Hugo Chavez pays his way into F1 paddock thru PDVSA

THE question went like this: "You are supported by Venezuelan oil company PDVSA and also the Venezuelan state government. How did that happen?" The question was posed by a journalist of the official Formula 1 website to aspiring F1 driver Pastor Maldonado, from Venezuela, who's been testing for Hispania Racing Team and Williams in the last few days in Abu Dhabi.

Maldonado, who won the GP2 title this year, has been mentioned as a possible replacement of Nico Hulkenberg, at Frank Williams F1 team. It has also been mentioned, in other reports, that Maldonado's entry to F1 is believed to be worth as much as $15 million to the Williams team.

Now, don't get me wrong on this one. Being a petrol head, I would love to see a fellow Venezuelan competing in the highest category of motor sports, and bring back the good old memories from the 80ies, when Venezuelan drivers were regulars at the top categories. Personally, I hold nothing against Pastor Maldonado.

What I find objectionable, is that Hugo Chavez's oil firm, PDVSA, is spending $15 million of Venezuelan taxpayer money in this adventure. Mind you, we've been told by Chavez, over and over, that capitalism needs to be destroyed, that Venezuelan oligarchs are the scum of the earth, that PDVSA is now wholly devoted to social aims and to alleviate the suffering of the disenfranchised, etc., etc., and YET, he is paying his way into the world's most exclusive, expensive, bourgeois, elitist, and capitalist sport, read Formula 1. If there's one anti thesis of whatever Hugo Chavez's socialist revolution represents, that is Formula 1. Can someone please explain this one to me?

As per the $15 million that Maldonado will bring to the Williams team, Mr. Williams should ponder about the consequences to his hard earned reputation should he accept money from Chavez.

Hugo Chavez takes sides in drug kingpins war

The arrest in Colombia of Venezuelan drug kingpin Walid Makled has exposed the  underworld of drugs, corruption, and organised crime that surrounds President Hugo Chavez. As I wrote back in 2006, it is simply impossible to ship tonnes of cocaine to international markets without complicity at the highest levels. And complicity Walid Makled revealed. The government of Santos in Colombia already knows everything that could be known about the level of involvement in drug trafficking of Hugo Chavez's ministers and closest collaborators. Makled is just exhibit M. The US government is equally aware.

In this saga, I think there's a point yet to be made. One of the individuals fingered  by Makled in his accusations of official participation in large scale drug trafficking in Venezuela is Henry Rangel Silva. The US Department of the Treasury designated Rangel Silva and two other Venezuelan officials in 2008 for "materially assisting the narcotics trafficking activities of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), a narco-terrorist organisation." Despite this, Hugo Chavez appointed Rangel Silva as Venezuela's army chief in July this year. A few days ago, Rangel Silva said that the Venezuelan army would not accept an opposition government, statements found "unacceptable" even by Chavez's main enabler at the OAS. Yesterday, Chavez promoted Rangel Silva to General in Chief.

What Chavez is doing is basically taking sides in this drug lords' war, and trying to ensure continuity in power. Makled had the full support of his regime, was able to send tonnes of cocaine from Venezuela -allegedly with the help of Rangel Silva, and gave generously to the Chavez 'revolution'. Now that he is arrested and revealing stuff, the caudillo wants to shut him down, and for that, he has elevated Rangel Silva, who's also been ordered to mess about in Venezuela's internal politics. Chavez is also desperately trying to have Makled extradited to Venezuela.

I wouldn't make a great deal about Rangel Silva's political statements, after all it's just another instance whereby high officials of the Chavez regime have threatened the opposition -who can forget Venezuela's oil Minister saying in 2004 that in the case of an opposition victory oil production would be disrupted? What interests me is what Colombia and the USA are going to do with the accumulating intelligence, and information provided by Makled. Chavez senses that his world is shrinking, he hinted as much from Cuba recently. Furthermore, I would argue that Chavez fears becoming the new Noriega. As his predecessor, radicalisation seems to be his only option. For only in power can Hugo Chavez and his criminal inner circle remain free men, the longer they remain in power the more radical they'll have to become to hold onto it, radicalisation will bring more crimes, more disturbing associations, more evidence against them. Interesting times ahead for Venezuela...

International community must call time on Hugo Chavez

Gone are the days when Hugo Chavez could be given the benefit of the doubt. In fact, long gone is the argument that Chavez ‘has the support of the vast majority of Venezuelans’. In recent elections, hand picked candidates running for Congress from the President's ruling and allied parties got 48% of the vote, while candidates selected by the opposition pulled in 52%. This tremendous electoral victory in a context similar to that of Iran, went somewhat misreported by the media.

Chavez recently concluded another world tour. Some of his hosts have gained distinct places in the global gallery of rogues. With Putin, for instance, he entered into yet another weapons agreement through which Venezuela will receive Russian tanks. In exchange Chavez sold PDVSA's Ruhr Oel assets, to Rosneft, Russia's giant oil conglomerate. Europeans already know that Putin, as Chavez, is keen on using its considerable leverage in energy provision to get the EU's acquiescence on certain issues. If having to kneel to ruthless KGB agents is not enough aggravation, prospects of S-300 missiles ending up in Ahmadinejad's hands through his Venezuelan proxy should really be setting alarm bells ringing throughout the Middle East.

Chavez is openly siding, supporting, and entering into dubious deals, not only with rogue regimes, but with terrorist organizations around the world. Chavez has appointed US-designated FARC kingpins to head the army, military intelligence and investigative police forces. This he does unilaterally, without consultation, or indeed the support of the Venezuelan people. Recently, I revealed that Arturo Cubillas, a wanted ETA terrorist along with Rodrigo Granda, a wanted FARC terrorist, had been granted Venezuelan citizenship by the Chavez regime in 2004. Once naturalised, both terrorists argued that they could not be extradited to their countries of origin, Spain and Colombia respectively, for Venezuelan law does not contemplate extradition of its nationals. Furthermore, there is no hope that extradition requests be considered by Venezuela, when the head of the judiciary affirms that separation of powers "weakens the State".

A Venezuelan cultural and diplomatic venue in London hosted recently a commemoration of the Second Intifada with the support of Samuel Moncada, Venezuelan Ambassador to the UK. Leila Khaled, who gained international notoriety for hijacking planes and engaging in terrorism, took part. Notorious apologists of terrorism, George Galloway, Massoud Shadjareh, and Azzam Tamimi also played integral roles. Frankly, this is unacceptable.

UN resolutions 1373 and 1624 explicitly criminalise support and glorification of terrorism. Celebrating the killing and maiming of innocents therefore, is illegal – a contravention of international law. Even Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has referred to the Second Intifada as a terrible mistake. So why is Chavez using Venezuela to fete terrorists and celebrate a ‘mistake’ condemned by the leader of the Palestinian Authority?

Venezuela is not glorifying terrorism and fomenting unrest. Rather it is Hugo Chavez and his henchmen who have decided in their wisdom to side with terrorists and rogues. The international community as well as UK authorities, would do well to investigate such flagrant flouting of international law, siding with those promoting democracy through peaceful and legal means.

Venezuela apology of terrorism as State policy

So, did you think that statements given back in 2001 by Isaías Rodriguez, current Venezuelan Ambassador to Spain, to the effect that ETA and FARC were waging a "just and irreproachable" fight were just off the cuff remarks? Think again. See what Samuel Moncada, Venezuelan Ambassador to the UK, is doing on 6th November 2010. See who he is entertaining (oily George needs no introduction), in a Venezuelan cultural and diplomatic venue in London:

Carta abierta a Trinidad Jiménez

Estimada Sra. Jiménez,

he leído con incredulidad el debate semántico que tuvo Usted ayer en el Senado, con mi apreciado amigo Iñaki Anasagasti. Su afirmación de que no existen presos políticos en Venezuela es, además de insultante, falsa, y le explicaré los motivos, para que su ignorancia sobre el tema no la deje a Usted, y por consiguiente a España, mal parada en la escena internacional.

Curiosamente en dias pasados tuve que enviarle a Iñaki una aclaratoria, sobre un articulo, que publicó en su bitácora personal y que se refiere particularmente a Usted, cuya autoría me atribuyeron erróneamente, en lugar de citar la fuente original.

En cualquier caso, Sra. Jiménez, sepa Usted que si existen presos políticos en Venezuela. Y antes de aventurarse a afirmar sandeces públicamente, debería Usted informarse debidamente, sobre todo, cuando es tan fácil para cualquier persona con acceso a la red someter sus declaraciones al escarnio público. Dice Usted que ni Amnistía Internacional ni Human Rights Watch contemplan la existencia de presos políticos en Venezuela. Sepa Usted que el caso de la Juez Maria Afiuni, para citarle un ejemplo y notando lo poco que parece importale a Usted el bienestar de sus congéneres venezolanas, ha sido reportado tanto por Amnistía Internacional (20 resultados aquí), como por Human Rights Watch (16 resultados aquí).

Ademas de las organizaciones citadas, que según Usted son las únicas con potestad de definir si una persona mantenida ilegalmente en prisión por cuestiones políticas es un preso político o no, tendría su despacho a bien informarse sobre las declaraciones del caso de la juez Afiuni emitidas por la Oficina del Alto Comisionado para los Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas, en las voces de Presidente-Relator del Grupo de Trabajo sobre la Detención Arbitraria, Sr. El Hadji Malick Sow; Relatora especial sobre la independencia de magistrados y abogados, Sra. Gabriela Carina Knaul de Albuquerque e Silva; y Relatora especial sobre la situación de los defensores de los derechos humanos, Sra. Margaret Sekaggya. 

Si estima Usted que las organizaciones citadas carecen de verosimilitud en lo que respecta a la existencia de presos políticos en Venezuela, como último recurso, quizás pueda Usted sentir preocupación por el peligro que corre una mujer inocente privada de su libertad por hacer su trabajo y cumplir la ley, con el contenido de la siguiente medida cautelar emitida por la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos:

MC 380/09 – María Lourdes Afiuni, Venezuela

El 11 de enero de 2010, la CIDH otorgó medidas cautelares a favor de María Lourdes Afiuni, Venezuela. En la solicitud de medida cautelar se alega que el domingo 3 de enero de 2010, un grupo de personas privadas de la libertad del Instituto Nacional de Orientación Femenina (INOF), se habría colocado cintas distintivas en las piernas y en la cabeza, en señal de “guerra” o “motín”, y habría planificado “quemar viva a la jueza”, en referencia a la señora Afiuni, así como a otras tres detenidas por ser consideradas cercanas a ella. Se alega que este grupo de personas intentó derramar gasolina en el sector en el cual se encuentra presa la señora Afiuni, y prenderle fuego. La Comisión Interamericana solicitó al Estado de Venezuela que adopte las medidas necesarias para garantizar la vida y la integridad física de la beneficiaria; que adopte las medidas necesarias para que la beneficiaria sea  trasladada a un lugar seguro, y que informe a la CIDH sobre las acciones adoptadas a fin de esclarecer judicialmente los hechos que justifican la adopción de medidas cautelares.

La juez Afiuni no esta sola en su calvario. La muerte de Franklin Brito, debido a causas políticas y la inhumanidad de un estado militarista, todavía está fresca en la memoria de los venezolanos. Y existen muchos otros casos, Sra. Jiménez, no se engañe Usted.

Su actitud se asemeja a la del juez Varela en el caso Garzón, es decir, la adopción de posiciones insostenibles en un mundo definido por la universalidad  del marco de leyes internacionales, y el libre flujo de información. 

Flaco favor le han hecho sus ignorantes declaraciones a las víctimas de violaciones a los derechos humanos: infórmese, y si su conciencia se lo permite, retráctese. 

Sin más, Alek Boyd