www.miami.com Posted on Sun, Jan. 12, 2003 BY JORDAN LEVIN jlevin@herald.com

A revolution is brewing in Latin American pop music.

Inspired by the political turmoil sweeping the continent, a new generation of artists -- part of the pop and rock mainstream -- is turning meaningful songs into chart-topping hits.

They are a far cry from the folk-style protest music that accompanied the struggles between right and left in the 1960s and '70s in the United States and Latin America.

Instead, their message strikes a balance between bubblegum materialism and didactic politics. They call for individual responsibility over revolutionary action, for involvement instead of escape via the sugary romantic lyrics that have long dominated Latin pop.

Argentine pop singer Diego Torres is among them. He was named Best Male Artist Southeast in the MTV Latin America Video Music awards for his inspirational Color Esperanza (The Color of Hope), a huge hit in his economically troubled homeland, and just garnered an American Grammy nomination for Best Latin Pop Album.

''People are asking songwriters for songs with a message,'' Torres says. ``In moments of crisis, people look for something different.''

Music offers a coping mechanism to listeners, points out Abraham Lavender, a sociology professor at Florida International University.

''In Latin America, things are so bad in some places and so insecure,'' Lavender says. ``Some of it is calling for help. Some of it is just getting it off your chest. Some of it is to wake up other people.''

Such wake-up calls can be unpopular with government officials or the entertainment establishment. When Mexican rap-metal band Molotov released its debut recording in 1997, ¿Dónde Jugarán Las Niñas? (Where Will the Girls Play?), it featured songs that lambasted Mexico's upper classes and called on U.S. Latinos to vote. The recording was banned from Mexican television and radio -- but sold 400,000 copies in Mexico and more than one million worldwide.

''A lot of times, the communications media manipulates the news for the convenience of whoever is in power,'' says Miguel ''Mickey'' Huidobro, the band's lead singer. ``Music is a way to slip in other kinds of ideas.''

LIGHT THEMES

Latin popular music has always tended to be about romance and heartbreak, with occasional breaks to party. And fluffy pop music and love songs certainly haven't disappeared from the Latin charts.

''In general, people are more inclined to love songs,'' says Mario Diament, an Argentine playwright and journalist who teaches at Florida International University. ``But one of these musicians will include a song of protest or a social-based song in their repertoire and it will be very well received because of the anger. It's very difficult to believe much in love songs in Argentina nowadays where there is so little hope.''

With a wave of troubles and changes crossing Latin America -- civil war in Colombia, economic chaos in Argentina, political turmoil in Venezuela, a splintering establishment in Mexico -- Latin music listeners seem to be yearning for songs that speak to their situation in ways other than simply providing an escape from it.

''Things are really changing,'' says Colombian rocker Juanes, whose song A Dios Le Pido (I'll Ask God), a prayer for peace and love in an unsafe world, has hit No. 1 in 10 countries in Latin America since its release last spring. ``Kids in Latin America are on the Internet. They know the world is changing. They're much more astute, and they're demanding more.''

''I think that we are the people responsible for our situation,'' adds Torres. ``With the situation that we're living in Argentina, in Latin America, the way to change things is for you to do it. People need to change, but without generating violence, and without repeating the same mistakes we've made before.''

Some examples of artists whose calls for change are striking a chord:

• Torres' Color Esperanza, which encourages people in his disheartened and economically chaotic homeland with lines like ''you know you can get rid of your fears . . . paint your face the color of hope,'' catapulted him from mid- to high-level stardom and sold 1.2 million copies across Latin America.

• The latest album from popular Mexican pop-rockers Maná contains some of the most bluntly political and socially themed songs in the group's history, including Angel de Amor, a song decrying abuse of women, and Pobre Juan, about the death of a Mexican immigrant.

• Los Prisioneros, a punkish rock group from Chile that had songs banned during the right-wing dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, recently reunited after 10 years with concerts that drew 140,000 people in Chile and 2,000 in Miami.

• Colombian pop-vallenato star Carlos Vives has songs mourning violence and proclaiming Colombian pride on his hit 2001 release Dejame Entrar.

SONGS WITH SUBSTANCE

Wendy Hooth, a Peruvian who lives in Fort Lauderdale and is a fan of artists like Juanes and Maná, says it was Maná's focus on issues like indigenous rights and environmental destruction that gave her a taste for music with substance.

''The hits don't do anything for me right now -- they're empty,'' says Hooth, 30. ``I like the ones who tell you something. [Maná's] music gets you involved. Now I'm reading articles about certain things, and I write to the person who wrote the news and tell them how I think.''

Music with leftist political themes is not new in Latin America. In the 1960s and early 1970s, the ''New Song'' movement echoed the themes and style of American folk/protest songs, and its leading artists were closely allied with progressive or socialist politics. At the same time, artists from Brazil's counter-culture tropicalia movement and early rockers in Argentina protested their country's dictatorships -- and sometimes were exiled or imprisoned.

IN THE MAINSTREAM

But as the Latin music industry has become largely the province of international corporations and commercial marketing schemes, counter-cultural musical styles have been pushed to the margins. And many of the early leftist musical icons have become pop icons who are part of the social and musical mainstream.

Cuban singer-songwriters Pablo Milanés and Silvio Rodríguez, totems of the Cuban Revolution, run recording studios and foundations on the island and are revered by artists across Latin America. Milanés' last album was a series of duets with famous Latin singers.

Brazilian pop star Gilberto Gil, a founder of the tropicalia movement who continues to tackle issues like race and environmental degradation, was just appointed Brazil's Minister of Culture by newly elected president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

Ruben Blades, who infused salsa with sharp social consciousness in the 1970s, is now focusing on musical experimentation, and singing about racial consciousness and personal liberation.

SUBCULTURE

In Mexico in the 1960s and early 1970s, rock was considered doubly subversive; not only was it equated with protesting students and liberal political movements, but it was also the music of the Yankee north.

''We survived the era when to be a rock-and-roller was like being a [drug-dealing] Satanist,'' says Alex Lora of El Tri, the 35-year-old band considered the godfathers of Mexican rock.

That attitude changed as rock en español grew into the Latin American pop mainstream in the 1990s.

'Before, when I went on television or radio, they'd say, `No dirty words or criticizing the government,' '' Lora says. ``Now they ask me to do that.''

While many artists may want to address the problems of their homeland, they don't want to be caught up in the right-vs.-left battles of an earlier era.

''I have so many questions and frustrations about seeing my continent so poorly managed. I would like to write more . . . songs [addressing problems], but those revolutionary movements are so discredited,'' says Colombian-born Jorge Villamizar, leader of Miami-based Bacilos, who has written songs about class differences and alienation as well as love and relationships.

``I don't believe in socialism. But whenever you talk about things like distribution of income you get put in this socialist bag.''

But that doesn't stop him or his musical compatriots from singing to their countrymen about this painfully uncertain time in Latin American history.

''Things are very difficult in Colombia now,'' says Juanes. ``But people keep loving, fighting, dreaming -- they keep on going. As an artist I want to speak the truth, to unburden myself -- and I want people to be able to unburden themselves too.''

www.washingtonpost.com By Mark Weisbrot Sunday, January 12, 2003; Page B04

Walking around Caracas late last month during Venezuela's ongoing protests, I was surprised by what I saw. My expectations had been shaped by persistent U.S. media coverage of the nationwide strike called by the opposition, which seeks President Hugo Chavez's ouster. Yet in most of the city, where poor and working-class people live, there were few signs of the strike. Streets were crowded with holiday shoppers, metro trains and buses were running normally, and shops were open for business. Only in the eastern, wealthier neighborhoods of the capital were businesses mostly closed.

This is clearly an oil strike, not a "general strike," as it is often described. At the state-owned oil company, PDVSA, which controls the industry, management is leading the strike because it is at odds with the Chavez government. And while Venezuela depends on oil for 80 percent of its export earnings and half its national budget, the industry's workers represent a tiny fraction of the labor force. Outside the oil industry, it is hard to find workers who are actually on strike. Some have been locked out from their jobs, as business owners -- including big foreign corporations such as McDonald's and FedEx -- have closed their doors in support of the opposition.

Most Americans seem to believe that the Chavez government is a dictatorship, and one of the most repressive governments in Latin America. But these impressions are false.

Not only was Chavez democratically elected, his government is probably one of the least repressive in Latin America. This, too, is easy to see in Caracas. While army troops are deployed to protect Miraflores (the presidential compound), there is little military or police presence in most of the capital, which is particularly striking in such a tense and volatile political situation. No one seems the least bit afraid of the national government, and despite the seriousness of this latest effort to topple it, no one has been arrested for political activities.

Chavez has been reluctant to use state power to break the strike, despite the enormous damage to the economy. In the United States, a strike of this sort -- one that caused massive damage to the economy, or one where public or private workers were making political demands -- would be declared illegal. Its participants could be fired, and its leaders -- if they persisted in the strike -- imprisoned under a court injunction. In Venezuela, the issue has yet to be decided. The supreme court last month ordered PDVSA employees back to work until it rules on the strike's legality.

To anyone who has been in Venezuela lately, opposition charges that Chavez is "turning the country into a Castro-communist dictatorship" -- repeated so often that millions of Americans apparently now believe them -- are absurd on their face.

If any leaders have a penchant for dictatorship in Venezuela, it is the opposition's. On April 12 they carried out a military coup against the elected government. They installed the head of the business federation as president and dissolved the legislature and the supreme court, until mass protests and military officers reversed the coup two days later.

Military officers stand in Altamira Plaza and openly call for another coup. It is hard to think of another country where this could happen. The government's efforts to prosecute leaders of the coup were canceled when the court dismissed the charges in August. Despite the anger of his supporters, some of whom lost friends and relatives last year during the two days of the coup government, Chavez respected the decision of the court.

The opposition controls the private media, and to watch TV in Caracas is truly an Orwellian experience. The five private TV stations (there is one state-owned channel) that reach most Venezuelans play continuous anti-Chavez propaganda. But it is worse than that: They are also shamelessly dishonest. For example, on Dec. 6 an apparently deranged gunman fired on a crowd of opposition demonstrators, killing three and injuring dozens. Although there was no evidence linking the government to the crime, the television news creators -- armed with footage of bloody bodies and grieving relatives -- went to work immediately to convince the public that Chavez was responsible. Soon after the shooting, they were broadcasting grainy video clips allegedly showing the assailant attending a pro-Chavez rally.

Now consider how people in Caracas's barrios see the opposition, a view rarely heard in the United States: Led by representatives of the corrupt old order, the opposition is trying to overthrow a government that has won three elections and two referendums since 1998. Its coup failed partly because hundreds of thousands of people risked their lives by taking to the streets to defend democracy. So now it is crippling the economy with an oil strike. The upper classes are simply attempting to gain through economic sabotage what they could not and -- given the intense rivalry and hatred among opposition groups and leaders -- still cannot win at the ballot box.

From the other side of the class divide, the conflict is also seen as a struggle over who will control and benefit from the nation's oil riches. Over the last quarter-century PDVSA has swelled to a $50 billion a year enterprise, while the income of the average Venezuelan has declined and poverty has increased more than anywhere in Latin America. Billions of dollars of the oil company's revenue could instead be used to finance health care and education for millions of Venezuelans.

Now add Washington to the mix: The United States, alone in the Americas, supported the coup, and before then it increased its financial support of the opposition. Washington shares PDVSA executives' goals of increasing oil production, busting OPEC quotas and even selling off the company to private foreign investors. So it is not surprising that the whole conflict is seen in much of Latin America as just another case of Washington trying to overthrow an independent, democratically elected government.

This view from the barrios seems plausible. The polarization of Venezuelan society along class and racial lines is apparent in the demonstrations themselves. The pro-government marches are filled with poor and working-class people who are noticeably darker -- descendants of the country's indigenous people and African slaves -- than the more expensively dressed upper classes of the opposition. Supporters of the opposition that I spoke with dismissed these differences, insisting that Chavez's followers were simply "ignorant," and were being manipulated by a "demagogue."

But for many, Chavez is the best, and possibly last, hope not only for social and economic betterment, but for democracy itself. At the pro-government demonstrations, people carry pocket-size copies of the country's 1999 constitution, and vendors hawk them to the crowds. Leaders of the various non-governmental organizations that I met with, who helped draft the constitution, have different reasons for revering it: women's groups, for example, because of its anti-discrimination articles; and indigenous leaders because it is the first to recognize their people's rights. But all see themselves as defending constitutional democracy and civil liberties against what they describe as "the threat of fascism" from the opposition.

This threat is very real. Opposition leaders have made no apologies for the April coup, nor for the arrest and killing of scores of civilians during the two days of illegal government. They continue to stand up on television and appeal for another coup -- which, given the depth of Chavez's support, would have to be bloody in order to hold power.

Where does the U.S. government now stand on the question of democracy in Venezuela? The Bush administration joined the opposition in taking advantage of the Dec. 6 shootings to call for early elections, which would violate the Venezuelan constitution. The administration reversed itself the next week, but despite paying lip service to the negotiations mediated by the OAS, it has done nothing to encourage its allies in the opposition to seek a constitutional or even a peaceful solution.

Sixteen members of Congress sent a letter to Bush last month, asking him to state clearly that the United States would not have normal diplomatic relations with a coup-installed government in Venezuela. But despite its apprehension about disruption of Venezuelan oil supplies on the eve of a probable war against Iraq, the Bush administration is not yet ready to give up any of its options for "regime change" in Caracas. And -- not surprisingly -- neither is the Venezuelan opposition.

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, an independent nonpartisan think tank in Washington.

www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au 13jan03

OPEC would make sure there were no oil shortages worldwide amid a strike in Venezuela and the threat of military action in Iraq, Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Nuaimi said at the weekend. "I support making sure the market is well balanced. There will be no shortage of supply in the market when the market is well balanced," he said upon arriving in Vienna for yesterday's meeting of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

He refused to give figures for what is expected to be an increase in oil production in order to bring down prices in a market pressured by a six-week strike in Venezuela and the threat of a US-led war against Iraq.

The extraordinary meeting of OPEC at its headquarters in Vienna was expected to increase its official output quota by between 1 million and 2 million barrels per day to help make up the shortfall caused by the general strike in Venezuela, a major supplier to the US.

Venezuela accounts for about 13 per cent of US oil imports. The strike there has caused US oil stocks to fall at a time when Washington needs them to increase as it prepares for a possible war on Iraq.

If the US launches a war in Iraq before the Venezuelan strike ends, markets could be deprived of about 5 million barrels of crude oil per day, or even more if the war were to destabilise other Middle East producers.

But the size of the increase remains hard to predict, due to both the Venezuelan factor and the even greater potential for market destablisation that a possible US-led war in Iraq presents.

newsobserver.com, January 12, 2003 8:04AM EST By BRUCE STANLEY, AP BUSINESS WRITER

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - OPEC needs to compensate for a shortfall in oil exports from Venezuela, but it shouldn't change its official output target of 23 million barrels a day, the group's most influential oil minister said Sunday.

An increase in the target "would really flood the market," Saudi Arabian Oil Minister Ali Naimi said ahead of an emergency meeting the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries planned later in the day at its headquarters in Vienna. OPEC called the meeting last week hoping to calm fears of a supply crunch caused by an ongoing strike in Venezuela. The strike, launched Dec. 2 by political opponents seeking to oust President Hugo Chavez, has slashed the country's exports by about 2 million barrels a day. Venezuela is normally OPEC's third-largest producer and a major oil supplier to the United States.

OPEC pumps about a third of the world's crude supplies, which total 79 million barrels a day.

Naimi acknowledged that the Venezuelan strike has deprived the market of crude. "I care about what the market needs," he said.

But while he added that OPEC's production ceiling of 23 million barrels a day should remain unchanged, Naimi declined to say how OPEC should try to compensate for the missing Venezuelan oil.

One possible solution would be for Venezuela's OPEC partners to increase their own production to cover the shortfall until Venezuelan exports can resume.

Saudi Arabia accounts for the bulk of the group's spare production capacity and would stand to gain from any such temporary adjustment of output quotas within the overall target. Saudi Arabia's current output quota is 7.5 million barrels a day, but Naimi said his country could boost daily production to 10 million barrels within two weeks.

Still, OPEC members worry that if they do raise production, the additional barrels might hit markets just as seasonal demand starts weakening in the spring.

Neither Venezuelan Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez nor Ali Rodriguez, head of the country's state-run oil company, would say if he supported an increase in OPEC production. An unspoken concern was that any reallocation of quotas to end the shortfall might take some of the external pressure off Venezuela's opposition to end its strike.

Fears of a possible U.S.-led war against Iraq have added upward pressure to world oil prices. Iraq has the second-biggest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia, and there has been a steady buildup of U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf.

Crude prices surged in recent weeks but fell sharply in anticipation of OPEC's boosting production. On the New York Mercantile Exchange, February contracts of light, sweet crude futures fell 31 cents Friday to close at $31.68. On London's International Petroleum Exchange, February Brent crude ended at $29.67 a barrel, up 3 cents.

OPEC's price target is $22-$28 per barrel of its benchmark blend of crudes.

OPEC sources have said the Saudis were proposing to increase the group's daily output by 1.5 million barrels. Other members, including Algeria and Libya, have favored a smaller increase of 1 million barrels.

"We have to see what quantity is required," said Obaid bin Saif Al-Nasseri, oil minister for the United Arab Emirates, said late Saturday as he arrived at a Vienna hotel.

OPEC President Abdullah bin Hamad Al Attiyah said Venezuela's strike has caused "a little bit of a shortage," but he too refused to predict how much oil OPEC might add to the market to compensate.

"I've heard a lot of scenarios, a lot of numbers, but still we haven't reached the magic number," he said.

Any increase would take effect Feb. 1, Al Attiyah said. That means American importers would not see any fresh crude until at least mid-March because Saudi shipments take at least 40 days to reach U.S. ports.

The suddenness of OPEC's decision to call this meeting reflects its surprise at the deterioration in market conditions. Oil ministers for four of the group's 11 members were unable attend due to prior commitments. A fifth minister, Libya's Abdulhafid Mahmoud Zlitni, was unable to arrive Sunday because a sandstorm prevented his plane from leaving the Libyan capital, Tripoli.

sg.biz.yahoo.com Sunday January 12, 9:25 PM By David Bird Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

VIENNA (Dow Jones)--Is OPEC raising oil output, or just raising a ruckus that will quickly raise oil prices?

As ministers of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries gather here Sunday for an emergency meeting aimed at assuring world markets of adequate oil supplies and sapping the strength from prices, the only thing raised so far has been the level of confusion.

Like the sandstorm that grounded the Libyan oil minister back in Tripoli, it's hard to see how OPEC can get through a political storm with Venezuela and bring out a credible agreement by the end of the day that will calm markets.

"How come you're here?," Saudi Arabia's Oil Minister Ali Naimi joked with a pack of familiar faces in the press corps on his arrival Saturday, noting that oil markets were closed over the weekend.

But the question is best turned back to the minister.

The well-rehearsed Naimi, of course, is before the assembled press to send a message of assurance that OPEC (read Saudi Arabia) won't allow any shortage of crude oil to occur in the market as a result of the 40-plus day Venezuelan strike that has crippled the oil industry.

Sparing crucial details, Naimi seeks to assure the market that, in fact, the Saudis (with a trickle from others) already have boosted output to cover the loss of some 2 million barrels a day of Venezuelan output.

By saying that Saudi Arabia can raise its output to 10 million b/d in two weeks' time, Naimi implies that output is up from the 8 million b/d level estimated in December. Best guess continues to be that the Saudis are near 8.5 million b/d now and may be heading higher. The clear message of a quick move to 10 million b/d - if needed - is meant to preempt a price spike as fears grow of a U.S.-led war with Iraq.

Not Output "Free-For-All," But "Free-For-Some"

Naimi made clear that OPEC's assessment last month that it needs to provide 25.5 million b/d of supply to the market in the near term, including supplies from Iraq, is still valid. Based on December output figures of around 24.9 million b/d, this suggests that about 600,000 b/d of new oil is already on the market from the Saudis, and a trickle from Algeria, Nigeria and the UAE, to cover the cut in Venezuelan output.

While it isn't a production "free-for-all," it's sort of a "free-for-some," as the other members, apart from Saudi Arabia, bring all their spare capacity to the market now, ignoring quotas.

Naimi said he wants to see an oil price "less than what it is today," but wouldn't give a level.

But OPEC will have to avoid falling into a trap of internal politics and the intricacies of its own faulty system of individual output quotas in trying to sell a convincing deal that cools off the market.

The first thing it needs to do to preserve credibility on supply is to deal with the incredible claims of Venezuela.

Many top OPEC officials say they don't put any faith in Venezuela's statement that it will have output fully restored by the end of February.

Before the problems hit in early December, Venezuela's output was near 3 million b/d, but estimates are complete guesses now, with many penciling in anywhere from 400,000 b/d to 800,000 b/d as the current figure.

But OPEC faces a political snag if, in setting short-term output policy, it appears to reject the claim of Hugo Chavez, the embattled Venezuelan president and top OPEC loyalist, of a pending return to normalcy in the oil sector.

Venezuela's Double-Barreled Approach

Chavez has dispatched the two top guns in Venezuela's oil industry, former OPEC Secretary General Ali Rodriguez, now the head of the spluttering state oil company, and Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez, to plead his case. The double-barreled approach of claiming output of an unlikely high volume of barrels was being tried out on Naimi this morning, with the Venezuelans said to be concerned that their barrels are about to be formally and unfairly divided up among the other members.

Despite Naimi's earlier insistence that OPEC wouldn't raise its 23 million b/d ceiling, as this would trigger a price fall, there remains talk that this isn't entirely ruled out, even though it becomes largely an academic matter.

To keep the Venezuelans happy, OPEC may need to give them their pro-rata share of a higher output ceiling, even though everyone knows full well they won't be able to produce to that level. Making the numbers work on paper, if not in reality, is an old OPEC trick, as member countries are loathe to surrender any portion of their quotas because of what it may mean for future quota adjustments.

The preferred approach, a senior delegate said, is essentially to put the Venezuelans aside, recognizing their temporary problems, and acknowledge that the other nine OPEC members with quotas would be pumping to cover the difference between Caracas' real output and its current 2.647 million b/d quota.

This would be on a temporary basis, and up for review at the group's already scheduled March 11 meeting.

The temporary deal - and in fact the de facto output rise already - makes the quota system somewhat moot and is likely to lead to even higher output.

A senior official from a country with little spare production capacity said he believes OPEC could pump as much as 26.5 million b/d in the current environment, or 1.6 million b/d over the December level, without harming prices, given market jitters.

Prices have been well above the top of OPEC's $22-$28 price band and OPEC fears the impact of current high, and potentially higher, prices on the global economy.

Still, OPEC's biggest task will be convincing the market that supply worries should be gone as a result of Sunday's deal, and adding to the price slide of about $1.40, or 4.2%, that came on news of the emergency talks.

"If the market believes there is even one barrel short of 1.5 million (b/d) coming to the market, the price will go up on Monday," the senior official said.

• By David Bird, Dow Jones Newswires; david.bird@dowjones.com

(David Bird is senior energy correspondent for Dow Jones Newswires.)

(BIRD ON OPEC will appear regularly during the course of this week's OPEC meeting.)