VENEZUELA: THREE DAYS OF MOURNING FOLLOWING AMUAY DISASTER. WAS IT TERRORISM?
Only 43 days before the Venezuelan presidential election and with President Chavez leading by a persistent margin of 20 percentage points, an explosion and fire at the Amuay refinery killed at least 48 people – half of those were members of the National Guard – and destroyed oil facilities producing 645,000 barrels of oil per day.
“You can’t exclude any hypothesis … It’s practically impossible that here in an [oil] installation like this which is fully automated everywhere and that has thousands of responsible workers night and day, civilian and military, and that there is a gas leak for 3 or 4 days and nobody responds. This is impossible.”
President Chavez responding to US media and opposition charges that the explosion and fire at the oil refinery was due to government negligence.
Introduction
Only 43 days before the Venezuelan presidential election and with President Chavez leading by a persistent margin of 20 percentage points, an explosion and fire at the Amuay refinery killed at least 48 people – half of those were members of the National Guard – and destroyed oil facilities producing 645,000 barrels of oil per day.
Immediately following the explosion and fire, on script, all the mass media in the US and Great Britain, and the right wing Venezuelan opposition launched a blanket condemnation of the government as the perpetrator of the disaster accusing it of “gross negligence” and “under-investment” in safety standards.
Yet there are strong reasons to reject these self-serving accusations and to formulate a more plausible hypothesis, namely that the explosion was an act of sabotage, planned and executed by a clandestine group of terrorist specialists acting on behalf of the US government. There are powerful arguments to sustain and pursue this line of inquiry.
The Argument for Sabotage:
(1) The first question in any serious investigation is who benefits and who loses from the destruction of lives and oil production?
The US is a clear winner on several crucial fronts. Firstly, via the economic losses to the Venezuelan economy – 2.5 million barrels in the first 5 days and counting – the loss will put a dent on social spending and delay productive investments which in turn are key electoral appeals of the Chavez presidency. Secondly, on cue the US joined by its client candidate,Henrique Capriles Radonski, immediately launched a propaganda blitz aimed at discrediting the government and calling into question its capacity to ensure the security and safety of its citizens and the principle source of the country’s wealth. Thirdly, the explosion creates insecurity and fear among sectors of the electorate and could influence their voting in the October presidential election. Fourthly, the US can test the effectiveness of a wider destabilization campaign and the government’s capacity to respond to any further security threats.
(2) According to official government documents the US has Special Forces operations in over seventy-five countries, including Venezuela, which is targeted because of an adversarial relation. This means that the US has operative clandestine highly trained operatives on the ground in Venezuela. The capture of a US Marine for illegal entry in Venezuela with prior experience in war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan is indicative.
(3) The US has a history of involvement in violent destabilization activity in Venezuela – backing the military coup of 2002 and the bosses’ lockout in the petroleum industry in 2003. The US targeting of the oil industry involved sabotage of the computerized system and efforts to degrade the refineries.
(4) The US has a history of sabotage and violence against incumbent adversarial regimes. In Cuba during 1960, the CIA torched a department store and sugar plantations, and planted bombs in the downtown tourist centers – aiming to undermine strategic sectors of the economy. In Chile following the election of Socialist Salvador Allende, a CIA backed right-wing group kidnapped and assassinated the military attache of Socialist President, in an effort to provoke a military coup. Similarly in Jamaica in the late 1970’s under democratic socialist President Manley, the CIA facilitated a violent destabilization campaign in the run-up to the elections. Sabotage and destabilization is a common weapon in the face of impending electoral defeats (as is the case in Venezuela) or where a popular government is firmly entrenched.
(5) Force, violence and destabilization campaigns against incumbent regimes have become common operation procedure in current US policy. The US has financed and armed terrorist groups in Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Chechnya; it is bombing Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan. In other words US foreign policy is highly militarized and opposed to any negotiated diplomatic resolution of conflicts with adversarial regimes. Sabotaging Venezuela’s oil refineries is within the logic and practice of current global US foreign policy.
(6) Domestic politics in the US has taken a further turn to the far right in both domestic and foreign policy. The Republican Party has accused the Democrats of pandering to Iran, Venezuela, Cuba and Syria – of not going to war.
The Obama regime has responded by escalating its military policies – battleships, missiles are aimed at Iran. He has supported Miami’s demand for “regime change” in Cuba as a prelude to negotiations. Washington is channeling millions of dollars via NGO’s to the Venezuelan opposition – for electoral and destabilization purposes. No doubt the opposition includes employees, engineers and others with security clearance and access to the petroleum industry. Obama has consistently taken violent actions to demonstrate that he is as militarist as the Republicans. In the midst of a close election campaign, especially with a tight race in Florida, the sabotage of the Venezuelan refineries plays well for Obama.
(7) With a little more than a month left before the elections, and President Chavez is showing a 20 percentage point advantage; the economy is on track for a steady recovery; social housing and welfare programs are consolidating massive low income support or over 80%; Venezuela has been admitted into MERCOSUR the powerful Latin American integration program; Colombia signed off on a mutual defense agreement with Venezuela; Venezuela is diversifying its overseas markets and suppliers. What these facts indicate is that Washington has no chance of defeating Chavez electorally;it has no possibility of using its Latin neighbors as a springboard for territorial incursions or precipitating a war for regime change; and it has no chance of imposing an economic boycott.
Given Washington’s declared enmity and designation of Chavez as “a threat to hemispheric security” and faced with the utter failure of its other policy tools, the resort to violence and, in this specific case, sabotage of the strategic petrol sector emerges as the policy of choice. Washington, by revealing its resort to clandestine terror, represents a clear and present danger to Venezuela’s constitutional order, an immediate threat to the life blood of its economy and of the democratic electoral process. Hopefully, the Chavez government, backed by the vast majority of its citizens and constitutionalist armed forces will take the necessary comprehensive security measures to ensure that there is no repeat of the petrol sabotage in other sectors, like the electrical grid. Public weakness in the face of imperial belligerence only encourages further aggression. No doubt heightened public security in defense of the constitutional order will be denounced by the US government, media and their local clients as “authoritarian” and claim that protection of the national patrimony infringes on ‘democratic freedoms’. No doubt they prefer a weak security system to ply their violent provocations. Subsequent to their decisive electoral defeat they will claim fraud or interference. All this is predictable, but the vast majority of voters who assemble, debate and cast their ballots will feel secure and look forward to another four years of peace and prosperity, free from terror and sabotage.
UPDATE I: Venezuelan Opposition Jumps on National Tragedy
Correo del Orinoco International
In the aftermath of this weekend’s tragic oil refinery explosion, the Venezuelan opposition and its allies in the private media issued a series of baseless claims aimed at fomenting fears and winning over voters.
With just five weeks to go before the country holds presidential elections on October 7, opposition candidate Henrique Capriles Radonski and others in his US-backed coalition used allied media to accuse the Chavez government of “negligence”, vaguely promising a future “free of such incidents”.
With the exact cause of the leak, explosion, and resulting fire yet unknown, and with over 40 fatal victims, many question the opposition’s use of the tragic incident.
Fueling the fire
On Saturday, August 25, a gas-based explosion rocked the western Venezuelan state of Falcon, killing 41 people and leaving an additional 80 wounded. The tragic incident occurred at the country’s largest oil refinery, Amuay, operated by publicly-owned Petroleos de Venezuela (Pdvsa). Hours after the explosion, and with clean-up efforts in full effect, national authorities including Executive Vice President Elias Jaua and Energy Minister Rafael Ramirez arrived on the scene to provide direct support.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez described the accident as “sad and painful”, adding that the victims’ suffering “felt like a dagger in our hearts”. He also decreed a “three-day period of national mourning” and called for a “full investigation” into the cause of the incident.
With just five weeks before Venezuela holds another election, and with President Hugo Chavez widely expected to defeat his US-backed conservative rival, the country’s opposition tried using the tragic incident to influence a mourning populace.
One of the first opposition spokesmen to voice his opinion was Leopoldo Lopez, National Coordinator of the Capriles campaign. Barred from holding public office for having illegally accessed thousands of dollars in donations while working at Pdvsa in the 1990’s, Lopez used his Twitter account to allege that “poor and irresponsible management has made PDVSA one of the worst companies in the world”. Anti-Chavez lawmaker Maria Corina Machado joined Lopez in the issuing of baseless claims, guessing the incident was caused by a lack of “maintenance and adequate procedures”.
On Saturday, right-wing daily El Universal and others in the private media disseminated a Capriles statement expressing “support” for the victims of Amuay. Stating things such as “today, more than ever, Falcon (state) needs all of us Venezuelans” and “we’ve shown that, together, we can overcome”, Capriles was consistent with his campaign strategy of vaguely promising “solutions” without directly attacking the Chavez administration.
Meanwhile, Lopez claimed the incident “is the direct result of negligence”. Failing to provide any facts, figures, or documentation to back his claims, he told reporters the incident “was an accident caused by a practice of carelessness”. Speaking in the context of this year’s election, Lopez said, “change is needed in order to guarantee not only the safety of the oil industry, but the safety of the entire nation”. ”We are the voice of hope”, he said, “and in the very near future we will guarantee that these types of accidents not occur”.
On Monday, Capriles held a press conference in which he said “those killed (at Amuay) are our little angels in the sky – watching over us to ensure a situation like this never happens again in our Venezuela”.
Politicizing the flames
Apart from the electoral positioning of Capriles and his followers, the tragic incident was also used by the anti-Chavez minority to question Pdvsa’s current role in the Venezuelan economy. While President Chavez firmly insists oil production must benefit the country’s poor majority, longtime advocates of privatization insist on Pdvsa’s “de-politicization”.
According to Rafael Quiroz, a professor at opposition stronghold Central University of Venezuela (UCV), “there is no doubt whatsoever that some sort of mismanagement took place, at least as it relates to industrial security”. Quoted by Venezuelan daily El Carabobeño, Quiroz insisted “a human or technical failure must have occurred; evidence of a certain incapacity or inefficiency”.
The Venezuelan opposition often claims that the removal of numerous Pdvsa employees, mostly management, fired for having deliberately halted production during the 2002-2003 oil industry sabotage, is the reason for all problems in the country’s oil industry.
An AFP story on the fire cited Diego Gonzalez, President of the Center for Energy Orientation, who criticized Pdvsa-backed “social programs”, suggesting the Amuay incident is the result of Pdvsa “having other interests – obeying government mandates, which is now what prevails”.
Other international media produced similar reports. Basing its piece on unofficial reports and sources, Reuters wrote that such “problems have spurred accusations of inept management by the government of President Hugo Chavez”, while the Christian Science Monitor titled its story, “Venezuelan oil blast evidence of deteriorating infrastructure”.
Independents speak out
On Saturday, Venezuela’s national organization of independent journalists, the Journalists’ Platform, issued a communiqué lamenting the terrible loss of life at Amuay and calling for responsible reporting when it comes to such events.
Reproduced by numerous public media outlets, but absent across the private sector, the group’s statement affirmed its members “share in the pain felt across the nation” and “express the most profound sentiment of solidarity with the families of those killed”.
The organization called on “all colleagues in the public, private, alternative, and community media to strengthen our spirit of solidarity, respect, and comprehension” and affirmed that journalists have the “responsibility to both avoid and condemn all speculation and sensationalism which can result in an unnecessary climate of tension and angst”.
“Committed as we are to informing the public about this terrible incident”, the document read, the Journalists’ Platform called for “an ethical journalism that waits for the results of investigations so as to clarify uncertainties, thus avoiding the distortion of reality and the distribution of false information which do not contribute to uncovering the truth”.
UPDATE II: The Sabotage Theory of the Explosion in Venezuela’s Amuay Refinery
Venezuelanalysis.com note: Last Saturday 25 August an explosion resulting from a gas leak occurred in Venezuela’s largest oil refinery Amuay, which at the time of writing has killed 48 people and injured over 100 more. It is one of the deadliest industrial accidents in the history of Venezuela’s oil industry. An official investigation has been launched into the tragedy.
While President Hugo Chavez urged for avoidance of speculation on the cause of the incident until conclusions are reached by the investigation, opposition politicians and media immediately launched claims that the explosion was due to lack of government investment and maintenance. Likewise, some journalists and commentators have alleged that the explosion could be the result of deliberate sabotage in order to damage the electoral campaign of Hugo Chavez ahead of presidential elections in October.
Here, Venezuelanalysis.com has translated an article from the Venezuelan News Agency (AVN) examining the circumstances before and after the tragedy that have been fueling speculation over possible sabotage at Amuay. However, the official investigation over the disaster will likely take at least a month, according to Venezuela authorities.
The Most Unusual “Coincidences” of the Amuay Tragedy
AVN / YKVE Mundial
This information was sent by the citizen J.W. Wekker Vega, collected from the social network Facebook. Below is the content of that information:
1. Luis Vicente Leon and Oscar Schemel [of private Venezuelan polling firms Datanalisis and Hinterlaces, respectively], despite being opposition supporters, have said in the last few months that Chavez’s victory [in the presidential elections on 7 October] would only be reverted by “catastrophic,” “extraordinary” events that generate “collective commotion” and politically affect Chavez.
2. An “amateur” with a professional camera, at 2.00am [on the night of the explosion], was alone in the surrounds of the Amuay refinery, unusual because people don’t pass through there; and he captured the first explosion, which was broadcast “exclusively” by Globovision [a pro opposition TV channel] in record time.
3. At the same time as the explosion at Amuay, three government websites were hacked, including the CADIVI [Venezuela foreign exchange commission] website.
4. The deaths of sixteen members of the National Guard, if well observed, aren’t explained in the media. The presence of sixteen National Guard members at the refinery at that time isn’t explained. And the reason the National Guard victims of the tragedy stayed up overnight in the refinery’s Guard Command was to guard the installations, given that an important number of sabotages in the refinery have been reported and denounced in recent years.
5. Only minutes after the tragedy, thousands of Blackberry instant messages were spread as much by users as by automatic senders (software), that placed information in emails and other media about the situation via spam.
6. The tragedy was immediately treated as a political issue, as many opposition leaders appeared in the public sphere to launch direct attacks on Chavez and PDVSA.
7. The portrayal of the event on an international scale is unprecedented. On few occasions has this type of coverage been seen for events like this.
8. A few hours after the tragedy, Blackberry instant messages and information circulated in media and social networks that generated uncertainty over the availability of fuel. People were incited to head en masse to fill up their tanks, and lack of supply is spoken of openly. This looks like a strategy to generate chaos, and a call for calm has been issued, as the country has other refineries and a good reserve of fuel stores.
