www.zenit.org Date: 2003-02-01

DAVOS, Switzerland, FEB. 1, 2003 (Zenit.org).- The World Economic Forum's meeting this year in Davos was organized under the theme "Building Trust." The intention was to help business to recover in the wake of the recent series of ethical scandals.

"Trust is the glue that holds everything together, the bond that creates healthy communities and successful businesses," explained Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret, president and director of the World Economic Forum, respectively, in a Jan. 28 Wall Street Journal opinion piece. Once lost, trust "is incredibly difficult to regain," they noted.

A Financial Times editorial of Jan. 18 described the situation more bluntly: "Gone is the mood of arrogant triumphalism that characterized Davos meetings of a few years ago. Chief executives who were acclaimed then as the new masters of the universe, lofted upwards on buoyant markets and visions of endless growth, have been brought abruptly down to earth."

In all, this year's summit was a lot humbler, not only due to the past scandals, but also because of the shaky world economy and fears of a war in Iraq, noted the Globe and Mail on Jan. 24.

Klaus Schwab, who founded the forum 33 years ago, told delegates at the official opening that never in the meeting's history had the world faced a situation that was "so complex and so fragile" as this year. He also pleaded with the captains of industry to look at more than the bottom line. "Business must not just be profitable," Schwab said. "It must also be accountable. It must not only represent value, but values."

Anti-globalization protesters were also present, albeit diminished in both numbers and furor compared to previous years. The 2,350 Davos participants were protected by unprecedented security measures costing Switzerland around $10 million, the New York Times reported Jan. 23.

U.S. vs. Europe

The threat of a U.S.-Iraq war loomed large over at Davos. In fact, the forum "had an America-bashing theme," with frequent attacks by politicians and businessmen against "American arrogance," the doctrine of pre-emption and Washington's Iraq policy, the Wall Street Journal reported Jan. 27.

The global intelligence firm Stratfor speculated Jan. 29 that one of the factors behind the hostility in Davos toward the United States is that those present are a "segment of the international elite that is committed to preserving the international system as it was prior to Sept. 11, 2001."

And behind the growing divergence between Europe and the United States, opined Stratfor, is a division "at the deepest intellectual and moral level" that is seeing a breakup of the postwar alliance structure. "The incomprehension and anger of the Europeans at Davos is directed less at the United States than at a lack of ability to control events," concluded Stratfor.

The more traditional economic themes of globalization and relations between rich and poor countries were also present in the meeting. The newly elected Brazilian president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, appeared in Davos, asking the better-off nations to help those in need, the Italian daily La Repubblica reported Jan. 27.

Lula was the star at a dinner in Davos that saw a number of Latin American heads of state present, including the Mexican and Argentinian presidents. In his speech the day before, Brazil's leader proposed the establishment of a world fund to fight against hunger. He also spoke of how his party in Brazil has forged "a new social contract" to restart economic development and to reduce social inequalities.

Lula assured participants that Brazil would respect its financial obligations, but he insisted on the need to break out of the vicious circle whereby his country had to continually borrow money in order to repay its outstanding debts. We believe in free trade, he said, but in a free trade in which the foundational characteristic is reciprocity, which is the contrary to what has taken place up until now, with the rich countries preaching free trade and practicing protectionism.

Porto Alegre

Meanwhile, in the Brazilian city of Porto Alegre, the 3rd World Social Forum took place. The event gathered about 100,000 participants who "sent out a strong message against war, injustice and social inequality," the Inter Press Service News Agency reported Jan. 29.

"Our greatest victory this year is that the world has heard us out," said Brazilian activist Cándido Grzybowski, a member of the WSF organizing committee. Ignacio Ramonet, another WSF organizer, said the forum's main message this year was "No to War!" -- referring to U.S. and British preparations for a military strike against Iraq.

Economic themes were also in focus. On the opening day of activities, forum organizers released a public opinion poll showing that a majority of the population in the 15 countries surveyed believed that globalization is driven by multinational companies, and concentrates wealth rather than generating opportunities, the Financial Times reported Jan. 24.

Interestingly, Mexico is the country where most of the people surveyed said they believe that globalization brings opportunities and that economic growth should take precedent over social issues. Conversely, more South Koreans and Germans believe that globalization concentrates wealth.

Forum activities included a protest march of some 30,000 people, CNN reported Jan. 28. Many of the marchers showed their disapproval for a hemispheric free-trade zone that would stretch from Canada to Argentina. The proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas is a project designed to unite the economies of 34 nations. Protesters feared it will allow large corporations to bypass labor and environmental laws and will hurt farmers and the poor.

George Monbiot, a columnist for the British daily Guardian and a decided critic of globalization, exulted in a Jan. 28 article on the growing popularity of the Porto Alegre meetings. Even though protests died down in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, he wrote, "our movement has grown bigger than most of us could have guessed." He explained: "For the great majority of activists -- those who live in the poor world -- the movement offers the only effective means of reaching people in the richer nations."

The correspondent for La Repubblica was not so sure. In a Jan. 29 commentary, Fabrizio Ravelli observed that despite all the talk and activity in Porto Alegre, there was little action. Programs to bring about concrete changes still seem a long way off, he noted.

Davos or Porto Alegre?

According to Bishop Diarmuid Martin, permanent observer for the Holy See at the United Nations' Geneva headquarters, what we need to avoid in globalization is to adopt ideologically driven positions, either pro- or anti-global. In an interview in the Italian Catholic paper Avvenire on Jan. 24, Bishop Martin noted the absence of structures capable of regulating today's global realities.

What is needed, he said, is clear and just rules that do not offer unfair privileges to any group. He also insisted on a greater respect for fundamental human rights. And in terms of economic development it is not enough just to open up markets so that Third World countries can export their goods.

Developing nations also need help in order to create functioning legal and political systems, so that the rule of law is respected and a free press is allowed. Bishop Martin also noted that investment in education is a fundamental starting point for economic development. Wise words, often unheeded in the heated rhetoric of international talkfests.

www.thebostonchannel.com POSTED: 10:08 p.m. EST January 31, 2003

CARACAS, Venezuela -- Diplomats from six nations, including the United States, have met with Venezuela's president and opposition leaders, to try to end a two-month strike and hold early elections.

Envoys from the United Staes, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Portugal and Spain urged both sides to accept one of two proposals made by former President Jimmy Carter.

One is to hold a recall referendum on President Hugo Chavez's rule halfway through his six-year term, in August.

Venezuela's constitution allows that.

The other proposal calls for ending the strike in exchange for a government pledge to amend the constitution, cutting Chavez's six-year term to four years.

But Venezuela's Foreign Minister says the government has no intention of shortening Chavez's term.

www.miami.com Posted on Sat, Feb. 01, 2003 BY FRANCES ROBLES frobles@herald.com

CARACAS - President Hugo Chávez is wielding a new weapon in his battle against the nation's broadcast media: Venezuelan law.

Chávez has begun administrative proceedings against two major television stations here, accusing them of using incendiary interviews and subversive political ads to incite rebellion.

The charges could lead the government to yank news outlets off the air for up two days, raising the stakes against the president's simmering clash with news organizations that critics say are more political than informative.

''The world should not be surprised if we start closing TV stations in Venezuela shortly,'' Chávez told reporters during a visit to Brazil last weekend. ``This is a country at war. There is a war on the part of the media.''

Chávez's latest strategy against Globovision and RCTV stations illustrate his escalating plans to crack down on both unflattering news coverage and private property, his opponents say.

MEDIA GAP

His tactics in fighting what he sees as biased coverage underscores the wide gap between an embattled president and the opposition widely supported by the news media, and is likely to become a major obstacle in negotiations to end a two-month strike here.

Considering the threat against freedom of expression, tens of thousands of people attended a rally Friday in support of the press.

''The only thing inciting rebellion is the aggressive, rude Castro-like discourse of the president of the republic,'' said Alberto Ravell, executive director of Globovision, a 24-hour news channel. ``We are defending Venezuelans so they won't have to move to Miami to flee a regime.''

An alliance of business groups, labor unions and oil workers banded together Dec. 2 for a nationwide strike aimed at ousting Chávez.

Arguing that the former army officer is consolidating his power to duplicate Castro's Cuba, the coalition shut down the nation's economy, causing shortages of everything from gasoline to Coca-Cola. They expected Chávez to fold. He hasn't.

Meanwhile, newspapers and television stations have run without advertisements for two months. Private networks carry nearly continuous coverage of the nation's political crisis, peppered with talk shows that usually feature one-sided commentators and even anchors who blast Chávez.

CLIPS OF CLASHES

The few ads have been from the Democratic Coordinator, the opposition's umbrella group. The public service announcements often show clips of clashes with government troops, and encourage Venezuelans to fight for freedom. The state-owned channel, on the other hand, only airs government propaganda, rallies and politicians.

Last week the government's National Telecommunications Commission (Conatel) cited a series of opposition ads and interviews with dissident military officers as evidence that the television stations have violated sections of the law. The stations are accused of broadcasting false and subversive information aimed at inciting rebellion, particularly because of ads that encourage citizens to stop paying sales taxes.

The government cites a Dec. 6 CNN interview with labor leader Carlos Ortega broadcast on Globovision:

''We are in the hands of a demented criminal,'' Ortega said. ``[He] represents a dangerous element; not just for Venezuela but the entire world.''

The head of Conatel, Jesse Chacón, is a former army lieutenant who, with Chávez and Infrastructure Minister Diosdado Cabello, took part in a failed 1992 coup. The Infrastructure Ministry is responsible for broadcasting concessions. Cabello took action against the television companies days after assuming the post.

Since the action against the stations is administrative, these men will be responsible for deciding the penalties, which range from fines to a temporary closure of the station. The companies have had 15 working days (from Jan. 20) to present their defense.

''Whatever the government's decision, it will look like political retaliation, even though it is acting on a law that is on the books,'' said Andrés Cañizalez, a journalism researcher at the Catholic University here who believes media coverage has been fiercely biased.

The Venezuelan media came under fire in April for its lopsided coverage of an uprising that briefly led to Chávez's ouster. When Chávez supporters took to the streets to demand the president's return, nobody covered it.

According to RCTV head Marcel Granier, the media have logged 600 physical attacks against journalists since Chávez took office in 1998. Journalists said they didn't cover the pro-Chávez marches that day because they feared they would be killed on the streets; however, Ravell later personally apologized on air.

Chávez expressed regret for ordering the National Guard to cut the stations' signals after to avoid coverage of live coverage of shooting in the streets.

Analysts say the collapse of opposition political parties forced the media to take on -- and overplay -- the role of government watchdog. Chávez filled traditionally independent government posts with his friends, so the media became one of the few institutions the president could not control.

Not that he does not try.

Venezuelan law allows the government to broadcast cadenas, government announcements that are played on every radio and television station at the same time. In the first four weeks of January, the government had played 21 cadenas, which averaged an hour each. Some of the government broadcasts are brief and important, but many are Chávez pep rallies or speeches that drag on for hours.

'Taking us off the air would come at a very high cost, because at that moment, people would say, `I am not in a constitutional democracy, I am in a dictatorship like Fidel Castro,' '' Ravell said. ``Venezuela can live without Coca-Cola. They cannot live without the news media.''

Special correspondent Phil Gunson contributed to this report.

www.nola.com Saturday February 01, 2003 By Karen Turni Bazile St. Bernard/Plaquemines bureau

St. Bernard Parish and its insurer will pay $1.15 million to settle a class action lawsuit stemming from a January 1998 refinery discharge that allegedly tainted the parish's drinking water, attorneys said Friday.

The settlement, which still must be approved by the Parish Council at Tuesday's meeting, will save the parish the legal expenses that were expected to mushroom had the parish continued fighting the lawsuit.

From Our Advertiser

The pending settlement leaves Chalmette Refining LLC as the only defendant in the suit, which is set for trial June 9.

The parish's share of the settlement will be $180,000, said J. Wayne Mumphrey, the attorney representing the parish in the matter. It already has paid about $200,000 in legal fees in the four years that Mumphrey and a team of up to five attorneys represented the parish in the matter, which included a three-week trial in 2000 over whether the case should be tried as a class action lawsuit.

The parish's insurer, Genesis Insurance Co., will cover the rest of the settlement, $970,000. The parish, as part of its insurance policy, must pay the first $250,000 of expenses with the insurance company covering the next $1 million. Anything over that amount would have had to come from the parish's general fund.

"I'm just pleased beyond belief to get us out of this mess," Mumphrey said. "The parish is not admitting any negligence or wrongdoing. It's just a compromise that is based on good business sense. Our legal fees and defense costs from now to this trial would have been more than $180,000."

Sidney Torres, one of the plaintiffs attorneys, called the settlement "fair and equitable" to both parties, adding that plaintiffs attorneys agreed to the settlement because the parish had limited liability and limited insurance coverage.

Plaintiffs attorneys have said the refinery should pay to move the parish's water intake pipe, which is just downriver from the refinery.

At this point, it's unclear how much money the plaintiffs' attorneys would receive from the settlement and how much their clients would receive. The money will be placed in an interest-bearing account until the trial with the refinery is complete.

There are 9,000 plaintiffs in the suit, a number that could still grow. Should the plaintiffs prevail, state District Judge Walter Kollin, who is hearing the case, will ultimately decide the rate attorneys receive.

Kollin made a ruling in April 2000 certifying the suit as class action. The plaintiffs claim they became ill after chemicals discharged by the refinery during a heavy rainstorm seeped into the parish water plant.

Kollin said the class action certification doesn't assign blame to the parish or the refinery, which is a joint venture co-owned by Exxon Mobil Corp. and Petroleos de Venezuela, the state-owned oil company of Venezuela; that will be decided at trial. . . . . . . . Karen Turni Bazile can be reached at kturni@timespicayune.com or (504) 826-3835.

sg.biz.yahoo.com Saturday February 1, 9:20 PM

ABU DHABI (Dow Jones)--The president of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries said Saturday the there is no current need to further increase the overall oil production of the group because there is enough supply in the oil market.

Abdullah bin Hamad al-Attiayh, who is also Qatar's Oil Minister, said the high oil prices are currently inflated by psychological and political factors related to tensions over oil producers Iraq and Venezuela and not because of shortage of oil supply.

OPEC on Saturday started to implement a decision taken last month to increase production 1.5 million barrels a day to cool off runaway oil prices in a bid to bring them back into a target range of $22-$28 a barrel.

ADVERTISEMENTAl-Attiyah said OPEC's oil ministers remain in constant contact discussing the oil market situation and would hold an emergency meeting for the group whenever they see there is a necessity to do so.

He also welcomed the increasing oil production of Venezuela as a factor which will bring more stability to the oil market.

However, he said that he's concerned that the current high prices may collapse to unfavorable levels if Venezuela production increased to around 2.6 million b/d in the next few weeks, adding this increased output is actually combining with OPEC's latest production increase of 1.5 million b/d which begins Saturday.

OPEC Pres -3: Sees Possible Oil Glut In 2Q

Al-Attiyah said Venezuela is currently producing around 1.00 million b/d and is expected to boost its output to between 1.5-1.6 million b/d in the next few weeks.

A seasonal drop in oil demand of around 2.00 million b/d is expected in the second quarter and al-Attiyah said that as much as 4.00 million b/d of extra crude oil could flood the market, as Venezuela keeps increasing production.

Venezuela's production has been crippled by a nationwide strike since Dec. 2 - which has recently started to ease.

Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of an energy conference scheduled to open Sunday, Al-Attiyah denied analysts' speculation that oil prices would spike to as high as $60-$100 a barrel if a war on Iraq breaks out.

"There is no historical evidence to support this," he said, citing that oil prices never exceeded $40 a barrel during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s and the Gulf War in 1991.

Al-Attiyah said the he hasn't talked with the Paris-based International Energy Agency about the prospect of opening up oil reserves of consuming countries to calm the market in the event a war breaks out.

He said OPEC will consider various options at its regular meeting on March 11, including any shortage of supply or a potential oversupply in the international market.

-By Simeon Kerr and Abudlla Fardan; Dow Jones Newswires; 00973 530758; abdullah.fardan@dowjones.com