A New English Language Empire

I have often harbored reservations about the possibility of success of the European Union. In particular my worry is about its new currency, the euro, the bases of which I believe are rather weak. I recently heard that there is still much debate going on which, even when new to me, leads me to rethink many of today’s geopolitical aspects.

I refer to the thesis that the United Kingdom is finding it extremely difficult to get used to the idea that it must forgo much of its autonomy in favor of an entity formed by other nations which are geographically close, but still very mystifying, and therefore could possibly abandon the idea altogether, forging instead an alliance with the English speaking world. Among the sponsors of this line of thought, I find the Canadian newspaper owner Conrad Black and the well renowned historian Paul Johnson.

Having observed how much time and effort the UK and the United States spend coordinating their foreign policy and considering how tempting it must be to unite cultures of the same origin that speak the same language and share the same legal system into one global superpower, it should not really be surprising if we were all of a sudden presented with the creation of an English Language Union, or ELU. Considering the recent impact of Shakespeare in Hollywood it might be a lot closer than we think.

The possible implications of a NAFTA expanded to include the UK plus perhaps even other nations such as Australia and New Zealand (both disillusioned by the Asian crisis) lead me to reflect on other issues in addition to the importance of the English language. 

The first issue that occurs to me is that any pact of this sort would effectively wipe out any aspiration Europe may nurture of going head to head with the United States unless it undertakes internal expansion (Russia or its former satellites, maybe?).

Another important thought is the fact that in a globalized and computerized world, geographical proximity seems to be losing its importance. The truth is that once you have incurred the cost of loading merchandise on an airplane or ship, the marginal cost of transporting it a few thousand miles further is not really that great. This could be of importance to Venezuela, especially when it owns so much oil.

The Andean Pact, is basically a commercial agreement with Colombia. This makes a lot of sense if we are trying to create bigger markets with their corresponding economies of scale for our respective industrialists. 

It does not make much sense as far as real complementary economics are concerned.

It is possible that Venezuela, while not abandoning its policy of creating larger markets, should be intensifying its efforts of negotiating commercial agreements with countries very different from itself, in which we can maintain our competitive advantages.

While oil prices remain low, our currency will be sufficiently weak so as to allow industries heavily dependent on labor, such as the textile confection sector to compete with Colombia. Evidently, if oil prices were to spike upwards, the bolívar would become stronger and would make survival of industries such as these difficult, obligating the country to impose protective duties.

If, however, our agreements would be based more on real complementary issues and economics, then it would be possible to create sustainable results. A simple theoretical example would be a negotiation of an commercial agreement with one of the Nordic states, with a wintry climate, allowing them preferential access to our market, with the establishment of the beaches of Margarita as the preferred winter tourist attraction for its citizens. Chile, for one, has made a lot of this, in for instance promoting fruit exports, taking advantage of the fact that their seasons are opposite to those of the Northern Hemisphere.

There is no doubt that we are in a fluid and rapidly changing environment in which it is of extreme importance to be alert to the possibilities that are presented to us. Personally, I feel that Venezuela should not hurry into commercial agreements, simply because it is the thing to do, the flavor of the month. What’s more, with the sole exception of Colombia, with which we share a permeable border which in turn makes the negotiation of agreements a must, I believe Venezuela has not signed one single agreement in which it comes out ahead in practical terms as a country.

Published in The Daily Journal, Caracas, April 1999

PS. Oops! Does Brexit now reignite this alternative? How much should the English language proprietors now charge the remainder EU for the use of it… so as to avoid a war between Germans, French and Spaniards on which should now de facto be its official language? Or will EU go for Esperanto?

The telecom ombudsman

As we rapidly approach the next millennium, there is no doubt that the Internet world with all its communication, information and commerce facets, will most surely evolve into one of the most important elements in the development of any country. The way we can take advantage of it will depend on how it is commercially regulated.

In Venezuela we are at a crossroads. Either we allow access to the Internet to be the main business, to the benefit of the telecommunication companies and the national government who ultimately issues the corresponding concessions, or we allow the users, our children and future entrepreneurs to capitalize on the opportunities by way of free and cheap access.

Recent efforts at privatization seem to not have favored the end users of the services. 

CANTV was sold on the basis that it generated high income for the Nation and expectations of high returns for the investors. Evidently, the only outcome of this equation are high tariffs. Likewise, Margarita knows more than well that the price to be paid for success in the sale of its power sector is just that, high tariffs.

The State, due to conflicts of interests, frequently cannot adequately manage its role as representative or defender of the public’s rights, as in this case, those of the end users. It is precisely because of this that all around the world, the figure of the Ombudsman becomes important. 

The Ombudsman is an independent, capable and responsible person. Adequately provided with the resources necessary to fulfill his role, he dedicates his time to the users interest.

One prime example of this is the TIO in Australia. Its initials come from the words Telecommunications, Industry and Ombudsman and it is an independent entity established in 1993 to help solve disputes between the telecommunications companies and the small users both residential and commercial. As of 1997 it has also been entrusted the processing of complaints about Internet services.

TIO’s service is free, but it only intervenes after the user has initially tried to solve its disputes directly with the purveyor of the service. It’s authority includes the investigation of matters relative to billing, service cuts, mobile service, access to the Internet, privacy, operator and directory assistance, public phones and basic telephone service.

Today TIO processes about 1,200 complaints per week. Approximately 95% of these cases are solved within 48 hours and only 0.05% of these end up in court. As do most arbitrage processes, the TIO does not analyze cases from a strictly legalistic viewpoint but rather on the base of merit and reasonability.

The costs incurred by TIO are covered by all of the telecommunications companies depending on the number of complaints raised against them.

In spite of all this success, however, and to the detriment of all Australian users, aspects related to tariffs are unfortunately out of TIO’s jurisdiction. 

I am convinced that in order to truly comply with his role of defender of the rights of the users of public services, the Ombudsman must be involved in the process of establishment of tariffs. Evidently, this role in tariff fixation must be based on reasonability, and not on the blocking of tariff increases which are necessary in order to continue to guarantee an adequate service.

How wonderful it would be to see the incorporation of the figure of the Ombudsman of Telecommunications to help with our own privatization efforts. He could most certainly help insure that the awarding of concessions does not result in a penalty for future users. 

Likewise, his support of the inclusion of norms and regulations in the concession agreements that would guarantee a good level of service as of day one would save us a lot of the grief we are shouldering today.

An Ombudsman would be most welcome in what has up to now been a negotiated process strictly between telecommunications companies and the nation. If the players do not accept this, we should require it of the Constituent Assembly.

In closing, I remind the users of cellular phone services in Venezuela, that tariffs in Israel, for example, are 10 times lower than theirs. The explanation? In Israel, the concessions were awarded to those operators who offered to install the most lines and the lowest tariffs. In Venezuela the concessions are awarded to those that offer the best deal for the taxman.