostly are blacklisted for government jobs.

Last year, for further intimidation, Chávez’s rubber-stamp Congress added another crime — “showing disrespect for the president.” And it has imposed stiff fines on publications which violate this law, even for newspaper cartoons.

Chávez controls every major element of government. In January, Congress (for which the cowed opposition also ran no candidates) voted him the right to rule by decree until July 2008.

Then he is expected to demand — and get — replacing a constitutional clause setting term limits with one permitting him to become president for life.

Still, Venezuela is not a full-blown dictatorship. Critics will look in vain for concentration camps here.

A majority of newspapers are critical of the regime — although, critics say, government intimidation has muted their voices. The nation’s two largest labor unions outside of Chávez’s own recently rejected his demand that they dissolve and join his “unity” socialist union (although they pledged loyalty to him).

***

But he ran into big trouble the end of May when, its license expiring, he shut down the nation’s oldest television channel, RCTV.

The only TV station to criticize the president, it had parlayed a diet of schmaltzy soap operas, quiz show, talk shows, music, sports and a comedy program that often poked fun at Chávez to become the nation’s most popular station.

A poll showed 80 percent of Venezuelans opposed the shutdown. Chávez’s popularity ratings tumbled — from 63 percent on Election Day to 36 percent, according to Hinterlaces, a respected polling company.

Moreover, the shutdown brought to the streets a new potential source of anti-Chávez power — university students. Shunning cooperation with traditional opposition politicians, for the better part of a week banner-carrying students chanting “freedom, freedom,” many in black masks, their mouths taped shut to represent loss of freedom of speech, marched peacefully through the streets of Caracas and other cities — withstanding police detention and attacks by baton-wielding cops trying to beat them back with nightsticks, tear gas and water cannons.

The big question is whether over time, when the students have forgotten the loss of their favorite soap opera, they will retain their political ardor on behalf of free speech — or be permitted to.

***

RCTV’s shutdown, and the public’s overwhelming opposition to it, evoked an angry Chávez reaction that indicated free speech in Venezuela, such as it is, may not last much longer.

“The current battle is for media power,” Chávez proclaimed during his 40 hours of television fulminations during the student demonstrations.

The government now controls seven TV channels, and has subdued all the others into self-censorship except for Globovision, a news channel that was the only one daring to report the student demonstrations.

This did not escape Chávez’s attention. He told his TV audience, threateningly.

“I want to warn Globovision to measure its steps, or the same medicine for RCTV will be administered if it continues to incite violence.”

He reminded listeners, “Hugo Chávez is a son of the Revolution.”

A Chávez alter ego specializing in media, academic Marcelino Bisbal vowed, “Venezuela will not have the information TV channels that differ from the point of view and opinion of power.”

***

Until now Chávez’s power has come through the ballot box.

“He doesn’t have to be a dictator,” one journalist explained to me. “Just look at the election results.”

But. increasingly, as dissatisfaction over soaring crime, high inflation, vanishing products in stores and eroding freedoms spread, it appears that he may have to retain power through the barrel of a gun.

That’s because, despite a still-vibrant but sagging economy and continued economic progress for the poor, more of the public seems disaffected.

***

But Chávez, a former Army lieutenant colonel, has readied himself for a fight. He has greatly increased the military budget and military perks, as well as encouraging youths from the slums, wide-eyed followers of leftist heroes like Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, to organize in militias that could bolster the military in a pinch.

“For all practical purposes this is a government of the armed forces,” Teodoro Petkoff, a former minister in a pre-Chávez government, a long ago communist who is an editor of Tal Cual (So what) said. “I didn’t divorce Stalin to marry Chávez.”

Chávez also has been diligent in encouraging the election of pro-Chávez local city councils who control police departments, assuring him of police support if push comes to shove.

***

One way Chávez woos police support, apparently, is to look the other way while cops commit crimes. Venezuela has long been Latin-America’s most dangerous country, and one hardly meets an urban Venezuelan who has not been a street-crime victim. I asked 23 Caracas residents if they’d ever been a crime victim, and 20 of them said yes.

In a poll, 89 percent of Venezuelans said their biggest fear was for their own personal safety.

A multi-year 57-nation UNESCO study reported Venezuela led them all in gun-related deaths.

The United Nations official who conducted the study called Venezuela “one of the most violent nations in the world.”

About half of the petty criminals are said to be police. Mostly wielding knives, they typically demand pedestrians open their wallets to them. His critics say Chávez is reluctant to crack down lest he need police backing in a counter-revolution. The police stand ready to do the regime’s bidding. When some of the more violent Chávez followers began seizing and destroying private farms this spring, the police stood by and did nothing. The regime then awarded the farms to the marauders, claiming the owners were not using the land to its fullest potential.

***

With oil accounting for 85 percent of the economy, until now there has not been a lot of emphasis on agriculture, which accounts for only 6 percent. Venezuela has to import, at considerable cost, a whopping 70 per cent of its food. Critics charge that Chávez has been squandering much of the country’s oil bonanza on ideological projects, and is not trying hard enough to diversify its economy should oil prices tumble.

On his socialist ideology, there are real questions as to whether Chávez has public support. A majority of the 63 percent which re-elected him in December are recipients of government benefits but this same majority, when asked if they would like a government like Cuba’s, resoundingly rejected the idea even though they appreciate having Cuban doctors at neighborhood clinics (whom Chávez obtained by giving Cuba cut-rate oil).

Chávez continues to make inroads on poverty. According to government figures, people living below the poverty line have dropped from 50 percent when Chávez first became president, and from a high of 62 percent in 2003 after a disastrous oil strike, to 44 percent at the start of 2006, last figures available.

And these figures take into account only cash income and not Chávez-introduce benefits such as discount food at stores in low-income neighborhoods and better education and health services. In the last three years. He has twice increased the minimum wage.

But the country is running big budget deficits. Last year it was 23 percent of gross domestic product (total of everything produced) and early this year Venezuela had to borrow $7.5 billion from Russia to pay its suppliers.

***

With oil priced at $60-70 a barrel, compared with $12 when Chávez became president, the economy is still strong but growth is slipping, from world-high of 17 percent in 2004 to 7 percent so far this year through May, and oil production is slipping too.

The government claims it produces 3.3 million barrels a day, but international oil institutions like OPEC and the International Energy Agency says the real number is about 800,000 barrels lower.

One reason is the government’s difficulty in attracting talented oil managers — the result of the disruptive strike over wages in 2003 and government’s taking control of most remaining foreign-owned oil operations in May. One foreign observer told us that, in a visit to several oil installations, he saw hardly anyone over 30 or under 50. Venezuela produces mostly tricky-to-handle crude oil which requires extra knowledgeable expertise.

PDVSA (Petroleos de Venezuela), the government oil company, funds and oversees many other governmental functions, particularly in social services and public information.

While world retail gasoline prices are as much as $5.50 a gallon in Europe and $3.50 in the United States, PDVSA sells a gallon to Venezuelans for only 17 cents.

To inflation-plagued Venezuelans, that’s a rare bargain.

Inflation, highest in Latin America, is 20 percent at midyear, far above the 12 percent target because of heavy government spending. Basic foodstuffs like chicken, cheese and eggs are vanishing from markets because producers won’t sell their products at low government-set prices, particularly in discount food stores.

The value of the bolivar, the local currency, has shrunk to about half the official rate on a lively black market, partly fueled by well-heeled Venezuelans stashing away dollars in anticipation of fleeing the country.

Even a waiter, speaking in a low voice as he savored a tip, told us he had his bags packed. Still, as Chávez rails against the luxury-loving rich and the middle class shrinks, some Venezuelans are richer than ever. Banks, the traditional targets of the kind of anti-capitalist rhetoric which Chávez spews forth regularly, have never had it so good.

The merchants of big-ticket items — cars, digital television sets, other fancy appliances — have found a big new market as government oil money poured into the economy funnels down to consumers.

***

Chávez says his ultimate aim is to mold Venezuelans into “a new type of person with a new mentality,” dedicated to their fellows rather than themselves. To this end he has been encouraging ideologically-motivated “21st century socialist” worker cooperatives and Venezuela is now said to have the most in the world. An economics expert told us two-thirds of them were failing, despite government efforts to throw them lots of contracts.

We decided to drop in on a few to see for ourselves.

In the countryside, on a bus trip, we stumbled into one being built on a vast grassland about 80 miles north of Caracas. It is intended for 2,000 people, mostly homeless and drug addicts who are expected to do a variety of work, from raising pigs to sculpturing to working computers.

They will receive “everything they need” for free, we were told, but will not be paid in money. It opened about six months ago with 100 residents, of which about 70 remain. The rest have left.

At another cooperative, which makes army uniforms on the outskirts of Caracas, the middle-age woman at the sewing machine stopped work briefly to answer my questions.

Does she like working for a government-financed cooperative better than a private boss?

“You bet,” she replies, a glow in her voice. “I’m an owner now!” “And your salary?” I ask her — “how does it compare with the minimum wage?” She hesitates. “Well,” she finally says, “it’s below the minimum now, but when we get more orders I think I’ll be fine.”

Banco de la Mujer (the Woman’s Bank) in Caracas, financed by the government, is not at all like the thriving privately-owned banks cited earlier in this article.

Its main purpose is to provide loans to fund the new cooperatives, especially those involving women.. The bank’s top officers, including the president, all women, told us about some successful cooperatives who’ve been given a start with the bank’s money.

But what is your default rate? I asked, for in normal banking excess losses on loans can put the bank out of business. The officers looked at each other uncomfortably; no one knew or had any idea. Finally one piped up. “I don’t know the figures but they’re high,” she said. “A lot of the people we loan money to don’t have much business experience so they can’t pay us back. But the government then gives us more money and we create a lot of jobs.”

To me, co-ops trumpeting “socialism for the 21st century” didn’t seem much different to me than Mao Zedong’s 20th century communes I had witnessed in China or Stalin’s collective farms in Russia or Israel’s we’ll share-everything kibbutzes. They all flopped, killed by bureaucrats who didn’t care and workers who didn’t work because, selfish or not, they didn’t see anything in it for them.

But, then, Mao and Stalin and the Israelis weren’t swimming in vast reserves of $70 a barrel oil to grease the skids. The ultimate fate of Hugo Chávez’s ambitious, but hardly new, experiment?

In a country notorious for its violence, some foresee a long succession of bloody battles to determine Venezuela’s future. Others aren’t so sure. But one thing is certain — no Venezuelans will be watching it on RCTV.

By Natasha Mayers

Just back from a two-week study tour in Venezuela with Global Exchange, I am inspired by what we heard and saw.

Many Venezuelans urged us to let people here know that “Democracy is alive and well in Venezuela”, “there’s no dictator here”, “for the first time we have hope”, and “we don’t need any lessons in democracy from the United States”.

In fact, region-wide polling by Latinobarometro shows Venezuelans nearly tied with Uruguay for first place in considering their country to be democratic, and again second only to Uruguay in their satisfaction with their democracy, as well as the most politically active of any Latin American country. These results, plus Chávez’ landslide victory in December with 63 percent of the vote (the highest of nine elections in Latin America last year), indicate that the government is delivering at least some of what its citizens voted for. Chávez, elected in 1999, has helped redistribute wealth and increased social services, including greater investment in education and health care and housing.

Nineteen of us, ages 24-75 (three social workers, two teachers, a law-yer, a union leader from Great Britain, a minister, and others), attended two to four meetings a day with the human rights commission, the major opposition party, the state-owned oil company, the women’s bank, three cooperatives, an adult education class, a health clinic, political scientists, a former Maryknoll missionary, the Afro-Venezuelan network, a community TV station, and more, in an attempt to see for ourselves how Hugo Chávez’ “Bolivarian Revolution” is working.

Images of Simon Bolivar, in all sizes, greeted us from many walls around Caracas as we crisscrossed the city: the great Liberator on his white horse, Simon with his girlfriend, Manuela, Bolivar with other Latin American heroes, José Marti and Miranda, and sometimes with inspiring quotations like “help me to speak truth to the strong and not to say lies to win applause from the weak” or another, “Be audacious when you plant, be prudent when you implement the plan.”

Some 47 percent of Venezuelans, mostly poor, buy subsidized food (40 percent off) at more than 15,000 “Mercal” centers established by the government. Much of the packaging has articles of the recently rewritten Constitution printed on it, to teach people their rights. On the soybean oil bottle: “The State guarantees to the elderly the full exercise of their rights, respects their human dignity, their autonomy, and guarantees them social security to assure their quality of life…” On the white flour: “Education is a human right and a fundamental social duty, democratic, free, obligatory… nourished with values of national identity and with a Latin American and universal vision…” Imagine our Bill of Rights feeling comfortable on the kitchen table! Imagine that we would all know our rights! “The Venezuelan people are now armed with ideas and the Constitution,” the former missionary told us. And indeed, at three different times, people on the street pulled out their copies of the Constitution to show us that they are participating in this Bolivarian process that is underway.

Organize yourselves into cooperatives and we will hire you, said the government. There were 800 cooperatives before Chávez, and now there are 200,000. We visited with some of the women making shoes at a co-op in Caracas and 70 others (former housewives) sewing shirts at a co-op in Barlovento. “We used to sit around watching our children grow up, then we took care of the grandchildren, and then it was time to die,” one woman with a gold-tooth smile related, and another woman chimed in, “We thought our future was set. We were hopeless.” A third quickly added, “But now we get to go out everyday, be with our friends, and bring money home. Now we are very happy here.” One woman got the others to laugh when she reported that her husband even has dinner ready for her when she gets home. (Minimum wage is $250/month.)

We also visited a cacao plant nursery coop, which grows replacement trees. The co-op members took classes in “cooperatism” (the common pursuit of the same goal) and work skills for 3-9 months and were responsible for the planning before the funding from the government came through. They will be responsible for the success or failure of their business, but the government buys most of what they are making, so there is some guarantee of success. The agricultural co-ops also sell most of their produce to the government, which distributes it to the “Mercals”.

Venezuela imports 80 percent of food needs. The government has distributed more than 4 million acres of state land to 200,000 families, along with credits and assistance and tractors and training, to try and increase the agricultural production of the country (which is only 6 percent of GNP). This is only half of the planned transfer of lands and people. Oil production since the 1920’s killed off other sectors of development, with 88 percent of the population now living in cities. Two thousand health centers have been created, staffed with doctors, mostly Cuban, who are available 24 hours a day. New houses and housing developments are everywhere and in every stage of construction.

We had an inspiring meeting with the directors of Bankmujer, the women’s bank, set up in 200l, modeled on the Bangladesh micro-credit model. The five women took turns telling us enthusiastically about their work: “This bank wasn’t created to make more capital, but to organize women and make them more productive. We are not interested in an increase of capital, but in social investment. The loan is like the hook to attract women. We are interested in the general development of women in this country. Our main interest is to promote solidarity among women so they can help each other. We help the most impoverished and oppressed and empower them to make the community grow. We provide education, self-esteem, and gender workshops. We have given 70,000 low-interest loans, created 292,000 jobs, and have helped 1,400,000 people. The bank is giving priority to agriculture and food security loans. Loans range from $1,000 for an individual to $83,000 for a cooperative.”

When I asked them to share their favorite stories, they positively beamed with pride as they told us of women who had never been in a bank before, of people who had been in debt forever and now had a thriving market business, and of women who received loans, who now have become Bankmujer representatives.

We had a very full and balanced report from the head of PROVEA, the human rights organization, who told us, “We have a democratic government with some authoritarian features. It is not a dictatorship, and it is not like Cuba. There is no surveillance here, and no intimidation of people by the government. No freedoms are restricted by this government.”

The annual report issued by PROVEA lists the positive changes which he recited to us: “The government’s policies are addressed to help the poorest people, levels of poverty have decreased, education levels are increasing, illiteracy is down, agrarian reform is underway, with lots of financial credit for small businesses. The government is promoting cooperatives, there’s a lot of political participation by the public, lots of freedom of expression. Chávez has not tried to limit speech. The Constitution is advanced on human rights.”

Then he went over the report’s negative findings: “The greatest threat to human rights is the concentration of power. The other public powers that could control Chávez are just doing what he says, which could lead to an abuse of power. There’s a strong presence of military around; police harassment has increased. It is hard to get a job in public administration if you are anti-Chávez. Violence in jails is terrible (but has always been).”

While we were there, the Enabling Laws were passed to accelerate what papers in the U.S. referred to as “Rule by Decree” and Chávez’ “Superpowers”. Venezuelans weren’t concerned. They explained that 4 or 5 presidents before Chávez had used this power, and that Chávez had also used it twice before to “deepen democracy” and to accelerate the social and economic development. He is still bound by the Constitution and 10 percent of registered voters can petition to rescind any laws.

Some of the colorful murals we passed on city walls had oil wells. ” Now it belongs to everybody” or “Now it is ours” was painted on each one in big letters. And indeed, when we spent four hours at PDVSA (“company of the people of the world”), the state-owned company with the largest proven oil reserves outside the Middle East and the most natural gas in South America (and the second largest corporation in South America), we discovered that oil revenues are being used as an instrument of development for the Venezuelan people. And it seemed that profit was not the motive. PDVSA’s goal for the next five years is to reduce poverty in Venezuela from 65 to 30 percent. (We spent a day visiting one of their 3400 social and economic projects, which included a large health clinic, employment training center, childcare center, shoemaking cooperative, and vegetable gardens.)

We were told, “It is also the responsibility of Venezuela to help poor countries afford energy and use oil to foster initiatives for regional cooperation.” Venezuela is building natural gas pipelines through Colombia and Panama, also to Brazil, Argentina, and Bolivia, and the Caribbean islands, to provide energy for South American development at discounted rates. Citgo, its subsidiary in the US, provides cheap fuel to some of our country’s poor communities.

Lots of people I talked with, mostly from the middle and upper class, were anti-Chavez, complaining about the police corruption (which has always been a problem because they are underpaid and under the control of the local mayors), poor quality of food and shortages in the state-subsidized markets, the lowering of educational standards now that there is a new community college system available to all, and the political polarization of the country.

“Venezuelans don’t like to work; they like to party. It’s a capitalist, consumer society, and socialism doesn’t have a chance here,” a computer-programmer told me. “People are hypnotized by Chávez and act like clapping seals,” confided the meticulous doctor I visited for a chest cold. The head of the opposition party, Primero Justicia, told us: “We are concerned that the international view is that we are allied with Cuba and that Chávez is buying political support internationally, instead of investing in Venezuela.” Several people who don’t like Chávez personally did readily admit that things were better for most Venezuelans.

With everybody talking politics, with people coming up to us on the streets asking our opinions and telling us theirs, I’ll share some of what troubles me. There is no strong women’s movement. No abortion is allowed, even in case of rape or incest. The air is filled with diesel fumes. Even with a fast clean subway, there’s always a traffic jam. There’s garbage in the ravines in the barrios. The toilets don’t always have enough water to flush. They speak Spanish too fast. The women are too beautiful. There are too many Simon Bolivar murals. But what troubles me most is that Venezuela is a thriving work in progress, a model of a participatory democracy, which deserves to have a chance, instead of having to fend off U.S. attempts to bring it down.

(Natasha Mayers is an artist and political activist who lives in Whitefield.)

By Geoff Bottoms

PUBLISHED IN THE UK MORNING STAR SATURDAY 20TH MAY 2006

Charlie Hardy is a former US Catholic priest who spent eight years living among the poor of Caracas in a house of compressed cardboard without sanitation during the dying days of Venezuela’s ancien regime that were triggered by the Caracazo or social explosion of February 27th 1989 following a hike in the price of petrol.

His unpublished tales of the barrio entitled The God of Shit are a hard-hitting critique of both Church and State in a country that is the fifth largest oil producer in the world yet the top 10% of the population of 23 million receives half the national income while the bottom 40% lives in critical poverty.

Small wonder he celebrates the significant if precarious achievements of the Bolivarian revolutionary process that is transforming the lives of the poor since the election of President Hugo Chavez in 1998.

Yet as Luis Ojeda, a teacher with a Bolivarian High School in the mountains of the Yacambu National Park in Lara State, puts it, “Chavez is the feather that woke up the sleeping giant”. Popular movements, base Christian communities and local co-operatives have been a part of Venezuela’s social fabric for decades long before the idea of “endogenous” development gained ground promoting the economic stimulation of everything that is internal and indigenous.

The genius of Chavez lies in his ability to harness the collective will and energy of the poor that make up 80% of the country’s population and enable them to find solutions to their own problems with state support while building an alternative society based on justice, equality and sovereignty.

From building new homes and establishing integrated communities to the social programmes eradicating illiteracy, disease and poverty and creating sustainable enterprises meeting real needs the people are in the driving seat. And it is women who are at the heart of change both as users and participants in the promotion of these campaigns.

Where else would you find a Women’s Development Bank providing micro-credits for establishing small businesses or co-operatives or a constitutional right to a minimum salary for house-wives in recognition of their work as an economic activity that generates wealth and social well-being?

In forging a new future where Venezuela throws off its quasi-colonial status and reclaims its sovereignty in order to redirect its natural and human resources towards the interests of its own people and those of an integrated Latin America rather than voracious transnational corporations the Constitution of 1999 towers above everything.

Inspired by the ideas of Simon Bolivar, the nineteenth-century Liberator of Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia, and the theological vision of the Latin American Catholic bishops who expressed a “preferential option for the poor” at historic meetings in Medellin, Colombia in 1968 and Puebla, Mexico in 1979, this document claims to be the most enlightened of its kind in the world. It calls for “reshaping the Republic to establish a democratic, participatory, and self-reliant, multi-ethnic, and multicultural society in a just, federal, and decentralized State that embodies the values of freedom, independence, peace, solidarity, and the common good”.

Capitalising on a tradition of forming alliances between the military and civilians in national struggles stretching back to the days of Simon Bolivar, Simon Rodriguez and Ezequiel Zamora, Chavez believes in integrating the armed forces into the life of civil society. Soldiers now have a vote, engage in social work and participate in government so that they contribute to the development of the country both as citizens and as an institution.

Having survived the coup d’etat of April 2002 and an economic coup or oil strike in December of the same year at the hands of discredited politicians and trade unionists from the ancien regime, business tycoons, media magnates and the upper echelons of the Catholic Church, Chavez understands the historical importance of a people’s army that not only defends and supports the economic, social and political struggles of the people but is also prepared to confront the subversive and destabilizing activities of hostile external forces based in Washington.

According to Venezuelan-American writer Eva Gollinger the US was not only involved in both the coup attempts of 2002, a referendum called by the opposition in 2004 to oust Chavez, and an electoral boycott in 2005, but also continues to fund opposition groups in Venezuela to the tune of $1 million annually through the National Endowment for Democracy. This is on top of an additional $5 million for 2005 from the US Agency for International Development. Interestingly presidential elections take place in December of this year.

In many ways “the process” as it is called in Venezuela does not follow the classic definition of a socialist revolution in the making. With political parties and pliant trade unions totally discredited over the past forty years of corruption and repression, support for Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution has come from the majority of the people who were of black, indigenous or mestizo descent, disorganized and out of reach of traditional politics.

As a result it is the poor and disenfranchised, the peasants and the shantytown dwellers, who have been mobilized through ad hoc Bolivarian Circles, electoral patrols and educational missions rather than an organized working class in alliance with a wide range of progressive forces under the leadership of a vanguard party.

If the future is to be socialism with Venezuelan characteristics following an emerging national debate then the role of organised labour is crucial. The recently-formed National Union of Workers (UNT) will need substantial support as a rival to the reactionary Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CTV) in organizing both the informal and formal sectors. Again while the social programmes or missions are producing incredible results a lack of national co-ordination leaves an uneven development across the country that could eventually prove divisive and self-defeating. And with 70% of the media in the hands of the 20% comprising the rich white former elite who are intent on undermining “the process” there is a danger that this imbalance threatens the very existence of a fragile experiment in a democratic revolution for the twenty-first century.

As Cuba’s national liberation struggle flowered into a socialist revolution a similar process appears to be taking place in Venezuela under completely different circumstances with two parallel worlds existing alongside one another in the hope that the new society that is now being painfully built amid the smoldering embers of the old will ultimately prove superior. In the face of considerable opposition Chavez is reaching out to all sectors in the interests of national unity while carefully crafting an alternative to the annexationist US-inspired Free Trade Area of the Americas together with Cuba and Bolivia based on solidarity, justice and a shared nationalism.

Meanwhile as the protest songs of Ali Primera continue to be sung at Mass, and the defeat of the April Coup four years ago is celebrated with religious fervour during Holy Week, the election posters read “Democracy, Participation, Christianity is Socialism”. For Carmen Jimenez, a mother of three children, from the barrio Libertad Simon Bolivar in Barquisimeto, this is no mere propaganda having mobilized fifty families to reclaim an expanse of waste land to create a warm and human community out of nothing. New houses will soon replace the tin shacks and a local church will have pride of place. It is just one more example of people power now that the sleeping giant has been roused from its sleep.

With or without Chavez Venezuela can never be the same again although the aim is 10 million votes in December’s presidential elections for the feather that is now tickling US imperialism to death. With a third electoral victory to celebrate Charlie Hardy would have plenty of material for his new book but with a less controversial title!

Geoff Bottoms joined the Venezuela: Democracy, Development and Regional Integration Global Reality Tour organized by Global Exchange in San Francisco, USA from 8 — 19 April 2006.Contact: www.globalexchange.org

By Barry Freeman

Published in The News & Observer (Raleigh, North Carolina)

CHAPEL HILL–Venezuela has become a global hot spot. I have just returned from there, and want to share some information not readily available. I went with a group under the auspices of a Global Exchange study tour. We met with various government officials, including President Hugo Chavez and Attorney General Isaias Rodriguez, and with members of the opposition. We traveled to barrios, to agricultural co-ops, to clinics, to schools and to religious missions.

The last 60 years have seen many ups and downs in Venezuela, with parliamentary government interrupted by a dictatorship.

Major political parties were tied to the oligarchy and church hierarchy. Corruption and waste were rampant. A guerrilla movement and religious missions worked to improve conditions for the poor, laying the groundwork for an electoral revolution in 1998.

Venezuela has had a tumultuous seven years since that first election of Chavez as president. A new constitution was drafted, based on principles of “democracy from the bottom up,” with less emphasis on elected politicians and political parties. This has resulted in a surge of participation by ordinary people in transforming their lives.

A country with vast oil deposits, Venezuela had previously wasted this resource, with little of it going to sustainable development. Currently 30 percent of oil income is going to support social services for the poor. Education is a priority, with three “missions” named after past heroes.

Mission Robinson (named for Bolivar’s teacher) aims to eliminate illiteracy. In one barrio we heard a 45-year-old woman with 10 children brag about how the mission had taught her to read, beginning with how to hold a pencil. Mission Rivas aims to give everyone a high school education. We met six teenagers in Sonare who had dropped out of school but, under Rivas, were about to graduate from high school. Under Mission Sucre they were planning to go on to higher education and train to be teachers, an architect, a nurse and a doctor. Their pride was moving. A new Bolivarian University has been established to accommodate the rising number of college students.

Under a health mission, 20,000 Cuban doctors are serving in urban slums and in countryside clinics. We visited two of these. The Cubans are giving free care, including medicine, glasses and dental care, while training Venezuelans to take over. Mission Mercal distributes food to the poor at 30 percent of the market price through 2,000 government supermarkets around the country. Venezuela is working with Argentina and Brazil to establish ALBA (Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas) as an alternative to the Free Trade Area of the Americas advocated by the United States. The former is based on the concept of fair trade, not free trade. ALBA is intended to meet the needs of the less rich South American countries and protect their resources from corporate exploitation.

Not everyone is happy with the new regime. Members of the oligarchy have lost control of the oil monies and are nervous about empowerment of the poor. We met with opposition leaders, mostly from the upper middle-class, who expressed concern about “incidents of human rights violations” such as overaggressive police and aggressive Chavistas harassing journalists.

However, the opposition still speaks out, the media are openly critical and there are relatively few political prisoners.

Most of these are a result of the unsuccessful coup of 2002 that received support from the United States and which was reversed by a massive uprising in support of the constitution and Chavez.

Chavez and the press talk about an expected attack by the United States, based on statements by some State Department officials. It is hard to see how the United States could justify further efforts to overthrow a government that is working so hard to raise the living standard of the 80 percent of Venezuelans who are poor. It is better that we watch closely and hope Venezuela succeeds as an example of decreasing the gap between the rich and poor in a gradual, evolutionary way.

(Barry Freeman is a retired social worker, a political activist and frequent traveler to Latin America.)