Gregory Wilpert's full disclosure

So finally, after having hidden it for years, until information published in this blog was picked up by the New York Times, Gregory Wilpert of Venezuelanalysis is signing his opinion pieces with the following disclosure:

Full disclosure: Gregory Wilpert has been married to Carol Delgado since 1998, who since 2008 is the Consul General of Venezuela in New York.

Well, I must congratulate Greg. Though I do not remember having ever read, until today, such candid admission on his part about marital connections to the Chavez regime -which came public only after I revealed them following a tip from a friend in New York, it is a welcome departure from previous dishonest stance, of his being this scholar that was simply "studying" the chavista revolution, and happened to write articles about it.

We now know that Wilpert married his chavista wife in 1998, the year Chavez won his first presidential election. So why did it took Wilpert 14 years to disclose his connections? Will it take him another 14 years to admit he's nothing but a propagandist on Chavez's payroll? Will it take him another 14 years to admit that his opinions -as husband of a chavista diplomat and benefitting from Chavez's largesse- are totally biased and anything but objective?

Debunking myth of Venezuela's primary

As usual, there are many myths floating around when it comes to Venezuela. It's the land of realismo mágico. Just the other day, I was reading a story in El Universal, where Chavez was basically saying that thanks to him, presumably, Venezuela's GDP has increased three fold. At this point, it is futile to call Chavez on his BS: the poor man is so deranged that he does believe his own lies. Worryingly, apart from notable exceptions coming from the usual suspects, no one in Venezuela's MSM, or abroad, seems to have picked up on the news and ridiculed the caudillo on such spurious economic 'accomplishment'.

But now we have the issue of the primaries, just around the corner. On 12 February, Venezuelans will vote in primaries geared at electing the opposition unity candidate that shall face Chavez in October 2012 presidential race. There are six candidates gunning for position in these primaries: an acting Congresswoman (Maria Corina Machado), a former diplomat (Diego Arria), a former Congressman (Pablo Medina), two current governors (Miranda's Henrique Capriles Radonsky and Zulia's Pablo Perez), and a former mayor (Leopoldo Lopez).

Chavez's Ministry of Elections, otherwise know as Venezuela's Electoral Council (CNE), will run the election of the opposition candidate. Nationwide. Venezuelans abroad, opposition leaning in the vast majority, will, presumably, vote in Venezuelan embassies and consulates. As in previous electoral occasions, none of these votes will reach its intended destination, and that's not a myth.

The myth that needs debunking today, is Francisco Toro's article in Foreign Policy, "A real race in Caracas". Toro, a political scientist and long time blogger who really should know better, informs his readers that what's happening in Caracas is pretty much the same than what's taking place in the US, among GOP candidates. It is rather difficult to imagine in what kind of framework can the two primaries be compared.

In the US, GOP candidates raise their own money; travel around the country facing each other out in elections that take place in different dates; in elections organised and run by state and local governments; are free, and engage frequently, in searing attacks to undermine one another; are free to decide their own policy and communication strategy vis-a-vis the primaries; in sum, it's a very competitive race, marked by individualism, where communication strategy and policy are decided by the candidates and appointed strategists and spending power depends on fundraising abilities, where credibility among the party faithful, more than connections, can win the day.

Compare that to Venezuela, a "real race" according to Toro, where rules of engagement for all willing to participate in primaries were "agreed upon" by an unelected bunch of old school politicos -the same ones who when Toro disagrees with calls "politically toxic", but when in agreement he describes as "oracles": "…other pundits I read, but Teodoro Petkoff I follow..." No wonder then that Venezuela's opposition primary has been "remarkably free of personal attacks" as Toro argues.

Petkoff is presumably working with the same cabal of unelected politicos in charge of electing the last opposition candidate to confront Chavez in 2006, Manuel Rosales. I shadowed Rosales in that campaign. I witnessed the power that Teodoro exerts over Caracas' political 'intelligentsia'. But it must be remembered: Rosales was defeated, yet Teodoro, and his ilk, are back at it, "directing" opposition policy, and imposing their will over all candidates. Those in disagreement, are, in the words of Toro, "politically toxic". Those that would like to see Chavez tried for his crimes, are "hard right, extremists, radicals". That line, Teodoro's line, is toed by Toro, and other members of the lefty "neo-intelligentsia". And it's worth bearing in mind: Petkoff and his fellow 'strategists' from the old guard are yet to beat Chavez in an election.

Petkoff, needs to be said, edits a paper called Tal Cual, partly owned by Miguel Angel Capriles Lopez, cousin of Henrique Capriles Radonsky. Capriles Lopez owns, in addition, Venezuela's largest newspaper, the one Chavez supporters read avidly: Ultimas Noticias.

In that framework, Foreign Policy's Transition's blog publishes Toro's botched job at painting Venezuela's coming presidential election as a "real race". Reality, in that context, is running a primary under the ominous and almost absolute control of Chavez. For on 13 February, Chavez will know with great precision, thanks to his Ministry of Elections, what's the number, and name, and location, of hardcore opposition voters: those that vote in primaries. He then has seven months, and unlimited amounts of money, to prepare for what will be, almost certainly, his third presidential election victory, if cancer doesn't get the best of him first.

Toro is writing for a progressive and liberal audience. Leftists. By drawing comparisons, where no parallels can possibly be used, Toro is doing a disservice to Venezuela's future, and consolidating the myth that Venezuela is a democracy. For make no mistake: that country is nowhere near to having a free and fair election, or a "real race", which is one of the many premises that define functional democracies. A race where one candidate uses the State's power, without a minimum of even cursory checks, can not be called "real". Not even in the rarefied and utterly surreal atmosphere of effete progressives.

Toro fancies Capriles Randonsky as primary winner. He has every right to publish  hagiography for the candidate of his choice. But a "real race"? That's a sick joke. Attacks on other candidates, the ones he describes as "hard right", such as Maria Corina Machado, are completely gratuitous, misplaced and false. The reality is all six candidates, unlike GOP candidates up north, are faced with the same likely prospect: 6 more years of Chavez. In that context, some, like Capriles Radonsky, have adopted populist discourses aimed at winning over chavistas -an impossible goal if you ask me- and are promising to keep everything pretty much as is, while knowing that such irresponsible way of governing has brought the country to the brink of bankruptcy. The ones that are defining their campaigns along the lines of clear breaks with the much hated past, after 13 years the past is chavismo, are derided as radicals. The others, read Capriles, Perez and Lopez, are described as centrists by Toro. What unsubstantiated nonsense. Capriles and Perez are, clearly and historically, leftists, and populists at that, openly admitting willingness to carry on with the welfare state, while Lopez just can't be described as anything other than right wing.

There's no meaningful competition in Venezuela, when the candidates are gagged by rules in whose imposition some of them weren't even allowed to participate. What we see with the MUD (opposition coalition), is a mirror of chavismo: the only difference is that in chavismo only one voice barks orders, whereas on the opposition side an unelected group of obscure back room dealers get to impose "what's best" for all.

Teodoro Petkoff propone y Capriles Radonsky dispone

Debo reconocer que Teodoro Petkoff nunca ha sido santo de mi devoción. Debe ser por la predisposición natural que tengo para con gente que alcanza la madurez intelectual después de los 45 años. En cualquier caso, Teodoro es un ídolo en algunos círculos de la sociedad venezolana. Y ahora es dizque uno de los pensadores más influyentes de habla hispana. Presumo que si el imbécil de  Noam Chomsky puede ser considerado como el intelectual más influyente del mundo, pues Petkoff bien puede ser considerado como tal en Latinoamérica. El ex guerrillero es, para los que se las dan de eruditos y de 'progres', el equivalente de Chavez en este lado del espectro; es decir, el infalible, el que no yerra, el supremo iluminado.

No es de extrañar entonces que Teodoro, y su publicación Tal Cual en la cual el  Michu Capriles tiene intereses, anda dictando pauta a Henrique Capriles Radonski, primo del último, y por lo que parece candidato preferido del anterior. Teodoro ha publicado en su diario algunos artículos criticando, cuando no mofandose de, las acciones en La Haya de otro de los aspirantes que compiten en las primarias: Diego Arria.

Henrique Capriles Radonski, cual disciplinado alumno, se aprendió la cartilla, y en el ultimo encuentro -que no debate- de candidatos solto una perla que fue inmediatamente recogida por quienes lo ven como la gran esperanza blanca. Dijo, palabras más o menos, que la labor de un presidente no es la de meter preso a nadie. Quisiera que Capriles Radonsky, o quienes le soplan al oído, nos dijesen cuando y donde fue que Arria dijo que metería preso a Chavez.

No obstante, no temo equivocarme al afirmar que la labor de un aspirante a presidente tampoco es la de ser un irresponsable.

La labor de un presidente, desde luego que no es la de meter preso a nadie. Eso corresponde a tribunales competentes e independientes. Ya que estos no existen en Venezuela, los venezolanos se ven en la desgraciada necesidad de ir a buscar justicia en otros lados, como por ejemplo ha hecho Leopoldo Lopez.

La labor de un presidente debe ser, ante todas las cosas, cumplir y hacer cumplir la constitución y la ley. Tal lo dicta la actual constitución (art. 236, sección 1a), en lo que respecta a las atribuciones del presidente.

La labor de un presidente no puede ser la de hacer un esfuerzo frio y calculado de ignorar a las miles de víctimas de violaciones a los derechos humanos, civiles y políticos en Venezuela.

La labor de un presidente no puede ser la de pretender que los problemas del país van a desaparecer, como por arte de magia, luego de una elección presidencial. Eso lo pueden pensar solamente los adolescentes, es decir, los imberbes que quieren ser mas populistas que Chavez.

La labor de un presidente que ha de encontrarse con un innumerable cúmulo de problemas incluso antes de llegar a la presidencia, si es que éste está bien asesorado por la 'intelectualidad', no puede ser adoptar una política absurda e impracticable de borrón y cuenta nueva. Por el contrario, en muchas de las resoluciones de conflictos internacionales que se conocen, y en algunas en las que ha participado Arria a diferencia de quienes opinan sobre sus acciones en la Haya, puede observarse que una de las primeras condiciones para el restablecimiento de una paz duradera es que los culpables directos de crímenes oprobiosos paguen por lo que han hecho. Como bien dice Arria, no es venganza, es justicia. Ya los tribunales determinaran culpabilidad.

Miles de familias venezolanas han sufrido atropellos en los ultimos 12 años. Es irresponsable decirle a estos miles de familias que se olviden de buscar justicia, como pretende hacer Capriles, y como desean los dizque intelectuales que han abogado dicha posición. Es irresponsable decirle a estas familias que la justicia es algo que puede negociarse, según deseos electorales y ambiciones políticas. Si Capriles Radonski, y quienes le asesoran, desean perdonar, a titulo personal, las acciones que el régimen chavista pudo haber cometido en su contra, ello es entera y exclusivamente una decisión individual y muy personal. Cada quien enfrenta las desgracias de forma distinta, y es irracional esperar que todas las víctimas del chavismo, o sus familiares, se resignen a que en la nueva Venezuela, esa que desea dirigir Capriles, habremos de convivir con asesinos, terroristas, ladrones, y corruptos. Como si no hubiese pasado nada.

Sin justicia no hay paz, y sin paz no hay reconciliación posible. Eso lo deberian saber los intelectuales de pacotilla, como Petkoff y sus admiradores. Irónicamente, Petkoff también es lo que puede calificarse como un "dinosaurio de la cuarta república", esa que tanto detestan los 'progres'. Desde luego que yo no voy a darle mi voto a Capriles Radonsky si éste gana las primarias. Prefiero votar por Chavez, a ver si en los próximos seis años les llega la madurez a algunos de los pusilánimes adolescentes que están compitiendo en las primarias.

Maldonado to stay in Williams F1, PDVSA threatening Congressman Carlos Ramos?

"Money talks and bullshit walks" goes the saying. Sir Frank Williams is quoted by BBC as having said "Pastor has proven he is not only quick but can also maintain a consistent and strong race pace..." Fair enough, some may say. However, it would have been interesting indeed to hear Williams' opinion regarding Maldonado had he not come to his team with a multimillion pound sponsorship deal from PDVSA. More interesting still would be to see whether Williams keeps Maldonado, in the event that sponsorship money from PDVSA suddenly dries. That's what we were expecting, following investigation into the deal, and questioning from Venezuelan Congressman Carlos Ramos. Alas is not going to happen. Por ahora...

In recent communication Congressman Ramos told me that he wasn't going to reply to Claire Williams' email, in which she claimed that all Williams deals with its partners were subject to confidentiality clauses that prevented from commenting in public about them, and therefore no copy of contract will be sent to Congressman Ramos, and no information about payments disbursed to date by PDVSA will be shared. Ms Williams' preposterous argument could have been easily tackled by Congressman Ramos. In fact, while jointly preparing the reply to Williams that will never be sent, Congressman Ramos mentioned articles 154, 222, 223 and 314 of Venezuela's Constitution, which invalidates any claim to confidentiality argued by Williams. Simply put, any contract entered into by PDVSA is subject to approval, first by its board, and then by Congress. The reason being, PDVSA is fully owned by the Venezuelan State, and its budget needs to be approved by its board and by its sole shareholder. PDVSA can not agree to confidentiality clauses. Period.

But someone must have called Congressman Ramos. Or worse, perhaps someone threatened him, or his family. Just after Sunday's Brazilian Grand Prix in Sao Paulo, I communicated with Congressman Ramos to ask when would he sign and send me reply letter for Williams. And this is what he said:

I can't be seen as an anti-sport Congressman... The fight is against corruption, I can't make it personal against Pastor... Chavistas are manipulating this... I am frontal against corruption but we need public support for this... In Venezuela we risk everything...

Enclosed the letter that Congressman Ramos would have sent to Williams F1, but didn't because of pressure, threats, political reasons, or all of the above.

---

Dear Ms Williams,

I thank you for your prompt reply to my communication, with respect to the contract between PDVSA and the Williams F1 Team.

Your reply, however, suggests that William F1 has not done sufficient due diligence on Venezuela’s legislation regarding public expenditure.

As you know, PDVSA is an oil conglomerate, fully owned by the Venezuelan State. Given that PDVSA is the largest contributor of fiscal revenues to the Venezuelan State, its budget needs to be approved by its board and its sole shareholder - the State, on a yearly basis. The amount, and general expenditure, of PDVSA's budget is, as a matter of law, public matter. Ergo, Venezuela's Congress receives, once a year, a detailed account of PDVSA's expenditure, for one very important reason: monies earned by PDVSA in the course of its natural business operations belong to and support the State.

Sponsoring a F1 racing team is most definitely not a priority expenditure for an entity that can derive NO commercial benefit from such capricious outlay. Bear  in mind that PDVSA is not a commercial brand, and that it sells nothing to consumers with its brand - now painted in various places on your race cars.  The financial situation of the Williams Formula 1 team is probably a matter of great concern to its owners, employees, and commercial sponsors. However, there is no acceptable  explanation as per why 28 million Venezuelans have to foot the bill, to simply help Williams survive. I understand why you would take money from anyone, though it is impossible for me to explain, to my constituents and countrymen, why on earth we are wasting money on your team. That all of this is done by a government that calls itself socialist, a government which has destroyed much of the private sector in my country, and has demonised the practices of capitalism, is even more ironic and perplexing.

Article 154 of Venezuela's Constitution: “Treaties agreed to by the Republic must be approved by the National Assembly prior to their ratification by the President of the Republic, with the exception of those which seek to perform or perfect pre-existing obligations of the Republic, apply principles expressly recognised by the Republic, perform ordinary acts in international relations or exercise powers expressly vested by law in the National Executive.”

Article 222 of Venezuela's Constitution: “The National Assembly shall be empowered to exercise its control function by means of the following mechanisms: parliamentary questions, investigations, questions, authorisations and parliament's approvals as provided for in this Constitution and by law, and any other mechanism that may be established by laws and their associated Regulations. In exercising parliamentary control, the National Assembly shall have the power to make a finding of political liability on the part of public officials and call on Citizen Power to initiate the appropriate action to enforce such liability.”

Article 223 of Venezuela's Constitution: “The Assembly or its Committees shall have the power to conduct such investigations as they may deem appropriate in matters within their competence, in accordance with the Regulations. All public officials are obligated, subject to the penalties established by law, to appear before such Committees and provide the same with any information and documents they may require in order to carry out their functions. Private citizens are also subject to this obligation, without prejudice to the rights and guarantees embodied in this Constitution.”

Article 314 of Venezuela's Constitution: "No expense of any kind shall be disbursed unless the same has been provided for in the budget law. Additional budget credit items may be ordered to cover essential unforeseen expenses or items that had not been adequately funded, only if the treasury has resources to cover the expenditure concerned; this shall be done only following a vote in favor by the Cabinet of Ministers and authorisation by the National Assembly, or in its absence, by the Delegated Committee."

The Venezuelan Congress was not informed, according to law, of the sponsorship contract between Williams F1 Team and PDVSA. Neither in 2010, nor in 2011, was the Venezuelan Congress informed by PDVSA of such expenditure within its budget. This is clearly our problem, as it further underlines the institutional collapse of our society. The loss of independence of the Legislative Branch, and the repeated violation of the law on the part of the Executive Branch, are the hallmarks of the so called “Bolivarian Revolution” you have so joyfully tied your team’s future to.

Therefore, I can not, and will not, accept your argument of confidentiality. What we would expect from any and all counter-parties to a public contract in Venezuela, is that they would seek, and demand, that all legal steps be cleared, and maximum transparency be ensured. Your failure to demand this from PDVSA, coupled with  your unwillingness to facilitate the work of the National Assembly, makes Williams F1 Team complicit of unauthorised spending, and so from this moment on that is exactly they way I intend to treat Williams F1 Team, unless, of course, you change your absurd position and start collaborating.

Until proven otherwise, we will continue to have the suspicion that irregular payments are an integral part of this ruinous contract, as they have become the norm in almost all public contracts signed by the Chavez administration. Rest assured that the contract between Williams F1 Team and PDVSA will not remain confidential, we will not stop investigating this matter, and we will seek any and all means to terminate this contract. Equally, we will ensure that Venezuelan public monies no longer get wasted in such fickle and unproductive sponsorship.

To conclude, I would like to respectfully request that you reconsider your position and manner of replies, while I reiterate my request for: 1) a copy of the original contract; 2) monies disbursed to date by PDVSA; 3) evidence of payments to date by PDVSA; and I add 4) the names of all PDVSA or Venezuelan government officials that have obtained from, or through, Williams F1 Team, VIP treatment and box passes for races in the 2011 F1 season.

Sincerely yours,

Congressman Carlos Ramos
Caracas 18 November 2011

Corruption & Hugo Chavez: the cancer of Venezuela

*UPDATE at bottom. Lately, information coming out of Venezuela confirms that officials from the Hugo Chavez regime are totally unaccountable, above the law for all practical purposes. It sort of started when Congressman Carlos Ramos revealed there was a $29 billion fiscal hole in FONDEN, which is basically an out-of-budget fund that Hugo Chavez uses with absolute discretion to fund his pet projects and global revolution. In what has become known as the FONDEN papers, fellow blogger Miguel Octavio has delved more and more into the details of the dodgy fund.

In the meantime we have been treated to information about much smaller, but equally scandalous, expenditure. For example, a contract to provide to the Chavez regime electronic IDs, worth some $40 million, between Gemalto, a French public company with ADRs traded over in the USA, and a totally unknown Cuban briefcase-company called ALBET, which is meant to be some sort of subsidiary of Cuba's "university of technology" UCI. In this respect, Congressman Ramos also picked up the story, and decided to investigate a little.

Then, there's the sponsorship contract between PDVSA and Williams F1 team. In this instance, the amounts are believed to be between £110.5 million and £154.7 million (over 5 years). Again we find Congressman Ramos -it seems he is about the only elected official in Venezuela concerned about corruption- questioning the legality of this contract.

More recently though, copy of contract between China and Venezuela -to increase amount of a fund aptly called Chinese fund- has also been leaked. As Miguel reports, if what's stated in the documents is to be taken at face value, Venezuela, or rather Hugo Chavez acting unilaterally and without Congress' approval, wants to borrow $116 billion from China. In Miguel's own words:

The Republic borrows US$ 20.8 billion from the Chinese. PDVSA “pays” for this loan to the tune of US$ 15.7 billion per year, clearly an inordinate amount of money for the loan received. The Chinese collect interest and capital and any “excess”, of which there is a lot, returns to the Government, not to PDVSA, via parallel funds, which bypass the controls and approvals of Venezuelan Laws.

It's hundreds of millions here, thousands of billions there, maddening figures. Had these amounts of public money been put to legally intended use, Venezuelans, all 26 million of them, would most definitely be laughing any mention of crisis or capitalism failure. For it must be borne in mind: all these borrowing and spending without oversight, circumventing laws and Congress through dodgy funds and paying mechanisms, comes on the back of the highest ever windfall of oil income in the history of Venezuela.

Since Hugo Chavez took power in 1999, Venezuela's debt has mushroomed:

• Internal debt has gone from 3.8 billion Bs to 83 billion Bs ($31.9 billion, 2010 figures).

• External debt has gone from $37.7 billion to $54.5 billion (2009 figures).

The above excluding commitments entered into with the Chinese fund as referred above, and in addition to the nearly $2,000 billion estimated GDP since 1999. Some estimates put the combined budget of the Chavez period at about $1,000 billion.

Venezuela has become so corrupted, since Hugo Chavez's ascent to power, that it seems normal now that Nigerian-style scams, whereby officials documents and signatures are forged, are popping in the most unexpected places.

The worrying thing though, is that corruption does not end in Venezuela. Chinese, Russian, Belorussian, Iranian, Cuban, Nicaraguan, Bolivian, Ecuadorian, Colombian, Brazilian, Argentinean, and American authorities are happy to look the over way, so long as deals with the Venezuelan caudillo worths millions or billions can be had. But European countries, such as Spain, Italy, France, Germany and the UK are just as keen, perhaps even keener considering Europe's pathetic economic outlook, to look the other way, violate own anti corruption legislation, and enter into contracts that can't stand a minimum of scrutiny. This behaviour is generalised and widespread in both public and private sectors.

Venezuela is seen, as Libya used to be seen. Chavez is perceived, as Gadaffi used to be. Mad dog and all, there's tremendous potential to make a few billions quickly. And Chavez, in his diminishing existence, is eager to mortgage the future of Venezuela. The sad thing for us is that those who are meant to have higher moral principles, are just as corrupt and corruptible as chavistas.

*UPDATE: Miguel writes in with new debt figures: Venezuela's total debt has gone from $39.5 billion in 2000, to $104.5 billion in 2011.