Este libro trata diferentes aspectos de la acción internacional de los gobiernos de Hugo Chávez (1999- 2013). Es un recorrido por la política y la economía de Venezuela en su relación con el mundo. Se analiza esa relación con los países del Caribe, en especial con la Cuba de los Castro; con Los Estados Unidos y España, como imperios “malucos”, presentes y pasados; con Rusia y China, como imperios “benevolentes”; con los países Latinoamericanos y sus organizaciones multilaterales; y con ese grupo de países con “pensamiento parecido” (like minded group) que forman el “Club de los totalitarios”.
Revisaremos como se produce un cambio fundamental en la articulación de Venezuela en el ámbito internacional, “En términos generales, Chávez “desoccidentalizó” las relaciones internacionales de Venezuela y reubicó a Venezuela en otros contextos lejanos. En lo regional, los gobiernos de Chávez sacaron al país de su marco histórico tradicional de ser parte de la comunidad de países bolivarianos, es decir, los países que liberó Simón Bolívar, con los que formamos la Comunidad Andina (CAN). También nos sacó del Caribe y nos arrastró hacia el sureste, a la Suramérica atlántica, al convertirnos en sureños incorporados al Mercosur de Brasil y Argentina, países a los cuales no nos une tanto ni la historia ni la geografía, como con los países bolivarianos.”. Por otro lado “… practicó un progresivo aislamiento internacional. Blandiendo la bandera de la no intervención ―aunque se caracterizó por opinar e inmiscuirse en la política nacional de muchos países e insultar a sus dirigentes― y de la autodeterminación de los pueblos, creó una cortina para impedir al mundo ver y evaluar lo que pasaba en su país”. En ese sentido, la información de lo que sucedió en Venezuela durante su mandato y los de Nicolás Maduro se cubren de una bruma que a veces es difícil de penetrar, en especial cuando el gobierno no procura información al público y mantiene una permanente presión para censurar a los medios de comunicación, que están a su merced.

Disponible en AMAZON. Ahora en versión ebook/Kindel

The rise and fall of Venezuela has been tragic. Since 2014, nearly 7 million people have fled the country in search of a better life. In that same period, their GDP has shrunk by nearly three quarters. And oil production, which funds most of their governmental budget, has dwindled rapidly, leaving the country in a state of emergency. When you add into the mix the COVID-19 pandemic, sanctions from foreign countries, and a political system that is democratic in name only, it makes for a difficult and messy situation. In this video, we take you through the rise and fall of this beautiful country. We start in the 1920’s, when massive amounts of oil were discovered, and Venezuela quickly became the second biggest petroleum producer in the world. And we follow it through the next several decades, where, because of the rice in oil prices, and the massive foreign investment in the Venezuelan oil industry, the country was flush with cash. However, it lacked the infrastructure, democratic system, and more to really take advantage of this new money. Instead, it used the money to build up the military, and make the elite more and more wealthy. We take you through the rest of the century, as Venezuela began to become more and more of a ‘petrostate’ and suffer from “Dutch disease”. Finally, we take you into this century, which has seen the country descend into economic hardship, a full on dictatorship, and more. So join us, as we take a look at the rise and fall of Venezuela. Full Video-> TheRichest

The article discusses the history and significance of the Contadora Group, a peace talks initiative led by Venezuela in the 1980s to address the conflicts in Central America during the Cold War. The article highlights the involvement of Venezuelan presidents, such as Carlos Andrés Pérez, in supporting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua and their concerns about the spread of Marxism-Leninism in the region.

The Contadora Group, consisting of Venezuela, Mexico, Colombia, and Panama, aimed to promote democracy, reconciliation, and disarmament in Central America while countering US interventionist impulses. The group faced opposition from the Reagan administration, which undermined their efforts and pursued its own military actions. Although the Contadora Process did not achieve concrete results, it created a regional support network and emphasized the value of negotiation.

In this sense, there was the subsequent Esquipulas Process, led by Óscar Arias, which furthered the peace efforts in the region.

The legacy of the Contadora Group is seen in the political transformations and peacemaking efforts that followed in Central America, but its significance has been forgotten in Venezuela’s current political landscape. The article questions whether the lessons from Contadora can inform ongoing negotiations or if diplomatic efforts will be futile.

Full Article-> Caracas Chronicles

The true story” ten years after the 2013 presidential elections. The documentary shows Capriles’ experience with the election “stolen” by the Chavismo.

April 14, 2023 marked the 10th anniversary of the presidential elections in Venezuela that brought Nicolas Maduro into power. The election took place six months after Hugo Chávez won but passed away, allegedly in March 2013. In a national address, Chavez designated Maduro as his successor due to health issues, ordering the chavismo to elect him as the next President. The Electoral Council acted promptly, announcing elections within four days after Chavez’s death, following which Maduro emerged victorious in April 2013 as the new President of Venezuela.

An illegal presidency

 Before the elections, Maduro was sworn in as interim president a few hours after Chavez’s funeral. The opposition did not attend the ceremony, claiming it was unconstitutional. Capriles, the opposition leader at the time, warned that it was “spurious” and cited the constitution.

Actually, Nicolás Maduro did not fulfill the requirements to run for president established in Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court ruled and interpreted the constitution to allow Maduro’s swearing-in as interim president.

But this decision was in contradiction to Article 229 of the same Constitution. The Continuity of Administration principle was applied by the Supreme Court to allow Maduro to take over from Hugo Chávez without fulfilling the necessary constitutional, legal, and procedural requirements for such an executive position.

Enabled him to participate in the Venezuelan presidential elections, had created since then a spurious presidency Venezuela.

Did Maduro lost this election?

In the 2013 presidential campaign in Venezuela, the official government command used the slogan “Chávez, te lo juro, mi voto es por Maduro”(Chávez, I swear to you, my vote is for Maduro”) to resonate with sympathizers of the deceased President and garner support for the continuation of the ‘process’. The campaign between Maduro and Capriles was marked by insults and accusations.

After a long and tense election day, Tibisay Lucena from the National Electoral Council (CNE) announced that Maduro had won with 50.66% of the votes.  Minutes after the official announcement, Capriles demanded a detailed review of the electoral process from the CNE. He claimed that there were irregularities such as closures of borders, intimidation by groups, and affected votes. He stated that these problems made this election different from others.

Capriles called for a review.

Capriles demanded a recount of votes after the Venezuelan election results in 2013 were announced.

The recount was not fully completed, and it was subsequently discovered that 535,000 voting machines had been damaged, which affected about 189,982 votes. It was also alleged that in 1,176 centers Maduro received more votes than Hugo Chávez in 2012, and denounced the forced removal of election observers from 286 centers. Other instances of irregularity included vote-assistance in 564 centers and over 600,000 deceased voters in the electoral register. In total, the detected irregularities would have affected more than 1,479,774 votes.

The heads of state of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) held a private two-hour meeting. Maduro left the meeting with a smile and thanked the block’s leaders and raised his left fist in appreciation of their declaration of consensus. The agreement called for dialogue and tolerance.It concluded with a message of support for Maduro as the successor of deceased ex-president Hugo Chavez.

Did Capriles call for actions?

Capriles called for a cacerolazo, a type of protest in which people bang pots and pans, in response to Nicolas Maduro’s controversial presidential victory 13. Maduro retorted with a call for his supporters to use fireworks as a form of counter-protest. The opposition resumed the cacerolazo the next day.

This tension led to violence, including accusations of burned political offices, intimidation, and physical attacks. In turn, local police were placed under the jurisdiction of the Venezuelan military, and the entire incident resulted in the death of nine individuals.

To this day, Capriles is singled out for not having called for a street mobilization to claim victory. His decision not to call the people to the streets to defend his victory has reduced his leadership in the opposition.

He argues that calling a demonstration that day, would have caused many deaths and that he did not want that in his conscience.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has declared that it has jurisdiction over the dispute between Venezuela and Guyana over 160,000 square kilometers of territory located west of the Essequibo River. Venezuela had sought to have the case considered “inadmissible” but the ICJ unanimously rejected its arguments. Guyana, meanwhile, had asked the court to reject Venezuela’s preliminary objections and proceed to the substance of the case.

The Court has rejected Venezuela’s claim that the UK has a legal obligation to participate in a dispute between Guyana and Venezuela over the region of Essequibo. Guyana had requested that the Court focuses on the validity of a 1899 arbitration award, which Venezuela argued was invalid as the UK, which controlled Guyana at the time, was not a party to the case before the court. Furthermore, Venezuela argued that the ICJ had no jurisdiction to hear Guyana’s case.

In a communiqué , Venezuela celebrates an incidental sentence from the court, because it recognizes the illicit and fraudulent behavior of the United Kingdom and underscores the validity of the 1966 Geneva Agreement as the only valid instrument to resolve the territorial dispute. But make clear that, the country does not recognize the judicial mechanism as a means of resolving the controversy over Essequibo region because it excludes the nature and purpose of the Geneva Agreement.

Guyana and Venezuela are in a territorial dispute over the Essequibo region, with Venezuela claiming around 70% of Guyana’s territory, including offshore oil reserves. The dispute has been ongoing since 1899, and Guyana has requested that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) resolve the issue. However, Venezuela has argued against this, claiming that the original arbitration agreement was null and void due to fraud. Venezuela has also ratified the 57-year-old Geneva Agreement as the only legal framework for resolving the territorial dispute.

And I must say from the outset that Venezuela has been an unlucky country in defending its neighboring islands and border areas, but it should also be noted that Venezuelan governments have sometimes neglected to protect one and the other; And above all take advantage of favorable opportunities and contexts to do so. Full Text ->Nation World News

Traducción de cortesía -> Y debo decir desde un principio que Venezuela ha sido un país desafortunado en la defensa de sus islas vecinas y zonas fronterizas, pero también cabe señalar que los gobiernos venezolanos en ocasiones han descuidado proteger a unos ya otros; Y sobre todo aprovechar las oportunidades y contextos favorables para hacerlo.

During the 16th century, Spanish colonizers brought enslaved Africans to Venezuela. The enslaved were typically brought to work in copper mines, cocoa agriculture and sugar plantations to Coro and Buría (Yaracuy), Isla Margarita, Cumaná and the regions surrounding Caracas.Much like elsewhere in the Americas and the Caribbean, slave revolts were rampant in Venezuela. Unfortunately, this history was often intentionally undiscussed in history’s retellings. By Amara Amaryah. Full Text -> TravelNoir

Traducción de cortesía -> Durante el siglo XVI, los colonizadores españoles trajeron africanos esclavizados a Venezuela. Los esclavos solían ser llevados a trabajar en las minas de cobre, la agricultura de cacao y las plantaciones de azúcar en Coro y Buría (Yaracuy), Isla Margarita, Cumaná y las regiones que rodean Caracas. Al igual que en otras partes de América y el Caribe, las revueltas de esclavos eran rampantes en Venezuela. . Desafortunadamente, esta historia a menudo no se discutió intencionalmente enlos recuentos de la historia.

Traducción al español -> Google Translación

La histórica marcha que cruzó Caracas desde el este hasta el centro de la ciudad, la balacera de tres horas cerca del palacio presidencial de Miraflores, los 19 muertos y 69 heridos y quiénes estaban implicados son elementos que siguen generando acalorados debates.Pero no sólo eso: los días siguientes son una sucesiónde momentos rocambolescos y confusos que están en la historia del país petrolero. El presidente Hugo Chávez fue sacado del poder por cerca de unas 48 horas después de que el general Lucas Rincón dijera su famosa frase: “Se le solicitó al Presidente de la República la renuncia de su cargo, la cual aceptó”. Le siguió un gobierno relámpago del empresario Pedro Carmona “El Breve” y su polémico Carmonazo con el que derogaba la Constitución de 1999; y finalmente, el sorpresivo regreso de Chávez a la presidencia el 13 de abril para gobernar de forma continua hasta diciembre de 2012. Por Daniel González Cappa. Texto Completo-> BBC News Mundo

︎For English text, use Google’s translator at the bottom ︎

Many people were surprised by a new war in Europe. But for my generation, the famous “end of history” never happened. Especially if you are from Venezuela. By Pedro Graterol. Full Text -> CaracasChronicles

Traducción de cortesía -> Muchas personas se sorprendieron por una nueva guerra en Europa. Pero para mi generación, el famoso “fin de la historia” nunca sucedió. Sobre todo si eres de Venezuela.

Traducción al español -> Google Translación