sg.biz.yahoo.com Wednesday January 15, 11:12 PM

CARACAS (Dow Jones)--Venezuela's supreme court on Wednesday was considering whether to approve a proposal to suspend a nonbinding vote, currently slated for Feb. 2, on whether President Hugo Chavez should remain in office, a court spokesperson told Dow Jones Newswires.

A ruling may be delivered by the end of the day, the spokesperson said.

Regardless of the ruling, the opposition will continue to press for an early vote of some kind, said Lope Mendoza, the president of Venezuela's biggest association of industries, Conindustria, which has backed the opposition.

ADVERTISEMENTThe proposal in the high court is in response to a complaint filed by Chavez supporters who claimed the so-called Popular Consultation is unconstitutional.

Opposition leaders have said Chavez would likely lose the nonbinding vote so convincingly he'd be embarrassed into quitting.

But Chavez, whose term runs through early 2007, has said he won't resign even if he loses by 90%. His supporters have said they'll boycott the vote completely so it would be hard to tell how Chavez fared.

Chavez has argued that presidential term limits are already covered in another article of the constitution which allows for a recall vote at the halfway point of his term - August this year, in his case.

Venezuela's government is battling an ongoing 45-day-old general strike aimed at forcing Chavez to declare early elections.

Chavez's critics blame him for an anticipated 8% economic contraction in 2002, amid 18% unemployment, and 31% inflation.

-By Jehan Senaratna, Dow Jones Newswires; 58 212 564 1339; jehan.senaratna@dowjones.com

reuters.com Wed January 15, 2003 10:33 AM ET CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - Venezuela's bolivar currency fell on Wednesday for the third consecutive day this week, slipping 6 percent against the U.S. dollar as a six-week-old opposition strike ground on with no sign that a solution was in sight.

The interbank rate dipped to 1,740 bolivars against the U.S. currency during the morning's trading amid heavy nervous buying of dollars, traders said. This followed similar falls of 4 percent Tuesday and 5 percent Monday.

"The foreign exchange market is crazy. People aren't looking at the price. What they want is to have dollars in their hands," one trader said.

The Venezuelan currency has fallen sharply in recent days as the strike, called by foes of leftist President Hugo Chavez to press him to resign and hold early elections, increases fears of economic and political turmoil in the world's No. 5 oil exporter. The strike has already slashed the country's vital oil production and shipments.

www.indianastatesman.com By Beth White Indiana Statesman January 15, 2003

Gasoline prices are predicted to reach an average $1.54 a gallon by mid-spring; however, current prices are already putting a dent into students' wallets.

Gas prices currently average $1.36 a gallon in Terre Haute, but over the past three weeks, prices have risen around six cents per gallon.

"I think it's ridiculous," Shaquanda Allen, a junior criminology major, said. Allen said that, as a commuter student, she puts at least $10 of gas in her car every three days.

Allen has already cut out unnecessary driving and has eliminated driving at night to attempt to save on gas money.

"I only drive to necessary places, such as to school, to take my daughter to school and to the grocery store," Allen said.

Although Terre Haute' s prices are below the national average price for a gallon of gasoline - currently $1.48 - the Midwest region traditionally has higher gas prices than the rest of the United States.

The Midwest uses ethanol gasoline, made primarily of corn, instead of methyl tertiary butyl ether, used by the rest of the United States.

The price-hike can be attributed to a few factors. One is the six-week oil strike in Venezuela, depleting 1.5 million barrels a day from U.S. imports. OPEC's boost of 1.5 million barrels a day in attempt to help will not reach the United States for another 45 days, according to the Energy Information Administration. Another factor is the threat of war in Iraq .

"If we go to war with Iraq, I know (higher gas prices) are going to happen," said Chris Snyder, junior management information systems major. "I remember when prices went up during the last war."

Snyder is from the Buffalo, N.Y., area, and he said that although gas prices are high in Terre Haute, he noticed a big difference between the two cities. He said gas is around $1.65 a gallon in Buffalo.

Snyder commutes from south Terre Haute and says the drive takes around 20 minutes. He said he has already begun limiting driving and purposefully scheduled his classes only on Tuesday and Thursday so he wouldn't have to drive to campus every day.

Mike Potts, freshman criminology major, commutes 95 miles from Washington, Ind., to and from ISU.

Potts said he notices a price variation from county to county, and gas is about a dime cheaper in Terre Haute than Washington. He also said that although his car gets fair gas mileage, he has limited his excess driving "a lot." The excess money Potts has had to spend on gas has put a strain on other financial freedoms, such as eating out.

What the money for each gallon of gasoline pays for, according to the U.S. Department of Energy Web site:

18 percent pays for distribution, marketing costs and benefits.

30 percent pays taxes, including federal excise tax, which averages 18.4 cents a gallon; state excise tax, which averages 19.96 cents a gallon; and other taxes.

11 percent pays for refining costs and profits.

41 percent pays crude oil suppliers.

(Due to rounding, percentages do not add up to 100%.)

www.forbes.com Reuters, 01.15.03, 9:51 AM ET By Hugh Bronstein

NEW YORK, Jan 15 (Reuters) - The Venezuelan opposition moved its struggle against President Hugo Chavez to the international stage on Wednesday, urging Wall Street players to pressure the leftist leader into calling early elections.

As Chavez's foes extended a national strike aimed at ousting the beleaguered president into its 45th day, members of the opposition told an audience of market analysts, investors, and Venezuelan expatriates here that if their efforts succeeded, Venezuela would become a safer place to invest.

"The international community can no longer be passive. It has to take on a greater role," said Timoteo Zambrano, a member of the National Assembly of Venezuela, at a meeting sponsored by the Americas Society.

As the domestic standoff, which has crippled oil production in the world's fifth largest petroleum exporter, intensifies, both sides in the conflict have appealed for international support. Chavez is set to hold talks on Thursday with United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan in New York.

Opposition leaders argued that while Chavez was elected fairly in 1998, he has since veered off the democratic course, putting basic liberties, such as freedom of the press and property rights, in jeopardy.

"It is not only necessary for the president to be democratically elected, but also that he continue along the democratic pathway," said Carlos Fernandez, president of the Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry in Caracas.

Outside the gathering on the streets of New York's posh Park Avenue a dozen pro-Chavez demonstrators shouted slogans defending his presidency.

The protesters' voices drifted through the meeting room's second floor window even as Fernandez blasted Chavez for his poor handling of the Venezuelan economy. He said poverty has increased 25 percent during Chavez's administration, and sharply criticized him for describing the opposition as coup-plotters.

"We have proven that we want a constitutional and democratic solution," he said.

Chavez, notorious on Wall Street for his fiery rhetoric and brash leadership style, was elected in 1998. He vowed to wrest control from what he branded the country's corrupt elite and enact reforms to help the poor. But opposition has grown amid charges the president wants to establish a Cuban-style authoritarian state. Chavez weathered a short-lived coup last April.

Fellow opposition leader Carlos Ortega, president of the confederation of Venezuelan workers, or CTV, also addressed the Americas society.

www.wsws.org By Kate Randall and Barry Grey 15 January 2003

In recent weeks popular opposition to the impending war against Iraq has grown not only internationally, but also within the US. Even polls published by the pro-war American media show a sharp drop in support for Bush’s war drive. A CBS News poll published January 7 reported that only 29 percent of Americans support unilateral US military action against Iraq, while 63 percent favor a diplomatic solution.

Nevertheless, the Bush administration continues its feverish military buildup in the Persian Gulf, with an estimated 160,000 troops now present or en route to the area. According to the same CBS poll, while a majority of Americans oppose a war, 74 percent believe it is inevitable—a feeling that owes a great deal to the prostration of the Democratic Party to the Bush White House and its general support for the administration’s war policy.

The government’s justification for an invasion—based on the claim that Iraq poses an imminent military threat—is becoming more and more threadbare. There is open discussion in the media that the failure of UN inspectors to find evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is fueling public skepticism toward the administration’s war agitation.

Recent events in Korea have further undermined the White House propaganda campaign. Government spokesmen have been unable to explain the disparity between American policy toward North Korea and the administration’s war drive against Iraq. At least publicly, the administration insists that North Korea—which is openly developing a nuclear weapons capacity—is to be dealt with through diplomatic channels, while Iraq—where there is no evidence of nuclear weapons—is to be bombed, invaded and militarily occupied.

In the face of the failure of the government/media campaign to build mass support for a US invasion of Iraq, New York Times foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman has felt obliged to come to the aid of the Bush war cabal by proposing a shift in its propaganda. Hence Friedman’s January 5 column headlined “A War for Oil?”

In this thoroughly cynical piece, Friedman concedes what is obvious to anyone who has followed the US military buildup against Iraq with any objectivity: Bush’s plan to invade the country is driven, above all, by a determination to seize control of Iraqi oil.

The column is by no means the first effort by Friedman to provide a cover of legitimacy and even humaneness to Washington’s war drive. On December 1, for example, he authored a column in which he urged his readers to “pay no attention” to the inspections taking place in Iraq. Instead, to fabricate a pretext for war, he advocated that the United Nations, at the bidding of the US, kidnap Iraqi scientists, remove them and their families from Iraq, and allow American interrogators to extract “proof” of weapons of mass destruction from their captives. [See “Inventing a pretext for war against Iraq—Friedman of the Times executes an assignment for the Pentagon”]

At that time, Friedman had no quarrel with the official line that Iraq represented an imminent threat to the safety of Americans. But, despite the columnist’s urging, millions of Americans have been paying attention to the weapons inspections—as well as the rising toll of layoffs and pay cuts at home—and have grown increasingly hostile to the administration’s obsession with war, as well as to Bush himself.

Thus the “liberal” war hawk Friedman feels compelled to shore up the flagging credibility of the Bush administration’s case for war. “Is the war that the Bush team is preparing to launch in Iraq really a war for oil?” he asks. “My short answer is yes. Any war we launch in Iraq will certainly be—in part—about oil. To deny that is laughable.”

Friedman admits, quite openly, that the official reasons given by the government for a war against Iraq are lies, and crude ones at that. He writes that Bush’s “recent attempt to hype the Iraqi threat by saying that an Iraqi attack on America—which is most unlikely—‘would cripple our economy’ was embarrassing.”

He continues: “Let’s cut the nonsense. The primary reason the Bush team is more focused on Saddam [than on North Korea] is because if he were to acquire weapons of mass destruction, it might give him the leverage he has long sought—not to attack us, but to extend his influence over the world’s largest source of oil, the Persian Gulf.”

Thus, having acknowledged that the US government is lying to the American people and the world, Friedman seeks to fashion a new justification for war against Iraq. It is not a matter of self-defense, or even countering something Iraq has done. Rather, the country must be attacked and occupied because the regime might—in the future—extend its influence over the world’s largest oil reserves.

“There is nothing illegitimate or immoral about the US being concerned that an evil, megalomaniacal dictator might acquire excessive influence over the natural resource that powers the world’s industrial base,” he writes.

Leaving aside Friedman’s use of pre-packaged epithets to demonize the Iraqi ruler, this statement is remarkable for its espousal of a course that violates every cannon of international law. Friedman is asserting that the US has the right, unilaterally and preemptively, to attack any country or regime that it deems to be a threat to “the world’s industrial base.”

In other words, the US has the right to wage wars of plunder against those countries that stand in the way of its monopoly of vital natural resources. If, in the process, it violates the national sovereignty of weak and small countries, deprives the local populace of the benefits of resources located on its national soil, and kills untold thousands of people—so be it.

It is self-evident, Friedman would have us believe, that the world would be far safer and happier if the oil in the Persian Gulf were in the hands of American-based oil giants and the US military machine than if it remained in the hands of the Iraqis.

But the implications of this argument go beyond Iraq and the Persian Gulf. If Friedman’s injunction is true for Iraqi oil, then why not for Russian oil, or that of Venezuela, Nigeria and other oil-possessing nations? Why, moreover, should America’s global mission be limited to the “protection” of oil? What about iron, copper, cobalt, uranium and other vital ores? Can the US permit other nations to get control of that other increasingly scarce strategic resource—water?

The logic of Friedman’s position is clear. It is a formula for imperialist aggression and plunder not seen since the heyday of the Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s. There is no essential difference between the impulse of global domination by means of military violence that underlies Friedman’s arguments and that which was summed up in the Nazi demand for “Lebensraum.”

In line with the “liberal” pretensions of the New York Times editorial board, Friedman tries to give his defense of imperialist war a progressive twist. Advocating a “politically-correct” policy of aggression, he argues that the “Bush team would have a stronger case for fighting a war partly for oil it if made clear by its behavior that it was acting for the benefit of the planet, not simply to fuel American excesses.”

“I have no problem with a war for oil,” he writes, “if we accompany it with a real program for energy conservation.”

Friedman concludes by declaring that an oil war in Iraq “would be quite legitimate” if, after bombing and conquering the country, the US helped “Iraqis build a more progressive, democratizing Arab state.” Here the Times columnist echoes the growing chorus of liberal apologists for American imperialism, who seek to attribute a historically progressive and humanitarian role to the single most violent and destructive force on the planet.