A look inside the Vatican

Pope Francis I

Jorge Mario Bergoglio was born on December the 17^th, 1936 in Buenos Aires, Argentine. He was ordered as a Jesuit (making him the first Jesuit pope ever) on 1969 and moves on to study to Germany, returning to his country to be named bishop and later on Archbishop of the city of Buenos Aires. On the 2005 conclave he was very close to be chose as the successor of John Paul II. And on the last elections, people in Buenos Aires thought he would not be chosen as Pope because of his advanced age (76) so his election took the Argentineans by surprise. He was elected very fast, after five votings and in the 2nd day of conclave. The Vatican has said that he is in good health and is able to take the place. He is replacing Pope Benedict XVI who renounced last February 28th. So for the 1st time in history a Latin American Pope is leading the Catholic Church.

Pope Francis I, chose this name in honour of Francis of Assisi, the Catholic Saint, founder of the Franciscans order, who had probably been one of the most good and modest man's in history. So the new Pope is trying to encourage people to live a simpler life and is showing a sober and austere attitude by changing things in his life as Pope, as changing luxurious apartments for  simpler ones, or by wearing more modest clothes, changing the gold Pope's chair for one of wood or by traveling in a simpler car. He is trying to give a new message to the World, a message of humility. Due these acts, and his Jesuit simple motive,  the Pope is being recognized and liked by the people. His speeches in Argentina had an impact on society, now the Church hopes they have an impact all over the world.

He had being criticized because of his role during the dictatorship in Argentina when he led the Jesuits in his country. He had being blamed for giving to the military authorities two priests who were kidnapped and tortured. Like this it had been said, he had  links with the dictatorship in Argentina for what he had been criticized. A case of a stolen baby is being also trying to pull down his popularity; he is accused of not helping a mother to find her baby even though he had the resources to do it. The Vatican has denied Father Bergoglio was accomplice of military regime, and said he did silently protected several victims of dictatorship. 

The future of the Catholic Church is what matters. And thousands of Catholics are putting their hopes on Francis I, hopes for a better future of their Church. Pope Francis I is offering the world a message of simplicity and proximity. He calls Catholic's to service, to love the environment and especially to love God.

Sebastian Figari

VATILEAKS

“"VatiLeaks" come from the word “WikiLeaks”, a non-profit media organisation which intention is to offer important information and news to the public; providing an anonymous way for sources to leak information to their journalists”.

And Vatileaks are related to the Vatican. So, “Secret documents of Pope Benedict XVI had been exposed”.

January 2012 a scandal shook the world…

“Vatileaks put The Vatican in probably one of the worse situations ever.” The scandal came to light through an Italian TV programme named “The Untouchables”. Extremely confidential documents were stolen from the heart of the Vatican and memos that showed corruption inside The Holy See as an internal Vatican investigation supposedly uncovering the blackmailing of clerics that had organized gay homosexual parties emerged. More information appeared when an Italian journalist named Gianluigi Nuzzi published letters from Carlo Maria Viganò, who used to be the 2^nd ranked Vatican administrator to the Pope, in “which he begged not to be transferred for having exposed alleged corruption that cost the Holy See millions in higher contract prices”. On the next months more documents were leaked to Italian journalists, uncovering “power fights inside the Vatican over its efforts to show greater financial transparency and comply with international norms to fight money laundering”. Also at the beginning of year 2012, through an anonymous letter a complot to kill the Pope Benedict XVI was revealed. Things worsened when in May 2012 Gianluigi Nuzzi published a book entitled “His Holiness: The Secret Papers of Benedict XVI”. This book showed private letters and memos between Pope Benedict and his personal secretary. It described fights, intrigues, chaos and jealousy inside The Vatican and also revealed details about the Pope's personal finances.

Who was the main author of such audacity?

Paolo Gabriele, the Pope’s personal butler was suspected of leaking many private documents of Benedict XVI about supposed corruption acts inside the Holy See. And four boxes with copies of strictly confidential memos of the Pope were found in Gabriele’s apartment, so the 46 year old man was arrested and found guilty for illegal possessing of confidential documents. He was condemned in October 2012 to 18 months of prison in Vatican City cells and to pay legal expenses.

Pope Benedict XVI response

On May 30, during his General audience the Pope made his 1^st public commentaries on the “Vatileaks”.  He said things as, the "exaggerated" and "gratuitous" rumours had offered a false image of the Holy See. He also expressed support to his Vatican colleagues. He said, “the events of recent days about the Curia and my collaborators have brought sadness in my heart... I want to renew my trust in and encouragement of my closest collaborators and all those who every day, with loyalty and a spirit of sacrifice and in silence help me fulfil my ministry."

“Paolo Gabriele had been pardoned by Pope Benedict XVI”. On December 22, 2012. Gabriele received the personal visit of the Pope who gave him his pardon. 

But there is no doubt that Vatileaks had cause an irreparable harm to The Holy See...

Alonso Padilla

Close relation between Jorge Mario Bergoglio and General Videla

Pope Francis I, originally “Jorge Mario Bergoglio” was a 40 years-old Argentine priest, who was the head of Argentine´s Jesuit order during the years of terrible repression in his country, when “Dirty War” occurred after General Jorge Rafael Videla with his military dictatorship seized power in March 1976. He imposed a “strict reign of abuses and terror” until 1981.  This regime closed the National Congress, imposed strict press control and militarized the country. Around 30,000 people were disappeared, many were imprisoned in clandestine centres or others were unjustly murdered. Some prisoners were showed chained or naked, others were dropped out of airplanes over the River Plate or the Atlantic Ocean, were they drowned and their orphans were then sold. Also many pregnant women were disappeared and were kept alive until giving birth, and after killing them, their children were given to be raised by military families. Videla, with 87 years old is actually in prison, and for the rest of his life, condemend for crimes against humanity. 

And it is inevitable to ask… Which was the role of Father Bergoglio during these years as  head of the Jesuits? What did he do to stop the cruel repression, the tortures and murders mainly of poor people and activists with different interests, including priests and nuns? (Some priests and nuns were part of Liberation Theology a left political movement in the Catholic Church during the 1980s that encouraged priests to become politically active to combat social and economic injustice). What is known is that Bergoglio was one of those priests who do not spoke out against the regime in public. It is said that he “saw his role as maintaining his order and not picking sides”. But it is also said he did a silent labour defending several people oppressed by dictatorship.

One of the most controversial situations that implicate Argentine clerics of those years, involving also Father Bergoglio, is how they stayed impassive in front of the execution of priests or nuns. And there is the special case of two Jesuits. Orlando Yorio and Francisco Jalics that were released from their order for helping some residents of the slums that were considered Marxist´s. They and the two priests were also considered as terrorists. The priests tried to explain Bergoglio that they were not terrorists and he promised he would say the militaries so, but apparently what Yorio and Jalics said is that Bergoglio alleged false complaints against them and that´s why they were kidnapped by government forces on May 1976 and imprisoned for five months. They were tortured and later liberated. In 2005 a human rights lawyer filed a criminal complaint against Cardinal Bergoglio accusing him of "conspiring with the junta in the kidnapping of two left-leaning Jesuit priests". This accusation showed during the 2005 Papal conclave that chose Benedict XVI. Cardinal Bergoglio denounced the charge that was later dismissed by the court, as “old calumny.” The Vatican admits he had been interrogated for being aware of the incident but insisted that nothing was imputed to him and every accusation had been refuted with evidences. And what Father Bergoglio said in his defense during a trial of this case in 2010 is that he interceded for the survival and liberation of the priests, that he had a reunion with Videla and another with Emilio Massera, (2^nd man of the junta).

What Father Bergoglio did during those years had been interpreted in different ways. There are people that affirm that the Argentinean Church in general was accomplice in human right abuses during Videla´s regime. Some comments of shame had been said about how Bergoglio was proposed in the list of possible successors of John Paul II and then of Benedict XVI and ending in being elected as Pope. Some persons had questioned his conservatism and the fact of how he strongly opposes to abortion, to gay marriage and to the ordination of women, and why he did not opposed with such energy to the military regime during the Dirty War. He had been blamed of knowing about abuses and failing to do enough to stop horrible acts of dictatorship.  Bergoglio´s position during Videla's dictatorship has been considered as part of darker moments in Catholic history.

For others and mostly for Argentines in the Church, it was hard to be impartial, because opposing or not being openly sided to the regime meant being another of their victims. And there were clerics that openly joined and supported the junta, but there were many others that did not act in such bad way. Also the “Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo” (active group of mothers of those disappeared) censured the silence of the Church during the military regime, but did not blame Pope Francis I for the disappearance of around 150 priests during those years. Many Catholics think that in case Pope Francis I did not act in the best way during military regime, he had been enough redeemed because of his good conduct as a modest Jesuit.

And the Vatican defends him affirming that Father Bergoglio did protect many persons during Dirty War and denies strongly any involvement of him with Videla´s government. And also remarks his act of promoting the Argentinean Catholic Church to ask for pardon for haven´t done enough during dictatorship. And it may good to remark what “Adolfo Pérez Esquivel” (Nobel Prize in 1980) said about this situation. He said, that during Argentine dictatorship Father Bergoglio did a “silent diplomacy” and interceded for the disappeared, the imprisoned and the poor and for the situation of Human Rights, but that the militaries had their own policies. That there were bishops that interceded for the priests, for common people and for the ones disappeared, but militaries did not listen. Esquivel also said that Bergoglio was not accomplice of repressors and that he neither was a pastor who was at the forefront in the fight against dictatorship, but that he did a silent diplomacy. He also held that during those years there were no diverse behaviors in Catholic Church, that what existed were “clerics accomplices with dictatorship, but not Father Bergoglio" and that there were some clerics that fought against the regime and the proof is that in Argentine there are in between the dictatorship martyrs, several priests and nuns. Esquivel affirmed that “it won´t be fair to generalize”.

Most Argentinean population is Catholic, and “why and how the Catholic Church in the country related with Videla´s government” will be an issue of debate maybe forever. A debate that revives strongly because this March 2013 for the 1^st time in history a Latin American, or more specific an Argentinean Cardinal that in a way or another related with the military regime of Videla  had been chosen as Pope.

Alonso Padilla

Jorge Bergoglio`s and his clash with the Argentinian government after his opposition to legalize gay marriage

The new Pope, Francis I, originally Jorge Mario Bergoglio, had expressed his opposition to gay marriage. So he had a controversial discussion with the actual Argentinian president Cristina Fernandez who supports this specific situation. An epic power discussion took place having the Argentinean Government vs. the Catholic Church. This confrontation was lead due to the decision of the Congress and the government of legalizing the gay marriage in the country. The upset of Bergoglio took place as it is  known Catholic policy to be totally against marriage between people of the same sex.

Bergoglio’s bother was shown with strong words when he claimed “The identity and survival of a family “father, mother and son”, is on the line if gay marriage is permitted. If adoption becomes legal for gay people, their kids’ life would also be on the line as they wouldn’t have the “human maturation” that God wanted with a father and a mother”. This declaration became a clash when the then Argentinean president Nestor Kirchner accused Bergoglio of “Putting pressing and trying to influence on the religious community for his own purposes”.

Ethics in this controversial problem...

From one side there is the fact that gay people should have exactly the same rights as straight people, and therefore are able to get married and with that a totally equal and inclusive society will exist. That’s what the government looked for to have everyone involved in their movements. The Argentinean government believes this is the most ethically correct point as there is no single discrimination in the whole society and everyone values are considered.

On the other hand we have Catholic Church policies which differ totally with Kirchner’s ideas as they just see a family with a mother (female) and a father (male). So an orthodox believer would always be against the idea of considering gay marriage as legal. But the only thing that Catholics, including Pope Francis I can do, is to raise their voices of complain and affirm the Church's position, because as a religious group  they cannot actually change the laws or governmental decisions. 

There are different positions to consider in front of this problem. Gay marriage may be considered unethical by some persons and ethical accepted by others. This is a controversial theme, so diverse opinions may be expressed. The support or rejection to gay marriage in Argentine depends in the individual believes and commitments of each citizen. 

Tito Vasquez

Venezuela's last report

Hugo Chavez profile

Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias was born on Barinas Venezuela the 28^th of July 1954. He was the second of six brothers and his education was in charge of his grandmother. He studied in a military school and entered to the army of Venezuela on 1971. Chávez became interested in politics and founded in 1982 a new party, called “Movimiento Bolivariano Revolucionario 200” in Venezuela.

On 1992 the economy of his country was having serious problems and Chavez tried a coup but he failed and was imprisoned. Later that same year his party members tried a second coup failing again. Chavez was in prison for two years when the new president Rafael Caldera absolved him. Then in 1997 Hugo Chavez launched his party as “Movimiento de la Quinta Republica” and he definitely ended his labour as a soldier to become a politician. And in 1998 there was a great political disorder in Venezuela and Chavez ran a presidential campaign and was elected.

Hugo Chávez rose power in 1998, as a social democrat. But soon he turned to be a fierce socialist who wanted to rule his country in his own way, in a very populist and arrogant way. With a strong character, he started a social revolution allover Venezuela. He modified the constitution as he wished, for example for being re-elected as long as he wanted. His 1^st period was 1999 – 2001, the 2^nd 2001 - 2007, the 3^rd 2007 - 2013, and he was elected for a 4^th period starting in 2013, but he could not swear, because he was dying and then died. It is also known that his regime was very corrupt.

He got control over many companies and also over the media, so he showed his country and the world only what he wanted. He had his own TV program. And newspapers publications were also manipulated.

He had been adored by the poorer people of his country, because he had a populist government that invested lots of money in giving them better housing, health, education, work opportunities, and principally made them feel loved and supported by their President.  But had also been very criticized by the higher classes of Venezuela, due how he treated them and expropriated in many cases their belongings.

Around the world as the Venezuelan president, he established close relations with some countries in Latin America, the ones that share somehow his ideas, as Bolivia, Argentina, Cuba, Nicaragua or Ecuador. And from the rest of the world, Chavez related very well only with China and Iran. This is because he was against liberalism and democracies. With the country he had a terrible relation was the U.S.A.; he used to blame Busch for many problems happening around the world and he even referred to him as the devil. He had many controversial reactions with some personalities; for example, he said he did not believe that the Pope was Jesus representative in the Land. And he felt no shame in shouting or blaming anyone he wanted.

In 2011 he was found to have cancer and went to Cuba to be treated and operated. Initially he proclaimed he was in the good way of healing, but things went wrong for him. He could not heal and died on March the 5^th, 2013. Before his death he named Nicolas Maduro as his preferred successor.

Sebastian Figari

Controversial take of interim post by Nicolás Maduro

After Hugo Chavez recently died, actual interim President is today “Nicolas Maduro”, also as radical as his mentor. This statement had created a big controversy and a contradiction in Venezuela’s politics. This decision has created debate because Maduro is in lead of Venezuela due few words of Hugo Chavez who before dying said, “Maduro is going to be Venezuela’s next president”.

But the problem starts when the constitution of Venezuela says another thing. What it mandates is that when a president dies, the person who should be on interim command of the country is the President of the National Assembly at that time, in this case, would be Diosdado Cabello.

Is this politically and legally correct? It seems not to be actually legal or correct, because the constitution itself is the voice and the biggest law of the country and it`s over any persons position. Hugo Chavez could say anything he wanted, and could have had all the support he wanted, but the law may be the law, and what is stated in Constitution might had been followed. A clash between law and what had been established arbitrarily had occurred. But Chavez power was so strong, and the support he had in his Venezuelan followers is so immense, that finally he achieved his will to be fulfilled.

Tito Vasquez

The opposition leader Henrique Capriles to challenge Nicolas Maduro

In Venezuela there’s not only the political party of Maduro called “Socialista Unido de Venezuela” there is also a quite strong opposition that wrestles to end with Chavez’s political ideologies and implant a totally different government, a real democracy with changes and a predominating capitalism.

This opposition is led by “Henrique Capriles”, a Venezuelan politician graduated in laws in the Catholic University of Caracas and a self-proclaimed democrat. For these 2013´s elections, he had declared he’s resentment and opposition against Chavez and Maduro’s regime. He had proclaimed things as “The currency of Venezuela’s money had reduced a lot, and that’s another of the reds (communists) lie that swear this will never happen.” He had also showed his differences with the actual revolutionary ideas by saying “I believe this country can improve a lot and I’m going to change it”.

The certain thing is that Capriles chances of winning are very low as the last year he lost against Chavez in supposedly “fixed” elections by only getting 45% of the votes. His rival, Nicolas Maduro, has all the support of Chavez force and there is a huge part of Venezuelan that loved and admired Chavez that wants his dream to be continued. Despite a doubt exists about transparency in elections, as in previous cases under Chavez regime. So Maduro may have more chances to be elected?

Capriles has also denounced planned ambushes against he’s health led by Maduro’s party and the only thing we can say about this is that actually Capriles has almost everything against him. Would he be able to fight and achieve his aim of getting to power and changing Venezuela?

Governmental plan of Capriles, he offers Venezuela a democratic plan in which his mission statement is “That everyone progresses and no one gets behind, nobody should be less just for the circumstances in which they are born”.  He looks after a commitment with all the people of the country offering them projects and actions for improving their economic opportunities. After that, the same government would attend to the people’s problem and would accept responsibilities for everyone to look forward for a better future working the whole country together as one. Capriles plan shows a lot of hard work and future great possibilities.

He is a young intelligent man and indeed he wants the best for his country. He wants to remove his country from communism, and surely will promote democracy and globalization for a better future, as for example is happening to Peru, Colombia and Chile during the last years.

Tito Vasquez

Analysis of the political and economic situation of Venezuela  

Today Venezuela is still leaving under the revolutionary ideas of Hugo Chavez, with Nicolas Maduro as a temporarily president, until next 14^th of April 2013 that new elections will occur. He is the man that Chavez stipulated should be his follower. He was supposed to be his Vice President during the 4^th Presidency of Chavez; but this never happened because Chavez died before swearing. The thing is that this country is living out of the law, Diosdado Cabello, the President of the National Assembly of Venezuela was supposed to rule during this transition. But the power of Chavez extended even after his death. So Maduro, simply announced that he will govern until a new President is elected. And of course, he will be the candidate of Chavez revolutionary party. And it is probably that new elections will not be really transparent. And if he is elected, Hugo Chavez´s line of government will continue. The doubt is what will become of Mr. Chávez’s movement without him?

The social democracy Hugo Chavez preached his government was going to be, turned quickly into a camouflage dictatorship when he raised power. So politics in Venezuela suffered a radical change. And despite Chavez insisted his country lived a democracy, what most of the world see is that since 1999 when this revolutionary government started, Venezuela had been under an absolute authoritarianism of him and his party. Chavez had enormously politicized the military and it is known corruption was around him and his militaries. There were armed militias raiding the country that used to answer only to Chavez. It is said that he amassed a 2 billion dollars personal fortune, or maybe more during his presidency, how come? He got to change Constitution to be reelected three times; despite he died before starting his 4^th period. And were elections really transparent? He had also nationalized and controlled almost all the media and press, so he informed what he wanted. Is this democracy?

A deep change happened with Venezuela´s society during Chavez presidency. Millions of poor people who used to feel marginalized and ignored, by today feel empowered. “Their president” offered them a real revolution and spent millions in improving their well-being. These people do not see beyond, they did not care if a corrupt dictatorship ruled them. They just felt happy and secure receiving without mattering if the country politics and economy were deeply suffering. And may be there is nothing to be said about them, these people felt improvements in their life´s, and this is good. To eradicate poorness around the world is a challenge for every government. And it may be true that poverty has reduced in Chavez years, that child malnutrition has reduced, or that pensions had raise, unemployment had decrease and that social spending had been directed to housing, to social security, health and education. But what´s wrong is the way Chavez did it; braking with democracy and with a tyranny centralized government power, that ruled with lies and corruption and expropriating almost every private business. His policies widened terrible society’s divisions. Violence had increased terribly, murdered has doubled in the last decade, Venezuela is actually a very dangerous country. There is shortness of food and basic products. And his proclaimed “socialism” was really a “communism”, and this kind of regime is terrible, it restricts people freedom and does not give a nation the opportunities to develop as globalize nations have.

And yet this revolutionary government insisted that Venezuela´s economy is solid and growing due Chavez social spending policies, showing positive results as a 5% GDP growth in 2012, or they insist inflation had been falling and that will keep dropping, and showed a cumulative inflation of only 4.4% for 2012. Presenting results of growth by 2012 and saying that almost all sectors have been growing significantly.  What it is known is that this country is actually with Argentine the ones with most inflation in Latin America and Venezuela could be the second country with the higher inflation of the world. His currency the “Bolivar fuerte” has lost 2/3 of its value since 2008. Venezuela´s exports had passed from 77% oil to 96% oil today, and this extreme dependency in only one product is very risky for any country. How longer will Venezuela resist this situation?

Chavez domestic policies

Even it is known that Chavez was increasing his fortune through a corrupt government, he proclaimed that in his country there should not be “rich and poor”, he had the goal of resolving the economic inequality “wealth should be redistributed”. Mainly via land reform and social programs. He proclaimed the “Bolivarian Missions” meant to offer public services, such as food, healthcare and education; to reduce poverty and improve economic, cultural, and social conditions.

Some of his social programs include for example:

Price controls in at least 400 basic foods (causing food shortages and obsessive keeping). Producers were forced to produce at a loss.

Also a chain of state-owned grocery stores was created to sell at lower prices.

Micro-credit programs and banks were created for helping the poor to start their own small businesses. Chavez promoted start-up credit and technical training to create worker-owned “cooperatives”, (many cooperatives function wrongly or were fraudulently formed to gain access to public funds).

Communal Councils were created to determine how government funds would be used in their local area. Communal banks were founded too, and had received hundreds of millions in government funding to be used for local micro-loans and for community social projects. 

Agriculture and land reform policies started, promoting local agricultural production and reducing agricultural imports. Many large farms were nationalized. Lots of fruitful farmlands decayed after expropriation and food production dropped. A "Law of the Land" stated big landholdings to be illegal, and gave them to farmer families who needed land to work. The occupation of idle private lands by landless peasants was allowed. But this reorganization does not necessarily improved food production because many farmers were damaged by the price controls for their products. In 2008, the government had to give financial aid to small farmers who were in problem. Besides technical assistance and education was provided to them.

“Urban Land Committees” were created to develop “land titling” in urban areas. In 2002 a decree, “allowed local committees to apply to a government office for the local residents to gain property title for national land that was informally occupied for a long time”. Thousands of titles had been assigned.

“Great Housing Mission program” created to build for the poor and for the country and to stimulate construction that is considered the 2^nd motor of the economy after oil.

Nationalizations / expropriations had been an important part of the policy of wealth redistribution and to reduce influence of multinational corporations. For example big extensions of land (for social purposes) and many apartments of those who had more than one living place were expropriated. Many industries and companies were also expropriated or nationalized, as the largest telephone companies and electric utilities or to the principal steel company (Argentine-controlled SIdor) and a food plant (owned by US Cargill) or Banco de Venezuela, automotive industries, cement industry, warehouses, hotels, supermarkets, insurance companies, coffee plants, mines or TV channels as Globovision. (Some compensation was paid in specific situations).

But the best for Chávez was the country’s oil reserves, Venezuela is a major producer of oil and it´s economy practically depends on it. For his socialist dream he got control over the national oil company in 2003. He nationalized petroleum companies (PDVSA, was the most important). Billions of dollars from oil had been used to support his political populist projects.

New taxes were introduced, especially on non-priority and luxury goods. Nation's tax weight may go mostly to the wealthy, inflation must be controlled. Also to avoid capital flight, and keep the stability of the Venezuelan currency, the “bolivar”, strict currency controls were established in 2003. Since the currency controls, there was a series of devaluations. February 2013 suffered the seventh devaluation since Chavez took power, something negative for Venezuela´s economy.

International policies were focused in reducing the influence of foreign capitalists in Venezuela and to try to increase autonomy from U.S. and European governments by rising control over local oil production and promoting economic and political integration with Latin American nations. One of his goals was to create  “The Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas”, a regional trade & political bloc that would replace the “Free Alliance for the Americas”. Bolivia, Cuba, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic joined Venezuela in this “ALBA”. Venezuela offered cheaper oil to the members in exchange of other trading’s. Chavez described ALBA as "a flexible model for the integration of Latin America that places social concerns in the forefront." and encourages "socially-oriented" forms of trade instead of those "strictly based on the logic of deregulated profit maximization". He also proposed a regional currency called the “Sucre”, to be used in commercial exchanges between the ALBA members, to improve stability of regional markets and to replace the U$ and decrease U.S. control of the economies of Latin America nations. Bancosur was also created for this group.

Chavez also had a very close relation with government of People´s Republic of China. China became Venezuela’s 2^nd largest trade partner, and Venezuela China's biggest investment destination in Latin America.

Despite the bad relation that he had with U.S. government, oil trade had been occurring between them. The idea is to reduce this dependency in the future.

And of course, how Cuba was almost tied to Chavez government is the most remarkable international relationship. Now that he is dead, Cuba may take every action to preserve the economic relationship with Venezuela that had been giving petroleum, almost free as an exchange mainly for medical care. There were also many Cubans working for companies of Chavez´s government.

Alonso Padilla