The Chavez moderation, first qtr 2011

Authors:
José Alberto López Rafaschieri and Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

From the Chavez's Annual Report and Statement in the National Assembly, on 15 January, many people associate the moderation showed at the ceremony by the Venezuelan president with the leader's desire to be seen, in the international community, as tolerant and democratic. An idea with which we disagree.

Chavez has never been afraid of foreign repudiation; rather, he draws much of his domestic support by promoting conflict with the United States, Colombia and other nations. In addition, the Venezuelan president has always been keen to insult the principal figures of the OAS, Human Rights Watch and the Inter American Press Association.

For whom, then, is the image of moderation that Chavez shows since the beginning of the year? To us, the answer to this question has only three words: The Venezuelan voters.

Chavez is very concerned about having obtained less votes than the opposition in the parliamentary elections of September 2010, which adds to the growing discontent that exists in Venezuela against the government. Chavez knows he has little time to entice back voters, and that his authoritarian image is one of his most rejected attributes. Therefore, he is repeating the sheep costume that, in the past, has yielded good results for his revolution.

After trying to take control of Venezuela through two failed coups in 1992, Lt. Col. Chavez won the 1998 election with a false discourse of respect for human rights, inclusion and participatory democracy. Following the severe political crisis of 2002, Chavez returned to power, acknowledging his mistakes, talking about amnesty and promising to open dialogue with his opponents, trick that, along with the use of all national resources in the government propaganda, let him win the 2004 referendum. Next comes the 2006 presidential, which Chavez addressed with that campaign "for love", obtaining excellent results. And now, near the 2012 presidential elections, Chávez puts back the mask of moderation, hoping the Venezuelans are the same gullible voters of 1998, 2004 and 2006.

---

Related articles:

• Venezuela: Two maxi-devaluations in 2010
• The Cuban Perestroika, cultural impact
• The intellectual Anglo-Saxonism of Chavez

Cuba, living without the US?

Authors:
Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri and José Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

"Latin American peoples can live without the United States as Cuba has shown for over fifty years", Fidel Castro said in his Reflections on January 10. Which could be taken as true, of course yes, but only if the Cuban dictator was talking about a game of dominoes, or subjects that have nothing to do with the island's politics and economy.

Trying to catch the point of the communist leader, we could talk about what Fidel understands for "living", because being a citizen of a country where workers are exploited without the restrictions of a labor rights system is not what we would call a dignified existence. Or we could make mention of the irreplaceable scapegoat role the U.S. has played in the Cuban socialist myth, which has served to justify 5 decades of internal oppression. However, it seems best to comment on some economic data that completely contradicts the argument of the alleged Cuban independence from the U.S.

All Cuban newcomers in United States follow 3 key steps: First, seek political asylum; second, look for work/housing; and third, ask where is the nearest office of Western Union.

Thanks to formal money transfer services, Cuba receives annually about one billion dollars to refresh its economy, not including what is sent through informal channels. Not a great figure compared with the overall volume of the Cuban GDP, but since the 90's, remittances represent for Cuba the first source of dollars, providing more than any other export sector of the island. And most of these funds comes from the United States Fidel says is irrelevant to Cuba.

Ironic, but true, since the Castros installed their family dictatorship, Cuba has had the need to change its communist godfathers. The USSR and China in the initial stage, Chavez's Venezuela in the present. However, the only external economy that has never failed to send dollars to Cuba is a different country: The United States of America.

---

Related articles:

• And what will Cubans say?
• Cuban oil dependency
• The Cuban Perestroika

And what will Cubans say?

Authors:
José Alberto López Rafaschieri and Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

After spending much of 2010 talking about the risks of atomic weapons and the alarming possibility of a nuclear disaster -that never came- by the tensions between Iran, Israel and the United States, Fidel Castro devoted the first column of 2011 , "What would Einstein say?" to the same subject, deliberately emphasizing an issue that is far removed from what really matters to his people: Cuba's problems.

From the man who threatened to launch nuclear missiles to the United States and who has ruled Cuba for over fifty years, the last thing we want to read is a list of nuclear accusations against the world powers, has he nothing to say about his own country? Rather than asking his readers about the possible reaction of Albert Einstein regarding the attacks allegedly directed by the Hebrew intelligence agencies and NATO against Iranian scientists, as Castro did in his "Reflections" of January 6, why not to ask Cubans about his country's poor level of development despite having tried communism for more than fifty years? What will Cubans say on the technological delay of the island, so far behind Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Colombia and Chile, specially in the field of information and communication systems? What will Cubans say about the huge number of political prisoners of the regime? What will Cubans say about the way Fidel handed the presidency to his brother as being part of the family heritage? What will Cubans say about the fact that their country is going to be one of the last of Latin America to adopt a democratic system?

It is to these anxieties of the Cuban people that Castro should devote his meditations, because the debate on Cuban policy is also "almost inexhaustible", Fidel, quoting the same phrase you used in your column referring the nuclear issue. And you can be sure that depending on you and your brother the transformation of Cuba in a democratic nation, the problem is more interesting for the world and your people than any other you want to philosophize. You already said enough about global warming, the growth of deserts and an imaginary nuclear war, now tell us more about Cuba.

---

Related articles:

• The Fidel Castro we didn't know
• Shock measures a la Cubana
• The Cuban Perestroika

Venezuela: two maxi-devaluations in 2010

Authors:
Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri and José Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

Beginning 2010, Chavez surprised Venezuela enacting a maxi-devaluation of 100% against the bolivar, even though, according to his words of 2008 and 2009, the international financial crisis would affect only the capitalist countries.

However, problems remain, so this year, in May, Chavez proposes a new exchange rate system -SITME- as a formula that supposedly would stabilize the value of the bolivar by reducing the speculation. But this only succeeds in creating a new business for entrepreneurs linked to the revolutionary process and making even harder the Venezuela's international trade, which ends up generating more questions about the true value of the Venezuelan currency and promotes the scarcity of other primary commodities.

Seven months since the creation of the SITME, the same president who mocked the bailout of Greece was forced to order another maxi-devaluation, this time of 65%, due to the deterioration of public finances in Venezuela, and despite the recovery of oil prices in international markets. A movement that not only shows the inefficiency of the SITME-dollar system, but also means more inflation for the country with the world's worst annual change in prices.

Definitely, 2010 was not a good year for ALBA countries in budgetary matters: To balance the accounts of their governments, Rafael Correa, in Ecuador, had to reduce employment benefits of many public workers; Evo Morales caused a severe social unrest in Bolivia when tried to increase fuel prices in near 100%; Raul Castro, in Cuba, is moving forward in his plan to dismantle socialism by the lack of results in 50 years; and Chavez was not able to think something less unpopular than launching two maxi-devaluations in the same year. Maybe in 2005, Chavez would have solved with great pleasure the financial problems of his ideological comrades, but this is another Venezuela, one that no longer have the funds to support the mismanagement of public money, even as the world continues to witness the biggest oil boom of all time.

---

Related articles:

• Venezuela: Devaluation in 2011?
• The Cuban Perestroika
• Hyper-inflationary Statism