rhychydwr1
Active member
This email arrived in my inbox this morning. I thought it so amusing, that I will share it with you. I am sure that if a team of Czech or Venezuelan cavers came to Cardigan and explored a few caves without telling me, I would not be offended.
"REPORT OF EFRAIN MERCADO TO THE SVE ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL
SPELEOLOGICAL CONGRESS IN GREECE, 2005":
REPLY BY DR. PAVEL BOSAK AND COMMENTS BY FRANCO URBANI
Our friend EfraÃn Mercado wrote a summary of his activities as the Venezuelan Delegate (by proxy) to the
International Speleological Congress, Greece, August 2005 (See this Bulletin No. 63, Sept. 2005). As a result there
were some replies and comments by Dr. Arrigo Cigna and Dr. Franco Urbani (See this Bulletin, No. 65, Nov. 2005).
Now I received another reply, this time from Dr. Pavel Bosak. So in the following pages I will comment on Bosak´s
message.
1) REPLY to the report of Efrain Mercado by Pavel Bosak
----- Original Message -----
From: Bosak@gli.cas.cz
Sent: 10/17/2005 9:13:07 AM
To: arrigocigna@tiscali.it;emercado@caribe.net
Cc: andy@andyeavis.com
Subject: RE: Protest of Venezuela
Dear Efrain (and also others),
I obtained your letter. I am affraid that you completely do not understand the situation, resp. you have information
only from one side. But to start, my name is Bosak and not Bozak, pls, if you want to contact me sometimes in the
future, use the proper name.
Concerning Venezuela vs Slovakia, which in reality is the SVE vs. Smida´s expedition, I made nothing "elegant"
with unfortunate problem, simply it was not included in approved agenda in advance, but in spite of it we dealt with
the problem. The UIS Bureau proposed solution (unfortunately it was not in my possibilities to change Vietnamese
time-schedule, we were pressed to go somewhere to some official meeting, therefore we could not continue in
discussion on the problem, we had some 3 minutes to another more important points included to agenda). Solution
/with some delay, I agree/ was fulfilled. In spite of this, the SVE members again and again have bee attacking the
problem not even waiting for the respective letter, is it serious behavior?. The situation could not be solved by other
decision, as proof from the SVE side was not transparent (proved).
The UIS Bureau will deal with that problem again, even if it was closed by excuse letter from participants of the
expedition. Based on available data I cannot understand different decision than adopted in Hanoi. If there are
appearing different evidences, we can judge in different manner, nevertheless such evidences have been missing until
now.
As the member of the UIS Bureau you have to take care on interests of the UIS - you have to collect real facts on
the problem from all the parties involved and not only to hear one party of the story, more which is more loudly.
After some years in service you will understand that problems caused or presented by South Americal countries
are highly specific, sometimes far from reality how is understand by me (I am not the only).
As the UIS Bureau member, first you have to studied in detail the UIS Statute - especially the beginning - who is
national delegate (what she/he is representing), how it is selected (elected), this is the must, more now available in
Spanish and English, not only French.
Especially South American member countries of the UIS are known not to fit completely to the sense of the UIS
Statute - there are even organizations usurpating the right to decide who is "good" and who is not "good enough" for
the caving in the respective country, even when such organization is not the only in the country, and even when
"invador" collaborates with other official caving club in the country - the most evident situation is in Mexico with at
least 8 big caving bodies - no mutual agreement on representations towards the UIS has been existing, Venezuela
with 4 caving bodies known to me (the same), Costa Rica with two bodies (the same); similar or very close situation
exists also in Europe (the worse is situation in Albania; situation in Croatia was solved but I am afraid on fragile
fundaments), or in Asia (Lebanon, here thanks to God without usurpation to make permission for caving within the
country). For the future of the UIS, and to prevent problems like now we are facing with so-called
Venezuela/Slovakia affair, the UIS must solve the problem without respect to "traditional partner" of the UIS in the
past. Such countries (or even only single clubs!) cannot represent the state within the state, they cannot have different
conditions like other countries.
Entering the UIS the member country authomatically agrees with all the principal documents of the UIS and the
country must follow them all (and all documents approved later by the UIS Assembly General without respect that
the respective country voted against). They cannot use selectivelly only some of documents (fitting to respective
situation), the UIS Statutes beeing the most important each time. I have to admit, that I (in past-position of Secretary
General/Treasurer) have not been interesting who is paying annual fees of the country, to pay is the only duty of the
member country, but the payer is not authomatically the national delegate (for example in Slovakia with the only
unified Society, the annual fees are covered by Administration of Slovak Caves from its own bank account, but
Slovakia is represented by persons approved by the SSS Board; very similar is situation in Great Britain, in the past
the same was in Czechoslovakia, where annual payments before 1990 were payed by Ministry of Culture, and Swiss
fees has been traditionally covered by Swiss Academy of Sciences for long tens of years).
Returning to your problem. I was from the beginning very little involved in the affair, before it became the affair.
My only role in all the story was that I gave to organizers of the first expedition (to Marek Audy, I did not know
Smida at that time personally) e-mail address of Urbani, even I knew that there can be eventually problems, but for
me the SVE was the traditional partner of the UIS and, unfortunately, I did not know contacts to other groups in
Venezuela, although I knew about their existence. Unfortunately, Urbani behaved as dead beetle (I have been
knowing him since about 1984-85), what is well-know to me at least from the time when Urbani served as the
Secretary Adjunct of the UIS (his not correspondence time he explained simply by the problems with computer and
changes of e-mail address). I do not know why Urbani did not answered that time (he must answer that question), I
recommended to expedition members to try again and again, as Urbani, as geologist, can be in the field for long time,
i.e. out of the office. The expedition wanted to obtain information if there exists something like cave in site.
Expedition was prepared as normal trip, not excludively caving event. But expedition finally went as they did not
wanted to wait another weeks and months. Unfortunately, expedition walking on touristic path saw the cave, the start
of the "problem". After the expedition, Mr. Audy prepared detailed report incl. all topography, photos, report on
expedition and send it to Urbani as demanded by the UIS Ethic Code. Because no reaction, I personally urged Urbani
on the same e-mail address as expedition tried to contact him and Urbani replied that parcel is not arriving, which
can be explained by disorder in Venezuela asking if possible to send again. Parcel was send again (100 USD cost per
each mail) and after about 2 months we obtained confirmation of obtaining, and only after the whole story fully
started.
So from the point of view of UIS Ethic Code with accepted ammendments - the expedition made all what was in
its power before and after, it means that the expedition started in good will and not to pinch somebody something
(what they did not know before) they wanted to touristically visit something and eventually to discover something if
ocassion - (1) expedition contacted locals on officially existing contact address recommended by the UIS official, but
unfortunately did not obtained any comment (normally such situation means yes, but probably not in South America)
- this is the only fault in the whole story from expedition side, and (2) after the trip, the expedition delivered all
materials to the national caving club (locals) they contacted earlier even if locals were not physically involved in the
expediton. What you want more? More if expedition was planned as touristic trip to know new regions eventually to
make reconnaissance, the approval of locals is not necessary in that case; the chance that you discover something
really important in unknown terrain is very low, unfortunately they suceeded. I know tens of real caving expeditions
with completely no contacts with locals, big discoveries and no problems from locals!? I know situations (in
Europe!), on the contrary, when locals stol discoveries to foreing expeditions and immediatelly after expedition left
the site they made prolongation before foreigners published original (primary) results (published data were not actual
in the moment of appearance).
I have to state also, what is broadly accepted, that if the cave is known but no published plan exists, the cave does
not exist; such situation is normal at least here in Europe. If cave is known and plan does not exist but the entrance is
marked by cadaster number or by some other sign (table of ownership) - the cave officially exists. The Slovak
expedition with one Czech participant made the detailed research before it started, so if the cave plan existed that
time on internet or in published form, they know it. I was not present physically, but one caver (I have any reason not
to believe him) told me, that in distant parts of the cave no traces of earlier human presence were detected. I cannot
understand, simply, that somebody can protest against the increasing of knowledge on respective cave? or even
against the discovery of new and for science important cave! when not having ownership rights to the cave. I
understand only if somebody is protesting against used poor and bad sentences and words.
I have been refusing the use of not proper words in contacts among people in official use, with no respect if caver
or not. I was extremely shocked by very special (frankly said) Smida´s letter, which he wrote himself, even
expedition members were "surprised" as informed only after the distribution. I pressed personally members of
expedition to appologize for the letter. But the use of inproper words is not merrit of the problem! The merrit is who
robbed who? , or is there any real background that Slovak discovery in Venezuela was robbery? as interpreted by the
SVE. Who made the bad step? - Smida or the SVE attacking him about robbery! If in civilized World, and if the cave
was really known before, it is enough to mention this officially - published in journal, presented on the SVE web
page, distributing e-mail information! many possibilities in our globalised World. Why to make the internationalized
problem immediately? More the SVE knew about the trip to Roraima (or in which hell it was)! Many unclear
questions and dark positions to me, something smelling to my experienced nose.
To solve the problem I want to obtain the answer to 1 principal question:
- where the Cueva de Ojos Cristal (or what is the name) was published before the Smida´s expedition, in that case I
want to obtain hard copy with map or ISSN or ISBN number or respective publication, eventually internet (web)
address.
Unfortunately, my experience with Urbani long before the affair, this causa caused no change in my opinion, was
really not very ideal, starting with Paleokarst book and ending with his position of the UIS Bureau member (he never
appepared on any meeting and his activity was zero and he used his membership to improve his position;
unfortunately he was not the only past-UIS Bureau members behaving in that direction, when we will eventually
meet in the future I can name them). I have to admit, unfortunately, I lost the trust to him years before all the story.
He can be nice guy, but not for me, serious academic cannot behave like him, or I do not understant South American
reality, which is probably more close explanation of my insufficiency. I was also informed (without any details) by
past-Secretaries General on similar problems with Venezuelans also in the past (somebody else discoveries were
presented as the SVE discoveries)!
With regrets, I would like to inform you (as member of the CSS Board) that, unfortunately, the SVE cannot obtain
any excuse letter of the Czech Speleological Society (CSS), which is due to organization structure of the CSS given
by its Statutes (the CSS Board discussed this point twice on its meetings), except the letter with regrets of use of
inproper words written by non-member of the CSS. From the CSS point of view the expedition was not officially
approved (nobody asked for that; please do not interpret that the expedition or trip or whatever it was was for the
CSS illegal, no!!) therefore does not represent the official event of the CSS. For explanation, the CSS Board has been
approving so-called central events with official use of the CSS logo (trade mark) only for very limited number of
activities - especially meetings of cavers, workshops, symposia, conferences, congresses and some exceptional
activities, like some years ago the use of special device for underwater exploration in the Hranicka Abyss. On the
other hand, the CSS Board is approving all activities of organisational units without legal statute (i.e. dependent to
the CSS Board), like Central Commissions. Expeditions to foreign countries are under responsibility of individual
club(s); I cannot remember that the CSS Board (since the CSS establishment in 1978 and before 1990 with
completely different organisational structure: centralized) approved any expedition as official CSS activity (except
"recommendation" for obtaining permission to leave the country during so-called communistic system in pre-1990
period, but such recommendation was needed to any activity in the "West", not only expeditions, but trips or
congresses too). What is the result, Marek Audy was private member of the expedition, which realisation is not
necessary to be approved by the Board of the CSS (organized by Slovaks). The CSS represents the union of
independent caving clubs. Caving clubs are completely responsible (according to valid Czech law) for their activities
and their activity is not approved by the CSS Board because of independence of clubs and their Board; there exists
only annual report on activities of clubs given to secretary of the CSS. The role of the CSS, i.e. case when the CSS
Board can inherit internal affairs of the clubs, is only in establishing of new club, cancellation of club or if there are
illegal activites (against valid Czech law and the CSS Statutes) endangering the club existence, or to judge problems
between/among clubs. Even in the case that Audy is member of caving club associated to the CSS, and he is, even
caving club has no reponsibility on activity of its members when the respective activity does not appear within
official, i.e. approved, club activities, i.e. mentioned in official minutes from Club Board meeting. More, pls, accept
that excuse letter demanded by Hanoi Bureau meeting was already written - note that not by Smida (from him you
cannot expect anything) but by Marek Audy.
The problem Venezuela versus Slovakia/Czech is not international problem, resp. problem on international level,
but problem of two entities (bodies) - the SVE and the expedition headed by Smida. The SVE does not represent the
only or unified Venezuelan body with whole-Venezuelan competence, but one club from 4 or 5 existing, so the SVE
has no right to decide on permission for caving on territory of Venezuela (except the situation that such decree was
legally obtained from respective governmental body; which was clearly not the reality in time of the respective
expedition; if yes I want to see such document); the Smida´s club is associated in the SSS, but in fact is legally
independent, it is not proved if expedition was official activity of the club itself (like in Czech). I do not understand
why the problem was internationalized and trip was signed as illegal (please do not write anybody about the
Venezuelan protest, it is protest of one single club - the SVE), if it is only due to internal situation in Venezuela?,
after I am very sad. I have nothing against anything and anybody (even with bad experience in the past), but when
the UIS Bureau is solving such "problems", when even the Ethic Code was kept, the UIS Board will do nothing else
in the future that negotiating hundreds of quite local problems and having no force for solution of more important
international problems. Unfortunately, such step was done....
I have no reason to appologize to anybody as I did nothing unlegal or unserious. Please accept, that the expedition
was Slovak expedition (other country), why shall I cover foreigners, I can understand eventually that in case of
Czechs, but from Czech Republic, only one caver was present. I felt from the beginning that something is wrong in
the whole story, something is false, some principal evidence is missing. The role of the UIS Secretary General is to
see the problems independently and to prevent to accept completely wrong decisions or decision on profit of one of
parties. As I stated above the Ethic Code was kept and fulfilled.
I will not react to any future contacts until it is not proved in clear manner (by independent body) and without any
doubts that the respective cave was publically known before Smida´s expedition (i.e. published and not only visited
by some local), more the SVE must legally prove that the owner of rights to cave in the moment of expedition was
the SVE. Simply the SVE must finish to cry loadly and it must open their cards and play seriously. Venezuelans and
all other countries, incl. clubs like the SVE, must also follow the UIS Ethic Code, which is valid for everybody and
not only for expeditions. Any attempt of eventual falsification from the SVE side (new anti-dated letters and reports,
anti-dated maps in the SVE archives, ... etc.) will deepen the crisis, which is completely artificial and clerly serving
for the SVE profit. I have to mention, that there exists good proof if "previous" maps of Venezuelans are correct or
not, the nature of it was already published ("another attack against the SVE").
I summarize:
- excuses for improper sentences and words were written;
- there is no proof that Cueva of Crystal Eyes was known (publically) before the Smida´s expedition as maps and
materials were published by the SVE only after results of foreign expedition (trip) were publically announced;
- there is no proof that Smida´s expedition entered exclusive ownership of the SVE as the cave was not visible
marked by table or by other means;
- the SVE is one of several caving clubs in Venezuela and has no, by government approved, right to limit caving
activity on the territory of Venezuela, in spite that the SVE has been traditional partner of the UIS.
Without any doubts, now play is on the SVE side, it MUST abandon dangerous present position and tactics and to
prove without any doubts and with fully serious approach to seriousness of situation, that cave was published and
map was publically available before its "rediscovery" by Slovaks and that the SVE had legal ownership right to the
cave, which was marked e.g., by table in front of this "excellently and completely surveyed and explored cave".
Other questions are not very important.
PB
PS:
I must admit that I have enough of all this story.
I take no care that some Venezuelans have been dealing with my person in official publications in spite that they
have no reason (even if it can represent base for legal steps against them) and they are playing with false cards.
I am bad that I distributed address of the SVE? I need the SVE permission to do that? (how stupid in function of
Secretary General with the principal role to distribute information about caving in the whole caving World - to
mention the UIS Statutes in this place). If I am totally bad /even up to criminal/, why you elected me as the third in
rank UIS official for another term - 2005-2009? Why the Assembly elected me by so many voices and not selected
out?
I have to admit, that, unfortunately based on the whole story, the SVE seems to me as completely not serious
group of people following some kind of profits which I cannot understand, in fact acting against the UIS. If they do
not want to be the UIS members, they can go, we will thank them for all they did in the past and finito, basta.
I spent with the question of expected (interpreted) robbery (but there is question who robbed who?) long tens of
hours, hours which I could, can and will be able to spend for other, more important, UIS issues (conservation
problems in BiH, ...., preparation of my last UIS Bulletin, to distribute UIS Bulletins to proper addresses). You are
loosing my time, your time, and profit of the UIS.
If you want to obtain from me another reaction to the whole story (other than legal) you must offer something
more than loadly crying group of strange guys with mentality far from the normal civilization.
If there is no proof for my above-mentioned questions I will start officialy and more loadly with the use of words
lier, robber as I did in my not numerous completely private e-mails.
If you want to follow in non serious support of non proved arguments, you can, it is your right, but without me as
person having something common with the UIS.
Howgh!
***************
2) COMMENTS by Franco Urbani to the reply of Pavel Bosak
I feel that the reply of Dr. Bosak as in other previous messages he does not adhere to the truth and, in fact, may
completely mislead any unaware readers especially other UIS Bureau members; therefore it deserves several
comments from my side. I will copy Dr. Bosak message (in blue) and will include my comments (in black). The bold
letters in Bosak´s message are mine:
Dear Efrain (and also others),
I obtained your letter. I am affraid that you completely do not understand the situation, resp. you have
information only from one side. But to start, my name is Bosak and not Bozak, pls, if you want to contact me
sometimes in the future, use the proper name.
EfraÃn Mercado does have the full information from both sides since that is of public domain in the web. The
SVE does not hide cards. I not going to comment about the rude way you addressed the misspelling of your
surname.
Concerning Venezuela vs Slovakia, which in reality is the SVE vs. Smida´s expedition, I made nothing
"elegant" with unfortunate problem, simply it was not included in approved agenda in advance, but in spite of
it we dealt with the problem.
Dr. Bosak, you clearly misunderstand the problem, it is not a Venezuelan vs. Slovakia problem. It is a Slovak-
Czech generated problem, the Venezuelan Speleological Society (SVE) -a NGO- only found out that the SSS-CSS
expedition was illegal and against the principles of the UIS Code of Ethics.
Even more it was not a "Smida´s expedition" it was a Slovak Speleological Society (SSS) and Czech
Speleological Society (CSS) expedition since all their publications are always signed by a member of the CSS (M.
Audy) and a member of the SSS (B. Smida). Again, they are signing as members of such national societies.
In addition, within the journal Speleforum 2003, which is the official CCS publication and you Dr. Bosak are its
editor, we read: "Summary: Cristal eyes (Czech-Slovak expedition to quartzite karst in Venezuelan Guiana). Czech-
Slovak speleological expedition (Czech Speleological Society and Slovak Speleological Society) was focused on
exploration of caves in quartzites in the western part of Roraima...."). So Dr. Bosak, do not change matters at this
point only to twist them at your convenience.
The UIS Bureau proposed solution (unfortunately it was not in my possibilities to change Vietnamese timeschedule,
we were pressed to go somewhere to some official meeting, therefore we could not continue in
discussion on the problem, we had some 3 minutes to another more important points included to agenda).
Solution /with some delay, I agree/ was fulfilled. In spite of this, the SVE members again and again have bee
attacking the problem not even waiting for the respective letter, is it serious behavior? The situation could not
be solved by other decision, as proof from the SVE side was not transparent (proved).
This is the first time I come to know that a "solution" was proposed or agreed. If so, why you never communicated
it to the SVE who was the party that formally sent the documents to the UIS in Hanoi? Perhaps that was one of your
main errors as a General Secretary: if a solution was proposed, then, why you did not disseminated such solution to
the people involved?
On the other hand, the members of the FEALC that attended the Hanoi meeting communicated us that you tried to
postpone and postpone the discussion of this issue until the very last moment of the meeting; without showing any
interest to properly discuss this issue. Now I hope that you may show good will for a clear dialogue about this issue
in the UIS meeting at Beirut.
Contrary to your opinion, the SVE position was always very clear and transparent and in the public domain: See
full details in this Bulletin (No. 60, June 2005, www.fealc.org) whose full content was previously handled to you in
the Hanoi meeting by Abel Vale, also sent to the UIS President before Greece; so it was, it is and it will be
completely available for the speleological community on the web.
The UIS Bureau will deal with that problem again, even if it was closed by excuse letter from participants
of the expedition. Based on available data I cannot understand different decision than adopted in Hanoi. If
there are appearing different evidences, we can judge in different manner, nevertheless such evidences have
been missing until now.
Misleading again Dr. Bosak, since such excuse letter from the participans does not exist or at least was never
sent to the SVE and if it was received by yourself or the UIS you should have publicly disseminated it on time just to
stop further developments. Could we interpret that this was a lack of care in your functions as Secretary General of
the UIS?
As the member of the UIS Bureau you have to take care on interests of the UIS - you have to collect real
facts on the problem from all the parties involved and not only to hear one party of the story, more which is
more loudly. After some years in service you will understand that problems caused or presented by South
American countries are highly specific, sometimes far from reality how is understand by me (I am not the
only).
You request to Mr. Mercado to "take care" of the UIS interests. Well, that is exactly what he is doing, trying to
place this issue in the proper dimension for a proper discussion in favor of long term UIS interests. I am sure that Mr.
Mercado will have the willingness to properly represent the Latin American countries within the whole UIS
community. However, it is really a delicate concern the way you speculate in a broad way about the speleological
status of Latin American countries without providing details; this represents a clear predisposition against a regional
speleological community to which you should (actually you must) work with in a proper way. This is even more
delicate considering your current and even higher position within the UIS.
As the UIS Bureau member, first you have to studied in detail the UIS Statute - especially the beginning -
who is national delegate (what she/he is representing), how it is selected (elected), this is the must, more now
available in Spanish and English, not only French.
Mr. Mercado knows extremely well the UIS documents, for that reason he represented us in Greece, and now in
Beirut.
Especially South American member countries of the UIS are known not to fit completely to the sense of the
UIS Statute - there are even organizations usurpating the right to decide who is "good" and who is not "good
enough" for the caving in the respective country, even when such organization is not the only in the country,
and even when "invador" collaborates with other official caving club in the country - the most evident
situation is in Mexico with at least 8 big caving bodies - no mutual agreement on representations towards the
UIS has been existing, Venezuela with 4 caving bodies known to me (the same), Costa Rica with two bodies
(the same); similar or very close situation exists also in Europe (the worse is situation in Albania; situation in
Croatia was solved but I am afraid on fragile fundaments), or in Asia (Lebanon, here thanks to God without
usurpation to make permission for caving within the country).
This is quite a serious matter that you bring up, but also remember that the UIS has no competence to deal on how
a country appoints its representatives. On the other hand, most of the so called "problems" that you are speaking and
I think I know most of them, were not created by South American cavers, they were rather created by the foreign
parties that came to Central and South America thinking that they are just going to their own backyards.
On the other hand, when you use the word "usurpating" you are putting yourself as a supra-national judge. It
would be interesting to know the opinion of the whole UIS Bureau regarding the issues you mention of other
countries. Do you know the opinion of the cavers of those countries?, well I should remind you that no UIS
delegation is more or less legitimate than other, and that according to the UIS regulations, the internal election of
UIS country delegates is not its competence. It is also alarming the way you use the word "invador" because in Latin
American in general and Venezuela in particular we always have "open doors" to foreign speleologists to explore
under the UIS Code of Ethics; many of those international speleological groups had participated with the SVE in
cave exploration in Venezuela in a professional, respectful, candid and friendly manner. Thus, you divisionist intents
between nationals and foreigners are really a shame
In addition, just as a reminder, the UIS Code of Ethics and by-laws were translated into Spanish some years ago by
Rafael Carreño a member of the Sociedad Venezolana de EspeleologÃa as a contribution to the whole speleological
community. Thus, at least in Venezuela, the UIS by-laws and regulations are well known. Therefore, I would suggest
that eventually the UIS Code of Ethics should be also translated into the Czeck and Slovak languages.
For the future of the UIS, and to prevent problems like now we are facing with so-called
Venezuela/Slovakia affair, the UIS must solve the problem without respect to "traditional partner" of the UIS
in the past. Such countries (or even only single clubs!) cannot represent the state within the state, they cannot
have different conditions like other countries.
Again Dr. Bosak it is quite difficult to me to believe that to continue your cover-up of the SSS-CSS affair
generated problems, in you high and respectful position of vice-president of the UIS you could promote the idea to
"solve" problems "without respect to traditional partners". Besides, again I must insist that according to its
statutes the UIS is not entitled to mix with the internal matters of a country.
Entering the UIS the member country authomatically agrees with all the principal documents of the UIS and
the country must follow them all (and all documents approved later by the UIS Assembly General without
respect that the respective country voted against). They cannot use selectivelly only some of documents
(fitting to respective situation), the UIS Statutes beeing the most important each time. I have to admit, that I
(in past-position of Secretary General/Treasurer) have not been interesting who is paying annual fees of the
country, to pay is the only duty of the member country, but the payer is not authomatically the national
delegate (for example in Slovakia with the only unified Society, the annual fees are covered by Administration
of Slovak Caves from its own bank account, but Slovakia is represented by persons approved by the SSS
Board; very similar is situation in Great Britain, in the past the same was in Czechoslovakia, where annual
payments before 1990 were payed by Ministry of Culture, and Swiss fees has been traditionally covered by
Swiss Academy of Sciences for long tens of years).
The UIS payment procedures have nothing to do with the SSS-CSS affair.
In any case, for the public knowledge, the SVE is the second older speleological society in Latin America (after
the Sociedad Cubana de EspeleologÃa), and yes, since the start of the group 55 years ago, our society with its
economical limitations (as practically most of world-wide speleological societies) had paid the UIS fees, because as
we all will agree those fees are important for the UIS work.
Returning to your problem. I was from the beginning very little involved in the affair, before it became the
affair. My only role in all the story was that I gave to organizers of the first expedition (to Marek Audy, I did
not know Smida at that time personally) e-mail address of Urbani, even I knew that there can be eventually
problems, but for me the SVE was the traditional partner of the UIS and, unfortunately, I did not know
contacts to other groups in Venezuela, although I knew about their existence. Unfortunately, Urbani behaved
as dead beetle (I have been knowing him since about 1984-85), what is well-know to me at least from the time
when Urbani served as the Secretary Adjunct of the UIS (his not correspondence time he explained simply by
the problems with computer and changes of e-mail address). I do not know why Urbani did not answered that
time (he must answer that question), I recommended to expedition members to try again and again, as Urbani,
as geologist, can be in the field for long time, i.e. out of the office. The expedition wanted to obtain
information if there exists something like cave in site. Expedition was prepared as normal trip, not excludively
caving event. But expedition finally went as they did not wanted to wait another weeks and months.
Unfortunately, expedition walking on touristic path saw the cave, the start of the "problem".
This is quite a different story of what you officially wrote on August 4, 2004 as UIS General Secretary in which
you say: "I personally supervised the preparation of the 2003 expedition, I made consultation of necessary steps and
controlled if the UIS Ethis Code is fulfilled." So why you did not contacted the Venezuelan UIS Delegate Mr. Rafael
Carreño? Why all the fuss about if Franco Urbani answered or not emails because as you well know the contact had
to be done with the official Venezuelan delegate Mr. Carreño and not me? Would not rather be you the main
violator of the UIS Code of Ethics?
On the wrong presumption that I did not answer emails due to computer problems, that was correct in the 80´s and
early 90´s but since 1997 I have wide band access and answer all my mails in a timely manner (as can be confirmed
by many UIS members, and particularly many European UIS delegates). But remember that the SSS-CSS expedition
had one full year of preparations since their early 2002 pre-visit so they could have even send a regular letter to
the SVE P.O.Box which they knew since after the expedition they did send a CD to it, or could send emails to the
other email addresses clearly shown on the BoletÃn de la Sociedad Venezolana de EspeleologÃa that the CSS and SSS
libraries receive since many years ago.
After the expedition, Mr. Audy prepared detailed report incl. all topography, photos, report on expedition
and send it to Urbani as demanded by the UIS Ethic Code. Because no reaction, I personally urged Urbani on
the same e-mail address as expedition tried to contact him and Urbani replied that parcel is not arriving, which
can be explained by disorder in Venezuela asking if possible to send again. Parcel was send again (100 USD
cost per each mail) and after about 2 months we obtained confirmation of obtaining, and only after the whole
story fully started.
On this new twisted story of the 100 US$ shipments I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt as you are an
academic person and rather believe that Mr. Audy (CSS) and Mr. Smida (SSS) have tricked you with such absurd
tale. The real fact is that they send a plain envelope with a two pages letter and a single CD by regular air-mail post
to the SVE P.O.Box (<10 US$).
Such a small shipment to reach the cost 100 US$ should have been sent by overnight express courier like DHL or
FedEx and their tracking service would have made it impossible to get lost and the reception by me or any other
member of the SVE would be clearly documented.
In addition, as you may also know the above international express courier companies never send shipments to "P.O.
Box" addresses.
So from the point of view of UIS Ethic Code with accepted ammendments - the expedition made all what
was in its power before and after, it means that the expedition started in good will and not to pinch somebody
something (what they did not know before) they wanted to touristically visit something and eventually to
discover something if ocassion - (1) expedition contacted locals on officially existing contact address
recommended by the UIS official, but unfortunately did not obtained any comment (normally such situation
means yes, but probably not in South America) - this is the only fault in the whole story from expedition side,
and (2) after the trip, the expedition delivered all materials to the national caving club (locals) they contacted
earlier even if locals were not physically involved in the expediton. What you want more? More if expedition
was planned as touristic trip to know new regions eventually to make reconnaissance, the approval of locals is
not necessary in that case; the chance that you discover something really important in unknown terrain is very
low, unfortunately they suceeded. I know tens of real caving expeditions with completely no contacts with
locals, big discoveries and no problems from locals!? I know situations (in Europe!), on the contrary, when
locals stol discoveries to foreing expeditions and immediatelly after expedition left the site they made
prolongation before foreigners published original (primary) results (published data were not actual in the
moment of appearance).
Wrong again Dr. Bosak, I have to repeat you that some of the people of the SSS-CSS team made an earlier trip to
Roraima one year before (I can believe that this one was a tourist trip!). But the SSS-CSS January 2003 expedition
was clearly organized as a fully speleological activity (see their own description below). If not so, how could you
explain that only by chance they happen to carry in a 1 ½ day long walking trip all the caving gear needed to survey
and be ready for a wet and cold 2.6 km of passages? Plus the complete subterranean photo equipment needed by Mr.
Audy´s to take the great photographs of large underground galleries? To say that the 2003 expedition was just a
"tourist" activity is an absurd excuse. But on the other hand, if such visit to Roraima was going to be just a tourist
one I may ask: Why you did bother to fulfill the Code of Ethics as you say? A tourist visit does not require it (or,
does it?).
However, to show your obvious contradictions look what your collegues Audy and Smida say (see
http://audy.speleo.cz/Roraima/Ojos/esp.html): "...durante el transcurso de ese año 2002, la Sociedad Checa de
EspeleologÃa (ČSS) y la Sociedad Eslovaca de EspeleologÃa (SSS) se dedicó a motivar gente, a preparar el material
necesario y a planificar la logÃstica que nos permitiera hacer la exploración sin necesidad de contratar un
helicóptero..." (Free translation: "during the year 2002, the CSS and the SSS, motivated persons, prepared the
needed material and made the logistic preparation in order to proceed with the exploration without the necessity to
hire a helicopter"). After reading these contradictions, you should take care of your own credibility.
I have to state also, what is broadly accepted, that if the cave is known but no published plan exists, the cave
does not exist; such situation is normal at least here in Europe. If cave is known and plan does not exist but the
entrance is marked by cadaster number or by some other sign (table of ownership) - the cave officially exists.
I agree with the first part and that is exactly the case, since the aforementioned cave was never before surveyed and
that fact has never been argued by the SVE or myself, contrary to what the SSS-CSS team induces to believe to the
unaware readers in order to accuse the SVE and me as "robbers".
By the way, what do you mean by a "table of ownership"? Do you think that speleo groups should hang "tables of
ownership" in the caves they explore? If hanging tags is a common practice in the Czech or Slovak republics is your
decision, however, we are not mandated to adopt this kind of procedures.
The Slovak expedition with one Czech participant made the detailed research before it started, so if the cave
plan existed that time on internet or in published form, they know it. I was not present physically, but one
caver (I have any reason not to believe him) told me, that in distant parts of the cave no traces of earlier
human presence were detected.
Again, neither the SVE nor I have ever contended that we worked in the cave before them and that has been stated
in all SVE publications. As an example see this Bulletin (No. 67, p. 2, January 2006). Regarding, the finding of
galleries without human footprints is absolutely banal and I can tell you that a dozen of Venezuelan speleologists
also found another additional 8.4 km of interconnected passages in the cave system without any footprints, neither
from a CSS-SSS cavers nor from any other human being.
I cannot understand, simply, that somebody can protest against the increasing of knowledge on respective
cave? or even against the discovery of new and for science important cave! when not having ownership rights
to the cave. I understand only if somebody is protesting against used poor and bad sentences and words.
We have never complained against then increase of knowledge of the Venezuelan underground, we only arose the
fact that they acted against the UIS Code of Ethics in Venezuelan territory. On the other hand, we truly accepted that
they did a nice job, as follows:
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 6:23 PM Subject: Roraima 2003
Dear Mr. Audy Marek and other members of the Czech and Slovak Speleological Societies.
Expedition to Roraima. Jan. 2003
……………………………….
- Finally I must say that you really did a good work, but this fact does not preclude all the previous statements.
Sincerely yours, Franco Urbani
I have been refusing the use of not proper words in contacts among people in official use, with no respect if
caver or not. I was extremely shocked by very special (frankly said) Smida´s letter, which he wrote himself,
even expedition members were "surprised" as informed only after the distribution. I pressed personally
members of expedition to appologize for the letter. But the use of inproper words is not merrit of the problem!
The merrit is who robbed who? , or is there any real background that Slovak discovery in Venezuela was
robbery? as interpreted by the SVE. Who made the bad step? - Smida or the SVE attacking him about robbery!
If in civilized World, and if the cave was really known before, it is enough to mention this officially -
published in journal, presented on the SVE web page, distributing e-mail information! many possibilities in
our globalised World. Why to make the internationalized problem immediately? More the SVE knew about
the trip to Roraima (or in which hell it was)! Many unclear questions and dark positions to me, something
smelling to my experienced nose.
I am amazed by you capacity to go on and on in the cover-up of the SSS-CSS affair twisting facts and even your
own previous statements. So this paragraph really deserves a more careful and detailed analysis:
1) If you reject the use of not proper words, why you fully endorsed the dirty letter written by Smida (SSS) and
Audy (CSS) when you wrote the following message as an answer to mine referring to the dirty letter?:
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 6:35 AM Subject: RE: From Venezuela
Franco, I expected that our correspondence solved the problem. It seems that not. Why you wrote what you
wrote in Bolletin No. 50 (or what was the number). They must defend themselves. I fully stay on their side.
Pavel
2) We may partially indulge and agree that only the use of improper words could not merit of the problem, but
understand that the problem arose from the SSS-CSS team much before they used the improper words. But of
course such dirty words in fact accentuated the previous created problem by them.
3) Talking about improper words, notice the quite nasty use of the verb rob even in your above message, such verb
has only been used by the SSS-CSS team and you to discredit the SVE and me.
Please Dr. Bosak, show the speleological community the documentation that me or the SVE are "robbing"
something.
4) You are a member of the Directive Board of the CSS so if you and your Society are correct enough as it should
be -not to endorse the use of improper words- how it is possible that even right now (April 2006) the quite infamous,
unspeakable and dirty letter wrote by members of the SSS-CSS exploration team against the Venezuelan
speleologists is still posted in the official web page of the CSS (download at
www.speleo.cz/soubory/clanky/110/cartauis.pdf). See excerpts of the beginning and end of such despicable letter
both in Spanish and your language, as follows:
……………………………………………………………………………………………….
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
……………………………………………………………………………………………….
5) If you refer of data "robbery", we can comment that the total topography of the cave "Sistema Roraima Sur"
reached a depth of -72 m and a horizontal distance of 10.8 km (now the longest quartzite cave in the world) was
totally surveyed by 14 members of the SVE with the participation of 7 members of the Oxford University Cave Club
(UK) and one member of the Sociedad de Ciencias Aranzadi (Spain). So that is entirely our survey and no data
whatsoever was taken from any other group.
I must stress and summarize again that such dirty letter of Smida (SSS) and Audy (CSS) was:
1) Published in the official web page of the CSS.
2) Bears the logos of both societies (SSS and CSS).
3) It is signed by one member of each society in representation of them.
So to me this is an official letter of BOTH societies.
With these undeniable facts your intent to clear the name of the CSS out of this affair (see your first paragraph)
goes away. But all to the contrary -unless shown differently- both societies are buried to their necks in the aftermath
of dirt created by Smida, Audy and yourself.
To solve the problem I want to obtain the answer to 1 principal question:
The problems created by the SSS-CSS team and mostly complicated by yourself will not be solved by your
trivial question (below) since it was already answered in the document handed to you in Hanoi in 2004. But at any
rate for clarity and the benefit of other readers I will summarize the same answers with new wording, but for more
details please read the SVE document again.
- where the Cueva de Ojos Cristal (or what is the name) was published before the Smida´s expedition, in
that case I want to obtain hard copy with map or ISSN or ISBN number or respective publication, eventually
internet (web) address.
Here again the answer that you already well know from many sources: The SVE never surveyed such cave before
the SSS-CSS team and the SVE has never attempted to show the contrary.
In the first abstract published by the SVE in the NSS 2004 Convention, we mention that the cave was “measured
by a previous Czech and Slovak caving teamâ€, after this, in a Venezuelan congress we stated: “…En el año 2003 una
expedición no autorizada de checos y eslovacos topografió 2,4 km en la Cueva … (…during the year 2003, a non
authorized Czech and Slovak expedition measured 2.4 km of the cave". Even more, a longer mention about the
Czech and Slovak expedition appeared in http://www.fealc.org/boletines/boletin50.htm. So in all publications and
conferences made by Venezuelans, the Czeck and Slovak exploration was always mentioned as the antecedent
survey. If you or any reader may want, I can prepare a dossier with all our mentions of the SSS-CSS team.
All this shows that the insistence of Dr. Bosak to use as a leitmotiv the supposed fact that the SVE never
mentioned the Czeck and Slovak exploration completely lacks of any sense.
And moreover, I have also said several times that I have never visited the cave, so how can I "rob" a cave that I do
not even know. To make believe the contrary was just a diverting trick created by the SSS-CSS team against the SVE.
So please stop such smoke screens.
Unfortunately, my experience with Urbani long before the affair, this causa caused no change in my opinion,
was really not very ideal, starting with Paleokarst book and ending with his position of the UIS Bureau
member (he never appepared on any meeting and his activity was zero and he used his membership to
improve his position; unfortunately he was not the only past-UIS Bureau members behaving in that direction,
when we will eventually meet in the future I can name them). I have to admit, unfortunately, I lost the trust to
him years before all the story. He can be nice guy, but not for me, serious academic cannot behave like him, or
I do not understant South American reality, which is probably more close explanation of my insufficiency.
Certainly for me this paragraph is quite low, since the professional matters of two decades ago have nothing to do
with the current SSS-CSS affair. For readers to know what Dr. Bosak refers I give a summary:
1) In the 80´s, Dr. Bosak invited me to write a chapter about Venezuela for his paleo-karst book but due to many
unexpected problems, I had to decline in a very late date; so at that moment I apologized to him for this delayed
decision. In any case, regarding this single anecdote, I also must say that after writing more than 500 publications in
approximately 40 years as speleologist and as a university professor of geology, one more or one less paper will not
make any change in my professional career.
2) As a former Joint-Secretary for South America in the UIS Board it is absolutely true that I never attended to any
of the UIS Bureau administrative meetings between 1986-1993 but the fact is that I had no access to funding for such
activities and the UIS does not provide for them either (In addition, I must say that practically no Latin American
science foundation funds traveling for administrative duties, they only and strictly fund the participation to academic
meetings). So Dr. Bosak: are you sure that those facts make me not a "nice guy," and not a "serious academic"?
3) As for my activities in the UIS Bureau I must declare that you never cared about what I was (and many other
delegates were) doing or not doing in favor of the UIS. In your long stay as General Secretary you never provided
advice or guidelines, but you well know that many Latin American speleologists and me had worked hard to make
Latin American speleology stronger. A quite different matter was with the past-Presidents Dr. Adolfo Eraso and Dr.
Paolo Forti with whom we, Latin Americans in general and Venezuelans in particular, always positively interacted.
As for my work in favor of Latin American speleology I leave the analysis to my colleagues of FEALC.
I was also informed (without any details) by past-Secretaries General on similar problems with Venezuelans
also in the past (somebody else discoveries were presented as the SVE discoveries)!
Please Dr. Bosak, do not speak rubbish to discredit the SVE and me. Please, as soon as possible present the proofs
to the speleo community that in the past "somebody else discoveries were presented as the SVE discoveries".
Even if you do not have on hand documental proofs jus, send us the list of such "SVE discoveries" so we will
analyze and answer you.
With regrets, I would like to inform you (as member of the CSS Board) that, unfortunately, the SVE cannot
obtain any excuse letter of the Czech Speleological Society (CSS), which is due to organization structure of
the CSS given by its Statutes (the CSS Board discussed this point twice on its meetings), except the letter with
regrets of use of inproper words written by non-member of the CSS. From the CSS point of view the
expedition was not officially approved (nobody asked for that; please do not interpret that the expedition or
trip or whatever it was was for the CSS illegal, no!!) therefore does not represent the official event of the CSS.
For explanation, the CSS Board has been approving so-called central events with official use of the CSS logo
(trade mark) only for very limited number of activities - especially meetings of cavers, workshops, symposia,
conferences, congresses and some exceptional activities, like some years ago the use of special device for
underwater exploration in the Hranicka Abyss. On the other hand, the CSS Board is approving all activities of
organisational units without legal statute (i.e. dependent to the CSS Board), like Central Commissions.
I certainly do not expect an excuse letter from the CSS or you. But the correct way would be that you write an
excuse letter not to the SVE and not to me, but to the whole UIS speleological community to whom you have
deceived.
If such illegal expedition was not officially approved by the CSS, why the expedition members up to today (April
2006) still use the CSS logo?, and why in the CSS official web page still appears the improper and dirty "cartauis"
letter?
If the CSS procedures you mention are true then I come to think that you have a serious internal problem of
discipline. So before trying to clean other houses, clean yours first.
In addition, as I must repeat here what Audy and Smida wrote in the official CSS journal Speleoforum 22: 63
(2003): “Summary: Cristal eyes (Czech-Slovak expedition to quartzite karst in Venezuelan Guiana)... (Czech
Speleological Society and Slovak Speleological Society) was focused on exploration of caves in quartzites in the
western part of Roraima...â€, and you Dr. Bosak are the main editor, so it is impossible to believe that you did not
realize that Mr. Audy participated in a CSS exploration. Therefore, how you can deny the official participation of the
CSS?
Expeditions to foreign countries are under responsibility of individual club(s); I cannot remember that the
CSS Board (since the CSS establishment in 1978 and before 1990 with completely different organisational
structure: centralized) approved any expedition as official CSS activity (except "recommendation" for
obtaining permission to leave the country during so-called communistic system in pre-1990 period, but such
recommendation was needed to any activity in the "West", not only expeditions, but trips or congresses too).
What is the result, Marek Audy was private member of the expedition, which realisation is not necessary to be
approved by the Board of the CSS (organized by Slovaks). The CSS represents the union of independent
caving clubs. Caving clubs are completely responsible (according to valid Czech law) for their activities and
their activity is not approved by the CSS Board because of independence of clubs and their Board; there exists
only annual report on activities of clubs given to secretary of the CSS. The role of the CSS, i.e. case when the
CSS Board can inherit internal affairs of the clubs, is only in establishing of new club, cancellation of club or
if there are illegal activites (against valid Czech law and the CSS Statutes) endangering the club existence, or
to judge problems between/among clubs. Even in the case that Audy is member of caving club associated to
the CSS, and he is, even caving club has no reponsibility on activity of its members when the respective
activity does not appear within official, i.e. approved, club activities, i.e. mentioned in official minutes from
Club Board meeting.
If so, why Marek Audy does not signs the dirty "cartauis" letter as a member of his own Caving Club but rather he
does as a CSS representative (?). Could you choose another more convincing argument?
More, pls, accept that excuse letter demanded by Hanoi Bureau meeting was already written - note that not
by Smida (from him you cannot expect anything) but by Marek Audy.
This must be a phantom letter. Why Mr. Marek Audy never sent the letter to the SVE or me? Or even worst, if
you have it, why as the General Secretary of the UIS you did not disseminate it? That could have prevented further
complications.
One more question Dr. Bosak: What do you imply by saying that from Branislav "Smida … you cannot expect
anything" ? Shall I presume that you try to lead me to think that he is the only "bad" guy in the affair and the SSS is
the only "bad" Society?, or should I understand that you have some pre-arrangement with Mr. Smida regarding this
affair? Again, before trying to clean other houses, clean yours first.
The problem Venezuela versus Slovakia/Czech is not international problem, resp. problem on international
level, but problem of two entities (bodies) - the SVE and the expedition headed by Smida. The SVE does not
represent the only or unified Venezuelan body with whole-Venezuelan competence, but one club from 4 or 5
existing, so the SVE has no right to decide on permission for caving on territory of Venezuela (except the
situation that such decree was legally obtained from respective governmental body; which was clearly not the
reality in time of the respective expedition; if yes I want to see such document); the Smida´s club is associated
in the SSS, but in fact is legally independent, it is not proved if expedition was official activity of the club
itself (like in Czech). I do not understand why the problem was internationalized and trip was signed as illegal
(please do not write anybody about the Venezuelan protest, it is protest of one single club - the SVE), if it is
only due to internal situation in Venezuela?, after I am very sad. I have nothing against anything and anybody
(even with bad experience in the past), but when the UIS Bureau is solving such "problems", when even the
Ethic Code was kept, the UIS Board will do nothing else in the future that negotiating hundreds of quite local
problems and having no force for solution of more important international problems. Unfortunately, such step
was done....
It is amazing that a former General Secretary of the UIS for several terms and now its recently elected and
promoted as Vice-President, may write such and un-respectful text about the internal speleological matters of a
country not even knowing what is going on here. This must alert all members of the UIS, because without even
consulting the national delegate, a member of the UIS Bureau is putting in doubt the speleological institutional
structure of a country that he has not even visited as a tourist. This is extremely serious, because if this practice is
accepted (or more awful, backed with the silence of the other members of the UIS Bureau) will place a terrible
precedent that may be capriciously applied in the future against any country member. It is simply not justified that a
person who is a member of the UIS Bureau give subjective and biased opinions or moreover insult the members of
any speleological group or people of any country member of the UIS. In this sense, I must remind you that
Venezuela is affiliated to the UIS since 1967, and the members of the Venezuelan speleological community have
historically maintained a great, positive and productive relationship with the Union.
Now let me help you understand why the SSS-CSS generated problem was internationalized: Is was mainly due to
your incompetent and biased actions, only trying to cover up the affair, but not going to its roots.
If the phantom letters you mention really existed to solve the problem, you simply had to disseminate them on time
and the whole affair would not have reached Hanoi, Greece and even now in Beirut.
I rather see your whole message as a self declaration of failure and deceive as an UIS officer.
<br
"REPORT OF EFRAIN MERCADO TO THE SVE ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL
SPELEOLOGICAL CONGRESS IN GREECE, 2005":
REPLY BY DR. PAVEL BOSAK AND COMMENTS BY FRANCO URBANI
Our friend EfraÃn Mercado wrote a summary of his activities as the Venezuelan Delegate (by proxy) to the
International Speleological Congress, Greece, August 2005 (See this Bulletin No. 63, Sept. 2005). As a result there
were some replies and comments by Dr. Arrigo Cigna and Dr. Franco Urbani (See this Bulletin, No. 65, Nov. 2005).
Now I received another reply, this time from Dr. Pavel Bosak. So in the following pages I will comment on Bosak´s
message.
1) REPLY to the report of Efrain Mercado by Pavel Bosak
----- Original Message -----
From: Bosak@gli.cas.cz
Sent: 10/17/2005 9:13:07 AM
To: arrigocigna@tiscali.it;emercado@caribe.net
Cc: andy@andyeavis.com
Subject: RE: Protest of Venezuela
Dear Efrain (and also others),
I obtained your letter. I am affraid that you completely do not understand the situation, resp. you have information
only from one side. But to start, my name is Bosak and not Bozak, pls, if you want to contact me sometimes in the
future, use the proper name.
Concerning Venezuela vs Slovakia, which in reality is the SVE vs. Smida´s expedition, I made nothing "elegant"
with unfortunate problem, simply it was not included in approved agenda in advance, but in spite of it we dealt with
the problem. The UIS Bureau proposed solution (unfortunately it was not in my possibilities to change Vietnamese
time-schedule, we were pressed to go somewhere to some official meeting, therefore we could not continue in
discussion on the problem, we had some 3 minutes to another more important points included to agenda). Solution
/with some delay, I agree/ was fulfilled. In spite of this, the SVE members again and again have bee attacking the
problem not even waiting for the respective letter, is it serious behavior?. The situation could not be solved by other
decision, as proof from the SVE side was not transparent (proved).
The UIS Bureau will deal with that problem again, even if it was closed by excuse letter from participants of the
expedition. Based on available data I cannot understand different decision than adopted in Hanoi. If there are
appearing different evidences, we can judge in different manner, nevertheless such evidences have been missing until
now.
As the member of the UIS Bureau you have to take care on interests of the UIS - you have to collect real facts on
the problem from all the parties involved and not only to hear one party of the story, more which is more loudly.
After some years in service you will understand that problems caused or presented by South Americal countries
are highly specific, sometimes far from reality how is understand by me (I am not the only).
As the UIS Bureau member, first you have to studied in detail the UIS Statute - especially the beginning - who is
national delegate (what she/he is representing), how it is selected (elected), this is the must, more now available in
Spanish and English, not only French.
Especially South American member countries of the UIS are known not to fit completely to the sense of the UIS
Statute - there are even organizations usurpating the right to decide who is "good" and who is not "good enough" for
the caving in the respective country, even when such organization is not the only in the country, and even when
"invador" collaborates with other official caving club in the country - the most evident situation is in Mexico with at
least 8 big caving bodies - no mutual agreement on representations towards the UIS has been existing, Venezuela
with 4 caving bodies known to me (the same), Costa Rica with two bodies (the same); similar or very close situation
exists also in Europe (the worse is situation in Albania; situation in Croatia was solved but I am afraid on fragile
fundaments), or in Asia (Lebanon, here thanks to God without usurpation to make permission for caving within the
country). For the future of the UIS, and to prevent problems like now we are facing with so-called
Venezuela/Slovakia affair, the UIS must solve the problem without respect to "traditional partner" of the UIS in the
past. Such countries (or even only single clubs!) cannot represent the state within the state, they cannot have different
conditions like other countries.
Entering the UIS the member country authomatically agrees with all the principal documents of the UIS and the
country must follow them all (and all documents approved later by the UIS Assembly General without respect that
the respective country voted against). They cannot use selectivelly only some of documents (fitting to respective
situation), the UIS Statutes beeing the most important each time. I have to admit, that I (in past-position of Secretary
General/Treasurer) have not been interesting who is paying annual fees of the country, to pay is the only duty of the
member country, but the payer is not authomatically the national delegate (for example in Slovakia with the only
unified Society, the annual fees are covered by Administration of Slovak Caves from its own bank account, but
Slovakia is represented by persons approved by the SSS Board; very similar is situation in Great Britain, in the past
the same was in Czechoslovakia, where annual payments before 1990 were payed by Ministry of Culture, and Swiss
fees has been traditionally covered by Swiss Academy of Sciences for long tens of years).
Returning to your problem. I was from the beginning very little involved in the affair, before it became the affair.
My only role in all the story was that I gave to organizers of the first expedition (to Marek Audy, I did not know
Smida at that time personally) e-mail address of Urbani, even I knew that there can be eventually problems, but for
me the SVE was the traditional partner of the UIS and, unfortunately, I did not know contacts to other groups in
Venezuela, although I knew about their existence. Unfortunately, Urbani behaved as dead beetle (I have been
knowing him since about 1984-85), what is well-know to me at least from the time when Urbani served as the
Secretary Adjunct of the UIS (his not correspondence time he explained simply by the problems with computer and
changes of e-mail address). I do not know why Urbani did not answered that time (he must answer that question), I
recommended to expedition members to try again and again, as Urbani, as geologist, can be in the field for long time,
i.e. out of the office. The expedition wanted to obtain information if there exists something like cave in site.
Expedition was prepared as normal trip, not excludively caving event. But expedition finally went as they did not
wanted to wait another weeks and months. Unfortunately, expedition walking on touristic path saw the cave, the start
of the "problem". After the expedition, Mr. Audy prepared detailed report incl. all topography, photos, report on
expedition and send it to Urbani as demanded by the UIS Ethic Code. Because no reaction, I personally urged Urbani
on the same e-mail address as expedition tried to contact him and Urbani replied that parcel is not arriving, which
can be explained by disorder in Venezuela asking if possible to send again. Parcel was send again (100 USD cost per
each mail) and after about 2 months we obtained confirmation of obtaining, and only after the whole story fully
started.
So from the point of view of UIS Ethic Code with accepted ammendments - the expedition made all what was in
its power before and after, it means that the expedition started in good will and not to pinch somebody something
(what they did not know before) they wanted to touristically visit something and eventually to discover something if
ocassion - (1) expedition contacted locals on officially existing contact address recommended by the UIS official, but
unfortunately did not obtained any comment (normally such situation means yes, but probably not in South America)
- this is the only fault in the whole story from expedition side, and (2) after the trip, the expedition delivered all
materials to the national caving club (locals) they contacted earlier even if locals were not physically involved in the
expediton. What you want more? More if expedition was planned as touristic trip to know new regions eventually to
make reconnaissance, the approval of locals is not necessary in that case; the chance that you discover something
really important in unknown terrain is very low, unfortunately they suceeded. I know tens of real caving expeditions
with completely no contacts with locals, big discoveries and no problems from locals!? I know situations (in
Europe!), on the contrary, when locals stol discoveries to foreing expeditions and immediatelly after expedition left
the site they made prolongation before foreigners published original (primary) results (published data were not actual
in the moment of appearance).
I have to state also, what is broadly accepted, that if the cave is known but no published plan exists, the cave does
not exist; such situation is normal at least here in Europe. If cave is known and plan does not exist but the entrance is
marked by cadaster number or by some other sign (table of ownership) - the cave officially exists. The Slovak
expedition with one Czech participant made the detailed research before it started, so if the cave plan existed that
time on internet or in published form, they know it. I was not present physically, but one caver (I have any reason not
to believe him) told me, that in distant parts of the cave no traces of earlier human presence were detected. I cannot
understand, simply, that somebody can protest against the increasing of knowledge on respective cave? or even
against the discovery of new and for science important cave! when not having ownership rights to the cave. I
understand only if somebody is protesting against used poor and bad sentences and words.
I have been refusing the use of not proper words in contacts among people in official use, with no respect if caver
or not. I was extremely shocked by very special (frankly said) Smida´s letter, which he wrote himself, even
expedition members were "surprised" as informed only after the distribution. I pressed personally members of
expedition to appologize for the letter. But the use of inproper words is not merrit of the problem! The merrit is who
robbed who? , or is there any real background that Slovak discovery in Venezuela was robbery? as interpreted by the
SVE. Who made the bad step? - Smida or the SVE attacking him about robbery! If in civilized World, and if the cave
was really known before, it is enough to mention this officially - published in journal, presented on the SVE web
page, distributing e-mail information! many possibilities in our globalised World. Why to make the internationalized
problem immediately? More the SVE knew about the trip to Roraima (or in which hell it was)! Many unclear
questions and dark positions to me, something smelling to my experienced nose.
To solve the problem I want to obtain the answer to 1 principal question:
- where the Cueva de Ojos Cristal (or what is the name) was published before the Smida´s expedition, in that case I
want to obtain hard copy with map or ISSN or ISBN number or respective publication, eventually internet (web)
address.
Unfortunately, my experience with Urbani long before the affair, this causa caused no change in my opinion, was
really not very ideal, starting with Paleokarst book and ending with his position of the UIS Bureau member (he never
appepared on any meeting and his activity was zero and he used his membership to improve his position;
unfortunately he was not the only past-UIS Bureau members behaving in that direction, when we will eventually
meet in the future I can name them). I have to admit, unfortunately, I lost the trust to him years before all the story.
He can be nice guy, but not for me, serious academic cannot behave like him, or I do not understant South American
reality, which is probably more close explanation of my insufficiency. I was also informed (without any details) by
past-Secretaries General on similar problems with Venezuelans also in the past (somebody else discoveries were
presented as the SVE discoveries)!
With regrets, I would like to inform you (as member of the CSS Board) that, unfortunately, the SVE cannot obtain
any excuse letter of the Czech Speleological Society (CSS), which is due to organization structure of the CSS given
by its Statutes (the CSS Board discussed this point twice on its meetings), except the letter with regrets of use of
inproper words written by non-member of the CSS. From the CSS point of view the expedition was not officially
approved (nobody asked for that; please do not interpret that the expedition or trip or whatever it was was for the
CSS illegal, no!!) therefore does not represent the official event of the CSS. For explanation, the CSS Board has been
approving so-called central events with official use of the CSS logo (trade mark) only for very limited number of
activities - especially meetings of cavers, workshops, symposia, conferences, congresses and some exceptional
activities, like some years ago the use of special device for underwater exploration in the Hranicka Abyss. On the
other hand, the CSS Board is approving all activities of organisational units without legal statute (i.e. dependent to
the CSS Board), like Central Commissions. Expeditions to foreign countries are under responsibility of individual
club(s); I cannot remember that the CSS Board (since the CSS establishment in 1978 and before 1990 with
completely different organisational structure: centralized) approved any expedition as official CSS activity (except
"recommendation" for obtaining permission to leave the country during so-called communistic system in pre-1990
period, but such recommendation was needed to any activity in the "West", not only expeditions, but trips or
congresses too). What is the result, Marek Audy was private member of the expedition, which realisation is not
necessary to be approved by the Board of the CSS (organized by Slovaks). The CSS represents the union of
independent caving clubs. Caving clubs are completely responsible (according to valid Czech law) for their activities
and their activity is not approved by the CSS Board because of independence of clubs and their Board; there exists
only annual report on activities of clubs given to secretary of the CSS. The role of the CSS, i.e. case when the CSS
Board can inherit internal affairs of the clubs, is only in establishing of new club, cancellation of club or if there are
illegal activites (against valid Czech law and the CSS Statutes) endangering the club existence, or to judge problems
between/among clubs. Even in the case that Audy is member of caving club associated to the CSS, and he is, even
caving club has no reponsibility on activity of its members when the respective activity does not appear within
official, i.e. approved, club activities, i.e. mentioned in official minutes from Club Board meeting. More, pls, accept
that excuse letter demanded by Hanoi Bureau meeting was already written - note that not by Smida (from him you
cannot expect anything) but by Marek Audy.
The problem Venezuela versus Slovakia/Czech is not international problem, resp. problem on international level,
but problem of two entities (bodies) - the SVE and the expedition headed by Smida. The SVE does not represent the
only or unified Venezuelan body with whole-Venezuelan competence, but one club from 4 or 5 existing, so the SVE
has no right to decide on permission for caving on territory of Venezuela (except the situation that such decree was
legally obtained from respective governmental body; which was clearly not the reality in time of the respective
expedition; if yes I want to see such document); the Smida´s club is associated in the SSS, but in fact is legally
independent, it is not proved if expedition was official activity of the club itself (like in Czech). I do not understand
why the problem was internationalized and trip was signed as illegal (please do not write anybody about the
Venezuelan protest, it is protest of one single club - the SVE), if it is only due to internal situation in Venezuela?,
after I am very sad. I have nothing against anything and anybody (even with bad experience in the past), but when
the UIS Bureau is solving such "problems", when even the Ethic Code was kept, the UIS Board will do nothing else
in the future that negotiating hundreds of quite local problems and having no force for solution of more important
international problems. Unfortunately, such step was done....
I have no reason to appologize to anybody as I did nothing unlegal or unserious. Please accept, that the expedition
was Slovak expedition (other country), why shall I cover foreigners, I can understand eventually that in case of
Czechs, but from Czech Republic, only one caver was present. I felt from the beginning that something is wrong in
the whole story, something is false, some principal evidence is missing. The role of the UIS Secretary General is to
see the problems independently and to prevent to accept completely wrong decisions or decision on profit of one of
parties. As I stated above the Ethic Code was kept and fulfilled.
I will not react to any future contacts until it is not proved in clear manner (by independent body) and without any
doubts that the respective cave was publically known before Smida´s expedition (i.e. published and not only visited
by some local), more the SVE must legally prove that the owner of rights to cave in the moment of expedition was
the SVE. Simply the SVE must finish to cry loadly and it must open their cards and play seriously. Venezuelans and
all other countries, incl. clubs like the SVE, must also follow the UIS Ethic Code, which is valid for everybody and
not only for expeditions. Any attempt of eventual falsification from the SVE side (new anti-dated letters and reports,
anti-dated maps in the SVE archives, ... etc.) will deepen the crisis, which is completely artificial and clerly serving
for the SVE profit. I have to mention, that there exists good proof if "previous" maps of Venezuelans are correct or
not, the nature of it was already published ("another attack against the SVE").
I summarize:
- excuses for improper sentences and words were written;
- there is no proof that Cueva of Crystal Eyes was known (publically) before the Smida´s expedition as maps and
materials were published by the SVE only after results of foreign expedition (trip) were publically announced;
- there is no proof that Smida´s expedition entered exclusive ownership of the SVE as the cave was not visible
marked by table or by other means;
- the SVE is one of several caving clubs in Venezuela and has no, by government approved, right to limit caving
activity on the territory of Venezuela, in spite that the SVE has been traditional partner of the UIS.
Without any doubts, now play is on the SVE side, it MUST abandon dangerous present position and tactics and to
prove without any doubts and with fully serious approach to seriousness of situation, that cave was published and
map was publically available before its "rediscovery" by Slovaks and that the SVE had legal ownership right to the
cave, which was marked e.g., by table in front of this "excellently and completely surveyed and explored cave".
Other questions are not very important.
PB
PS:
I must admit that I have enough of all this story.
I take no care that some Venezuelans have been dealing with my person in official publications in spite that they
have no reason (even if it can represent base for legal steps against them) and they are playing with false cards.
I am bad that I distributed address of the SVE? I need the SVE permission to do that? (how stupid in function of
Secretary General with the principal role to distribute information about caving in the whole caving World - to
mention the UIS Statutes in this place). If I am totally bad /even up to criminal/, why you elected me as the third in
rank UIS official for another term - 2005-2009? Why the Assembly elected me by so many voices and not selected
out?
I have to admit, that, unfortunately based on the whole story, the SVE seems to me as completely not serious
group of people following some kind of profits which I cannot understand, in fact acting against the UIS. If they do
not want to be the UIS members, they can go, we will thank them for all they did in the past and finito, basta.
I spent with the question of expected (interpreted) robbery (but there is question who robbed who?) long tens of
hours, hours which I could, can and will be able to spend for other, more important, UIS issues (conservation
problems in BiH, ...., preparation of my last UIS Bulletin, to distribute UIS Bulletins to proper addresses). You are
loosing my time, your time, and profit of the UIS.
If you want to obtain from me another reaction to the whole story (other than legal) you must offer something
more than loadly crying group of strange guys with mentality far from the normal civilization.
If there is no proof for my above-mentioned questions I will start officialy and more loadly with the use of words
lier, robber as I did in my not numerous completely private e-mails.
If you want to follow in non serious support of non proved arguments, you can, it is your right, but without me as
person having something common with the UIS.
Howgh!
***************
2) COMMENTS by Franco Urbani to the reply of Pavel Bosak
I feel that the reply of Dr. Bosak as in other previous messages he does not adhere to the truth and, in fact, may
completely mislead any unaware readers especially other UIS Bureau members; therefore it deserves several
comments from my side. I will copy Dr. Bosak message (in blue) and will include my comments (in black). The bold
letters in Bosak´s message are mine:
Dear Efrain (and also others),
I obtained your letter. I am affraid that you completely do not understand the situation, resp. you have
information only from one side. But to start, my name is Bosak and not Bozak, pls, if you want to contact me
sometimes in the future, use the proper name.
EfraÃn Mercado does have the full information from both sides since that is of public domain in the web. The
SVE does not hide cards. I not going to comment about the rude way you addressed the misspelling of your
surname.
Concerning Venezuela vs Slovakia, which in reality is the SVE vs. Smida´s expedition, I made nothing
"elegant" with unfortunate problem, simply it was not included in approved agenda in advance, but in spite of
it we dealt with the problem.
Dr. Bosak, you clearly misunderstand the problem, it is not a Venezuelan vs. Slovakia problem. It is a Slovak-
Czech generated problem, the Venezuelan Speleological Society (SVE) -a NGO- only found out that the SSS-CSS
expedition was illegal and against the principles of the UIS Code of Ethics.
Even more it was not a "Smida´s expedition" it was a Slovak Speleological Society (SSS) and Czech
Speleological Society (CSS) expedition since all their publications are always signed by a member of the CSS (M.
Audy) and a member of the SSS (B. Smida). Again, they are signing as members of such national societies.
In addition, within the journal Speleforum 2003, which is the official CCS publication and you Dr. Bosak are its
editor, we read: "Summary: Cristal eyes (Czech-Slovak expedition to quartzite karst in Venezuelan Guiana). Czech-
Slovak speleological expedition (Czech Speleological Society and Slovak Speleological Society) was focused on
exploration of caves in quartzites in the western part of Roraima...."). So Dr. Bosak, do not change matters at this
point only to twist them at your convenience.
The UIS Bureau proposed solution (unfortunately it was not in my possibilities to change Vietnamese timeschedule,
we were pressed to go somewhere to some official meeting, therefore we could not continue in
discussion on the problem, we had some 3 minutes to another more important points included to agenda).
Solution /with some delay, I agree/ was fulfilled. In spite of this, the SVE members again and again have bee
attacking the problem not even waiting for the respective letter, is it serious behavior? The situation could not
be solved by other decision, as proof from the SVE side was not transparent (proved).
This is the first time I come to know that a "solution" was proposed or agreed. If so, why you never communicated
it to the SVE who was the party that formally sent the documents to the UIS in Hanoi? Perhaps that was one of your
main errors as a General Secretary: if a solution was proposed, then, why you did not disseminated such solution to
the people involved?
On the other hand, the members of the FEALC that attended the Hanoi meeting communicated us that you tried to
postpone and postpone the discussion of this issue until the very last moment of the meeting; without showing any
interest to properly discuss this issue. Now I hope that you may show good will for a clear dialogue about this issue
in the UIS meeting at Beirut.
Contrary to your opinion, the SVE position was always very clear and transparent and in the public domain: See
full details in this Bulletin (No. 60, June 2005, www.fealc.org) whose full content was previously handled to you in
the Hanoi meeting by Abel Vale, also sent to the UIS President before Greece; so it was, it is and it will be
completely available for the speleological community on the web.
The UIS Bureau will deal with that problem again, even if it was closed by excuse letter from participants
of the expedition. Based on available data I cannot understand different decision than adopted in Hanoi. If
there are appearing different evidences, we can judge in different manner, nevertheless such evidences have
been missing until now.
Misleading again Dr. Bosak, since such excuse letter from the participans does not exist or at least was never
sent to the SVE and if it was received by yourself or the UIS you should have publicly disseminated it on time just to
stop further developments. Could we interpret that this was a lack of care in your functions as Secretary General of
the UIS?
As the member of the UIS Bureau you have to take care on interests of the UIS - you have to collect real
facts on the problem from all the parties involved and not only to hear one party of the story, more which is
more loudly. After some years in service you will understand that problems caused or presented by South
American countries are highly specific, sometimes far from reality how is understand by me (I am not the
only).
You request to Mr. Mercado to "take care" of the UIS interests. Well, that is exactly what he is doing, trying to
place this issue in the proper dimension for a proper discussion in favor of long term UIS interests. I am sure that Mr.
Mercado will have the willingness to properly represent the Latin American countries within the whole UIS
community. However, it is really a delicate concern the way you speculate in a broad way about the speleological
status of Latin American countries without providing details; this represents a clear predisposition against a regional
speleological community to which you should (actually you must) work with in a proper way. This is even more
delicate considering your current and even higher position within the UIS.
As the UIS Bureau member, first you have to studied in detail the UIS Statute - especially the beginning -
who is national delegate (what she/he is representing), how it is selected (elected), this is the must, more now
available in Spanish and English, not only French.
Mr. Mercado knows extremely well the UIS documents, for that reason he represented us in Greece, and now in
Beirut.
Especially South American member countries of the UIS are known not to fit completely to the sense of the
UIS Statute - there are even organizations usurpating the right to decide who is "good" and who is not "good
enough" for the caving in the respective country, even when such organization is not the only in the country,
and even when "invador" collaborates with other official caving club in the country - the most evident
situation is in Mexico with at least 8 big caving bodies - no mutual agreement on representations towards the
UIS has been existing, Venezuela with 4 caving bodies known to me (the same), Costa Rica with two bodies
(the same); similar or very close situation exists also in Europe (the worse is situation in Albania; situation in
Croatia was solved but I am afraid on fragile fundaments), or in Asia (Lebanon, here thanks to God without
usurpation to make permission for caving within the country).
This is quite a serious matter that you bring up, but also remember that the UIS has no competence to deal on how
a country appoints its representatives. On the other hand, most of the so called "problems" that you are speaking and
I think I know most of them, were not created by South American cavers, they were rather created by the foreign
parties that came to Central and South America thinking that they are just going to their own backyards.
On the other hand, when you use the word "usurpating" you are putting yourself as a supra-national judge. It
would be interesting to know the opinion of the whole UIS Bureau regarding the issues you mention of other
countries. Do you know the opinion of the cavers of those countries?, well I should remind you that no UIS
delegation is more or less legitimate than other, and that according to the UIS regulations, the internal election of
UIS country delegates is not its competence. It is also alarming the way you use the word "invador" because in Latin
American in general and Venezuela in particular we always have "open doors" to foreign speleologists to explore
under the UIS Code of Ethics; many of those international speleological groups had participated with the SVE in
cave exploration in Venezuela in a professional, respectful, candid and friendly manner. Thus, you divisionist intents
between nationals and foreigners are really a shame
In addition, just as a reminder, the UIS Code of Ethics and by-laws were translated into Spanish some years ago by
Rafael Carreño a member of the Sociedad Venezolana de EspeleologÃa as a contribution to the whole speleological
community. Thus, at least in Venezuela, the UIS by-laws and regulations are well known. Therefore, I would suggest
that eventually the UIS Code of Ethics should be also translated into the Czeck and Slovak languages.
For the future of the UIS, and to prevent problems like now we are facing with so-called
Venezuela/Slovakia affair, the UIS must solve the problem without respect to "traditional partner" of the UIS
in the past. Such countries (or even only single clubs!) cannot represent the state within the state, they cannot
have different conditions like other countries.
Again Dr. Bosak it is quite difficult to me to believe that to continue your cover-up of the SSS-CSS affair
generated problems, in you high and respectful position of vice-president of the UIS you could promote the idea to
"solve" problems "without respect to traditional partners". Besides, again I must insist that according to its
statutes the UIS is not entitled to mix with the internal matters of a country.
Entering the UIS the member country authomatically agrees with all the principal documents of the UIS and
the country must follow them all (and all documents approved later by the UIS Assembly General without
respect that the respective country voted against). They cannot use selectivelly only some of documents
(fitting to respective situation), the UIS Statutes beeing the most important each time. I have to admit, that I
(in past-position of Secretary General/Treasurer) have not been interesting who is paying annual fees of the
country, to pay is the only duty of the member country, but the payer is not authomatically the national
delegate (for example in Slovakia with the only unified Society, the annual fees are covered by Administration
of Slovak Caves from its own bank account, but Slovakia is represented by persons approved by the SSS
Board; very similar is situation in Great Britain, in the past the same was in Czechoslovakia, where annual
payments before 1990 were payed by Ministry of Culture, and Swiss fees has been traditionally covered by
Swiss Academy of Sciences for long tens of years).
The UIS payment procedures have nothing to do with the SSS-CSS affair.
In any case, for the public knowledge, the SVE is the second older speleological society in Latin America (after
the Sociedad Cubana de EspeleologÃa), and yes, since the start of the group 55 years ago, our society with its
economical limitations (as practically most of world-wide speleological societies) had paid the UIS fees, because as
we all will agree those fees are important for the UIS work.
Returning to your problem. I was from the beginning very little involved in the affair, before it became the
affair. My only role in all the story was that I gave to organizers of the first expedition (to Marek Audy, I did
not know Smida at that time personally) e-mail address of Urbani, even I knew that there can be eventually
problems, but for me the SVE was the traditional partner of the UIS and, unfortunately, I did not know
contacts to other groups in Venezuela, although I knew about their existence. Unfortunately, Urbani behaved
as dead beetle (I have been knowing him since about 1984-85), what is well-know to me at least from the time
when Urbani served as the Secretary Adjunct of the UIS (his not correspondence time he explained simply by
the problems with computer and changes of e-mail address). I do not know why Urbani did not answered that
time (he must answer that question), I recommended to expedition members to try again and again, as Urbani,
as geologist, can be in the field for long time, i.e. out of the office. The expedition wanted to obtain
information if there exists something like cave in site. Expedition was prepared as normal trip, not excludively
caving event. But expedition finally went as they did not wanted to wait another weeks and months.
Unfortunately, expedition walking on touristic path saw the cave, the start of the "problem".
This is quite a different story of what you officially wrote on August 4, 2004 as UIS General Secretary in which
you say: "I personally supervised the preparation of the 2003 expedition, I made consultation of necessary steps and
controlled if the UIS Ethis Code is fulfilled." So why you did not contacted the Venezuelan UIS Delegate Mr. Rafael
Carreño? Why all the fuss about if Franco Urbani answered or not emails because as you well know the contact had
to be done with the official Venezuelan delegate Mr. Carreño and not me? Would not rather be you the main
violator of the UIS Code of Ethics?
On the wrong presumption that I did not answer emails due to computer problems, that was correct in the 80´s and
early 90´s but since 1997 I have wide band access and answer all my mails in a timely manner (as can be confirmed
by many UIS members, and particularly many European UIS delegates). But remember that the SSS-CSS expedition
had one full year of preparations since their early 2002 pre-visit so they could have even send a regular letter to
the SVE P.O.Box which they knew since after the expedition they did send a CD to it, or could send emails to the
other email addresses clearly shown on the BoletÃn de la Sociedad Venezolana de EspeleologÃa that the CSS and SSS
libraries receive since many years ago.
After the expedition, Mr. Audy prepared detailed report incl. all topography, photos, report on expedition
and send it to Urbani as demanded by the UIS Ethic Code. Because no reaction, I personally urged Urbani on
the same e-mail address as expedition tried to contact him and Urbani replied that parcel is not arriving, which
can be explained by disorder in Venezuela asking if possible to send again. Parcel was send again (100 USD
cost per each mail) and after about 2 months we obtained confirmation of obtaining, and only after the whole
story fully started.
On this new twisted story of the 100 US$ shipments I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt as you are an
academic person and rather believe that Mr. Audy (CSS) and Mr. Smida (SSS) have tricked you with such absurd
tale. The real fact is that they send a plain envelope with a two pages letter and a single CD by regular air-mail post
to the SVE P.O.Box (<10 US$).
Such a small shipment to reach the cost 100 US$ should have been sent by overnight express courier like DHL or
FedEx and their tracking service would have made it impossible to get lost and the reception by me or any other
member of the SVE would be clearly documented.
In addition, as you may also know the above international express courier companies never send shipments to "P.O.
Box" addresses.
So from the point of view of UIS Ethic Code with accepted ammendments - the expedition made all what
was in its power before and after, it means that the expedition started in good will and not to pinch somebody
something (what they did not know before) they wanted to touristically visit something and eventually to
discover something if ocassion - (1) expedition contacted locals on officially existing contact address
recommended by the UIS official, but unfortunately did not obtained any comment (normally such situation
means yes, but probably not in South America) - this is the only fault in the whole story from expedition side,
and (2) after the trip, the expedition delivered all materials to the national caving club (locals) they contacted
earlier even if locals were not physically involved in the expediton. What you want more? More if expedition
was planned as touristic trip to know new regions eventually to make reconnaissance, the approval of locals is
not necessary in that case; the chance that you discover something really important in unknown terrain is very
low, unfortunately they suceeded. I know tens of real caving expeditions with completely no contacts with
locals, big discoveries and no problems from locals!? I know situations (in Europe!), on the contrary, when
locals stol discoveries to foreing expeditions and immediatelly after expedition left the site they made
prolongation before foreigners published original (primary) results (published data were not actual in the
moment of appearance).
Wrong again Dr. Bosak, I have to repeat you that some of the people of the SSS-CSS team made an earlier trip to
Roraima one year before (I can believe that this one was a tourist trip!). But the SSS-CSS January 2003 expedition
was clearly organized as a fully speleological activity (see their own description below). If not so, how could you
explain that only by chance they happen to carry in a 1 ½ day long walking trip all the caving gear needed to survey
and be ready for a wet and cold 2.6 km of passages? Plus the complete subterranean photo equipment needed by Mr.
Audy´s to take the great photographs of large underground galleries? To say that the 2003 expedition was just a
"tourist" activity is an absurd excuse. But on the other hand, if such visit to Roraima was going to be just a tourist
one I may ask: Why you did bother to fulfill the Code of Ethics as you say? A tourist visit does not require it (or,
does it?).
However, to show your obvious contradictions look what your collegues Audy and Smida say (see
http://audy.speleo.cz/Roraima/Ojos/esp.html): "...durante el transcurso de ese año 2002, la Sociedad Checa de
EspeleologÃa (ČSS) y la Sociedad Eslovaca de EspeleologÃa (SSS) se dedicó a motivar gente, a preparar el material
necesario y a planificar la logÃstica que nos permitiera hacer la exploración sin necesidad de contratar un
helicóptero..." (Free translation: "during the year 2002, the CSS and the SSS, motivated persons, prepared the
needed material and made the logistic preparation in order to proceed with the exploration without the necessity to
hire a helicopter"). After reading these contradictions, you should take care of your own credibility.
I have to state also, what is broadly accepted, that if the cave is known but no published plan exists, the cave
does not exist; such situation is normal at least here in Europe. If cave is known and plan does not exist but the
entrance is marked by cadaster number or by some other sign (table of ownership) - the cave officially exists.
I agree with the first part and that is exactly the case, since the aforementioned cave was never before surveyed and
that fact has never been argued by the SVE or myself, contrary to what the SSS-CSS team induces to believe to the
unaware readers in order to accuse the SVE and me as "robbers".
By the way, what do you mean by a "table of ownership"? Do you think that speleo groups should hang "tables of
ownership" in the caves they explore? If hanging tags is a common practice in the Czech or Slovak republics is your
decision, however, we are not mandated to adopt this kind of procedures.
The Slovak expedition with one Czech participant made the detailed research before it started, so if the cave
plan existed that time on internet or in published form, they know it. I was not present physically, but one
caver (I have any reason not to believe him) told me, that in distant parts of the cave no traces of earlier
human presence were detected.
Again, neither the SVE nor I have ever contended that we worked in the cave before them and that has been stated
in all SVE publications. As an example see this Bulletin (No. 67, p. 2, January 2006). Regarding, the finding of
galleries without human footprints is absolutely banal and I can tell you that a dozen of Venezuelan speleologists
also found another additional 8.4 km of interconnected passages in the cave system without any footprints, neither
from a CSS-SSS cavers nor from any other human being.
I cannot understand, simply, that somebody can protest against the increasing of knowledge on respective
cave? or even against the discovery of new and for science important cave! when not having ownership rights
to the cave. I understand only if somebody is protesting against used poor and bad sentences and words.
We have never complained against then increase of knowledge of the Venezuelan underground, we only arose the
fact that they acted against the UIS Code of Ethics in Venezuelan territory. On the other hand, we truly accepted that
they did a nice job, as follows:
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 6:23 PM Subject: Roraima 2003
Dear Mr. Audy Marek and other members of the Czech and Slovak Speleological Societies.
Expedition to Roraima. Jan. 2003
……………………………….
- Finally I must say that you really did a good work, but this fact does not preclude all the previous statements.
Sincerely yours, Franco Urbani
I have been refusing the use of not proper words in contacts among people in official use, with no respect if
caver or not. I was extremely shocked by very special (frankly said) Smida´s letter, which he wrote himself,
even expedition members were "surprised" as informed only after the distribution. I pressed personally
members of expedition to appologize for the letter. But the use of inproper words is not merrit of the problem!
The merrit is who robbed who? , or is there any real background that Slovak discovery in Venezuela was
robbery? as interpreted by the SVE. Who made the bad step? - Smida or the SVE attacking him about robbery!
If in civilized World, and if the cave was really known before, it is enough to mention this officially -
published in journal, presented on the SVE web page, distributing e-mail information! many possibilities in
our globalised World. Why to make the internationalized problem immediately? More the SVE knew about
the trip to Roraima (or in which hell it was)! Many unclear questions and dark positions to me, something
smelling to my experienced nose.
I am amazed by you capacity to go on and on in the cover-up of the SSS-CSS affair twisting facts and even your
own previous statements. So this paragraph really deserves a more careful and detailed analysis:
1) If you reject the use of not proper words, why you fully endorsed the dirty letter written by Smida (SSS) and
Audy (CSS) when you wrote the following message as an answer to mine referring to the dirty letter?:
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 6:35 AM Subject: RE: From Venezuela
Franco, I expected that our correspondence solved the problem. It seems that not. Why you wrote what you
wrote in Bolletin No. 50 (or what was the number). They must defend themselves. I fully stay on their side.
Pavel
2) We may partially indulge and agree that only the use of improper words could not merit of the problem, but
understand that the problem arose from the SSS-CSS team much before they used the improper words. But of
course such dirty words in fact accentuated the previous created problem by them.
3) Talking about improper words, notice the quite nasty use of the verb rob even in your above message, such verb
has only been used by the SSS-CSS team and you to discredit the SVE and me.
Please Dr. Bosak, show the speleological community the documentation that me or the SVE are "robbing"
something.
4) You are a member of the Directive Board of the CSS so if you and your Society are correct enough as it should
be -not to endorse the use of improper words- how it is possible that even right now (April 2006) the quite infamous,
unspeakable and dirty letter wrote by members of the SSS-CSS exploration team against the Venezuelan
speleologists is still posted in the official web page of the CSS (download at
www.speleo.cz/soubory/clanky/110/cartauis.pdf). See excerpts of the beginning and end of such despicable letter
both in Spanish and your language, as follows:
……………………………………………………………………………………………….
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
……………………………………………………………………………………………….
5) If you refer of data "robbery", we can comment that the total topography of the cave "Sistema Roraima Sur"
reached a depth of -72 m and a horizontal distance of 10.8 km (now the longest quartzite cave in the world) was
totally surveyed by 14 members of the SVE with the participation of 7 members of the Oxford University Cave Club
(UK) and one member of the Sociedad de Ciencias Aranzadi (Spain). So that is entirely our survey and no data
whatsoever was taken from any other group.
I must stress and summarize again that such dirty letter of Smida (SSS) and Audy (CSS) was:
1) Published in the official web page of the CSS.
2) Bears the logos of both societies (SSS and CSS).
3) It is signed by one member of each society in representation of them.
So to me this is an official letter of BOTH societies.
With these undeniable facts your intent to clear the name of the CSS out of this affair (see your first paragraph)
goes away. But all to the contrary -unless shown differently- both societies are buried to their necks in the aftermath
of dirt created by Smida, Audy and yourself.
To solve the problem I want to obtain the answer to 1 principal question:
The problems created by the SSS-CSS team and mostly complicated by yourself will not be solved by your
trivial question (below) since it was already answered in the document handed to you in Hanoi in 2004. But at any
rate for clarity and the benefit of other readers I will summarize the same answers with new wording, but for more
details please read the SVE document again.
- where the Cueva de Ojos Cristal (or what is the name) was published before the Smida´s expedition, in
that case I want to obtain hard copy with map or ISSN or ISBN number or respective publication, eventually
internet (web) address.
Here again the answer that you already well know from many sources: The SVE never surveyed such cave before
the SSS-CSS team and the SVE has never attempted to show the contrary.
In the first abstract published by the SVE in the NSS 2004 Convention, we mention that the cave was “measured
by a previous Czech and Slovak caving teamâ€, after this, in a Venezuelan congress we stated: “…En el año 2003 una
expedición no autorizada de checos y eslovacos topografió 2,4 km en la Cueva … (…during the year 2003, a non
authorized Czech and Slovak expedition measured 2.4 km of the cave". Even more, a longer mention about the
Czech and Slovak expedition appeared in http://www.fealc.org/boletines/boletin50.htm. So in all publications and
conferences made by Venezuelans, the Czeck and Slovak exploration was always mentioned as the antecedent
survey. If you or any reader may want, I can prepare a dossier with all our mentions of the SSS-CSS team.
All this shows that the insistence of Dr. Bosak to use as a leitmotiv the supposed fact that the SVE never
mentioned the Czeck and Slovak exploration completely lacks of any sense.
And moreover, I have also said several times that I have never visited the cave, so how can I "rob" a cave that I do
not even know. To make believe the contrary was just a diverting trick created by the SSS-CSS team against the SVE.
So please stop such smoke screens.
Unfortunately, my experience with Urbani long before the affair, this causa caused no change in my opinion,
was really not very ideal, starting with Paleokarst book and ending with his position of the UIS Bureau
member (he never appepared on any meeting and his activity was zero and he used his membership to
improve his position; unfortunately he was not the only past-UIS Bureau members behaving in that direction,
when we will eventually meet in the future I can name them). I have to admit, unfortunately, I lost the trust to
him years before all the story. He can be nice guy, but not for me, serious academic cannot behave like him, or
I do not understant South American reality, which is probably more close explanation of my insufficiency.
Certainly for me this paragraph is quite low, since the professional matters of two decades ago have nothing to do
with the current SSS-CSS affair. For readers to know what Dr. Bosak refers I give a summary:
1) In the 80´s, Dr. Bosak invited me to write a chapter about Venezuela for his paleo-karst book but due to many
unexpected problems, I had to decline in a very late date; so at that moment I apologized to him for this delayed
decision. In any case, regarding this single anecdote, I also must say that after writing more than 500 publications in
approximately 40 years as speleologist and as a university professor of geology, one more or one less paper will not
make any change in my professional career.
2) As a former Joint-Secretary for South America in the UIS Board it is absolutely true that I never attended to any
of the UIS Bureau administrative meetings between 1986-1993 but the fact is that I had no access to funding for such
activities and the UIS does not provide for them either (In addition, I must say that practically no Latin American
science foundation funds traveling for administrative duties, they only and strictly fund the participation to academic
meetings). So Dr. Bosak: are you sure that those facts make me not a "nice guy," and not a "serious academic"?
3) As for my activities in the UIS Bureau I must declare that you never cared about what I was (and many other
delegates were) doing or not doing in favor of the UIS. In your long stay as General Secretary you never provided
advice or guidelines, but you well know that many Latin American speleologists and me had worked hard to make
Latin American speleology stronger. A quite different matter was with the past-Presidents Dr. Adolfo Eraso and Dr.
Paolo Forti with whom we, Latin Americans in general and Venezuelans in particular, always positively interacted.
As for my work in favor of Latin American speleology I leave the analysis to my colleagues of FEALC.
I was also informed (without any details) by past-Secretaries General on similar problems with Venezuelans
also in the past (somebody else discoveries were presented as the SVE discoveries)!
Please Dr. Bosak, do not speak rubbish to discredit the SVE and me. Please, as soon as possible present the proofs
to the speleo community that in the past "somebody else discoveries were presented as the SVE discoveries".
Even if you do not have on hand documental proofs jus, send us the list of such "SVE discoveries" so we will
analyze and answer you.
With regrets, I would like to inform you (as member of the CSS Board) that, unfortunately, the SVE cannot
obtain any excuse letter of the Czech Speleological Society (CSS), which is due to organization structure of
the CSS given by its Statutes (the CSS Board discussed this point twice on its meetings), except the letter with
regrets of use of inproper words written by non-member of the CSS. From the CSS point of view the
expedition was not officially approved (nobody asked for that; please do not interpret that the expedition or
trip or whatever it was was for the CSS illegal, no!!) therefore does not represent the official event of the CSS.
For explanation, the CSS Board has been approving so-called central events with official use of the CSS logo
(trade mark) only for very limited number of activities - especially meetings of cavers, workshops, symposia,
conferences, congresses and some exceptional activities, like some years ago the use of special device for
underwater exploration in the Hranicka Abyss. On the other hand, the CSS Board is approving all activities of
organisational units without legal statute (i.e. dependent to the CSS Board), like Central Commissions.
I certainly do not expect an excuse letter from the CSS or you. But the correct way would be that you write an
excuse letter not to the SVE and not to me, but to the whole UIS speleological community to whom you have
deceived.
If such illegal expedition was not officially approved by the CSS, why the expedition members up to today (April
2006) still use the CSS logo?, and why in the CSS official web page still appears the improper and dirty "cartauis"
letter?
If the CSS procedures you mention are true then I come to think that you have a serious internal problem of
discipline. So before trying to clean other houses, clean yours first.
In addition, as I must repeat here what Audy and Smida wrote in the official CSS journal Speleoforum 22: 63
(2003): “Summary: Cristal eyes (Czech-Slovak expedition to quartzite karst in Venezuelan Guiana)... (Czech
Speleological Society and Slovak Speleological Society) was focused on exploration of caves in quartzites in the
western part of Roraima...â€, and you Dr. Bosak are the main editor, so it is impossible to believe that you did not
realize that Mr. Audy participated in a CSS exploration. Therefore, how you can deny the official participation of the
CSS?
Expeditions to foreign countries are under responsibility of individual club(s); I cannot remember that the
CSS Board (since the CSS establishment in 1978 and before 1990 with completely different organisational
structure: centralized) approved any expedition as official CSS activity (except "recommendation" for
obtaining permission to leave the country during so-called communistic system in pre-1990 period, but such
recommendation was needed to any activity in the "West", not only expeditions, but trips or congresses too).
What is the result, Marek Audy was private member of the expedition, which realisation is not necessary to be
approved by the Board of the CSS (organized by Slovaks). The CSS represents the union of independent
caving clubs. Caving clubs are completely responsible (according to valid Czech law) for their activities and
their activity is not approved by the CSS Board because of independence of clubs and their Board; there exists
only annual report on activities of clubs given to secretary of the CSS. The role of the CSS, i.e. case when the
CSS Board can inherit internal affairs of the clubs, is only in establishing of new club, cancellation of club or
if there are illegal activites (against valid Czech law and the CSS Statutes) endangering the club existence, or
to judge problems between/among clubs. Even in the case that Audy is member of caving club associated to
the CSS, and he is, even caving club has no reponsibility on activity of its members when the respective
activity does not appear within official, i.e. approved, club activities, i.e. mentioned in official minutes from
Club Board meeting.
If so, why Marek Audy does not signs the dirty "cartauis" letter as a member of his own Caving Club but rather he
does as a CSS representative (?). Could you choose another more convincing argument?
More, pls, accept that excuse letter demanded by Hanoi Bureau meeting was already written - note that not
by Smida (from him you cannot expect anything) but by Marek Audy.
This must be a phantom letter. Why Mr. Marek Audy never sent the letter to the SVE or me? Or even worst, if
you have it, why as the General Secretary of the UIS you did not disseminate it? That could have prevented further
complications.
One more question Dr. Bosak: What do you imply by saying that from Branislav "Smida … you cannot expect
anything" ? Shall I presume that you try to lead me to think that he is the only "bad" guy in the affair and the SSS is
the only "bad" Society?, or should I understand that you have some pre-arrangement with Mr. Smida regarding this
affair? Again, before trying to clean other houses, clean yours first.
The problem Venezuela versus Slovakia/Czech is not international problem, resp. problem on international
level, but problem of two entities (bodies) - the SVE and the expedition headed by Smida. The SVE does not
represent the only or unified Venezuelan body with whole-Venezuelan competence, but one club from 4 or 5
existing, so the SVE has no right to decide on permission for caving on territory of Venezuela (except the
situation that such decree was legally obtained from respective governmental body; which was clearly not the
reality in time of the respective expedition; if yes I want to see such document); the Smida´s club is associated
in the SSS, but in fact is legally independent, it is not proved if expedition was official activity of the club
itself (like in Czech). I do not understand why the problem was internationalized and trip was signed as illegal
(please do not write anybody about the Venezuelan protest, it is protest of one single club - the SVE), if it is
only due to internal situation in Venezuela?, after I am very sad. I have nothing against anything and anybody
(even with bad experience in the past), but when the UIS Bureau is solving such "problems", when even the
Ethic Code was kept, the UIS Board will do nothing else in the future that negotiating hundreds of quite local
problems and having no force for solution of more important international problems. Unfortunately, such step
was done....
It is amazing that a former General Secretary of the UIS for several terms and now its recently elected and
promoted as Vice-President, may write such and un-respectful text about the internal speleological matters of a
country not even knowing what is going on here. This must alert all members of the UIS, because without even
consulting the national delegate, a member of the UIS Bureau is putting in doubt the speleological institutional
structure of a country that he has not even visited as a tourist. This is extremely serious, because if this practice is
accepted (or more awful, backed with the silence of the other members of the UIS Bureau) will place a terrible
precedent that may be capriciously applied in the future against any country member. It is simply not justified that a
person who is a member of the UIS Bureau give subjective and biased opinions or moreover insult the members of
any speleological group or people of any country member of the UIS. In this sense, I must remind you that
Venezuela is affiliated to the UIS since 1967, and the members of the Venezuelan speleological community have
historically maintained a great, positive and productive relationship with the Union.
Now let me help you understand why the SSS-CSS generated problem was internationalized: Is was mainly due to
your incompetent and biased actions, only trying to cover up the affair, but not going to its roots.
If the phantom letters you mention really existed to solve the problem, you simply had to disseminate them on time
and the whole affair would not have reached Hanoi, Greece and even now in Beirut.
I rather see your whole message as a self declaration of failure and deceive as an UIS officer.
<br
