Who said the press was free

This needs no additional commentary, from Jeremy Bigwood writing for NACLA:

Buying Venezuela’s Press With U.S. Tax Dollars

The U.S. State Department is secretly funneling millions of dollars to Latin American journalists, according to documents obtained in June under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The 20 documents released to this author—including grant proposals, awards, and quarterly reports—show that between 2007 and 2009, the State Department’s little-known Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor channeled at least $4 million to journalists in Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Venezuela through the Pan American Development Foundation (PADF), a Washington-based grant maker that has worked in Latin America since 1962. Thus far, only documents pertaining to Venezuela have been released. They reveal that the PADF, collaborating with Venezuelan NGOs associated with the country’s political opposition, has been supplied with at least $700,000 to give out journalism grants and sponsor journalism education programs.

Until now, the State Department has hidden its role in funding the Venezuelan news media, one of the opposition’s most powerful weapons against President Hugo Chávez and his Bolivarian movement. The PADF, serving as an intermediary, effectively removed the government’s fingerprints from the money. Yet, as noted in a State Department document titled “Bureau/Program Specific Requirements,” the State Department’s own policies require that “all publications” funded by the department “acknowledge the support.” But the provision was simply waived for the PADF. “For the purposes of this award,” the requirements document adds, “ . . . the recipient is not required to publicly acknowledge the support of the U.S. Department of State.”

Before 2007, the largest funder of U.S. “democracy promotion” activities in Venezuela was not the State Department but the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), together with the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). But in 2005, these organizations’ underhanded funding was exposed by Venezuelan American attorney Eva Golinger in a series of articles, books, and lectures (disclosure: This author obtained many of the documents). After the USAID and NED covers were blown wide open—forcing USAID’s main intermediary, Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI), a Maryland–based contractor, to close its office in Caracas—the U.S. government apparently sought new funding channels, one of which the PADF appears to have provided.

Although the $700,000 allocated to the PADF, which is noted in the State Department’s requirements document, may not seem like a lot of money, the funds have been strategically used to buy off the best of Venezuela’s news media and recruit young journalists. This has been achieved by collaborating with opposition NGOs, many of which have a strong media focus. The requirements document is the only document that names any of these organizations—which was probably an oversight on the State Department’s part, since the recipients’ names and a lot of other information are excised in the rest of the documents. The requirements document names Espacio Público and Instituto Prensa y Sociedad, two leading organizations linked to the Venezuelan opposition, as recipients of “subgrants.”

I urge you to go read the whole thing. Seriously, do it. Also make sure to check out the documents for yourself.

Colombia, Venezuela and Exports: Biggest Loser Edition

A Bloomberg article today touches on how the diplomatic dispute with Venezuela is affecting Colombia’s economy, as it has resulted in plummeting trade with their second most important trading partner. Maladjusted wrote awhile back about how a Mockus presidency could be good for business if it means a reopening of trade between Venezuela and Colombia. Well, it doesn’t look like Mockus has a snowball’s chance in hell to actually win this thing, but as updated numbers are out from Colombia’s DANE, it’s worth taking a look to see how continued diplomatic problems (almost assured with Santos) will continue to weigh on the economy. Already, as Bloomberg points out, Colombia has the second lowest growth forecast in the region, and the collapse in trade is at least part of the problem. So, lets run some numbers through Maladjusted Charts and see what we can find out, has Colombia found new markets for these goods? What sectors are the worst hit?

First off, lets get the basics down, just how much has trade with Venezuela collapsed, and who has picked up the slack?



Before the drop off from Venezuela, the US was still Colombia’s largest trading partner, but was followed by Venezuela (all alone in second place), Ecuador and of all places, Switzerland. But through the first 5 months of this year, the US has remained its dominant position, while China has catapulted from obscurity to accounting for nearly 8% of total exports, about double that of Venezuela or Ecuador, as the chart below shows.



So from the above, it does seem that Colombia has fared pretty well finding alternative markets for their exports to Venezuela, indeed total exports increased over the same period last year. Unfortunately for some, looking at the breakdown of goods reveals a slightly different picture. Some 23% of exports with Venezuela during the period of Jan.-April 2009 were animals and animal products, a sector that accounted for around 5% of Colombia’s total exports. This year, however, Venezuela has stopped buying these products, and the sector has taken an extreme hit, making up less than 1% of total exports so far this year. The chart below shows how while exports to the US have skyrocketed, none of it has come from animals and animal products.



So what has accounted for the rapid rise in exports to the US? Well, simply, oil. Colombia has increased their oil production this year, and coupled with a rise in prices from last year, exports of combustibles accounts for nearly the entire rise in total exports, with most of the surplus going to the US.



Another sector that seems to have taken a hit from the Venezuela dispute is textiles. Overall, despite being a smaller component of total exports, textiles accounted for the second largest drop from last year to this year after animals and animal products. Exports to Venezuela of textiles dropped by $125 million, while overall exports of textiles fell by $105 million. As the chart below clearly shows Colombia has been unable to replace the Venezuela market for textiles.



In the end, what this means is summed up nicely in a quote from the Bloomberg article referenced earlier, “Colombia is selling more oil to the U.S.,” said Sandy [an economist with Credit Suisse Group AG]. “For the industrial sector and food producers, more sales to the U.S. don’t do anything.”

So while total exports have increased over 2009, it’s really not saying much as 2009 was clearly not the best year. And although trade has increased greatly with China and with the US, there have been sectoral shifts more so than straight replacement. I would say that the increased trade with China is definitely a good thing for Colombia, since before the recent increase Colombia exported less to China as a percent of total exports than just about every other country in South America. On the other hand, increasing dependence on the US may not be the most desirable outcome here. I’m sure the US will be happy to buy up Colombian oil…especially over Venezuelan oil, but look at Mexico…do you really want to be that tied to the US economy? Not to say that being tied to Venezuela’s economy right now sounds very good either, but looking at the next few years up north is not very promising. The UCLA Anderson Forecast was just released and projects growth for the next three years below the 3% long-term nominal growth rate. And yes, unemployment is expected to still be over 8.5% by 2013. Not exactly a booming export market.

But more importantly, and certainly more importantly for those most affected in Colombia by the trade fall off, are the sectoral shifts that will occur over the medium term if exports to Venezuela don’t return, or if new markets for those products can’t be found. While the overall export picture doesn’t seem dire, the industries that have been most affected, animal farmers and textile producers have been severely hit. Farmers, while they account for a smaller percent of GDP, make up nearly 20% of the workforce and have been the worst hit by the dispute with Venezuela.

Well, I’m sure this is WAY more than you ever wanted to know about trade between Venezuela and Colombia, I think it may be more than I wanted to know, but there ya have it. Next time maybe we can see if Venezuela has found new markets to import all that food that they no longer get from Colombia….then again, it’s probably just rotting in a container somewhere anyhow…

Venezuela, Millenium Development Goals, and Graphs...lots of Graphs

Below, a series of fascinating graphs ripped from a report from Venezuela's INE (the nat'l stats institute) looking at Venezuela's progress towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

As can be seen in almost all these charts there are large spikes during the 2002-2003 period, which no doubt had its fair share of hardships, including the coup in April 2002 and the opposition oil strike in 2003. Just something to keep in mind.

Poverty and extreme poverty:


Gini coefficient:

Unemployment:

Primary education:


Literacy rate:

This and oh so much more, all available here. Check it out to find out way more than would be possible to put here.

More on Military Spending in South America

First off, props to Otto. I had a whole post ready to roll with pretty charts and data on military spending in South America when my RSSy turned blue and up pops "Military Spending in Latin America, 2009". So due props, but while the whole SIPRI study isn't available, the military expenditure database has been updated with numbers through 2009. So I'll add my two cents with a bit of a historical run-down. First, a look at total regional military expenditure 2000-2009 (in million US$, all $ figures are in constant 2008 dollars):



So there is clearly an increase in spending on military shit over the last ten years, but where is it coming from? Well, this provides some indication, as we break each year down by a country's share of the total:



It is a bit tricky to see since Brazil is such a large proportion, but that yellow one that gets much larger and the light blue above it...those are the only two countries who have seen their share of total regional military spending increase over the last 10 years. The countries, Colombia and Ecuador. The darker blue, all the way at the bottom (Venezuela), increases a bunch in 2006-2007, but is now at a lower level than in 2000.

Onwards; lets take a look at the major players but with some context, how about, spending per person (population numbers are from the IMF):



Again, as Otto points out, Hillary's scare stories about Venezuela just don't pan out in the data. Chile blows everyone else out of the water, spending over $300 per person. Next comes Colombia, followed by Brazil. In fact, both Ecuador and Uruguay spend more per person than Venezuela, but I wanted to include Venezuela in the above chart to make the point. Also interesting is that over the last four years, Chile's per person spending, while still significantly higher than anyone else, has been decreasing steadily. Not easy to take money from the Chilean military, who still have quite some clout, but well done by Ms. Bachelet, we'll see if Pinera can keep it up. On the other hand, Colombia continues to just spend more and more no matter how you look at it...how's that for "democratic security"? Poverty doesn't drop, military spending just keeps on rising...

Finally, as if to just hammer home the point, check out The Count breakdown how little money it would take to bring all the children in the region above the poverty line...hmm, wonder where they could come up with that....

Will the Real Dr. Doom Please Stand Up?

...Up stands the plump, marshmallowy, Jackson Peep..more formally known as Jackson Diehl, member of the Washington Post editorial board. For a bit of background, we turn to one of Borev's final posts:

Followers of the Jackson Diehl oeuvre will remember that Chavez was totally on the cusp of being shitcanned two years ago over his economic policies. The polls said so! In November 2007 it was the HUMILIATION following dumb comments from the King of Spain that signaled his impending end. In March of that year the RCTV flap was going to do him in any day now. The polls, the polls! Those glorious/portentous/uncited polls!

Well, today we are treated with the latest installment, a Diehl blog post titled, "Hugo Chavez's implosion continues in Venezuela". It seems like we're back to the argument from two years ago...economic policies. And of course, we get more of "those glorious/portentous/uncited polls!":

The caudillo’s popularity rating around Latin American is now below 40 percent, and his backing in Venezuela has dropped below 50 percent.

Wow, below 50 percent...putting him in illustrious company with...Barack Obama, who we all know is facing his imminent demise!

Maybe next time we hear from Jackson Peep, when he writes the following he'll be referring to maladjusted:

When I pointed out back in January that Chavez’s revolution was collapsing, a chorus of left-wing bloggers rose up in protest.

(image via who else, Borev)

At Long Last....

...Chavez has his blog. This should make for some fun. I guess the tweeter just wasn't enough....no character constraints here:



And so every blogger's dream has come true...

Juan Forero, Chief Propagator

Juan Forero, the Washington Post's resident LatAm ignoramus, goes all in today with his article about Chavez and ties to terrorism. There is really nothing new here; magic laptops, former FARC rebels speaking anonymously, and of course "Colombian government documents". No surprise that the article got Ray Walser's panties in a bunch.

A couple points though; first and foremost, why the fuck would anybody trust anything from the Colombian government? On the same day as Forero's article, Latin America News Dispatch has a terrific rundown on Colombia during the Uribe years and specifically the intelligence agency, DAS. One of the many issues raised being that "documents surfaced indicating that the DAS coordinated “political warfare” against government critics, by disseminating false rumors accusing them of connections with leftist guerrillas." And it gets even better, the article quotes from some files that were released recently, outlining how DAS planned on linking a certain group they didn't like to rebels:

The mission’s objective was to “establish ties” between the collective and the Ejército de Liberación Nacional (ELN), a guerrilla group. “STRATEGIES: Sabotage. ACTION: Exchange message with ELN leader, which will be found during a search of the premises.”

So it is public knowledge that the DAS actually tries to plant evidence, and then find it during raids on the camps. Sound familiar? It should, since it's the basis for almost all the allegations against Venezuela and Chavez.

So there are also former FARC rebels who spoke anonymously to Forero. But if this is such conclusive evidence of anything then why hasn't Forero written about the former DAS member Rafael Garcia who outlined how DAS coordinated with the Venezuelan opposition and Colombian paramilitary forces to assassinate Chavez. Or the former Army major who said there were some 2000 Colombian paramilitaries in Venezuela trying to topple the government.

Now, I'm not saying all these allegations are true, but that's exactly the point. Former members of DAS, just like former members of the FARC have plenty of reasons to say plenty of different things. But you'd never see the MSM air these types of allegations against Colombia, only if they fit the narrative of evil, terrorist supporting Venezuela. But maladjusted is hardly the first to notice this, just the most recent to point it out. For a much deeper look at the hypocritical coverage of Colombia vs. Venezuela, check out this FAIR study, or Kevin Young's take for Media Accuracy on Latin America. Young looks at how MSM coverage fits the Edward Herman/Noam Chomsky propaganda model, put simply:

The model predicts that the news media will look favorably upon the Colombian government of Álvaro Uribe, a close U.S. ally, while consistently vilifying the Venezuelan government of Hugo Chávez, whom the U.S. government frequently identifies as an antagonist. If the model holds, U.S. media outlets will be found to portray the Uribe government as relatively democratic, progressive, and peaceful, while casting the Chávez government as authoritarian, regressive, and militaristic.

Well, the model holds, and Forero is the chief propagator.

The Count: friday FDI wonkiness

40 to 50...

...is the percentage that foreign direct investment (FDI) to Latin America is expected to grow in 2010. After contracting sharply between 2008 and 2009 during the world financial crisis, FDI is expected to make a big comeback this year due largely to stronger than anticipated recovery across the region. Or at least according to Eclac's new annual report on FDI.

The climate of uncertainty, tight credit conditions, falling commodity prices and recessions across the world that followed Lehman's collapse caused FDI flows to Latin America to shrink a whopping 42% from 2008 to 2009. The biggest contractions, predictably, took place in countries that in the past have attracted the most FDI. For instance, flows to Brazil shrank $19 billion, a 42.4% decline. In Argentina, FDI flows contracted by $4.8 billion or by 49.6%.

But while in almost every country FDI, though slowing significantly, was still coming in, in Venezuela FDI just wanted to get the fuck out. In 2008 FDI inflows to Venezuela were just barely positive. And during 2009, Venezuela experienced net FDI outflows of $3.1 billion, a 990% decline! This was due mostly to the various nationalizations that took place in 2009.

But before we predict doom and gloom for the Venezuelan economy, we should remember that it's not exactly Greece, has plenty of oil cash lying around, and just signed a $20 billion deal with China to develop it's heavy crude refining capacity.

Whatever. In any case, the regional decline is indeed quite impressive. But why don't we put it in perspective? The graph below shows FDI flows to Latin America and the Caribbean between 1990 to 2009 in billions of dollars.

As can be seen, the lead up to the 2009 crisis was nothing short of an FDI bonanza. In fact, 2007 and 2008 were historical records for FDI. And even after its huge decline, FDI inflows in 2009 were still the 5th largest ever recorded. In other words, FDI flows to Latin America have wethered the crisis quite well, all things considered.

On a compositional note, the sharpest decline between 2008 to 2009 was in FDI flows to natural resource extraction. As can be seen below, this surged in 2008 coinciding with the large worldwide rise in commodity prices. The share of the service sector, the largest recipient of FDI, remained more or less at its 2008 level.But while FDI flows to the manufacturing sector retook the second place, its technological content remained weak. Moreover, Eclac notes that the technological content of FDI to Latin America has been low accross the board. This takes us to our final graph:
The graph above divides all announced FDI in Latin America into "low", "medium-low", "medium-high", and "high" technology content. As can be seen, low and medium-low dominate new FDI inflows.

This is a big problem because one of the biggest supposed benefits of FDI in textbook economic theory is that it transfers technology to developing countries, leading to positive "spillovers" into other industries and thus increasing overall productivity. Of course, no one seriously believes that FDI in and of itself leads to technology transfers and productivity growth. Smart developing countries, like China for instance, have always used industrial policy to harness FDI to suit their development strategies. It's a real shame that so many countries in Latin America have abandoned this type of thinking.

Mockus good for business?

So maladjusted hasn't done any scientific study on this, but the guess is that most casual observers would think the Colombian business community will support Santos in the upcoming election. It's not like Mockus' rise in the polls is rattling the markets or anything like that, but business generally likes continuity (and right wingers), not newcomers who dress up in super hero costumes and dispatch mimes to ridicule traffic violators. That said, one thing businesses like even more are profits. Currently, exports to Venezuela have collapsed (due to some testy relations, we'll say) and while the US has graciously stepped in (see the graphs below), the fact remains that Venezuela is right next door and even though they are pushing an FTA with the US, does Colombia really want to be EVEN MORE dependent on the US (just look at Mexico).

According to Reuters, "Colombia says the trade conflict could trim around one percent off its economic growth this year." That ain't no joke, especially not when your coming off this past year. The article also mentions that Colombia has relatively few exports to China compared to the rest of the region. So maybe to the extent that China takes the place of Venezuela that could be a good thing, but it seems the US is picking up most of the slack.


So this is where Mockus' statements about Venezuela come into play. During the presidential debate the other night Mockus stressed the need to separate relations with Venezuela from those with the US. This would be a serious break from the Uribe years in Colombia, where it seemed like their privileged relationship with the US was always put before everything else. Given that Colombia's neighbors aren't too thrilled with Santos, it seems pretty clear that Mockus would be the candidate most likely to repair relations with Venezuela and Ecuador. And who stands to benefit the most from that? Colombian exporters...



So maybe I'm over estimating the effect this is having, and how important this is for Colombian businesses (in which case let me know). Regardless, from everything I've read Mockus' economic policies would not differ much from Santos, and in any case it would be hard to argue that better regional relations would be a BAD thing for business.

(all images courtesy of Colombia's DANE)

National security fantasies--Venezuela and Iran

Last week the idiots over at the Center for Security Policy, a Washington, DC-based think tank, sponsored a briefing in the U.S. Congress on the growing threat to U.S. national security posed by Latin America and Venezuela in particular. The event featured a well-rounded panel of paranoid delusional right-wing douche bags, including the one and only Otto "ignoramus" Reich and the illustrious Republican Rep. Ileana "bat shit crazy" Ros-Lehtinen, the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

According to this panel of experts (i.e. dumbasses who told their unpaid interns to google the words "Iran" and "Venezuela"), "Chavez’s expanding ties with Iran and Hezbollah and other terrorist groups" represents a "growing threat" to U.S. national security. You see, these experts had "evidence" and they "cited" it. And by "cited" I mean they simply assured the audience of its existence.

Well, while we're on the topic of "evidence", General Douglas Fraser, the commander of the U.S. Southern Command, had this to say yesterday:

"We see a growing Iranian interest and engagement with Venezuela. ... It's a diplomatic, it's a commercial presence. I haven't seen evidence of a military presence."

Whatever. The briefing's write-up gives you a good sense of the level of paranoia in that room last thursday. One fella by the name of Norman Bailey, commenting on Iranian industrial investments in Venezuela, stated:

“The tractor factory doesn’t make tractors, and the cement factory doesn’t make cement. The tractor factory makes weapons, and the cement factory is used for the export of cocaine.”

This guy was also extremely concerned about non-stop, 24/7 flights between Tehran and Caracas, which apparently “are permanently full."(!) He also claimed that Iranian experts have installed mines in Venezuela's major ports and refineries in anticipation of a U.S. invasion.

And these were only some of the claims made during the briefing that made it into the Center for Security Policy's website. But fortunately, maladjusted just so happened to be on the scene and had the (dis)pleasure to witness the panel's other dumb claims:

• Iranian missionaries are converting entire indigenous tribes in Venezuela to Islam (oh the horror!).
• Iran's nuclear program=nukes in Venezuela.
• Islamic/Bolivarian-Communist drug traffickers could (will?) blow up the Panama canal.

Yes, yes. This would all be absolutely hilarious if it wasn't also dangerous. Believe it or not, people actually listen to these idiots! What's more, they react aggressively when confronted about their so-called evidence. Reporters from Telesur were at the event and asked the panel if there was enough evidence to justify their militaristic tone--noting that it all sounded very much like during the buildup to the invasion of Iraq, when the case for war rested on made up evidence about WMDs.

Of course, Otto Reich considered this type of questioning "harassing" and threatened to have the reporters removed from the room after verbally attacking them. The other panelists were only marginally more gracious, some managing to mumble something about the Reyes laptops proving all their claims conclusively.

In any case, the point is that these people can't be reasoned with and their paranoid national security fantasies are dangerous. These people, no matter the claims to the contrary, have not shaken off the Cold War mentality. During the event Otto Reich warned, and I quote, of Venezuela's "military buildup financed by the Soviet Union--oops--I mean Russia."

I don't care what your opinion of Chávez is. You can hate him and think he's a populist-whatever for all I care. But influencing the foreign policy of the world's most powerful nation through fear mongering and imagined threats most certainly makes the world a worse place.

RANT. OVER.

Update:

I seem to have written virtually the same post as Setty's Notebook, although far less seriously than he did. Boz seems to have also chosen to write about this in a more serious tone than yours truly. I commend both of you for having the restraint to write about this bullshit without resorting to mockery and insults as I did.

A New "Virus" Hitting the International Scene?

Yesterday the New York Times "Idea of the Day" blog should have simply taken the day off, without further ado:

Today’s idea: Venezuela, Iran and Russia together pose a serious threat to American objectives worldwide, a foreign affairs scholar writes, dubbing the combined peril the “Virus.”

Really New York Times? Really? They must have just been sooo happy that they now have a new name to call these countries, a new "axis of evil", ooooh so media-y.

Sean Goforth (the "foreign affairs scholar" who wrote the article) even acknowledges how stupid these silly names are:

Ever since “axis of evil,” broad characterizations of geopolitical threats have been considered impolitic, if not ignorant. Certainly this had a lot to do with the intractable stance taken by the US government after President Bush's 2002 State of the Union, which led to the invasion of one country that didn't have WMD while speeding the development of WMD in at least one, if not both, of the other axis members.

But never mind all that, Goforth thinks we should go ahead and label them anyway, just maybe not go to war this time. Because after all "Venezuela, Iran, and Russia constitute a VIRUS of instability that threatens the United States and Western order." And isn't that what its really about? These people don't care what these countries do, so long as it doesn't threaten "American objectives worldwide" or "western order". I mean that whole sovereign right thing overrated anyway. Because after all, America's never been wrong before....oh wait....except for the "axis of evil".

What is going on at the Washington Post?

So yesterday morning was a morning like any other at the Washington Post; the editorial board trashes Venezuela and calls the government soft on terrorism. The Post characterizes the US government as not caring about Venezuela's "abuses" and even says the US is ignoring the "links" to terrorism because they don't want to sanction Venezuela. But then something strange happened, by midday the editorial was no longer available on the website. Technical error maybe? Doubtful, by last night it was back....but much different. Instead of leading with criticism of the State Department's treatment of Venezuela, they just plain old bash Venezuela. Finally in the last paragraph the Post calls Obama soft on Venezuela, but it sure is toned down from the original; removing the "we don't care" quote and replacing it with something much harsher from State.

What happened in these few hours that may have changed the tone of the editorial? I guess we don't know, but I know what I think. In any case, here are both versions of the editorial below (bold in the first means it was cut, bold in the second means it was added). Read them both; if you don't think the Post got a call from State complaining and then changed their editorial stance, well, let me know what your theory is, I'd be happy to hear it. Changing your editorial line to be less critical of the government due to government pressure? Sounds pretty much like the Post's criticism of Venezuela....just saying. Stay classy Washington Post.

First version:

Mr. Chavez's weapons
Wednesday, April 7, 2010

RUSSIAN PRIME Minister boasted after returning from a visit to Venezuela on Monday that he had sold President Hugo Chavez another $5 billion in weapons -- a huge sum for a Latin American army. Hours later State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley was asked for a reaction at his public briefing. First answer: "We don't care."

Mr. Crowley went on to say that State didn't see a legitimate need for all that equipment and was concerned that it might "migrate into other parts of the hemisphere." But his initial response was all too indicative of the continued complacency with which the Obama administration regards the political, economic and human rights meltdown underway in a major U.S. oil supplier -- and where it may lead.

The last time we looked in on developments in Venezuela, in January, we pointed out that Mr. Chavez had reacted to the unravelling of his economy and his own shrinking popularity by stepping up repression of the opposition. That continues: In the last couple of weeks the government arrested and brought criminal charges against three more leading critics. One is a former state governor and presidential candidate, who said in an interview -- correctly -- that Venezuela has become a haven for drug traffickers and terrorists. A second is the owner of the last television network that dares to criticize Mr. Chavez; the third is a deputy in the National Assembly who had denounced corruption involving members of the president's family.

Mr. Chavez's move against former Gov. Oswaldo Alvarez Paz came after a Spanish judge issued an indictment accusing the government and armed forces of facilitating contacts between Colombia's leftwing FARC terrorists and those of the Basque group ETA, who were allegedly concocting plots to assassinate the Colombian president and other leading politicians. Mr. Paz's "crime" was to talk about this development. The Spanish dossier is one of several demonstrating material support for terrorism by Mr. Chavez, who has made little secret of his preference for the FARC over Colombia's democratic government.

That brings us to the latest round of arms puchases from Russia, which come on top of $4 billion in weapons Mr. Chavez already ordered from Moscow. The arsenal includes T-72 tanks, MI-17 helicopters, and advanced fighter jets -- weapons suitable for the conventional war with which Mr. Chavez has repeatedly threatened Colombia.

The Obama administration's response has been to ignore or soft-pedal most of this. Political arrests are met with perfunctory statements of concern; the extensive evidence of support for terrorism is studiously ignored, lest the United States be compelled to act on its own laws mandating sanctions in such cases. About the flood of Russian weapons, aimed at intimidating one of the closest U.S. allies in Latin America, the administration publicly says, "we don't care." Colombians -- and average Venezuelans -- can only hope such breathtaking nonchalance is justified.

And the one without the criticism of State but with all the same blows at Venezuela:

Venezuela's strongman splurges on Russian weapons
Thursday, April 8, 2010

RUSSIAN PRIME Minister Vladimir Putin boasted after returning from a visit to Venezuela on Monday that he had sold President Hugo Chávez another $5 billion in weapons -- a huge sum for a Latin American country that is deep in recession and busy rationing its water, electricity and hard currency. Take it as one more sign of the political, economic and human rights meltdown underway in a major U.S. oil supplier -- and where it may lead.

The last time we looked in on developments in Venezuela, in January, we pointed out that Mr. Chávez had reacted to the unraveling of his economy and his shrinking popularity by stepping up repression of the opposition. That continues: In the past couple of weeks, the government arrested and brought criminal charges against three more leading critics. One is a former state governor and presidential candidate who said in an interview that Venezuela has become a haven for drug traffickers and terrorists. A second is the owner of the last television network that dares to criticize Mr. Chávez; the third is a deputy in the National Assembly who had denounced corruption.

Mr. Chávez's move against former governor Oswaldo Álvarez Paz came after a Spanish judge issued an indictment accusing the government and armed forces of facilitating contacts between Colombia's left-wing FARC terrorists and those of the Basque group ETA, who were allegedly concocting plots to assassinate the Colombian president and other leading politicians. Mr. Paz's "crime" was to talk about this development. The Spanish dossier is one of several demonstrating material support for terrorism by Mr. Chávez, who has made little secret of his preference for the FARC over Colombia's democratic government.

That brings us to the latest round of arms purchases from Russia, which come on top of $4 billion in weapons that Mr. Chávez already ordered from Moscow. The arsenal includes T-72 tanks, Mi-17 helicopters and advanced fighter jets -- weapons suitable for the conventional war with which Mr. Chávez has repeatedly threatened Colombia.

The Obama administration's response has been to soft-pedal most of this. Political arrests are met with perfunctory-sounding statements of concern. About the flood of Russian weapons, aimed at intimidating one of the closest U.S. allies in Latin America, the State Department spokesman observed that "we're hard-pressed to see what legitimate defense needs Venezuela has for this equipment . . . we can probably think of better things that could be invested on behalf of the Venezuelan people." Colombians -- and average Venezuelans -- can only hope such nonchalance is justified.

(image courtesy of BoRev...may it rest in peace)

Much Ado About Nothing...

So the man George Bush called "Pootie-Poot" was in Venezuela this past week and virtually all the media coverage was about Russia selling arms to Venezuela. Specifically, Putin told a press conference that arms sales to Venezuela could exceed $5 billion, at which point the mainstream media's heads began spinning until they were soo dizzy that instead of doing any research or thinking they just ran with their pre-fab story. The whole thing even prompted a response from the US State Department.

There was one sane commentator that put this number in some sort of context, Richard Weitz at World Politics Review wrote (emphasis mine):

In reflecting on the results of his first-ever visit to Venezuela, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin estimated on Monday that Venezuelan orders for Russian weapons "could exceed $5 billion." The resulting headlines are somewhat misleading, and may overlook developments that will have a larger impact on the bilateral relationship in coming years.

The $5 billion figure appears to include Russian arms still being supplied under existing contracts, including four MI-17 multirole combat helicopters whose delivery coincided with Putin's visit. These were the last in a contract for 38 of the helicopters signed in 2006. No new arms deals were announced before, during, or after Putin's trip last week.

After signing a dozen contracts with Russia to buy a total of $4.4 billion worth of weapons between 2005 and 2007, Venezuela made no major purchases in 2008 and early 2009, despite the Russian government approving a $1 billion loan in September 2008 to facilitate such sales.

Weitz's main argument is that the Venezuela/Russia alliance is really much more about energy than arms, and I would have to agree with him there. But he does give credence to the opinion that Venezuela spends more on defense than is needed, which takes me to my next point. Personally, I think almost ANY military spending is more than is needed, but when you compare Venezuela to the rest of South America the "arms race" theory really just falls apart.

There are a number of measures you could look at, and they all would tell you pretty much the same thing, but below is a chart with military spending per capita in South America. It compares levels in 2008 to 1998 to get a sense of where things have gone over the last decade. The numbers are from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and are in 2005 USD.



As you can see, not only has Venezuela barely increased their per-capita spending over the last decade, but that they are getting out spent by a number of other countries in the region, who apparently really really need all those arms, unlike Venezuela.

One reason for all this hoopla is that it seems so nefarious for someone to buy arms from Russia, I mean, everybody knows the US is the largest arms trafficker in the world, that Hugo has to be up to something going all the way to Russia to buy arms....

Not exactly; as Weitz writes, "Washington introduced an arms export ban on Venezuela in 2006 that applies to all U.S. companies as well as foreign weapons that contain American-made components -- a provision that has blocked proposed weapons sales from Europe and Israel."

But what about all those weapons that the US sold Venezuela previously? I mean how do you maintain those? How do you replace old weapons? Well, this one is pretty simple, YOU BUY THEM FROM RUSSIA.

The Venezuelan embassy responded in 2008 (PDF) to criticism of their arms purchases:

The purchase of 24 Russian fighter jets corresponds exactly to the number of F- 16s sold to Venezuela by the U.S. in 1980. Since the U.S. refuses to supply key parts necessary for maintenance of these planes, Venezuela has been forced to look elsewhere to rebuild its air force. These planes are a replacement, rather than an expansion, of its fleet.

Similarly, the 2006 purchase of 100 thousand rifles was made in order to replace Belgian-made rifles that were over fifty years old and were obsolete.

The purchase of 53 helicopters was made in order to patrol the border with Colombia. These helicopters will be used to fight drug trafficking and other illegal activities in the area. Ironically, Venezuela is being criticized for taking a direct step towards securing its borders from drug traffickers and guerillas.

But don't expect to find any reference to this in the mainstream media's analysis though.

The other issue with the arms sales that continues to rear its ugly head is that it is worrying that Venezuela is buying arms because they might give them to the FARC. This is pretty much what J.P. Crowley, speaking for the State Department said yesterday:

But our primary concern is that – that if Venezuela is going to increase its military hardware, we certainly don’t want to see this hardware migrate into other parts of the hemisphere.

A pretty clear reference to the FARC, despite there being NO evidence that this has ever happened. The best response to this is definitely from the same Venezuelan embassy response:

To accuse Venezuela of providing arms to Colombian insurgents due to some weapons being transited through Venezuela would be like accusing the U.S. of providing arms to Mexican drug cartels, given that over 90% of weapons confiscated from these groups are first purchased in the U.S. There has also been an allegation that “heavy duty weaponry has been stolen from Department of Defense facilities and National Guard armories and trafficked into Mexico.” Despite these statistics and claims, it would be irresponsible to accuse the government of the United States of participating in or allowing illegal weapons trafficking. It is similarly irresponsible to accuse Venezuela of the same.

Well put. And so concludes a much, much too long post about a non-issue that just won't go away.

Politics Trumps Truth, Venezuela Edition

In case anybody wanted further proof that the US just goes ahead and makes shit up when talking about Venezuela, lets take a look at recent statements by SOUTHCOM commander Douglas Fraser.

On Thursday he testified before the Armed Services Committee that "We have not seen any connections specifically that I can verify that there has been a direct government-to-terrorist connection." Then John McCain's head nearly exploded as he demanded Fraser acknowledge the magic laptops.

(note this picture was not from the briefing)

This led Fraser to say, "So there has been some -- some -- some old evidence, but I don't see that evidence. I can't tell you specifically whether that continues or not." And I'm thinking you know, this guy is alright, he's not full of shit like the rest of these guys, he's just giving his honest assessment, far out!

And then Friday....

Fraser, after meeting (being told what to say by) Assistant Secretary of State Valenzuela, offers this darling of a statement:

There is indeed clear and documented historical and ongoing evidence of the linkages between the Government of Venezuela and the FARC.

Whhhhaaaaat?? That must have been some crazy evidence that the State Department didn't share with their top military brass. Or another example of how when it comes to Venezuela, politics trumps truth.

OAS: Venezuela has made "major achievements" on socioeconomic rights

Last week the the Organization of American States' Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) released a scathing report on the supposedly grim state of democracy and human rights in Venezuela. Buried in the 300-plus page report, in between page after page of criticisms towards the government, the IACHR admits that the Chavez' administration has made remarkable progress on the socioeconomic front, promoting literacy, reducing poverty and lowering inequality, among other things. Here's the excerpt:

"On the other hand, in this report the Commission highlights the Venezuelan State’s major achievements in the fields of economic, social, and cultural rights, through legally recognizing the enforceability of the rights to education, to health, to housing, to universal social security, and other rights, as well as by implementing policies and measures aimed at remedying the shortcomings that affect vast sectors of the Venezuelan population. The Commission emphasizes that the State has succeeded in ensuring the majority of its population is literate, reducing poverty and extreme poverty, expanding health coverage among the most vulnerable sectors, reducing unemployment, reducing the infant mortality rate, and increasing the Venezuelan people’s access to basic public services.

The IACHR also congratulates Venezuela on being one of the countries that has made most progress toward attaining the Millennium Development Goals. It has also brought about a major reduction in the disparity between the groups at the extremes of income distribution, to the point that the country now reports the lowest Gini coefficient in Latin America, according to the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). In addition, according to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Venezuela moved from having a medium level of human development in 2008 to join the group of countries with a high level of human development in 2009. In the IACHR’s opinion, the priority the State has given to economic, social, and cultural rights is fundamental in ensuring the decent existence of the population and is an important foundation for the maintenance of democratic stability."

Now, everything in this report should by no means be taken seriously, but this admission on the part of an institution that in the past has been largely hostile to the Chavez government underscores how difficult it is to deny the recent social gains in Venezuela. A grain of truth, as they say.