The curse

  The curse

Lately, articles that analyze the supposed curse that weighs on countries rich in oil resources have been published like rice. At first glance it would seem that there is a certain basis of support for these theories of obscurantism, however, for proper reading, it is important to clarify one or another detail.

First of all, and judging by the immense number of existing offers to free ourselves from this cursed burden, it is obvious that we are not talking about a common curse. There are even those who generously offer to assume their risks, even paying us for the right to such sacrifice.

A suggested exorcism is to leave OPEC to sell oil at its marginal extraction cost, thus guaranteeing that we avoid earning the dirty rent for oil. Another way is to privatize it, against a tasty and tempting initial payment, to cancel the current public debt... and get into debt again? As you can see, both methods have a strange similarity with selling the sofa.

Finally, considering that the European treasury earns about 100 dollars net per barrel, while those who sacrifice the resource only get 25 dollars, gross, it is not very obvious who is the cursed one.

The indisputable thing is that oil revenues have not been used well, but as you can understand, this has less to do with the abundance of resources and more to do with the damn system used to distribute them. Currently, the entire oil revenue enters the government's coffers alone and effortlessly, thus unbalancing the democratic system, since we all know that the happy holder of a full oil checkbook has little incentive to pay attention to the citizen.

How do we get out of this? To begin with and due to the obvious and incurable lack of talents of our rulers, we must apply the parable of the talents in reverse and bypass them, delegating a greater part of the administration of oil revenues directly to the citizens.

However, since we civil society members are not very different from our politicians, like-minded, like-minded, perhaps we should, just in case, pay the oil dividends with educational tickets.

Chances of it? Few, due to that true curse, the one that leads our leaders to believe that everything bad in the past is miraculously cured with their arrival in power (with the checkbook) and, us, to believe them.

Translated by Google

https://petropolitan.blogspot.com/2003/11/la-maldicion.html

https://theoilcurse.blogspot.com/2003/11/the-curse.html

No, thanks

 No, thanks

The following paragraph is extracted verbatim from the UK Energy Report 1999, published by the Department of Trade and Industry of England.

“The retail price of products is largely determined by taxes, especially for fuel. The attached figures ... illustrate the increasing proportion of the price of gasoline attributable to taxes. The incidence of taxes, ...explains around 85 percent of the final price of unleaded gasoline..." Prices are expected to continue growing, given the commitment of the English Government to increase taxes on petroleum by an average of 6 % annual, above inflation.

The report's figures indicate that the price of petrol before tax fell from 15 to 10 pence per liter between 1980 and 1999, a decrease of 33%. However, for the same period in England, the consumer price went from 26 to 68 pence per liter, increasing 162%. The explanation for this phenomenon is found in the various taxes on gasoline, which rose from 11 pence in 1980 to 58 pence per liter in 1999, an increase of 427%.

Taxes, applied in a discriminatory manner to oil, which favor coal, for example, affect both the volume and the sales price of our main export product and therefore directly harm our country. All of Europe applies taxes of the same order and the other consuming economies, except the United States, are evolving in the same direction.

It was only a few months ago that the magnitude of these taxes was understood and the consequences, at least in Europe, were serious protests by consumers. It will be necessary to observe whether in 2001, countries like England and Germany, even when stripped, continue with their pre-programmed increases.

The relative silence of Venezuela and other oil-producing countries, the truly aggrieved ones, is surprising. Sometimes I wonder if such passivity has its origin in the fact that in this globalized world, everyone is still dying for the possibility that one day The Queen will invite them to have tea in her palace.

In November 2000, the president of the European Energy Foundation of the European Union, with great cynicism, announced that in the dialogue between oil consumers and producers, everything could be discussed, except taxes, since these did not significantly affect consumption.

In December 2000, the European Union announced a donation of 55 million euros for the reconstruction of Vargas, to be disbursed over two years.

In a world that preaches free trade, oil taxes are hypocrisy. I, being a Venezuelan of European descent, may react in particular, but I am convinced that we have to place our protest in its correct dimension. In this sense, and even if I had never rejected the help offered by the United States during the tragedy in Vargas, today I would not hesitate to respond to Europe: No thanks, we do not want your donation, that amount is equivalent to what Venezuela would obtain each week if You, on the basis of false environmentalism and real fiscal voracity, do not apply taxes that discriminate against oil. We will not help calm their institutional conscience by accepting some insolent barter with begging mirrors.

(Translated by Google from an Op-Ed published in Venezuela February 1, 2001)

The Oil Curse

The OPEC that I want to see

Towards the end of 1980, oil of optimum grade such as Arabian Light was being sold at US$ 36 per barrel. By the end of 1998, its price had fallen to US$ 12.20. The latter is equivalent to US$ 6.50 in 1980 US dollar terms, and represents only 18% of its value in 1980. This would seem to imply that whatever the strategy was that OPEC used to defend its oil was simply dead wrong.

This situation was so disastrous that at the end of 1998 the only alternatives that were ventilated publicly were either to violently increase production capacity or to simply sell or privatize the entire industry.

To limit oneself to the simple increase in production capacity would be to repeat the same errors that were committed with the other raw materials and natural non-renewable resources. It would mean to resign oneself to receiving the marginal contribution that results from being the sector’s low cost producer. It is sad that a country that has been so blessed with a valuable resource such as oil has to adopt a model that, at the end of the day, would let it to sell it at the variable cost of production. Something like receiving a valuable family inheritance and then turning around and selling it for what it costs to wrap it and ship it to the buyer.

In the same vein, the outright privatization of the oil sector would eliminate all possibility of geopolitic negotiation and the only thing we would receive as a going away present would be the resources to solve the existential problems of an entire generation of Venezuelans that have, for the last 20 years, not been able to decide if they were coming or going and that lived in a sort of Limbo State in the duty free zone of our international airport.

Today, when OPEC, for well know reasons (albeit not well recognized reasons) has received a new lease on life, it would be naughty not to wish it success in taking advantage of this second wind to build itself into a solid organization capable of facing the new challenges. If it fails, this will surely be its last breath. This is why I wish to share with you what I would consider the OPEC I want.

The OPEC I want would be able to win the confidence of all of its members in order to consolidate in one single block all the resources necessary to really defend it oil. These resources go far and beyond the simple turning of the tap.

The OPEC I want would be one that, upon observing how consumer nations have usurped the value of oil by increasing taxes (the UK, for example, increased taxes from 85% in 1980 to 456% ad valorem in 1998), would humbly accept the fact that they have lost the battle to an able opponent, but is now regrouping in order to win the war.

The OPEC I want would train the world’s100 best environmentalists in order to insure that, even though it shares the conviction and responsibility of taking care of our fragile world, the costs of defending the latter would not be laid squarely and unjustly on oil’s shoulders and that the environmentalist’s arguments will not be used for other hypocritical ends.

The OPEC I want would train the world’s 100 best experts in international commerce who would help avoid measures like direct subsidies for carbon as well as taxes that are aimed directly at oil and not at other sources of energy and that are evidently discriminatory and therefore not permitted under the norms established by the World Trade Organization.

The OPEC I want would train the world’s 1000 best scientists who would work in the world’s best laboratories and study, research and develop new uses for oil in order to minimize pollution or maximize added value as well as alternate sources of energy that could be used in the future.

The OPEC I want would not recognize the rights to intellectual property, brands and patents that, like a rabbit pulled out of a hat, generate income for the countries that own these rights which are definitely renewable, while the income obtained from the sale of a non-renewable natural resource such as oil is simultaneously being treated in a discriminatory fashion.

The OPEC I want simply would not allow a company to abscond with a hefty portion of the value of oil because it has formulated an additive that (supposedly) permits gasoline to be less polluting and based on a process that has dubiously been patented.

The OPEC I want would train the best image and marketing advisors in order to insure that the world’s public opinion does not continuously receive distorted information about OPEC and its members.

The OPEC I want would be staffed with the best team of diplomats and negotiators that would insure adequate representation at all international forums.

The OPEC I want would not allow gas and other sources of energy who’s values are not set under the OPEC umbrella to be introduced into the market like Trojan horses in order to compete with oil.

The OPEC I want knows that it counts with other resources other than oil to defend itself. The mere addition of all its international purchasing power would allow it to receive better treatment by imposing uniform special duties on all those who discriminate against oil.

The OPEC I want would not be formed by managers that think that their only objective is to perform comfortable bureaucratic tasks, but rather by soldiers that know and accept that they are on a mission aimed at improving the lot of their nations and that borders on being sacred.

The OPEC I want knows that it is not totally unimportant and is able to rally the solid support of its members and above all, of the population of its member countries.

The citizens of countries belonging to the OPEC I want know that even though their happiness and well being does not depend only on oil, it does depend on being able to defend what is theirs.

In the OPEC I want everyone prays to his respective God to give them strength to take full advantage of the meeting in Caracas.

Caracas, Venezuela, Daily Journal, September 2000

Originally published in Spanish in El Universal, Caracas, Venezuela August 26, 2000

Tricks, and the environment

This week we read in the papers about a report to the British Parliament by the London Geological Society. In it they issued an alert over the real possibilities of a mega volcano eruption that would cause global cooling with dramatic consequences. 

Why is that hot volcanoes lava emission cools, while oil emissions are supposed to warm? Is someone taking us oil-producers for a ride? 

During the week ending January 21, one liter of premium unleaded gasoline was sold at the pump in England for US$ 1.20. Out of this amount, 19cts went to the supplier, 5cts went to the distributor and 95cts went towards various taxes.

It is evident that an oil producing country like Venezuela is severely affected by these taxes which, by the way, amount to 500% of what the producer receives. If these taxes were eliminated, both prices as well as the demand for oil would be much higher.

There can be no doubt that the only reason for these discriminatory taxes is a healthy fiscal appetite. However, with an almost subtle hypocrisy, these taxes are normally explained as only being related to environmental protection.

When we observe the poverty in our country, which would at least be reduced by increased oil income, any person preoccupied with the environment, may harbor a natural conflict. 

Up to this moment, I have solved my own conflict by telling myself that it is logical to have high prices in an effort to minimize consumption of oil, but that it is illogical and unjust that the margins produced by the same should only accrue the taxman in the rich consumer nations.

I say ‘up to this moment’ because I just read a book written by Dr. S. Fred Singer called Hot Talk Cold Science which certainly questions current environmental credos.

Singer's credentials as an expert in environmental matters seem to be impeccable. He has a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton and is professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. 

He was the first director of the US Weather Satellite Service, Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, and Chief Scientist for the US Department of Transportation.

In his book, Singer spells out arguments, that wipe out any justification for these taxes on environmental bases. Among other things, he says:

"The gap between the satellite observations and existing theory is so large that it throws serious doubt on all computer-modeled predictions of future warming"

"Even if global warming were to occur, it would most likely lead to positive benefits overall rather than to disadvantages."

"No credible attempt has been made to define what constitutes a dangerous level of CO2; thus the goal of the U.N. Climate Treaty is arbitrary." 

In relation to the concentration of CO2, Dr. Singer details methods that in his opinion are much more feasible in economic terms than those solely based on the reduction of emissions. 

These methods are based on sequestering the CO2 from the atmosphere, either through reforestation or the fertilization of oceans, the latter option being the one favored by Mr. Singer. 

Singer is not alone in his appreciation. In his book he cites the Leipzig Declaration which came out of a 1995 conference which was attended by almost 100 experts. This Declaration states "In a world in which poverty is the greatest social pollutant, any restriction on energy use that inhibits growth should be viewed with caution. For this reason, we consider carbon taxes and other drastic control policies ' lacking credible support from the underlying science - to be ill advised, premature, wrought with economic danger, and likely to be counterproductive".

Why, then, do such great discrepancies exist between the opinions described above and those of other scientists with similar recognized careers? Singer puts forward his explanation: "Nearly all research is funded by government; the rationale for expending taxpayer's money is to prevent hazards to the general population. Funding agencies therefore do not look kindly on research proposals that could demonstrate environmental hazards to be not serious or even non existent."

As a citizen of an oil producing country, affected by this evident injustice, I would be more inclined to advance the possibility that the financing of such environmental studies is more motivated by the need of justifying the taxes levied on oil. 

In this sense, many of the environmentalists are probably unknowingly soulmates of the famous taxman, the Sheriff of Nottingham, who in Robin Hood's days taxed the poor to give to the rich - i.e. the government.

In a country like ours, so dependent on its oil income, I am surprised at the absence in our universities and other centers of investigation of courses on environmental studies which are so necessary in order to minimize damage caused us in the name of the hypocritical governments of the developed world.

https://ourpiedaterre.blogspot.com/2000/02/tricks-and-environment.html

PS. "oil-producers" Sorry, I realized later we do not produce one barrel of oil, we extract it.

http://petropolitan.blogspot.com/

The Petropolitan Manifest

  The Petropolitan Manifest

We are an oil country, but one day we will stop being one. Interpreting that “sowing oil” means having to move in advance from one economy to another, applying an economic model and developing economic activities unrelated to an oil reality, is wrong and constitutes the perfect excuse for today's apathy.

 

This month, in England, with oil at more than US$ 20 per barrel, the consumer must pay Bs. 820 per liter of normal gasoline, of which the distributor receives Bs. 31, the producer, who sacrifices a non-renewable asset, obtains a paltry Bs. 117, while the English Treasury charges confiscatory taxes of Bs. 672. In fact, what is charged by the Treasury, when compared with what is received by the producer, indicates the existence of something similar to a commercial tariff that around 600%.

 

The same happens in Germany, Japan, Spain, etc. The taxes that consuming countries apply to petroleum products imply for them only a redistribution of their national income, while, due to their negative effects on the demand and prices of petroleum, they cause a real reduction in the national income of the producing countries.

 

The obscene levels at which these taxes are today in most of the world, with the threat of becoming higher every day, constitute a trade war declared against the economic interests of Venezuela. The fact that our country does not protest about this, just as it did not protest about the ban on the use of Orimulsion in Florida, is indicative of a lack of will and national conscience, without which, with or without oil, we are nothing.

 

The historical indifference of the authorities (Government and PDVSA) towards the aforementioned problem led to the formation of the PETROPOLITAN movement. Its activities are nourished by a series of beliefs, not inscribed on stones, but based on the continuous interpretation that its members make of the best interests of the country, which we summarize below:

 

We Petropolitans believe that the true “sowing of oil” must mean the sowing, in the hearts of Venezuelans, of the will to defend, with pride and responsibility, their real interests, which in essence are and will continue to be so for several decades, his oil interests.

 

1. We Petropolitans believe that the true “sowing of oil” must mean the sowing, in the hearts of Venezuelans, of the will to defend, with pride and responsibility, their real interests, which in essence are and will continue to be so for several decades, his oil interests.

 

2. The value of a good is calculated based on the price that the final consumer is willing to pay. Hence, the difference between what the world consumer of gasoline pays today and the little that the producer receives shows, within the framework of the principles of free trade, the presence of a scam.

 

3. Certain that there is strength in unity and even more so in a globalized world, we support Venezuela's permanence in OPEC. However, we demand that that organization develop new and better defenses of its interests. Not fighting taxes and limiting production only guarantees its extinction.

 

4. We object to any inference to an absolute and necessary relationship between oil revenues and a wasteful economic model. The results obtained to date have no relationship with a rentier model. If we had applied a true and responsible rentierism, living off a portion of the income and not the capital, the story would be different and Venezuela would be in a very envious economic situation.

 

5. We reject any derogatory expression, such as “devil's excrement”, which hinders the emergence of a necessary feeling of respect and gratitude for oil, without which it is impossible to manage our wealth for the good of future generations.

 

6. Since we know that oil is a non-renewable asset of the country, we believe that the defense of its price and value should be the main objective of our industry and we reject the concept of a maximization of current income, which is based on the maximize sales volumes.

 

7. Even though their fiscal purpose is evident, oil taxes are hidden behind the cloak of "green protectionism." At the same time that we affirm a commitment to the defense of the environment, we reject, as unfair, that the producing countries must pay 100% of their cost.

 

8. Oil certainly doesn't create many jobs. However, we must avoid falling into schizophrenic models where the country, being an oil producer, deals with the anguish of not being one, making mistakes whose impact on the generation of stable employment is even more negative.

 

9. The results of the international agreements signed by the country during the last decades do not compensate the cost of having to respect the sources of income of the developed world, such as trademarks and patents, without them respecting our right to obtain the majority of what corresponds to the valuation of our oil asset.

 

10. In the defense of oil, it is not possible to replace the importance of a solid will of the country, with the hiring of international advice and lobbying.

 

11. There are Patriots willing to give their lives in the event that a foreign entity enters our country, in order to extract barrels of oil. Oil taxes imposed by the consuming world are, in essence, a similar invasion. It is the responsibility of the Petropolitan to report this.

http://petropolitan.blogspot.com/1999/10/el-manifiesto-petropolitano.html

http://theoilcurse.blogspot.com/1999/10/the-petropolitan-manifesto.html

An e-mail to our accusers

We were recently surprised by a lawsuit brought against Venezuela by an organization of independent oil producers in the State of Oklahoma in the United States. The suit was based on the charge of dumping oil. 

In simple terms, 'dumping' occurs when one country exports products at a price lower than their real cost of production or at a price lower than the sales price in its domestic market. In order to calculate the real cost, one must consider the effects of all state subsidies. Dumping is considered to be unfair competition and is therefore prohibited. If proven in this case, it will also give rise to serious retaliatory commercial measures. 

As an outside observer, I feel that this suit is a real threat to Venezuela, but I also think that if may be an opportunity as well. To understand this, it is important to analyze who is really behind this lawsuit. 

There is an incredible amount of oil wells in the United States, hundreds of thousands. In Texas alone, it is said that there are at least sixty thousand wells that produce less than one barrel per day. Due to low oil prices, the number of wells that have reportedly been shut down is equally as incredible. An organization known as IPAA estimates that more than 136,000 wells were shut down between November 1997 and February 1999.

Behind these wells are not only large oil companies, but also hundreds of thousand people, small businessmen, workers, widows who receive royalties, suppliers of goods and services, all of them voters at one time or another. It should, therefore, not surprise us that this sector possesses great political clout. 

To Venezuela, this means that, even though the lawsuit may not be based on solid ground, it may be more successful than we at first thought. We just have to remember that a small interest group in the State of Florida managed to block the usage of Venezuela Orimulsion. Can you imagine what a large group can do? Since I have always thought that Venezuela was lax in protecting its interests in the case of Orimulsion. I honestly hope that in this more recent case, authorities will be more careful, and will take the necessary measures. 

However, as I mentioned above, this lawsuit may not just be a threat, but may present an opportunity for Venezuela as well. For months now, I have been promoting a movement I have named Petropolitan. The purpose of this group is to protest and make known the fact that oil producing countries are subjected to commercial discrimination when the consuming nations apply taxes or duties so that producers receive only a fraction of the real value of their oil. 

For example, according to the Retail Motor Industry Federation of the United Kingdom, the price of premium unleaded gasoline on June 4th, 1999 (one month ago) at the pump was US$ 4.17 per gallon. Out of this elevated value, evidently real since the English motorist is willing to pay it, only US$ 0.43, that is 10%, ends up in the producer’s pocket. The distributor receives US$ 0.26 and the English tax authority, the only real rentist in this chain, stays with US$ 3.48, representing 83.5% of the retail sales price. 

When we compare the US$ 3.48 levied by the [UK] taxman to the US$ 0.43 received by the oil producers in lieu of a non-renewable asset, it is evident that the duty is more than 800%. This duty is unquestionably a main reason for the low oil income, not only ours, but of those in Oklahoma as well. 

The situation gets worse with every day that passes. Based on laws already passed,we can foresee that the price per gallon of gasoline in Europe will be US$ 10 by the year 2006, of which the producer will receive only US$ 0.50, that is, 5%. Germany, for example, has recently approved a “shift from personal income tax to an energy users tax”. These taxes will be used by the German government to “finance the lowering of old age security premiums”. 

By the way, it is not only Europe to which I refer since most of the world is currently levying taxes and duties on oil. One of the few exceptions is the United States where there has been more moderation. Because of the above, and were the decision mine, I would be on the next plane to Oklahoma in an attempt to educate our accusers as to who our real enemies are. I would tell them that the latter are laughing while we fight over the crumbs, and I would try to convert them into powerful allies. 

Executives at PDVSA are either not seeing the forest for the trees or have been lulled to sleep by their own internal realities. In any case, they do not seem prepared to take radical steps. Likewise, the common citizen is too far away from the industry to react with strength in the short term. 

Who knows? Maybe the small Oklahoma producer, the one that suffers and personally feels the current injustices of this situation, the one that most likely has the will to go out and avidly defend his interests, the one that belongs to a country that can defend bananas it does not produce, the one that today is our accuser, may ultimately be the ally that Venezuela really needs. Just in case, I have already sent them an e-Mail.

https://petropolitan.blogspot.com/1999/07/an-e-mail-to-our-accusers.html

Mobility and economic growth

I still remember going through MAD Magazine at least thirty-five years ago and seeing one particular cartoon strip in which the North American population slowly lost their lower extremities due to atrophy as a result of using their cars to cover even the shortest of distances. 

They all ended up looking like bowling pins. In the last frame, a Chinese army easily bowled over these odd looking pins.

Evidently, none of this happened. On the contrary, in Kosovo, the United States and its allies have shown without a doubt that you don’t need your lower extremities even to wage war.

I have recently published several articles in which I write about the exorbitant taxes that are imposed on gasoline around the world the effect of which I consider to be like discriminatory commercial taxes or duties, which keep the oil producers from receiving what is rightly due.

In this sense, there is a marked difference between the United States and Europe. In the United States, gasoline is sold for 25 cents per liter while in Europe the final consumer must pay about US$ 1 per liter. This fourfold increase is due exclusively to these “taxes”.

I have also had the opportunity of writing about the growth in unemployment and have made some similar comparisons between the United States and Europe. In both cases the generation of jobs in traditional sectors such as agriculture and industry are basically the same, 2.5% and 17.5% respectively.

The United States, however, is today a miracle of job generation while Europe is submerged in a crisis of high unemployment that is close to being structural in character. The difference lies basically with the service sector. In 1997, the service sector in the United States represented 54% of the total population of working age while in Europe; this sector employed only 39%, a whopping 15% less.

The observed difference between the level of taxes on gasoline and the generation of jobs in the service sector allows me to suggest the thesis that the only way Europe can solve the problem of unemployment is by drastically reducing the tax charge per liter of gasoline consumed. Once this has been done, the European consumer will most certainly venture out of his home more often rather than staying in.

This means more trips to the restaurant, the movie theaters, etc., all of which generate jobs.

Some European countries have already announced a plan that will increase taxes on gasoline annually by about 6% over inflation. If so, by the year 2006, consumers should be paying about US$ 2.50 per liter.

Since the oil producer would only obtain about 12.5 cents of said price; we are in the presence of a great commercial injustice. Additionally, if Europe insists on levying such taxes on gasoline, they are not only contributing to unemployment on their own continent, but will also be guilty of putting the brakes on economic development worldwide.

I clearly remember when the world in general accused the oil producing countries of pushing them into global recession during the oil boom of 1974. As a remedy, these countries were obliged to recycle their petrodollars, which they did with such enthusiasm that they went overboard and ended up with immense public external debt. Today Europe as well as many others keeps the price of gasoline higher than ever even though most of the final selling price is tax, causing recession and unemployment.

The difference is, however, that today nobody accuses them of anything.

I think the world should seriously rethink its energy policy and study the elimination of these duties. This is the only way to get out of the vicious circle which, aggravated by the development of the Internet, cable TV and other such technological progress, conspires to increasingly isolate consumer within his home, where he simply restructures his purchase habits, mostly to the detriment of job creation.

In the Venezuela of today, submerged as it is in a profound recession, we must certainly not forget when it comes time to consider increases in the price of gasoline that many jobs still exist only because the cost of mobilization has been kept low.

Similarly, I consider the revision of our fiscal policies to be an absolute necessity. I simply cannot accept that the basic income tax with its definite advantages as far as redistribution of wealth is concerned, is subrogated to VAT or taxes on gasoline, which only punish consumption and therefore economic activity per se.

Finally, we must remember that only healthy global economic growth will make resources available to develop technology that will make gasoline a cleaner burning fuel.

Mickey Mouse, please help us!

If we look at it objectively, there seem to be few things that are as important for the future of the oil industry of Venezuela as is the development of Orimulsion. Likewise, there are few places in the world with which Venezuela has closer ties than to Florida. On the 24th of June 1998, the State of Florida, without valid fundamental reasons, ratified its prohibition on the use of Orimulsion for its power generation.

We have thereby received an insolent and costly slap in the face. Venezuelans, however, continue to pack their bags to go spend their money on vacations in Florida as if nothing had happened. In my opinion, this simply proves that there is a total absence of the only ingredient necessary to confront and solve the difficult situation our country is in, that is, a sense of patriotism.

As a youngster, I participated in parades in honor of national holidays which promoted the concept of a nation by singing hymns and waving flags. I don’t complain about this, on the contrary, I’m proud and grateful for it. Times change, however, and I’m not sure we want to exaggerate with the parade issue if we wish to give our children the best of all gifts, the pride of belonging to a country, of being a Venezuelan.

Orimulsion is a product invented and produced in Venezuela, and it can be attributed both mythical as well as real elements and characteristics. I therefore believe it is possible to develop a campaign of national identity around it. In this sense (although technically incorrect) it should be enough to visualize images of energy and power bubbling up from the turbulent waters of the Orinoco to the sound of Enya's "Orinoco Flow".

I realize that I am running the risk of being accused of patriotic mumbling and many would ask me what we would do with national pride anyhow. The answer is obvious. We would be able to show the world that Venezuela, more than a simple geographical presence, represents a community of wills and desires that should be respected as such.

I am absolutely sure that Venezuela would be a country with a bright future should all of our youngsters react against Florida’s decision by threatening to cancel trips to Disney World and asking their parents to take their “cheap, give me two” shopping sprees elsewhere.

What worries me even more is the fact that this national apathy towards Florida’s prohibition on Orimulsion comes in the face of a widespread cry for declaring a national emergency due to the drastic fall in world oil prices. As an example of this silence, it is enough to note that the discreet protests emanating from the Venezuelan American Chamber of Commerce (VenAmCham), the only entity that would conceivably have the right to a pained silence, surpass those of the Congress, Fedecamaras, the CTV, universities and presidential candidates.

In today’s world, it has become evident that public opinion is a strong weapon that can be effectively used to obtain favorable results from international commercial negotiations. For good or bad, we are generally not amazed, for example, by the exaggerated advantages awarded agriculture in Europe because we recognize the power of public opinion wielded by this sector.

We have given Bitor and its management (a black box to most) the responsibility of negotiating an issue of utmost importance to the country without giving them either the support of powerful groups that could conceivably promote a strong lobby nor the support of solid public opinion to which they could make reference. This is infantile, and what happened was simply bound to happen.

When I broached the subject to my young daughters, specially the part of not going to Disney World, there seemed to be an immediate backlash since they thought I was insinuating that Mickey was responsible for our troubles. Harmony returned when I explained, however, that what we should really be doing is writing to Mickey to ask him to help us, since without Orimulsion there is no money and without money we cannot continue to visit him.

Harmony could also return to Venezuela if we manage to unite everyone around sacrifices that make real sense such as: defending Orimulsion at all costs; imposing emergency duties to avoid total atrophy of our possibilities of creating internal jobs markets and; prioritizing investments within the country.

If on the contrary we: a) ignore Florida’s slap in the face; b) continue to permit the contraband in our ports, thereby guaranteeing job places in other countries; c) keep building (mostly with public funds) gasoline stations in the face of a lack of schools; d) continue to base emergency plans on the collection of additional taxes in order to finance the indolence of others; and e) take on additional debt which will have to be repaid by our grandchildren, there will be no country left to harmonize.

Unfortunately, should this occur, I will have no other choice but to suggest to my children that they should quit seeing Mickey as a source of recreation and look at him as a future boss, as many compatriots who have had to leave the country actually consider him already. Let’s take advantage of Orimulsion and consolidate ourselves as a nation.

http://petropolitan.blogspot.com/1998/07/mickey-mouse-please-help-us.html