EU and Americas agree closer ties
Mood:  celebratory
Topic: FORUM
A summit of European Union and Latin American leaders has ended in Vienna with an agreement by leaders from both continents to build closer ties.

Central American countries agreed to start trade talks with Brussels but the commitment from the rest of Latin America was more lukewarm.

European concerns over energy policy overshadowed the summit of 58 states.

Bolivia's nationalisation of its gas sector and a planned new Venezuelan tax on oil firms dominated the agenda.

The Europeans saw a divided Latin America where their investments would not be secure, BBC Americas editor Simon Watts reports.

Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, warned openly of the dangers of populism. President Vicente Fox of Mexico warned that the continent's progress was at risk.

And, our Americas editor notes, Brazil and Bolivia are barely on
speaking terms since Bolivian President Evo Morales accused the
Brazilian energy company of operating illegally in his country.

Stark divisions

In the summit's final statement, the EU and six Central American states: - Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and El Salvador - agreed to open negotiations on setting up a free-trade zone.

All states at the summit also agreed to "further promote and strengthen [their] bi-regional strategic partnership".

But with their gas and oil initiatives, Mr Morales and Venezuelan
President Hugo Chavez undermined the negotiating power of Latin
America's majority, our Americas editor says.

Between them, the two leftist leaders have created enormous diplomatic tension, he adds.

They want Latin America to move away from seeking trade pacts with the rest of the world and towards internal economic alliances.

The rest of the region, including nominally leftist governments like
Brazil's, are still interested in trading with a large market like
Europe's and they want to encourage investors.

Market appeal

Mr Barroso called for Latin America to make its position clear.

"If we want to fully develop the potential of our partnership we also
need to know what is your strategic vision," he said at the opening of the summit.

The summit's host, Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel, stressed the need for open markets.

"Open market societies are better in their performance than closed,
restricted structures," he told reporters.

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair called on energy suppliers to act
"responsibly".

"I don't want to go into the details of what is happening in either
Venezuela or Bolivia but I mean all of us have a responsibility to the
world community to try to manage this sensibly," he said.

But Bolivia's president remained in combative mood, telling Brazilian TV that some foreign oil companies were no better than "smugglers".

"We said we need partners, not masters," he said.

Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim said he had little confidence in any commitments made by Bolivia at the negotiating table.

"The Brazilian government will defend the interests of Brazilians in a
firm manner, without shying away from dialogue, but we do not expect that any agreements reached through that dialogue will actually be respected, or that they will not be undone by a statement the following day," he said

Guess who's coming to dinner with Red Ken?
Mood:  irritated
Now Playing: The Venezuelan President aligns himself with dictators, human rights

The Times May 09, 2006 - London
Guess who's coming to dinner with Red Ken?
Aleksander Boyd

The Venezuelan President aligns himself with dictators, human rights abusers and notorious narcoterrorists


WHICH INTERNATIONAL leader publicly threatens to blow up his country's oilfields, supports Iran's nuclear programme, says that the Falklands belong to Argentina and believes that Robert Mugabe is a "true freedom-fighter"?


The answer is none other than Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela, who readily antagonises and hurls insults at the leaders of other nations, including Tony Blair, whom he called an "ally of Hitler". Next week London will have the dubious honour of a visit by Se?or Chavez, hosted by none other than its mayor, Ken Livingstone.

Emboldened by a huge windfall of petrodollars due to climbing oil
prices, Se?or Chavez has no shortage of international cheerleaders. He has become the voice and leader of the resentful of our world. From Argentina to the offices of the Greater London Authority, almost every person bearing a grudge against capitalism, free markets, democracy and the rule of law support his "revolution".

Once an island of stability in a region ravaged by coups d'etat and
dictatorships, Venezuela under President Chavez has become the source of instability in Latin America. The Chavez administation has, for instance, a cosy relationship with the FARC, the Colombian
narcoterrorist group. When Rodrigo Granda, its leader, was captured in 2004 by bounty hunters on the streets of Caracas, the capital of
Venezuela, Se?or Chavez's irrational reaction was telling. He suspended relations with Colombia, Venezuela's second-largest trading partner, claiming that the Colombians had violated national sovereignty. Granda not only had been living in Venezuela and been given citizenship, but his wife and stepdaughter were allowed into the country in 2002 thanks to orders from the Minister of Interior and Justice.

Senor Chavez, commanding billions from PDVSA, the state-owned oil company, interferes in the domestic politics of neighbouring countries, supporting all sorts of radical movements across Latin America. He put his weight behind Evo Morales, Bolivia's recently elected populist and anti-business President. He is doing the same in Nicaragua, supporting Daniel Ortega, the former Sandinista President; and in Peru he is publicly backing Ollanta Humala, a populist former army officer. The Peruvian Government has loudly complained to the Organisation of American States (OAS) about Se?or Chavez's interference.

Nonetheless the constant stream of insults uttered from Caracas is
popular with many Venezuelans, as are his so-called misiones or social missions. It would be futile to claim that the medics he has introduced to the barrios or the subsidised shops in the poorest areas have not had a positive impact on the disenfranchised. But the facts are that after nearly eight years in power, crime,
unemployment, corruption and poverty, the four issues that Se?or Chavez promised to tackle, are on the increase.

But the mounting failures of his Government are not perceived by most Venezuelans to be of his making. They are seen as the fault of his ministers, whom he often berates in his many television appearances for the entertainment of his grassroot supporters. His virtually non-stop presence on TV helps to explain why he still commands a level of support that certainly does not correspond with the mediocre performance of his administration.

Nonetheless Hugo Chavez remains the poster boy of the world's Left. His misiones, while commendable, shroud a raft of anti-democratic actions. In spite of his military background few people outside Venezuela seem to be aware of the militaristic nature of his regime. Se?or Chavez, though democratically elected in 1998, has appointed more than 80 military officers to his Government. The most recent case is the appointment of Colonel Francisco Arias Cardenas, a comrade in the failed coup of 1992, as Venezuela's new representative to the UN.

Under Se?or Chavez, Venezuela has ceased to be a real democracy: it now exists instead in the murky twilight world between democracy and dictatorship, where there is still a free press and a nod to holding elections. But the opposition parties pulled out of the elections to the legislative assembly last December on discovering that the electronic voting system had been rigged; an allegation that OAS and EU observers confirmed. All 165 members of the assembly are now Chavistas.

In contradiction to the Constitution, he appointed 12 supporters to the supreme court to give him a majority among the judges. He has done away with any resemblance of accountability or separation of powers. The confiscation of private property or the shredding of contracts are now routine occurrences, decided unilaterally and without consultation by the President.

His cheerleaders claim that Se?or Chavez is a "social democrat", while conveniently brushing aside that he supports and aligns himself with some of the world's worst dictators and human rights abusers. This "democrat" is hell-bent on inducing war in a country that hasn't seen armed conflicts in more than a century. This "democrat" uses the State as an apparatus of persecution against his political opponents. This " democrat" does not allow free and transparent elections. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International report that the rights of Venezuelans are under chronic and systematic abuse.

It saddens me that some British public figures applaud a visit by
President Chavez. Less than a year ago, London was struck by terrorist bombings -- yet its mayor is welcoming a man who befriends and supports terrorists.

Mood:  irritated
Topic: FORUM


Humildemente pienso que este ensayo reciente del guru de la seguridad, Bruce Schneier, puede resultar de utilidad para alguno que desee comprender porque ahora ademas de cuidarnos de los "hackers", tenemos que protegernos de algunas compan?as fabricantes de software.

Who Owns Your Computer?

Bruce Schneier
This essay originally appeared on Wired.com. (2006-05-04)


When technology serves its owners, it is liberating. When it is designed to serve others, over the owner's objection, it is oppressive. There's a battle raging on your computer right now -- one that pits you against worms and viruses, Trojans, spyware, automatic update features and digital rights management technologies. It's the battle to determine who owns your computer.

You own your computer, of course. You bought it. You paid for it. But how much control do you really have over what happens on your machine? Technically you might have bought the hardware and software, but you have less control over what it's doing behind the scenes.

Using the hacker sense of the term, your computer is "owned" by other people.

It used to be that only malicious hackers were trying to own your
computers. Whether through worms, viruses, Trojans or other means, they would try to install some kind of remote-control program onto your system. Then they'd use your computers to sniff passwords, make fraudulent bank transactions, send spam, initiate phishing attacks and so on. Estimates are that somewhere between hundreds of thousands and millions of computers are members of remotely controlled "bot" networks. Owned.

Now, things are not so simple. There are all sorts of interests vying for control of your computer. There are media companies that want to control what you can do with the music and videos they sell you.

There are companies that use software as a conduit to collect marketing information, deliver advertising or do whatever it is their real owners require. And there are software companies that are trying to make money by pleasing not only their customers, but other companies they ally themselves with. All these companies want to own your computer.

Some examples:

* Entertainment software: In October 2005, it emerged that Sony had
distributed a rootkit with several music CDs -- the same kind of
software that crackers use to own people's computers. This rootkit
secretly installed itself when the music CD was played on a computer. Its purpose was to prevent people from doing things with the music that Sony didn't approve of: It was a DRM system. If the exact same piece of software had been installed secretly by a hacker, this would have been an illegal act. But Sony believed that it had legitimate reasons for wanting to own its customers' machines.


* Antivirus: You might have expected your antivirus software to
detect Sony's rootkit. After all, that's why you bought it. But
initially, the security programs sold by Symantec and others did
not detect it, because Sony had asked them not to. You might
have thought that the software you bought was working for you, but you would have been wrong.

* Internet services: Hotmail allows you to blacklist certain e-mail
addresses, so that mail from them automatically goes into your spam trap. Have you ever tried blocking all that incessant marketing
e-mail from Microsoft? You can't.

* Application software: Internet Explorer users might have expected
the program to incorporate easy-to-use cookie handling and pop- up blockers. After all, other browsers do, and users have found them
useful in defending against Internet annoyances. But Microsoft isn't
just selling software to you; it sells Internet advertising as well.
It isn't in the company's best interest to offer users features that
would adversely affect its business partners.

* Spyware: Spyware is nothing but someone else trying to own your
computer. These programs eavesdrop on your behavior and report back to their real owners -- sometimes without your knowledge or consent -- about your behavior.

* Internet security: It recently came out that the firewall in
Microsoft Vista will ship with half its protections turned off.
Microsoft claims that large enterprise users demanded this default
configuration, but that makes no sense. It's far more likely that
Microsoft just doesn't want adware -- and DRM spyware -blocked
by default.


* Update: Automatic update features are another way software
companies try to own your computer. While they can be useful for
improving security, they also require you to trust your software
vendor not to disable your computer for nonpayment, breach of
contract or other presumed infractions.

Adware, software-as-a-service and Google Desktop search are all examples of some other company trying to own your computer. And Trusted Computing will only make the problem worse.

There is an inherent insecurity to technologies that try to own people's computers: They allow individuals other than the computers' legitimate owners to enforce policy on those machines. These systems invite attackers to assume the role of the third party and turn a user's device against him.

Remember the Sony story: The most insecure feature in that DRM system was a cloaking mechanism that gave the rootkit control over whether you could see it executing or spot its files on your hard disk. By taking ownership away from you, it reduced your security.

If left to grow, these external control systems will fundamentally
change your relationship with your computer. They will make your
computer much less useful by letting corporations limit what you can do with it. They will make your computer much less reliable because you will no longer have control of what is running on your machine, what it does, and how the various software components interact. At the extreme, they will transform your computer into a glorified boob tube.

You can fight back against this trend by only using software that
respects your boundaries. Boycott companies that don't honestly serve their customers, that don't disclose their alliances, that treat
users like marketing assets. Use open-source software -- software
created and owned by users, with no hidden agendas, no secret
alliances and no back-room marketing deals.

Just because computers were a liberating force in the past doesn't
mean they will be in the future. There is enormous political and
economic power behind the idea that you shouldn't truly own your
computer or your software, despite having paid for it.

El discurso en Miami de Vaclav Havel (Presidente de la Republica Checa)
Mood:  bright
Discurso del presidente de la Republica Checa, Vaclav Havel, en la Universidad Internacional de la Florida, Miami, Florida
23 de septiembre, 2002

Estoy aqui en el estado de la Florida por primera vez en mi vida. La Florida es ademas el ultimo estado de los Estados Unidos y el ultimo lugar del continente americano que visitare como Presidente de mi pais. Fue decision mia venir a la Florida y, entre otras cosas, lo decidi porque es desde este lugar que quiero extender mis saludos a todos los cubanos, aquellos que viven aqui y aquellos que viven en su hogar, Cuba.

Toda persona moderna que ame la libertad experimenta o, al menos, deberia experimentar un sentido de la solidaridad tanto con aquellos que no pueden vivir en sus propios paises o no pueden visitarlos como con aquellos que estan obligados a vivir en sus paises en estado constante de temor y que no pueden irse y volver por voluntad propia.

Pero hay personas que deberian naturalmente sentir este tipo de solidaridad con mas intensidad que otras. Me refiero a aquellos que experimentaron en carne propia la opresion de la vida bajo el sistema totalitario de tipo comunista o que podrian haber intentado resistirse a dicho sistema y experimentado lo importante que era la solidaridad y ayuda ofrecida por las personas de paises mas libres.

Creo que uno de los instrumentos mas diabolicos para dominar a las personas y burlarse de ellas es el lenguaje comunista. Es un lenguaje lleno de subterfugios, terminos ideologicos, frases vacias y estereotipos de discurso. Para las personas que no han visto el regimen a traves de su mentira o que nunca han vivido en un mundo manipulado por la misma, este lenguaje puede parecer atractivo. Al mismo tiempo, este mismo lenguaje puede evocar miedo y horror y obligarlos a un permanente estado de disimulo.

En mi pais, generaciones enteras se dejaron llevar por este tipo de lenguaje con sus bellas palabras sobre justicia, paz y la necesidad de luchar contra aquellos que, supuestamente en beneficio de las potencias extranjeras del mal, se resistieron al poder de este lenguaje. La gran ventaja del mismo reside en que todas sus partes estan entrelazadas dentro de un sistema cerrado de dogmas que excluye todo lo que no concuerde con el.

Toda idea que tenga un signo de originalidad o independencia, como tambien toda palabra que no sea parte del vocabulario oficial, se considera una desviacion ideologica, incluso antes de que alguien pueda expresarla. La red de dogmas que se despliega para justificar cualquier accion arbitraria por parte del poder gobernante, asume una forma utopica, es decir, una construccion artificial en la que todo lo que no encaja en dicha estructura o que va mas alla de ella debe suprimirse, prohibirse o destruirse por el bien de un futuro feliz.

La opcion mas sencilla es aceptar este lenguaje, creer en el o al menos adaptarse a el. Es dificil mantener el punto de vista de uno mismo, aunque el sentido comun nos diga una y otra vez que estamos en lo cierto, siempre y cuando eso signifique rebelarse en contra del lenguaje o simplemente negarse a utilizarlo. Un sistema de persecuciones, prohibiciones, informantes, elecciones obligatorias, de espiar a nuestros vecinos, de controles y campos de concentracion se esconde debajo de un velo de bellas palabras que no tienen ningun pudor en describir a la esclavitud como -forma elevada de libertad-, al pensamiento independiente como un modo de -respaldar el imperialismo- o describir al espiritu empresarial como un modo de -empobrecer a hermanos- y comparar a los derechos humanos con una-'ficcion burguesa-.

La experiencia de mi pais fue simple. Cuando la crisis interna del sistema totalitario crece tanto que se torna evidente para todos, y cuando cada vez mas personas hablan su propio idioma y rechazan el lenguaje vacio o enganoso del poder, significa que la libertad esta cerca, por no decir al alcance. De repente, el rey queda desnudo y la misteriosa y radiante energia que se desprende del lenguaje libre y las acciones libres se vuelve mas poderosas que el mas fuerte ejercito, fuerza policial u organizacion partidaria, mas fuerte que el mayor poder de una economia dirigista y devastadora, que los esclavizados y controlados medios de comunicacion, los propagadores del enganoso lenguaje de la utopia oficial.

Nuestro mundo no se encuentra en su mejor momento y el curso que ha tomado puede ser un tanto ambivalente. Pero esto no significa que debamos reemplazar el pensamiento libre y cultivado por una cadena de cliches utopicos. Esto no haria del mundo un mejor lugar, solo lo empeoraria. Por el contrario, significa que debemos hacer mas por nuestra libertad y la libertad de los otros.

!Que todos los cubanos vivan en libertad y disfruten de la independencia y prosperidad!

Para aquellos que no han perdido el valor de resistirse a las fuerzas y mentiras arbitrarias, espero que sus suenos se hagan realidad.

Deseo que a Oswald Paya Sardinas, el gran campeon de derechos humanos en Cuba, se conceda el Premio Nobel de la Paz, y que este premio refuerce el coraje de todo el pueblo cubano para que asuman una resistencia pacifica contra el regimen opresor!

Gracias por estar aqui y escucharme.

Vaclav Havel

Report: Cuba's Castro worth a cool $900M
Mood:  celebratory
Fortunes of dictator estimated at nearly twice that of Queen Elizabeth II in annual ranking of 'Kings, Queens & Dictators.'
May 4, 2006: 7:33 PM EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Cuban President Fidel Castro was furious when Forbes magazine estimated his fortune at $550 million last year. This year, the magazine upped its estimate of the communist leader's wealth to a cool $900 million.

Castro, who says his net worth is nil, is likely the beneficiary of up
to $900 million, based on his control of state-owned companies, the U.S. financial magazine said in its annual tally of "Kings, Queens &
Dictators" fortunes Thursday.

Kings and sheikhs of the oil-rich Gulf Arab states still top the Forbes
list, to be published in its May 22 edition.

Saudi King Abdullah is number one with an estimated $21 billion,
followed by Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei at $20 billion and United Arab Emirates' President Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahayan at $19 billion.

Among Europeans, Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein improved upon his family fortune of palaces, real estate and artwork with an investment in a U.S. producer of hybrid rice, for total estimated riches of $4 billion.

Perhaps the most industrious of the leaders listed is Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, ruler of Dubai, with a net worth of $14 billion.

Forbes estimates the renowned racehorse breeder also helped raise
Dubai's gross domestic product from about $8 billion to nearly $40
billion since 1994 by diversifying its industries outside of oil and
making successful investments overseas.

"He would probably be the shrewdest of the bunch," said Luisa Kroll,
associate editor at Forbes.

Africa's Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, president of Equatorial Guinea, made the list of wealthiest leaders for the first time. He is estimated to hold up to $600 million, the magazine said, although an oil boom has not prevented his country's slide down the United Nations' development rankings.

Castro had said he was considering suing after Forbes released its 2005 list, scoffing then his wealth was estimated to be close to that of the queen of England.

"Do they think I am (former Zairian President) Mobutu (Sese Seko) or one of the many millionaires, those thieves and plunderers that the empire has suckled and protected?" he said last year, referring to his
capitalist archenemy, Washington.

This year, Castro would be well above the British monarch. Queen
Elizabeth came in with some $500 million in estates, gems and a stamp collection built by her grandfather. The list does not include
Buckingham Palace or the crown jewels.

A copy of the list, compiled by Forbes editors and not confirmed by the royals themselves, was released Thursday.

"People are always intrigued. What is the ultimate fantasy but being a rich princess or prince?" said Kroll, who edits the magazine's annual list of global billionaires.

"We keep it separate from the billionaires because there are some very tricky things about these folks," Kroll said. "It's very hard to
separate state from personal wealth. Some of these fortunes literally go back 800 years.

Mood:  on fire
EFE -
La proxima visita de Hugo Chavez a la capital britanica -enoja-al primer ministro, Tony Blair, asegura hoy el diario "Financial Times", quien recuerda que el presidente venezolano le ha calificado de -principal aliado de Hitler-.

Chavez, cuya menci?n del dictador aleman era una clara referencia al actual presidente de Estados Unidos, George W. Bush, a quien llam? "Mr Danger Hitler", llegara a Londres el proximo 14 de mayo en visita calificada por fuentes diplomaticas del pais suramericano como -de trabajo-.

El presidente venezolano visitara el dia 15 al alcalde de la capital, Ken Livingstone, de la izquierda laborista, y se entrevistara con dirigentes sindicales y un grupo de diputados laboristas, entre ellos Colin Burgon.

Livingstone, cuyas diferencias politicas con Blair son notorias, se ha declarado encantado por poder ofrecer un almuerzo a Chavez.

-Hay muchas areas en las que podemos beneficiarnos de la experiencia de Venezuela- como la energia, la politica medioambiental, la participaci?n democratica, la educacion y la sanidad gratuita, dijo el alcalde, citado por el periodico.

Al almuerzo con Livingstone han sido invitados, segun fuentes venezolanas, el ultimo Nobel de literatura, Harold Pinter, conocido por sus fuertes diatribas contra Bush, y la activista Bianca Jagger, ademas del cantante y tambi?n activista Bono, l?der de U2.

Segun el rotativo, la visita de Chavez a la capital britanica debe interpretarse como -un signo de la creciente confianza del l?der venezolano en un momento en que el petroleo, que es el motor de su economia, alcanza precios record, y aumentan en Latinoamerica los gobiernos de izquierda que simpatizan con el.

Chavez decidio visitar el Reino Unido despues de que el pasado febrero Blair instase al Gobierno de Venezuela a -respetar las reglas de la comunidad internacional- si quer?a ser respetado en el mundo.

El presidente venezolano respondio a Blair mandandole "al cipote" por inmiscuirse en los asuntos de Venezuela y dijo que el politico britanico carecia de -moral para llamar a respetar las reglas de la comunidad internacional- porque era uno de sus violadores, -atropellando a pueblos en Irak y otras partes del mundo-

Venezuela Oil and Russia
Mood:  hungry
Venezuela, the world's fifth-largest oil exporter, has struck a bn deal to buy about 100,000 barrels a day of crude oil from Russia until the end of the year. Venezuela has been forced to turn to an outside source to avoid defaulting on contracts with "clients" and "third parties" as it faces a shortfall in production, according to a person familiar with the deal.

Venezuela could incur penalties if it fails to meet its supply
contracts. Documentation obtained by the Financial Times shows that the state-owned Petr?leos de Venezuela (PDVSA) made a financing arrangement this month with investment bank ABN Amro to facilitate the purchases of oil from Russia via Rotterdam. PDVSA is believed to have dropped the Dutch bank after the Russian government agreed to provide Venezuela with an "open account" facility to buy the oil. The Ruhr Oel refinery in Germany, in which PDVSA has a50 per cent stake, may be among the clients
that are being supplied with the Russian oil.

PDVSA would not confirm yesterday that it was buying oil from Russia but said a statement would be issued today. The company said it would be "logical" that the Ruhr refinery was sourcing some of its oil from Russia because it would be cheaper than transporting it from Venezuela. One US trader who deals in Venezuelan oil agreed, saying: "We have been expecting PDVSA to start buying [oil from the] Urals for the Veba system for some time. It is possible that they are trying to buy directly from Russian producers." The move suggests a growing gap between Venezuela's declining domestic output and its expanding contractual obligations to international customers. Luis Pacheco, a former planning director of PDVSA, said: "Why would Venezuela be buying crude oil from Russia? I would imagine it would be to meet obligations for light oil deliveries,
but they are relatively small. Most of PDVSA's obligations are for heavy oil."

Under President Hugo Ch?vez, PDVSA's oil output has declined by about 60 per cent, a trend analysts say has accelerated in the past year because of poor technical management. Mr Ch?vez's push to extend his influence throughout Latin America and the Caribbean with promises of cheap oil for friends and allies may be overstretching PDVSA's finances, however. Venezuela currently supplies about 300,000 barrels per day of oil and products to Cuba, Nicaragua and others under favourable long-term financing arrangements. This week, Venezuela signed a deal to send oil
to town mayors in Nicaragua aligned with the leftwing Sandinista party.

SABOTAJE
Mood:  sad
Michael Rowan

UN ZUECO o sabot en ingles, es un zapato de madera que algunos europeos desconsiderados insertaban en las maquinas para estropearlas, destruyendo asi su medio de subsistencia y participando en un sabotaje.

Los populistas latinoamericanos, como Hugo Chavez, hacen lo mismo con el comercio, la maquina que enriquecio al planeta. El mundo subdesarrollado es 5,4 veces mas rico que en 1820 gracias al comercio. El mundo desarrollado es 19 veces mas rico que entonces por el comercio. Esto es un hecho historico que Chavez y los populistas no comprenden, y ellos estan saboteando la vida economica en America Latina.

Desde 1980, unos 210.000.000 de chinos ya no son pobres gracias al comercio. Las herramientas del comercio son conocimiento y tecnologia. Los chinos llenaron universidades del mundo entero, educaron a su fuerza laboral y vendieron su mano de obra barata y muy calificada a traves del comercio. -Hecho en China- es una realidad con valor agregado omnipresente en el mundo entero. La economia china alcanzara las dimensiones de la estadounidense a corto plazo. China abandono el comunismo a favor de un moderno capitalismo. Cuando Chavez dijo anos atras en Pekin que era maoista, los chinos educadamente cambiaron de tema: el era el unico maoista presente. A los chinos les interesa el comercio global, no la retorica absurda de la revolucion.

Desde 1980, el ingreso per capita en Latinoamerica ha aumentado solo 10%, frente a 62% entre 1960 y 1980. Toda la region experimenta un rapido declive. Su economia total es mas pequena que la de California.

El 10% mas rico de los latinoamericanos gana 48% del ingreso total,
mientras que 10% mas pobre gana apenas 1,6%. Sus 200.000.000 de pobres aumentan en numero a diario. Vende al mundo bananas y petroleo, no conocimiento y tecnologia. Pronto podrian estar en la condicion de incapacitacion como Africa. Tiene un minimo interes en el comercio y un maximo interes en ser la victima de los tiempos modernos, sintiendo lastima por si misma y volviendose mas pobre.

Hay excepciones Mexico, Brasil, Chile y Colombia pero Venezuela encabeza el fracaso regional. El gobierno de Chavez esta en guerra contra el comercio, la globalizacion, el conocimiento y la tecnologia, es una guerra contra China, no solo contra EEUU. Es una guerra a favor del proteccionismo, el nacionalismo, la
revolucion y la desestabilizacion del orden mundial eso es pobreza, no el mar de la felicidad. Eso es sabotaje.

Vacio de poder y Cuba (de Montaner)
Ignacio Ramonet, el director del periodico mensual frances
Le Monde Diplomatique, ha publicado una falsa-verdadera
entrevista a Fidel Castro. Falsa, porque es un trabajo de
goma y tijera, como demostr? el escritor Arcadi Espada en
Espa?a.

Verdadera, porque se trata, realmente, de opiniones y frases
del dictador pronunciadas en distintas oportunidades, ahora
convenientemente unidas y oficialmente editadas con una
evidente intenci?n propagandistica.

?Que dice la entrevista que vale la pena retener? Dice que
Fidel Castro salvo a Chavez durante el golpe militar que lo
saco del poder durante 24 horas el 11 de abril de 2004.

Segun el comandante, gracias a su esfuerzo personal, a sus
constantes llamadas a los golpistas, a los oficiales
chavistas y a los jefes de gobierno de medio mundo, logro
mantener a Chavez con vida hasta que los militares le
devolvieron la autoridad al asustado presidente, quien, a la
sazon, ya habia renunciado a su cargo, como en su momento
revelara el general Lucas Rincon, jefe del ejercito venezolano.

Pero mas notable que esa afirmacion, fundamentalmente
cierta, es la razon por la que ahora se divulga: Castro
quiere demostrarles a los chavistas que si continuan
mandando y enriqueci?ndose sin l?mite en Venezuela, es
debido a su oportuna intervencion en aquellos momentos
dramaticos.

No deben, pues, quejarse sotto voce del astronomico subsidio
economico con que Chavez remunera a La Habana por los
servicios prestados (mas de dos mil millones de dolares
hasta la fecha), ni de los cien mil barriles de petroleo que
llegan a las costas cubanas todos los dias (mas de la mitad
de lo que consume la Isla), ni de los cuantiosos creditos a
fondo perdido graciosamente concedidos para adquirir en
Venezuela muchos de los productos que necesita la desastrosa
economia cubana.

Por la otra punta de esas inmensas d?divas, que ya casi
alcanzan al monto de las proporcionadas por los sovieticos
en los anos noventa, esta la labor intensa de mas de veinte
mil medicos, enfermeros y dentistas cubanos en los barrios
pobres de Venezuela; la reorganizacion de los servicios de
inteligencia venezolanos por cuenta de los infatigables
espias cubanos; la asesoria en el Ministerio de Relaciones
Exteriores de Caracas, donde los agentes de Castro hasta
redactan las comunicaciones oficiales; y la coordinacion de
la imagen internacional de Chavez y del chavismo a cargo de
las laboriosas redes del Instituto Cubano de Amistad con los Pueblos,
un brazo siniestro y eficiente de la inteligencia
cubana adiestrado por el KGB en los anos sesenta.

La ironia de esta creciente simbiosis entre Cuba y Venezuela
es que realmente se intensifico a partir del fracaso del
golpe de abril de 2002.

Fue entonces cuando Chavez descubrio que necesitaba el
consejo y el auxilio del dictador mas viejo y experimentado
del mundo para mantenerse en la presidencia, mientras Castro
vio en los enormes recursos de Venezuela una fuente
inagotable de riqueza para poder sostener su improductivo
sistema economico sin necesidad de hacer cambios a la China
o a la Vietnam, como deseaban ciertos reformistas dentro de
su propio regimen.

Pero hay mas: como consecuencia de los intimos lazos
surgidos entre Castro y Chavez tras el episodio del golpe de
2002, maestro y discipulo llegaron a la peregrina conclusion
de que lo conveniente para que no se rompieran esos vinculos
tras la previsible muerte de Fidel, dado que el comandante
esta muy enfermo y cumplira ochenta anos en agosto del 2006,
era federar los dos paises dentro de una misma entidad politica.

Decision que confirma la reciente declaracion en Caracas de
Carlos Lage, vicepresidente del Consejo de Estado, en la que
afirmo que Cuba tenia dos presidentes, Castro y Chavez, y el
posterior discurso del canciller cubano Felipe Perez Roque
en el mismo sentido, designado por Castro como virrey dentro
de ese Estado bicefalo que subrepticiamente intentan poner
en marcha de manera inconsulta, tanto en Cuba como en
Venezuela.

Lo que estamos viendo, pues, es una vigorosa campana de
persuasion, dirigida tanto a cubanos como venezolanos, para
que ambos pueblos, y las clases dirigentes de los dos
paises, admitan la conveniencia de unir las dos naciones.

Lo probable, sin embargo, es que eso no suceda nunca o que
fracase el intento. Dentro de Cuba, Chavez y el chavismo se
perciben como un deprimente espect?culo de payasos ineptos y
corruptos.

Mientras tanto, para la inmensa mayoria de los venezolanos,
preocupados por su propia pobreza, que abarca a la mitad de
la poblacion, Cuba es un pais del cuarto mundo al que no
tienen intencion de subsidiar indefinidamente, y mucho menos
aceptar como fuente de liderazgo politico.

Cuando muera Castro, pues, lo predecible es que ese
matrimonio se disolvera rapidamente.

Carlos Alberto Montaner

La propaganda de CITGO anti Bush
Now Playing: Propaganda de CITGO...
El 16 de mayo se publica en USA por parte de Common-Dreams.org. una pubblicidad que dice: BUY YOUR GAS AT CITGO: JOIN THE BUY-cott !, o sea: Compre su gasolina en CITGO, unase al boicot (pero con BUY). La hoja Web que lo divulga es: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0516-25.htm Y alli se dice que una forma facil de protestar contra BUSH y su politica exterior y de paso aliviar la pobreza mundial es comprandola gasolina en las estaciones de servicio de CITGO que forman parte de la refineria de Venezuela en USA. El dinero que usted utiliza al comprar esa gasolina va a Venezuela no va hacia Arabia Saudita o al Middle East. Son 14 estaciones de servicios de CITGO y al comprar su gasolina en esos lugares, (ver los lugares en http://www.citgo.com/CITGOLocator/StoreLocator.jsp )entonces ud. va a contribuir con el trabajo social que se hace en Venezuela que favorece a los pobres y donde esa democracia ,etc... Esto , se dice alli, es lo contrario a un Bycott realmente es un BUYcott. Y termina diciendo Jeff Cohen (www.jeffcohen.org): asi pues compre su gasolina en CITGO y de esa forma ayudara a democracia revolucionaria venezolana.