Venezuela 'taking control' of mines

Source: AP

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- Venezuela's environment minister said that the government will put national interests first in the mining sector and forbid mining in a biodiverse forest reserve that is home to two of the country's largest gold concessions.

Minister Yubiri Ortega did not give a direct answer when asked Saturday if the government is planning to nationalize the mines. But she said Venezuela is "taking control" in order to "save and appropriate what is ours."

The government will consider future underground mining concessions as well as those that are currently under revision, Ortega said. But it will not permit open-pit mines that cause environmental degradation and contaminate the country's water supply with cyanide and other toxic chemicals.

She added that the government will also forbid mining in the Imataca Forest Reserve, which covers about 8.6 million acres (3.5 million hectares) and is rich with gold, diamonds, iron, bauxite and other minerals. It is also home to unique plant and animal species.



Read more: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/06/21/venezuela.mines.ap/

going to come unglued from this news. This should be fun to see.:popcorn:

I can't wait to see how they spin THIS one! :popcorn:

:rofl:

....the conservatives claim they will, then fucking nationalize them. Oh, and by the way, throw their shitbag fucking executives in jail too.

All possible attention given to this blighted area now comes not one moment too soon.

This is unbelievable:

July 30, 2006
Venezuela's Imataca Ecocide
http://www.sprol.com/?p=349

Scroll down for a series of 8 photos.

environmentally friendly the USSR and the Eastern Bloc were...

And since Chavez is becoming less and less accountable, we all know he will do the "right thing."

What does this subject have to do with the "USSR and the Eastern Bloc?"

to serve the profits of the investors?

lol

take long, Arctic Dave!

What you're essentially saying is that leftist governments are not capable of protecting the environment because of what a few Stalinist appartchniks did when very few people knew better...And incidentally, was DDT invented by the USSR or by the USA? ;-)

Chavez was freely elected and retains widespread popular support. He doesn't have a psychotic secret police apparatus that drags people out of their homes in the middle of the night and sends them to Siberia or a firing squad(with their families getting the bill for the bullet).

It is completely unfair to compare Chavez to a "Soviet-style" leader.

And remember, in all of those East European states, environmental standards actually got worse when the capitalists took over after '89(and those takeovers were against the wish of the populations of those countries, most of whom simply wanted to replace Stalinism with democratic socialism but weren't allowed to have the choice of a democratic socialist party in their post-1989 "free elections", being forced to choose solely between a right wing "non-Communist" party committed to Western-imposed austerity and a "former Communist" party that was ALSO committed to Western-imposed austerity). 1989 was not allowed to be a victory for progressive or green values.

I've seen some disgusting open pit mines in this country, but it looks totally unregulated there.

Good for Chavez!

and one of the few who was truly and honestly elected.

He also wants to stay in power as long as he wants. Hes just another dictator. He threatens the opposition and intimidates the voters. I think the only reason you like him is because he's anti American.

Hes only doing this to take control of the mines. Once he nationalizes them, he will come up with a reason to mine the gold. Its all about power.

That's a new one for D.U. visitors.

Provide your source he "threatens the opposition."

Provide your source he "intimidates the voters."

If you've taken the time to read D.U., you should be aware Democrats who post here don't swallow things people toss out without foundation.

We've been discussing Chavez since before the coup, when a D.U. contributor was IN Caracas, sending us frequent updates, so you have a lot of people who are informed already to enlighten with your new information.

And start thinking like a real progressive instead. Pelosi lost her legitimacy the day she opened her worthless hole of a mouth and compared Chavez unfavourably to Chimpy.

Is that like a super hung, or penis shaped potato? I don't think Chavez looks like a Dick Tater myself.

to mean capitulation...to give all your assets up to powerfully foreign investors....and socialism means taking control of the countries assets and using them for the good of that country...and about the hate your red neck MURKA thing...I love America and all its constitution stands for. I hate my government at this point, for shredding same, not my country...and Chavez has said as much about the American people and that it is the Government in America that he hates...pretty much like the rest of the world. Corporate press and corporate world only hates Chaves because he is taking better care of his resources and won't let corporate world rape his country for their own gain.

"and socialism means taking control of the countries assets and using them for the good of that country"

This sounds great, but unfortunately it never seems to turn out that way in practice. For example, I saw the devastation wrought upon the Czech Republic by socialism soon after they gained their freedom. It's not pretty.

Suffice to say when huge corporations are getting besotted by obscene government welfare at our expense, things have to change. All any people expect out of their government is fairness. Something long gone from this country. I am guessing that is what many on this site admire about Chavez. Small to medium business entrepreneurial capitalism is a wonderful thing to behold. When any company gets so much power they can force a country to war to protect its own interests and expects the tax payer to foot its bill, it then becomes an ugly thing and one to be fought tooth and nail and that is what has happened to this country and one which Chavez is trying to stop in his country.

"Suffice to say when huge corporations are getting besotted by obscene government welfare at our expense"

That is a separate issue from socialism, although quite close. In general government involvement in business doesn't have good results, be it government owning the business or government getting in bed with business.

You've got to face facts:

Business is still evil, even if CEO's take tea with Bono. There is no such thing as progressive humane capitalism.

They abolished even the trivial green policies the old regime had. Havel said nothing to protect the environment and neither did any other dissident.

The need, everywhere, is for democracy, not capitalism. History has proven that the market can never be progressive or humane. And Chavez proves that socialism doesn't have to mean East Germany.

Why do you obey the rich so blindly? Nobody who believes in capitalism wants a clean environment. All capitalists see the green issue exactly as Bush does. Only those who put people before profits are capable of saving the planet.

I don't want the government running every major industry in America. Can you imagine G.W. having his way with the utility companies?

Have Obama run on a socialist platform and see how badly he gets beaten. This is why I voted for Clinton.

I would like to ask you if you are a democrat who is against social security. Are you against rural electrification? The Post Office? State Highways? The National Park Service? We live in a MIXED economy. We use what fits best. Why should people make profits off of sharing risk? You may not be a socialist, but you don't seem like a Democrat either. Think man!

Let Obama run for socialized health care and see how badly he beats McCain.

And also, Crystallex mines as clean as possible, unlike many other mining companies. I know, I've worked in the mines all my life, for several different companies. Go to Nevada, Surf. It ain't purdy pardner.

My point was that Chavez was only using the environmental excuse as a reason to take control of the mining companies. He will still mine. He just wants government control of it.

I concede your point that there are some industries in America that are socialized, and yes the post office works very well. I can still choose to use UPS if I want though. I just don't think the government should run every industry. Should the government run GM?, Microsoft?, WalMart? Sprint?

Let me be clear if some of my rants don't conform. I'm not a liberal by most means. I'm a more moderate democrat. (I know that this will cause me to be insulted endlessly on this forum!) I'm against abortion and the death penalty which is actually more consistent than both parities. Ive been on food stamps and medical assistance. Use section 8 housing, etc. So I firmly believe in a safety net, not the "fend for yourself and piss off" attitude of the conservative movement. I got pissed off when people were disrespectful of Bill Clinton, and I feel the same about Bush and whoever will be our next president. I voted for Hillary, and cant stand Obama (Hes just hype). If Obama ran on socialized medicine, I think he'd lose because while it works for some, it wont work for most. Imagine waiting in line for the ER like you would for the DMV!!

Thank you for letting me get that off my chest.

Cuba has the best enviromental policies in the world?

Without incentive for short term profit, there is no need to destroy livelihood of future generations and sustainable development becomes possible.

I disagree with you, but I won't insult you.

What you have to understand is, when people talk about getting rid of Chavez, everyone on DU knows that that would have to lead to a Pinochet-type junta, that it couldn't lead to a Venezuela with anything progressive or positive remaining. We react with such vehemence because we know where this has to lead.

Nothing personal, it's just that we know the history in Latin America. And the history is, "pro-business" regimes are always lead by murderous bastards.

There are a couple problems with your points. The first of which is that Chavez is simply doing what the people in Venezuela want. So when you talk about him having more state control over the economy you must realize that he doing what he is told by the people of Venezuela. This has happened while the opposition, who attempted to install a military dictatorship in 2002 and disolve all branches of government, has full freedom to criticize and act. See, in this country we’re used to (like with Clinton who did not run on a centrist platform first time around if you remember) politicans not listening to what people want and doing what’s best for entrenched interests. That is why we have 2/3’s of the public in favor of universal healthcare even if it raises taxes and neither of the two parties here have it on their platform, one of them campaigns AGAINST the idea for Christ sake. That’s why, according to a recent Wall Street Journal article, 60% of REPUBLICANS are against NAFTA like deals (not to say anything of those to their left) and neither party has that position on its platform.

The second problem I have is that in Venezuela there is a participatory nature to their government, which you seem to discount. The people there have direct power over state functions and politicians, in ways we can only dream of here. So whatever the state does the people can directly check them, not beg their politicans to stop ignoring what they want. There is no precident for this that I know of on a national scale. These measures have already been put to use multiple times as well so, unlike the USSR which had a pretty progressive constitution that was ignored by the state, in Venezuela the laws are not just there for show, they’ve been used and they work.

There really isn’t an alternative to the way Chavez has gone about this. There is not a country in modern times, not a single one, who developed without massive state involvement. Venezuela is under attack financially, militarily and with propaganda from the West. Right after WWII the Western countries, LEAD by the US and Britain, were calling for extensive capital controls and funded the state run development of countries like Japan, South Korea, Indonesia and later Chile & China. Kennedy said that the idea that financial elites should have the ability to undermine the state’s ability to provide social services was “absurd”. Now most of our economy is controled by the state here. The costs of R & D are largely socialized by the state through NASA, the Pentagon, public unversities, government grants. We spend all things considered over a TRILLION dollars now on the military, a socialist institution. Out of this has come most of the technological gains for this country. We have massive subsidies to agro corporations and ethonal producers, amongst other things. We’re only different in that we socialize the costs of this but have no pretense to socialize the benefits. That is the “centrist” way and it sucks and is unjust.

So what Chavez is doing isn’t as far off the beaten path as you’d like to make it seem. Venezuela is a threat because it doesn’t follow orders (countries can have state development as long as Western investors get a piece of the pie and less of that state development is spread to the public) and because the country might influence others to develop in similar ways.

You and I might like or dislike Chavez but we have no right to do anything other than object. We as Americans and our government have no right to interfear with Venezuela’s internal affairs any more than a country does here.

Say, do you fear the rot will spread?

I remember when Utilities were Publicly Held Companies, and tightly regulated.
Most have been Privatized and are now run by people like Ken Lay/Enron.
How is that working for you?

I liked it better when the Utilities were Public.

Business has proved it can never be a progressive or positive force in society anywhere. When are you going to stop pretending that the market can have a heart?

Chavez has it reversed.

Anyone who has actually followed his political career knows that. Do not try to peddle falsehoods.

his style of governing on the air resembles reality show.

that Venezuela's environmental situation would get worse.

"Green business" is an American myth.

There isn't a progressive anti-socialist position.

(Other than anarchism, but you're not an anarchist.)

You'd probably have backed the Contras.

Are you suggesting that he hates the general population of the US?

Are you suggesting that he hates the physical country of the US?

Or, are you suggesting that he hates the policies of US leaders?

Which is it?

Accusing Chavez of 'anti-Americanism' is completely illogical, considering his past words and actions. He has often spoken of solidarity to working class U.S. Americans, and he has for years, made available reduced cost heating oil for people in many U.S cities.

Obviously, U.S. policies with regard to Latin America are what Chavez has a problem with, not U.S. citizens in general. Any progressive who is reasonably informed and honest knows this to be the case. An honest person would also recognize that Chavez's grievances are perfectly legitimate.

I think the 'anti-American' meme is one of the more deceitful and disgusting of the right-wing 'debate' tactics.

At this point in time, to even use the term "anti-american", I believe a person must be totally asleep at the switch. As you have likely noticed, the questions I posed are never going to be answered by that poster....

Shouldn't be hard to verify what happens at the two known largest gold mine locations under state stewardship.






mucho graci-azz for the gold mine finds gringo's :)




blogger coments at the link;

July 30, 2006
Venezuela's Imataca Ecocide

January 5, 2007

Paul W :
Well that all sounds impressive but the fact of the matter is, Crystallex hasn't mined one oz. of gold off of the
Las Cristinas property, to this date. The only activity they have undertaken on the property was to construct
an airstrip to be used by Gold Reserve and Crystallex and a few drilling programs. This joint useage of the airstrip, was at the request of the Venezuelan goverment. All of the damage being done in the Las Claritas area is being done by illegal miners from other countries and of course Venezuelan illegal miners. The illegal miners are the biggest problem not the large corporations, they've got to much investment to loose, if they break the rules. The illegals probably have no formal training, or education, for that matter and really couldn't care less about the use of dangerous chemicals such as Cyanide and Mercury and the devastating effects such chemicals can have on a river, for example. Tailings ponds should be regulated by the government and if they are monitored properly, shouldn't be a problem for the enviroment.

I really think that ant damage that is/has been done is the responsibility of the Venezuelan government, not companies like Crystallex.

http://www.sprol.com/?p=349

The information in the link says:

July 30, 2006
Venezuela's Imataca Ecocide


With the enthusiastic complicity of the State and the participation of Canadian, US, British and South African transnational mining companies, Venezuela is seeing the execution of a project promoting the immediate exploitation of a rich gold reserve which, according to its promoters and beneficiaries, will turn out to be the discovery of the famous El Dorado — sought so remorselessly in the 16th century by Europeans in these lands.

In large-scale gold mining operations, enormous pits are dug out of the land; dynamite is often used to blast holes in the ground; ore is sprayed with cyanide solution to leach out the gold.
RainForestWeb.org

The most powerful force in Las Claritas is Crystallex, a Canadian-owned mining company. It’s not difficult to notice their presence: a high fence surrounds their huge swath of land, and at the main gate, beneath a watch tower, guards with helmets and riot sticks keep away unwanted persons. “No pictures”, says one of them harshly, even on public soil outside of their territory. It’s clear: these mining companies are here for the money and nothing else.

Another company is the US-based Hecla, which is the biggest gold producer in Venezuela. Hecla owns concessions in El Callao and El Dorado, a bit further up north, in the state of Bolivar. A third mining company, Toronto-based Bolivar Gold, holds concessions in El Callao as well. In June of 2006, the company announced the first extraction of gold at their Choco 10-field, which is supposed to hold ore reserves of 1.3 million ounces. And then of course there is the Venezuelan, state-owned CVG, which has a gold mining division.

The presence of mining companies like Crystallex and Hecla is a highly controversial issue among many NGOs and indigenous groups in Venezuela. The main reason for the controversy is the fact that the mining takes place in the Imataca Forest, a large forest reserve along the disputed border with Guyana. Though it doesn’t have the status of a national park, the area is under special administration. The Imataca Forest Reserve, which is bordered by the Orinoco delta in the north and the area of Las Claritas in the south, was created in 1963 and measures 3.8 million hectares, which makes it roughly as big as The Netherlands. The area is rich in different wood arts, gold, diamonds, copper, bauxite, magnesium, water, genetic diversity, and energy.

Mining, particularly gold mining, is an increasing threat to the world's rainforests and to forest communities. The social and environmental repercussions of mining are particularly disturbing considering that nearly 80 percent of newly mined gold goes towards jewelry fabrication.
RainForestWeb.org

Because the Imataca Forest has the status of a reserve since 1963, it was supposed to have a Management Plan since then, but until 1997, such a plan never existed. This means that all logging and mining before that year was carried out on an improvised basis. In 1997 almost half of the reserve was given over to mining, leaving less than four percent of the region completely protected.

"… Cyanide and mercury is used for the extraction of the gold, both highly toxic substances which cause enormous damage to people’s health, and which easily pollutes complete rivers. According to Julio César Centeno, Professor at the Los Andes University in Mérida and Rapporteur to the Secretariat of the UNCED, the social and environmental costs will surpass the economic benefits by far. "The main beneficiaries will be the multinational companies."

Water interacts with these wastes to generate contaminated fluids that can pollute soils, rivers, and ground waters. These fluids can be highly acidic and metal-laden or highly alkaline, and they often contain various forms of cyanide, depending on the waste source. Although tailings are often deposited in lined facilities, leaks are not uncommon. High rainfall, typical in the Guayana region, can aggravate this problem by causing tailings ponds to exceed their recommended capacity and either overflow or rupture dams, contaminating groundwater and nearby streams, as was the case at the Omai mine in Guyana.

http://www.sprol.com/?p=349

http://english.eluniversal.com/2008/06/20/en_ing_art_opposition-campaigns_20A1704559.shtml


What makes you think that blogger person speaks lies about wildcat independent gold miners when you yourself posted stories of illegal squatters/loggers being chased out of Venazuela by Hugo ?


You should ask Hugo to reduce the price of oil so people on welfare in the US can make ends meet.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3314134&mesg_id=3314161


oh
your mindless screed I didn't read past the July 30, 2006 date.

13 months left to "Rule by Decree"

;)
Didn't you boy try an end run around the supreme court recently ?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3330748&mesg_id=3343585

It participated in the coup plotting prior to the kidnapping of Hugo Chavez, and his being returned to office by the people of Venezuela.

I posted the article as it concerns the Canadian and U.S. mining companies mentioned in the original post. They are the ones doing the major damage there.

I don't grasp your "gotcha" act. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

What ARE you attempting to communicate?

Who's "you boy?"

ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER

Cyanide is a toxic chemical – one teaspoon of two percent cyanide solution can cause death in humans. Today this dangerous chemical is used in gold extraction operations from Greece to Ghana. It has left a sorry legacy of environmental disasters in countries ranging from Guyana to Kyrgyzstan and the USA. In heap mining, the cyanide waste that’s left over is stored in ponds with thin liners that are only 1.5 mm thick and these can leak or break. It is not unusual to have spills of cyanide solution and heavy metal-laced water that can contaminate ground water, kill fish and waterfowl, and contaminate drinking water. This threatens public health and land alike.

~snip~
While the mining industry likes to highlight the fact that cyanide breaks down rapidly in sunlight, in fact, cyanide decomposes into other chemicals which are also toxic to fish and river life. Some of these chemicals can last for a long time in river systems. The mining industry usually does not test for these breakdown chemicals.

More:
http://www.rainforestinfo.org.au/gold/cyanide.htm

No country that every switched leaders from the left to the right(or that imaginary place called the "center", which is just the less nasty part of the right as the Nineties showed) ever saw environmental improvements.

Venezuela Stops Open-Pits and Gold Mines

VENEZUELA: May 16, 2008

CARACAS - Mineral-laden Venezuela on Thursday shut the door to new gold projects and threatened other mining and logging concessions in a step by leftist President Hugo Chavez to tighten control of natural resources.

~snip~
The ban on mining in the 9 million acre (3.8 million hectare) Imataca reserve and the end to permits for open pits was a blow to Crystallex and Gold Reserve. The Canadian companies have long been seeking environmental permits to exploit their concessions in the reserve.

Chavez last year launched a nationalization drive, increasing state control over the country's oil industry. The U.S critic has since taken over key sectors of the economy including electricity, telecoms, cement and steel companies.

He has been especially tough on foreign companies but typically pays a fair price for nationalized assets.

The Imataca reserve, which includes a town called El Dorado in remote southeastern Venezuela, sits on what is believed to be one of Latin America's largest gold deposits.

Several large and mainly state-run companies dig iron ore, coal and bauxite in Venezuela. Workers last week halted operations at Venezuela's Isodora gold mine owned by Hecla, demanding it be nationalized.

It was not clear if the US miner would be affected by the new contract revisions.

Crystallex and Gold Reserve shares were largely unmoved on Thursday. The stocks have taken a battering in recent weeks as news filtered out suggesting the government would not give them permits.

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/48373/story.htm

since :

Persia / Iran 1953 : the overthrow of the democratically elected government administration of Mosaddeq and his cabinet from power in 1953 because he was about to nationalise the oil company.

Guatemala : when Arbenz wanted to nationalise and redistribute unused land, owned at the time by United Fruit, for banana plantations in the 1950's

Chile : when Allende wanted to nationalise the copper mines in the early 1970's.

All of the above were for the overall benefit of their respective populations and all resulted in military coups inspired and aided by the USA for the removal of the democratically elected leaders of those countries.

Yes - fortunately those days are past and now fairly elected governments can act for the benefit of their populations when they wish to do so for the benefit of their populations.

:)

Oil and gas rights were the same as mineral rights for years. There's not a huge amount of oil in BC so it was never an issue. So, if you bought mineral rights, you bought gas too. Then Coalbed methane became a big deal. So, the government said "Wicked!" And auctioned off the gas rights to some corps. THEN realized, "Shit, those weren't ours to auction" and so they passed retroactive legislation that seperated oil and gas rights from mineral rights. All of this without saying a thing to landowners. Pretty sick.

"We have the ability to take Chavez out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability" - Pat Robertson

Your spears for him first and let Chavez get voted out Democratically.

And the reason they are doing it, and we are not, is that they have also looked out for their democracy as well--for instance, insuring TRANSPARENT vote counting--and we have not. Thus we get stupid, selfish, greedy, murderous, torturing, fascist leaders, and they get leaders who are concerned and active in protecting the environment, who are responsive to their constituency (including the indigenous tribes, who are active on this issue), and who are looking out for the common good in a thousand different ways, including pouring Venezuela's oil profits into education and local manufacturing and development, and into medical care, land reform and other beneficial programs, and who had the cajones to demand a 60/40 split of the oil profits in favor of the Venezuelan people, in difficult negotiations with multinational oil corporations.

Chavez is a "dictator"...to Exxon Mobil. He is not a dictator to the Venezuelan people, or to the people of South America, or to the many regional leaders who are friends with him and support him. Lula da Silva, president of Brazil, for instance, recently said, of Chavez, "You can criticize Chavez on a lot of things, but not on democracy."

Gee, I guess the anti-Chavez, Associated Pukes echo chamber at DU hasn't heard that one. Wonder why not. And it's interesting that Donald Rumsfeld agrees with them, that Chavez is a bad guy. Wonder why.

"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html

Rumsfeld is not so smart, though. He hasn't "beat" Chavez yet. And, of course, he doesn't say who the real target is, that he wants to "beat"--that would be the Venezuelan people, who have repeatedly elected Chavez, most recently with 63% of the vote. It is they whom Rumsfeld wants to smash. It is they whom Rumsfeld wants to deny education, medical care, environmental protection and all progress, so he and his putrid pals can stuff their pockets with Venezuela's oil money. It is they whom Rumsfeld wants to chop up with chainsaws and throw their body parts into mass graves--as they do with union leaders in the Bush Cartel client state of Colombia.

These shits want mass murder again in South America--as they or their surrogates committed in Chile, in Argentina, in Guatemala, in El Salvador, in Nicaragua, in Uruguay, and all over Latin America, in the Reagan reign of terror, and as they themselves have financed in Colombia and have committed in Iraq.

Chavez is a great and courageous president--and a remarkable product of Venezuela's democracy and of years of effort to achieve beneficial government. But he is not the Bushites' most serious problem. Their most serious problem is democracy itself. They've solved their problem in various ways, here, and are looting us blind and destroying everything we hold dear, including our Constitution. But they've been unable to solve this problem--democracy--in South America, despite their many scurrilous, murderous, anti-democratic efforts.

You don't see tyrannical governments protecting the environment anywhere. Only in democracies is there sufficient responsiveness to the wisdom of the people to protect and preserve Mother Nature from rapacious uses and destruction. What would Donald Rumsfeld do with Venezuela's gold mines? What would he do with their oil profits? Who is the tyrant?

Viva la revolución!

| would be much less jaded.

Get back to me when our government closes down our second-largest, 50+ year-old TV channel because it supported a strike and demonstrations against it. I'll start believing anything good about this dictator when his slid from 77 to 114 of 168 on press freedom by Reporters without Borders reverses itself (we've slid from 17 to 48 under Bush, it is a fairly accurate list). Tell me when our government forces broadcasters to run his speeches for two days straight so the stations can't report on riots against him.

Whatever else he's done, the first sign of a dictator is a concerted attack on the freedom of the press. Chavez is most definitely guilty as charged.

In case you even pretend to have any interest in the facts, they are reiterated in this post from an earlier conversation at D.U.:

High Plains (1000+ posts) Wed May-30-07 03:36 PM
Original message
FAIR on Chavez and the TV station
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3107

Media Advisory

Coup Co-Conspirators as Free-Speech Martyrs
Distorting the Venezuelan media story

5/25/07

The story is framed in U.S. news media as a simple matter of censorship: Prominent Venezuelan TV station RCTV is being silenced by the authoritarian government of President Hugo Chávez, who is punishing the station for its political criticism of his government.

According to CNN reporter T.J. Holmes (5/21/07), the issues are easy to understand: RCTV "is going to be shut down, is going to get off the air, because of President Hugo Chávez, not a big fan of it." Dubbing RCTV "a voice of free speech," Holmes explained, "Chavez, in a move that's angered a lot of free-speech groups, is refusing now to renew the license of this television station that has been critical of his government."

Though straighter, a news story by the Associated Press (5/20/07) still maintained the theme that the license denial was based simply on political differences, with reporter Elizabeth Munoz describing RCTV as "a network that has been critical of Chávez."

In a May 14 column, Washington Post deputy editorial page editor Jackson Diehl called the action an attempt to silence opponents and more "proof" that Chávez is a "dictator." Wrote Diehl, "Chávez has made clear that his problem with Granier and RCTV is political."

In keeping with the media script that has bad guy Chávez brutishly silencing good guys in the democratic opposition, all these articles skimmed lightly over RCTV's history, the Venezuelan government's explanation for the license denial and the process that led to it.

RCTV and other commercial TV stations were key players in the April 2002 coup that briefly ousted Chávez's democratically elected government. During the short-lived insurrection, coup leaders took to commercial TV airwaves to thank the networks. "I must thank Venevisión and RCTV," one grateful leader remarked in an appearance captured in the Irish film The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. The film documents the networks' participation in the short-lived coup, in which stations put themselves to service as bulletin boards for the coup?hosting coup leaders, silencing government voices and rallying the opposition to a march on the Presidential Palace that was part of the coup plotters strategy.

On April 11, 2002, the day of the coup, when military and civilian opposition leaders held press conferences calling for Chávez's ouster, RCTV hosted top coup plotter Carlos Ortega, who rallied demonstrators to the march on the presidential palace. On the same day, after the anti-democratic overthrow appeared to have succeeded, another coup leader, Vice-Admiral Victor Ramírez Pérez, told a Venevisión reporter (4/11/02): "We had a deadly weapon: the media. And now that I have the opportunity, let me congratulate you."

That commercial TV outlets including RCTV participated in the coup is not at question; even mainstream outlets have acknowledged as much. As reporter Juan Forero, Jackson Diehl's colleague at the Washington Post, explained (1/18/07), "RCTV, like three other major private television stations, encouraged the protests," resulting in the coup, "and, once Chávez was ousted, cheered his removal." The conservative British newspaper the Financial Times reported (5/21/07), " officials argue with some justification that RCTV actively supported the 2002 coup attempt against Mr. Chávez."

As FAIR's magazine Extra! argued last November, "Were a similar event to happen in the U.S., and TV journalists and executives were caught conspiring with coup plotters, it's doubtful they would stay out of jail, let alone be allowed to continue to run television stations, as they have in Venezuela."

More:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1005404

"In keeping with the media script that has bad guy Chávez brutishly silencing good guys in the democratic opposition"

He was silencing press that threatened his power. When this happens I don't care about political positions.

I have August free.

And it remained on the air for years after the coup even. If a US TV station would have supported a foreign organized coup against Bush, it would have been shut down immediately.

How appropriate. Two wanna-be dictators, only our fight here against Bush has been a bit more successful than the fight against Chavez.

It's not possible to want Chavez out and still want anything positive for the Venezuelan people. Everytime a left leader leaves power in Latin America, nothing but ugliness results.

Then again, you'd have probably cheered when Chamorro beat Ortega, and raised your glass of chablis in triumph.

You have to be a right winger to want Chavez out.

Or a freedom lover. Chavez replaced bad government with worse. At least everybody knew the last one was a dictator. Chavez has so many people suckered with his populist message, but they won't wake up until it's too late and he's finished consolidating his dictatorial power (which he's already begun).

There are people who probably don't know.

Go right ahead and explain what you mean. Don't hold back.

You say Chavez is so good, yet you don't know how good he supposedly is in comparison to Perez?

He isn't, however, the "last one," is he?

Carlos Andres Perez, who raised the cost of transportation so wildly that the people of Caracas, suddenly unable to afford even buses to their employment, ran into the streets to protest, only to have Carlos Andrez Perez instruct his military to mow them down.

Perez was stealing tons from the people of Venezuela, was found guilty of embezzlement, and corruption, was impeached, and put in prison. If anyone led a coup against an asshole, this is the one to lead a coup against.

He remains a beloved figure of the Venezuelan oligarchy, and lives in New York and Miami, etc.

Last Updated: Saturday, 6 May 2006, 10:17 GMT 11:17 UK

Timeline: Venezuela
A chronology of key events

~snip~
1973 - Venezuela benefits from oil boom and its currency peaks against the US dollar; oil and steel industries nationalised.

1983-84 - Fall in world oil prices generates unrest and cuts in welfare spending; Dr Jaime Lusinchi (AD) elected president and signs pact involving government, trade unions and business.

1989 - Carlos Andres Perez (AD) elected president against the background of economic depression, which necessitates an austerity programme and an IMF loan. Social and political upheaval includes riots, in which between 300 and 2,000 people are killed, martial law and a general strike.

1992 - Some 120 people are killed in two attempted coups, the first led by future president Colonel Hugo Chavez, and the second carried out by his supporters. Chavez is jailed for two years before being pardoned

1993-95 - Ramon Jose Velasquez becomes interim president after Perez is ousted on charges of corruption; Rafael Caldera elected president.

1996 - Perez imprisoned after being found guilty of embezzlement and corruption.

1998 - Hugo Chavez elected president.

1999 - Severe floods and mudslides hit the north, killing tens of thousands of people.
(snip/...)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1229348.stm



Carlos Andres Perez



Some of his victims
More on Carlos Andres Perez, who was not the last President of Venezuela, prior to Chavez:

~snip~
One voice in the anti-Chavez chorus has a familiar ring to his voice. Former President Carlos Andres Perez gives TV and newspaper interviews as an authority on democracy and good government. Convicted of embezzlement and having given the command for army troops to fire at his own people, this mass murderer somehow claims to occupy moral high ground. And the media accepts him as if the Venezuela conflict boils down to questions of procedure, not real democracy: majority rule.

Venezuelans overwhelmingly chose Chavez in 1998 and again in 2000, because they remembered what former presidents did – a memory that neither the media nor human rights groups seem to possess.

On February 27, 1989, Perez increased the price of gasoline and the cost of public transportation. Following an IMF model to garner foreign investment, his austerity policies hit the poorest people hardest. But Perez apparently did not expect Venezuelans to respond to “economic shock” programs with spontaneous protests, which erupted throughout the country. In some areas, rioters torched shops and set up roadblocks.

When the police went on strike, the government lost control. Perez called for a state of emergency. The soldiers fired into crowds. By March 4, the government claimed that 257 lay dead. Some non-governmental sources estimated the death toll at over 2,000. Thousands were wounded.

Perez, who called himself a socialist, first imposed draconian measures on the poor and then had them shot when they objected. The Caracazo as the event became known, not only destroyed Venezuela’s aura of stability but put an end to the political system that had replaced the ousted military dictator Perez Jimenez in 1958.

From then on until the Chavez victory, successive Christian Comite de Organizacion Politica Electoral Independiente (COPEI) and Social Democratic Accion Democratica (AD) governments had used the nation’s immense oil wealth to distribute drops – or crumbs – just enough to maintain stability.

It took the IMF and World Bank – with strong backing from the Reagan government – and its neo-liberal offensive in the 1980s, to push Venezuelans into action. They rebelled against policies designed to further impoverish them and reward those who needed it least. Although the 1989 Caracazo emerged as an unplanned response to a set of new measure, the uprising also symbolized years of discontent over government corruption. The Caracazo destroyed the shady Perez, the prestige of the two major parties, and it opened the door to a more radical politics, outside the party structure.

The Caracazo also had a profound impact on sectors of the Armed Forces. Some younger officers who opposed the neo-liberal policies had joined the popular uprising when Perez ordered troops to open fire. Officers like Hugo Chavez saw the Caracazo as a learning experience. Four years later, in 1992, he led a military coup against another corrupt civilian government. It failed, but Chavez gained sympathy from fellow officers and the government felt pressured to release him in 1994 after he served a short prison sentence. Indeed, in the 2002 coup many officers remained loyal to Chavez and his populist policies and, to the surprise of the coup makers, restored him to power within two days.

http://www.progresoweekly.com/friendly.php?pdr=Jul0107_04&progreso=Landau

What really matters is that the beloved tv station didn't get license renewed. Therefore we must oppose Chavez for that unforgivable evil. (yes that is sarcasm)

Chavez is the reason for Venezuela's dramatic slip in the ratings from Reporters Without Borders. And before you go attacking RWB, know that generally those who attack them are those who are trying to defend the actions of the lower-listed countries. There is even tin foil hat theory about them being a CIA puppet, but that doesn't explain our well-deserved dramatic slide in the ratings under Bush.

An unforgivable evil for me is stifling press freedom. I don't care about specifics when it comes to this. Chavez could have been a capitalist and the TV station could have been socialist and I'd still think the same.

Obviously not - the troublesome facts might get in the way

~snip~
Funding
Some funding (19% of total) comes from North American and European governments and organisations, among them the American National Endowment for Democracy (NED).<6><7> According to RWB president Robert Ménard, the donations from the French government account for 4,8% of RWB's budget; the total amount of governmental aid being 11% of its budget (including money from the French government, the OSCE, UNESCO and the Organisation internationale de la francophonie).<8> Furthermore RWB receives funding from various private donors, such as the Soros Foundation and the Center for a Free Cuba.<9> Furthermore, Saatchi & Saatchi has realized various communication campaigns of RWB for free (for instance, concerning censorship in Algeria <10>).

Both the NED and the Centre for a Free Cuba are funded by the US Government. However, Daniel Junqua, the vice-president of the French section of RWB (and also vice-president of the NGO Les Amis du Monde diplomatique), claims that the NED's funding does not compromise RWB's impartiality.<8>

RSF's Chinese website credits support from Taiwan Foundation for Democracy<11>, a quasi-government organization funded by the ROC Ministry of Foreign Affairs<12>.

On April 21, 2008 Le Figaro published an article on RSF's financing.


Controversy and campaigns

Robert Ménard on torture
In an interview with France Culture, whilst speaking about the case of the kidnapped journalist Daniel Pearl, RWB president Robert Ménard discussed the use of torture.<13> Menard told France Culture:

“ Where do we stop? Shall we accept this logic that consists of… since we could do it in some cases, ‘you kidnap, we kidnap; you mistreat, we mistreat; you torture, we torture …?
What justifies…? Perhaps in order to free somebody, can we go there? It is a real question.

That is real life, it is that, what François just said: we are no longer in ideas, it is war, we are no longer dealing with principals. I don’t what to think. Because this happens to Marianne Pearl, I’m not saying, I’m not saying that they made a mistake because she thought that it was appropriate to do it, that it was necessary to do that, that her husband had to be saved, she was pregnant… for the sake of the baby that was going to be born, everything was permitted.

And it was absolutely necessary to save him and if it was necessary to attack a certain number of people, they had to attack a certain number of people, physically attack them, you understand, threatening them and torturing them, even though we might have to kill some.

I don’t know, I am lost. Because sometimes I don’t know where you have to stop, where you have to put on the brakes. What is acceptable and what is unacceptable? And at the same time, for the families of those that were kidnapped, because many times they are the people we talk to first, in Reporters without Borders; legitimately, I, if my daughter were kidnapped there would be no limit, I tell you, I tell you, there would be no limit on torture.<14>

Tensions between Cuban authorities and RWB are high, particularly after the imprisonment in 2003 of 75 dissidents (27 journalists) by the Cuban Government, including Raúl Rivero and Oscar Elías Biscet. RWB describes the Cuban regime as "totalitarian" and engages in direct campaigning against Castro's regime. <15> RWB has been described as an "ultra-reactionary" organization by the official newspaper of the Central Committee of the Cuban Communist Party, Granma.<15>

Lucie Morillon, RWB's Washington representative, confirmed in an interview on 29 April 2005 that the organization receives money from the Washington-based Center for a Free Cuba ($50,000 in 2004), and that a contract with the US State Department's Special Envoy to the Western Hemisphere, Otto Reich, requires them to inform Europeans about repression against journalists in Cuba. However, the organisation has denied that its campaigning on the issue of Cuba - in declarations on radio and television, full-page ads in Parisian dailies, posters, leafletting at airports, and an April 2003 occupation of the Cuban tourism office in Paris - were related to the payments.<16> 1.3% of total funding came from this source.<17>

A Paris court (tribunal de grande instance) ordered RWB to pay 6,000 Euros to the daughter and heir of Alberto Korda for non-compliance with a court order of 9 July 2003 banning it from using Korda’s famous (and copyrighted) photograph of Ernesto "Che" Guevara in a beret, taken at the funeral of La Coubre victims. RWB said it was "relieved" it was not given a harsher sentence.<15><18> The face had been superimposed by RSF with that of a May 1968 CRS anti-riot police agent, and the postcard handed out at Orly Airport in Paris to tourists boarding on flights for Cuba. Korda's daughter declared to Granma that "Reporters Without Borders should call themselves Reporters Without Principles."<19> Headed by Robert Ménard, RWB also burst into the Cuban Tourism Office in Paris on 4 April, 2003, obstructing the running of the office for nearly four hours.<20><21> On April 24, 2003, RWB organized a demonstration outside the Cuban embassy in Parisl.<20>.l

RWB claims it has been the target of hostility from the Cuban authorities since the arrest of 75 dissidents in March 2003. Cuba’s representatives have called for the withdrawal of its consultative status with the United Nations. RWB lost its UN approved NGO status for one year in July 2003 at the request of Cuba and Libya, as a result of protests against Libya receiving the chairmanship of the United Nations Human Rights Committee in Geneva, during the committee's opening session.<22>

Western intelligence agencies
According to an article published in the Frontline, Reporters Without Borders is reputed for having strong ties with the intelligence agencies of the western countries.<23> The article also stated that Cuba accused Robert Meynard, the head of RWB, of having links with the CIA.<23> The organization has denied the allegation made by Cuba. <24>

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders

RSF gets funding from the U.S. Congress and the "International Republican Institute, both of which are financed by the US Congress. Last year, information obtained under the US Freedom of Information Act revealed that RWB had received funds over at least three years from the IRI, linked to US President George Bush’s Republican Party."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x290880

DU'ers have known that for a long time. But then, it's a detail which matters to Democrats, or to anyone looking for legitimate information.

March 11, 2005

Government funds color press group�s objectivity
By Diana Barahona, Northern California Media Guild

~snip~
But RSF, unlike the CPJ, is heavily funded by government grants, raising questions about its objectivity. And a closer examination of the battles RSF wages—and those it ignores—strongly suggests a political agenda colored by its choice of patrons. Unfortunately, the organization appears unwilling to address such concerns: RSF’s New York representative, Tala Dowlatshahi, terminated a telephone interview when asked if the organization had applied last year for any U.S. government grants other than one received from the National Endowment for Democracy.

Most notable, perhaps, is the group’s obvious political bias in its reporting on Haiti. RSF expressed its support for the Feb. 29, 2004, Franco-American overthrow of Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide at the same time that it received 11% of its budget from the French government (¤397,604, or approximately $465,200 in 2003). According to Haiti-based journalist and documentary film-maker Kevin Pina, the organization selectively documented attacks on opposition radio stations while ignoring other attacks on journalists and broadcasters to create the impression of state-sponsored violence against Aristide’s opponents.

~snip~
Reporters Without Borders also has gone after Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez for allegedly threatening the private media. The conflict between the Chávez administration and the media goes back to before April, 2002, when Venezuela’s four private television stations actively aided and abetted a military coup against the government. On the night of the coup, following months of broadcasting anti-Chávez speeches and calling for a “transitional government,” media mogul Gustavo Cisneros’s station hosted meetings among the plotters—including would-be dictator Pedro Carmona.

The president of Venezuela’s broadcasting association signed the decree dissolving the national assembly, and for the next two days the stations blacked out information about the kidnapped president or the retaking of the presidential palace by loyal troops backed by hundreds of thousands of supporters in the streets. No television owners or managers have been prosecuted or lost their broadcasting licenses; nevertheless, RSF continues to side with the private media against the “authoritarian” Chávez.

On November 26, 2004, RSF issued a report critical of a proposed media reform bill in Venezuela’s National Assembly (“Reporters Without Borders criticizes new law threatening press freedom”). Coincidentally or not, the report came just two weeks after RSF had applied for a grant from the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy. Although the NED ostensibly is a private agency, its money is appropriated by Congress and controlled by the State Department.

Human rights lawyer Eva Golinger has documented more than $20 million given by the NED and USAID to opposition groups and private media in Venezuela, many of them headed by coup participants. The NED granted RSF nearly $40,000 in January. Although the rights group has criticized Chávez since the time of the 2002 coup—well before the grant—its application for money from a U.S. government agency that has been targeting the Venezuelan president for regime change raises questions about RSF’s independence, as well as its willingness to criticize its benefactors.

More:
http://www.newsguild.org/gr/index.php?ID=2213

They basically have no idea whatsoever what was involved, and how, had the same thing happened here, RCTV would have been in ultra serious trouble INSTANTLY, instead of a five year wait until their contract expired! So what we get is a lot of idiot right-wingers howling because they think they have a "gotcha" moment with a leftist leader, and they should go for the gusto, just the way their pResident and the corporate media would want them to:

Chávez is no enemy of free speech
Hugo Chávez let Radio Caracas Televisión continue to air for five years after the station supported a coup attempt.
By Bart Jones
from the June 4, 2007 edition

~snip~
But the case of RCTV – like most things involving Chávez – has been caught up in a web of misinformation. While one side of the story is getting headlines around the world, the other is barely heard. The demise of RCTV is indeed a sad event in some ways for Venezuelans. Founded in 1953, it was an institution in the country, having produced the long-running political satire program "Radio Rochela" and the blisteringly realistic nighttime soap opera "Por Estas Calles." It was RCTV that broadcast the first live-from-satellite images in Venezuela when it showed Neil Armstrong walking on the moon in 1969.

But after Chávez was elected president in 1998, RCTV shifted to another endeavor: ousting a democratically elected leader from office. Controlled by members of the country's fabulously wealthy oligarchy, including RCTV chief Marcel Granier, it saw Chávez and his "Bolivarian Revolution" on behalf of Venezuela's majority poor as a threat.

RCTV's most infamous effort to topple Chávez came during the April 11, 2002, coup attempt against him. For two days before the putsch, RCTV preempted regular programming and ran wall-to-wall coverage of a general strike aimed at ousting Chávez. A stream of commentators spewed vitriolic attacks against him – while permitting no response from the government.

Then RCTV ran ads encouraging people to attend a march on April 11 aimed at toppling Chávez and broadcast blanket coverage of the event. When the march ended in violence, RCTV and Globovisión ran manipulated video blaming Chávez supporters for scores of deaths and injuries.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0604/p09s01-coop.html?page=1

The author lived for some time as a Maryknoll priest in Caracas, working with the poor, before he became a reporter and worked there for 8 years for the Associated Press. He has a comprehensive grasp of how things work in Venezuela.

Nothing Chavez could ever do could be bloodier than that.

Haven't we pretty well established that nothing in Latin America is ever worse than having the left lose to the right?

And the fact is that there is no such thing, in Venezuela, as an antichavista left.

The man isn't a dictator. If he was, he wouldn't have accepted defeat in the constitutional referendum.

How can you call yourself "dissedbybush" and support what Bush wants on anything?

Chavez isn't a dictator. Dictators don't peacefully accept defeats in referendums. Dictators don't try to increase the voice of ordinary people by creating community councils(which are the only true form of democracy, as you and I both know parliaments are always biased towards the rich).

You can't be on the left and want what you want for Venezuela. None of the Venezuelan opposition want anything positive for their country. They just want the rich back in power. Why pretend they want anything better?

All the damn good that Chavez has done yet everyone cries and complains about a tv station that didn't get their license renewed.

The question must be asked - whose side are you on?

"The question must be asked - whose side are you on?"

Freedom. Do you know how many journalists Chavez has hauled to court under his new laws for saying things he didn't like? Any station can be fined for anything. Cover an anti-Chavez riot? Get charged for showing violent images. Do an expose on his corruption and get people riled up about it? Get charged for incitement to disruption of public order or threats to national security. Or they'll just haul you into court on other trumped-up charges. Or maybe Chavez' supporters will detain you and take your film, or threaten to lynch you (both have happened).

Basically, it's open season on journalists working for newspaper, radio and TV outlets that criticize Chavez.

I don't know where you get that propaganda from

You don't want to see the bad being done because you like Chavez. That is why he is more dangerous than your average Latin American dictator. Do we have to wait for some agrarian or industrial reform resulting from socialist policies to kill millions like they did in China for people to wake up? Do we need a Venezuelan Tiananmen Square on TV? Or will you block that out too?

Also, why not, since you're attempting to sling around your insinuation he would kill Venezuelans, any example of his use of force against the population?

You'd be doing yourself a favor to share your sources, if you want anyone to believe you actually have any knowledge of the subject.

Your choice of words betrays you. You've pretty much proven my point, that you will be blinded to any of his faults because you support him. Anything negative will be dismissed as "right-wing" and therefore discounted.

But we'll give it a try: Francia Sanchez of RCTV and Diana Ruiz of Globovision, both journalists.

And may not be quite so accurate. Did you notice the US also shows up just three countries above Venezuela at 111 on the list? Our Press freedom report is seperated into two parts?


The deceit of Reporters Without Borders

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7274

about this organization under Robert Menard.

What a shame some people don't attempt to understand just what the history is of organizations or people they quote, holding their statements up as if they're the tablets brought down by Moses from the mountaintop!

Very decent article. Truthful. Great last line.

RSF advocate.

But it is ridiculous. Here's the joke part:

"How can this rank be justified when in Venezuela the press enjoys a freedom that would not be tolerated in even the largest western democracy"

Contrast Compare! Kill a country no problem for Oil Companies! Hurt a Corporation "AWAAAANNNN!"

Fitting that in the week that McCain and Bush are loudly calling for the "freedom" to drill for oil off our shores, President Chavez is taking major measure to protect Venezuela's environment by banning mining in the vast Imataca Forest Reserve. Actually, this is not only to Venezuela's benefit, but to the world's, as this forest area contributes to the world'source of pure water.

In the U.S., our government is controlled by the big corporations which only value their profits and so do not care if they are destroying out environment as long as their share prices go up each quarter. We need to divest control of our government from the corporations and their bought and paid for politicians and install leaders who will put the welfare of the majority of citizens first, not last. We need access to good health care for all, as well as free access to higher education and job training, and to adequate food and housing. We need to re-establish our country based on human needs not the greed of big corporations.

after Jamaica tried to nationalize their bauxite resources.

Jamaica is a Crown Colony : the Queen is Head of State.

Ever been to the open pits in the high country of Colorado? It doesn't look much different.

We are fortunate that we placed environmental laws at a period of our history, but that had more to do with some very forward looking sportsmen than our type of economic system.

We are vastly in danger of losing that heritage as well. How much of our natural heritage remains intact has less to do with the type of economic system we have than it does how much control the common man has of the government.

And as far as the idealistic proponents of "free market" vs "socialism", I think there is plenty of evidence that the economic systems that best benefit people are a mixture of the two. Amazing how things like that work, that the real world is much less two dimentional than our ideologs would have us think.

Nice.

for a long time.

Spend some time looking for the facts. They don't just come to you.

The private sector is always reactionary and anti-people. Face it, Sweets, there can't be a progressive capitalism.

literally steal a countries resources at the behest of every citizen and the workers of those mines.

You stand with the wealthy and not the people of Venezuela. Greed does not help any country regardless of how you wish to spin it. See the photos????? Guess who pays for it... EVERYBODY in Venezuela. Yet guess who doesn't pay for it and shirk's it's responsiblities to a country as a responsible mining operation? That's right... are you catching on or do you think wealthy mine owners should have a special priviledge that all other citizens don't have in shirking responsibilities?

Scary to see people so blindly brainwashed into thinking everything privatized and capitaistically corrupt is somehow a-ok. Actually it's weird and corruption is always bad for business itself, nevermind the loss of environment and it's valuable resources the people of Venezuela could be prosperously sharing together.

largely by exporting them for profit. We have seen firsthand how global corporations have raped the US and left us to deal with dwindling resources while they appropriate our government for their own ends while sending our jobs to other countries. Now we are left to pick up the pieces after their exploitation.

The bumper sticker "Earth First! We'll kill the other planets later." Comes to my mind.

Nationalizing, or at least extreme regulation of the use of national resources is wise.

Allowing greedy people, whose sole concern is maximizing profit, to control resources critical to a nation's liberty, prosperity, and sovereignty is a huge mistake.

“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group,” FDR

great president.

Venezuelan Environment Minister confirms mining ban in Imataca forest
By Jon Nones
23 Jun 2008 at 02:34 PM

Venezuelan Environment Minister Yubiri Ortega said over the weekend that the government will forbid mining in a biodiverse Imataca Forest Reserve, home to Crystallex’s Las Cristinas and Gold Reserve’s Las Brisas, according to an AP article.

The government will not permit open-pit mines that cause environmental degredation and contaminate the country's water supply with cyanide and other toxic chemicals, but will consider future underground mining concessions as well as those that are currently under revision.

On April 30, Crystallex announced that it has been denied the much-awaited environmental permit to develop its Las Cristinas project. Gold Reserve also announced on April 30 that MinAmb was rescinding its environmental permit.

http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=43849