www.hipakistan.com

LAHORE: Of all the Middle Eastern and Central Asia countries, Pakistan will be the worst hit by the US attack on Iraq due to its political instability and nuclear capability.

This was the consensus of the debate on "US attack on Iraq and the future of our region" arranged by an NGO, Mashaal, at the HRCP auditorium here on Tuesday with HRCP director I. A. Rehman in the chair.

Columnist and author Ahmad Rashid said within three days of the terrorist attack on America on Sept 11, US President Bush had declared his intention to attack Iraq. Unlike the attack on Iraq in 1991 when many countries of the world had supported the US, this time there was great opposition by the people as well as governments throughout the world as was evident from the large rallies held against the possible US attack.

He apprehended that the US attack would have serious repercussions on the entire region, particularly Pakistan as President Gen Musharraf had expressed his concern the other day when he had been quoted asking how Pakistan could avert its turn after Iraq.

Mr Rashid said Pakistan had already taken a U-turn on Afghanistan when the US had attacked it. Now, he feared, it would take another turn as Pakistan-US relations might deteriorate after the attack on Iraq because of three reasons.

First, there were reports of Taliban leaders taking shelter in Pakistan, particularly in the NWFP and tribal areas, as Gulbadeen Hikmatyar who had been supporting the Al Qaeda movement had been reportedly visiting the country.

Secondly, there were reports of the plans to resume the support of Kashmiri freedom fighters, and thirdly, the US apprehension of going Pakistan's nuclear technology into wrong hands and the possibility of its transfer to other countries as reported by the American and western media hurling all sorts of accusations and allegations against Pakistan's programme.

He said Indo-Pakistan relations had deteriorated so much that both the countries had lost all contacts, even worse than the US-USSR relations during the Cold War when at least they had contacts at various levels. The Indian defence minister was talking of wiping out Pakistan from the world map.

Mashaal chairman, a physicist, an intellectual and author, Pervaiz Hoodbhai, said America had no moral and political justification to attack Iraq. It was not a clash between two civilizations but it would be a war for the vested US interests.

He said since the end of the World War-II, America had fought 28 major war and numerous small battles in different parts of the world, the biggest and disastrous of them was the one fought in Vietnam where no less than one million Vietnamese were killed. In the 1991 Gulf War, 70,000 Iraqis were killed. Israel, abetted by the US had killed over 60,000 people in Lebanon, including Palestinians who had taken refuge there. America and Israel had jointly killed about 250,000 people since 1945 in wars.

He said the people of the world were opposing the US attack on Iraq as was evident from the large rallies all over the world. Thousands of people in Europe had declared their plan to make a human shield in Iraq against the attack. The people of Pakistan could not avert the war but they could join the anti-war campaign. The western and American media had been publishing malicious reports against Pakistan's nuclear programme which could mislead the world about the nuclear and missile programme of Pakistan.

Mr Hoodbhai said America feared that Pakistan's nuclear technology might be transferred to other countries, particularly North Korea. Though US Secretary of State Colin Powell had denied the reports and hushed up the matter but, after the Iraq war, the issue could be taken up.

He said any incident like the attack on Indian parliament on December 13, 2001, could be staged to attack on Pakistan. The US, India and Israel could also launch a joint action against Pakistan's nuclear programme. In fact they had started thinking on the strategy, he added.

Columnist and author Khalid Ahmad also expressed his concern at the remarks of President Musharraf referring to Pakistan's turn and said though it was an off-the-record remark, it was reported and commented upon in newspapers.

Unlike the Gulf War, the US could not get enough support for attack on Iraq and the people and the governments of various Western countries were opposing President Bush, he added.

He said there was no terrorism in Iraq which was said to possess weapons of mass destructions. America could take action against Pakistan but it had become an ally in its war against terrorism and had got many concessions. Action against Pakistan had been delayed, not averted.

He said there was a need for pragmatism instead of idealism to handle the delicate situation caused by the US designs against Iraq and their impact on the region.

He said conditions in Pakistan were worse than those in Afghanistan. The international law was what the five permanent members of the UN Security Council decide and the smaller nations were required to follow them.

He criticized the role of OIC which had no courage to raise its voice against the US action.

HRCP director I. A. Rehman emphasized the need for meeting the situation caused by the possible US attack on Iraq with reason rather than emotions.

He said the impact of the attack had already been felt on the Indo-Pakistan relations as both the countries had started expelling their embassy staff and a stage would come soon when only guards would be left in the offices of both embassies. The attack would have its impact on Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and other countries of the region.

He said after the 9/11 tragedy the phase of terrorism had come to an end and replaced by the hegemony of the big powers which would get a licence to browbeat the smaller and weaker nations.

www.chron.com Jan. 28, 2003, 11:00PM Dow Jones News Service

NEW YORK -- Crude oil futures ended higher Tuesday, as traders awaited weekly inventory data and President Bush's State of the Union address.

On the New York Mercantile Exchange, light, sweet crude for March delivery rose 38 cents to close at $32.67 a barrel.

February heating oil slipped 0.39 cent to close at 93.04 cents a gallon. February gasoline jumped 2.57 cents to close at 92.72 cents a gallon.

On London's International Petroleum Exchange, March Brent advanced 38 cents to close at $30.24 a barrel.

Natural gas for February delivery rose 4.8 cents to settle at $5.44 per thousand cubic feet.

Separately, Venezuelan oil output topped the 1 million barrel a day mark, according to dissident workers at state-owned monopoly Petroleos de Venezuela.

www.forbes.com Reuters, 01.28.03, 11:52 PM ET   By Tanya Pang

SINGAPORE, Jan 29 (Reuters) - Oil prices held steady on Wednesday after U.S. President George W. Bush braced his nation for war and called on the U.N. Security Council to meet next week to view evidence of Iraq's alleged illegal arms programmes.

In the annual State of the Union speech, Bush vowed to use the full force of the U.S. military against Iraq if needed and made clear the United States was prepared to act to disarm Iraq with or without U.N. backing.

"We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people, and for peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him," he said.

U.S. light crude rose to an intraday peak at $32.94 a barrel as Bush delivered his speech, but by 0436 GMT was trading at $32.74, seven cents up from Tuesday's settlement in New York.

"The market has completely accepted that there will be war and that's already in the price," said Sarah Emerson, managing director at Boston-based Energy Security Analysis (ESAI).

Bush called for the U.N. Security Council to convene on February 5 to hear Secretary of State Colin Powell present information and intelligence about Iraq's suspected activities with weapons of mass destruction.

"It was interesting that he was so explicit on the February 5 date. The market has a new date to think about, until that time everyone's going to be reading the tea leaves for what Powell's going to present," Emerson said.

The Security Council is due on Wednesday to discuss a report compiled by U.N. weapons inspectors after two months of searches in Iraq.

Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix told the Council on Monday he was unable to corroborate U.S. claims that Baghdad had built an arsenal of illegal weapons, saying he could not give a verdict one way or another. But Blix sharply criticised Iraq for not disclosing all of its arms programmes.

TROOPS SET TIMETABLE Bush is yet to convince some key Security Council allies that Baghdad has broken U.N. resolutions by hiding biological, chemical and nuclear arms.

U.S. and British forces are heading towards the Gulf region and are expected to be ready for combat next month. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a close ally of Washington, will meet Bush on Friday at the president's Camp David retreat, where they are expected to agree on the strategy and timing of any attack on Baghdad.

ESAI's Emerson said Bush's speech had not changed any time frame for a possible strike on Iraq. "The timetable was set months ago by troop deployments. They will all arrive by the end of February," she said.

The threat of war in the Middle East, which supplies 40 percent of crude oil traded on the world market, and a strike in Venezuela that has paralysed deliveries from the fifth-ranking oil exporter has pushed crude prices up almost 30 percent since late November.

The United States takes about 13 percent of its oil imports from Venezuela and the eight-week opposition-led strike has severely dented supplies into the biggest petroleum consumer.

Traders will get a fresh view on the health of U.S. fuel stockpiles when the government Energy Information Administration releases its weekly report on national inventories.

Analysts expect U.S. crude stocks to fall by two million barrels in the week to January 24 due to the Venezuelan strike, according to a Reuters poll.

Information from ship agents and port authorities indicates Venezuelan exports rose sharply last week from very low levels to about 700,000 barrels per day. Despite the improvement, levels are still only at about 25 percent of pre-strike levels.

www.channel4000.com Posted: 11:12 p.m. EST January 28, 2003

CARACAS, Venezuela -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez seems to be slowly choking off the opposition's attempt to force him from office.

The nation produced more than 1 million barrels of oil Tuesday -- about a third of the normal rate -- despite a two-month-long general strike.

Chavez has fired thousands of striking workers at the state oil monopoly.

Opposition leaders are scaling back the strike, worried about a public backlash over shortages of food, gasoline and medicine.

Most small businesses are already open. Factories, shopping malls, restaurants and schools may reopen next week, at least part-time.

The populist Chavez has been elected twice on a pledge to redistribute Venezuela's oil wealth to the poor. Critics claim he's dismantling democratic institutions and destroying the economy.

www.taipeitimes.com BLOOMBERG Wednesday, Jan 29, 2003,Page 12

Venezuelans wait to buy cooking gas in Caracas yesterday. Venezuelan opposition forces debated scaling back their strike against leftist President Hugo Chavez to ease the burden on the struggling private sector, which is now also threatened by government currency curbs and price controls.

Venezuela said it would fix the bolivar's exchange rate and extend a ban on trading to bolster foreign reserves drained by government efforts to defend the currency during a two-month-old nationwide strike.

The measures were announced by Finance Minister Tobias Nobrega on the country's Televen television network. He didn't specify at what rate the bolivar will be fixed.

Venezuela, the No. 4 exporter of oil to the US, needs to stem an exodus of foreign cash that has resulted in a 14 percent plunge in foreign reserves since the strike began. The stoppage, aimed at ousting President Hugo Chavez, is in its 57th day. Blocking access to foreign currency will make it harder to move money overseas and promote an underground economy.

"They have to do something to keep their reserves but a fixed exchange rate isn't the best solution," said Sandra Ebner, who helps manage 4 billion euros (US$4.3 billion) of emerging market debt for Deka Kapitalanlagegesellschaft in Frankfurt. "It's going to cause a run on the currency and they will have to give up the fixed rate."

The central bank spent as much as US$70 million a day earlier this month to bolster the currency, raising concern of a default on US$22.4 billion of foreign debt. The nation's international reserves declined to US$13.6 billion Friday. About US$35 billion left the country since Chavez was elected in February 1999, the president said recently.