www.orlandosentinel.com From Wire reports Posted February 7, 2003

CARACAS, Venezuela -- President Hugo Chavez, emboldened as a prolonged general strike against him fades, has put his political opponents on notice in recent days by threatening legal and economic retaliation against those seeking to force him from power.

The most potentially far-reaching step came this week when Chavez established a new currency-control system to protect Venezuela's foreign reserves at a time of deep economic uncertainty in the oil-rich country. The government suspended trading of Venezuela's national currency, the bolivar, on Jan. 21 as it plummeted in value against the dollar in the midst of an economically devastating general strike.

Venezuela's business leaders warned Thursday that foreign-currency controls will breed corruption, fuel inflation and push the nation's fragile economy to the brink of collapse. They also suspect Chavez will use the controls to repress opponents and punish those who staged an unsuccessful two-month strike seeking to oust him.

Chavez announced the controls late Wednesday night, two weeks after suspending the sales of U.S. dollars as the bolivar sank to record lows. The fixed exchange rate took effect Thursday, and trading in dollars resumed.

The new controls fix the bolivar currency's value at 1,596 per dollar for sales and 1,600 for purchases, but the government can adjust those rates as it sees fit. The bolivar closed at 1,853 on Jan. 21, the last day of trading, but on the black market it traded at 2,500.

Chavez vowed to deny access to U.S. dollars for "coup-plotting" corporations that participated in the strike -- a major blow in a nation that imports 60 percent of its raw materials and most of its food.

Chavez has emerged over the course of this week invigorated by the failure of a general strike designed to force him from power or submit to early elections. Suffering enormous financial loss, Venezuela's private sector on Monday abandoned the strike that began Dec. 2.

boston.com By James Anderson, Associated Press, 2/7/2003 07:44

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) The band of government supporters surrounded the Televen TV news crew on a highway, punched the driver, stole equipment and shattered the car's rear window.

The same day, emissaries of President Hugo Chavez, accompanied by 1,000 supporters, informed the Venevision TV network it may be fined for its coverage of a two-month strike aimed at forcing Chavez to step down.

The incidents on Wednesday came as Chavez intensifies a longtime offensive against Venezuela's news media, many of which promoted the strike. The protest petered out this week.

His government is investigating all four national private TV networks, whom he likes to call the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Independent lawmaker Alberto Jordan counted more than 60 assaults and threats against reporters in January, up from 60 in all of 2002.

Regional television outlets and a growing number of radio stations are also under investigation, and on Thursday, the Chavez-dominated Congress began debating legislation that would regulate TV and radio programming more closely.

The project would divide the broadcast day into ''children's,'' ''supervised'' and ''adult'' hours, and require journalists to divulge documentary sources. It would even monitor the music and language used in commercials.

''They'd tell us what is good sex and what is bad sex, what is good violence and what is bad violence, what health information can be broadcast and what health programs can't,'' Asdrubal Aguiar, professor of international law at Andres Bello Catholic University, told Venevision.

In a recent prime-time speech, Chavez said the new media law, which needs a simple majority to pass, will protect ''our adolescents from the abuses of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse ... who trample the truth, who sow terror and fear and create ghosts for our children.''

Most Venezuelan media gave shrill and supportive coverage to the strike and its leaders. Newspapers sometimes refused to publish in solidarity with strikers, and thousands of opposition television commercials were aired.

Ruling party lawmaker Juan Barreto said Thursday the government wants to find out who paid for the ads and collect any unpaid taxes on them. He said that private TV broadcast an average of 700 pro-strike or anti-Chavez ads daily during the protest.

Media owners insist they were forced to play a partisan role with the evaporation of Venezuela's traditional, and corrupt, political parties in the late 1990s.

Chavez, first elected in 1998, proudly notes that his government, unlike its predecessors, hasn't sent agents to abduct reporters or seize newspaper editions right off the presses.

The government insists that balanced media coverage must be guaranteed if early elections, as demanded by the opposition, are to be held.

The issue has come up during talks mediated by the Organization of American States. The Group of Friends, six nations backing the negotiations, urged private channels to limit anti-Chavez and pro-strike commercials.

Not that Chavez has much trouble getting air time.

He has his own weekly talk show. Government television trumpets the revolution's successes. And he gives speeches known as ''cadenas'' television stations have been forced to interrupt their programming to air them at least 29 times since Jan. 1.

Past presidents rarely used the cadena law, designed for matters of national importance.

www.greatfallstribune.com Friday, February 7, 2003 By JO DEE BLACK Tribune Staff Writer

A strike in Venezuela is responsible for rising gasoline prices and not talk of war with Iraq, says a Washington D.C. economist.

Recent increases in the price drivers pay at the pump are actually a delayed reaction to a rise two months ago in crude oil prices, said Jacob Bouranzian, an economist with the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration.

In Great Falls, the average price of regular gasoline was $1.38 per gallon at the pump in December, according to the

Thursday several stations in Great Falls posted a price of $1.47 per gallon for regular gasoline.

Gas prices are likely to continue going up as the market corrects, he added. "Expect probably another five- to six-cent increase in the Rocky Mountain region by the end of March," Bouranzian said.

Crude oil prices jumped $6 to $7 a barrel at the beginning of December, the same time opponents of Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez organized a nationwide strike, nearly shutting down the country's oil industry.

The strike resulted in a 15 percent reduction of crude oil exports to the United States. Typically, 1.3 million of the 9 million barrels of crude oil imported into the United States daily comes from Venezuela. U.S. importers turned to Saudi Arabia to fill about half that void and other countries made up the rest of the difference.

Profits were strong in the oil refining business during December, so companies drew down their existing inventories of crude oil, even though supplies were tighter. The situation continued through January.

Now those companies are rebuilding inventories, and higher pump prices are the result of the market rebalancing, Bouranzian said.

If the United States does go to war with Iraq, gas prices would likely be pushed higher, he added.

"It's a wild card," Bouranzian said. "When we look at the war in 1990 and 1991, crude oil spiked $15 during the five-week war, but then plummeted right back down when it was over."

With or without a war, drivers probably will feel more of a pinch when they fill up this summer than they did last year.

Refiners are working to replenish supplies now. Traditionally February and March are when supplies of gasoline are stockpiled for the busy summer driving season.

"They aren't able to do that this year, so this summer we expect more volatility in the market than we saw last summer," Bouranzian said.

That's not good news for Guy Eklund, owner of Eklund's Appliance and TV. He already spends $1,500 a month for gas to provide free delivery to customers.

"It's another cost of business that's going up," he said. "It's tough to compete, and it's getting tighter and tighter."

www.forbes.com Reuters, 02.07.03, 9:19 AM ET By Richard Mably

PARIS, Feb 7 (Reuters) - OPEC may hold enough spare capacity to prevent the need for a release of strategic oil reserves from consumer countries should war break out in Iraq, the new head of the West's energy watchdog said in an interview on Thursday. International Energy Agency (IEA) Executive Director Claude Mandil told Reuters that he hoped the cartel would be able to cope with an Iraqi stoppage and stop another damaging spike in world oil prices. If not, the IEA, adviser on energy to 26 industrialised nations, was ready "within hours" to order an emergency release from the huge inventories held to safeguard energy security in countries like the United States, Germany and Japan. Mandil said he expected OPEC to open the pumps towards full capacity should an attack by Washington shut Iraqi exports of nearly two million barrels daily on the world's 40-million-barrel-a-day market. "We expect that to be done. It is only if it is not done or if it is not enough that we will have to assess whether there is a shortage and decide that we need to do something," he said. "We are in very close contact with leading producing countries and when we have to take a decision we will take into account our latest estimate of their spare capacity and whether or not it will meet the shortfall." With OPEC thought to be holding just 2-2.5 million bpd of unused capacity, mostly in the hands of Saudi Arabia, the IEA faces a close call. The industrialised powers which make up its membership could suffer a huge setback to economic recovery should oil prices, already near two-year highs of $35 a barrel, repeat the spike to over $40 seen during the 1990-1991 Gulf War. Set up in 1974 to protect the West after the Arab oil embargo, the IEA requires its member nations to hold stocks equivalent to at least 90 days of forward demand. Stocks now are near 114 days, more than enough to meet any hole in supply that war might create, barring a much longer conflict than most Western military analysts expect. Mandil said the IEA had made no preliminary judgment on whether a release might be needed in the event of war and would not make that decision until an actual stoppage. "We will wait for a supply disruption but if there is a supply disruption we can act within hours," he said. "We are prepared to cope with any kind of supply disruption and we are prepared to do so extremely swiftly."

SAUDI SEES NO IEA RELEASE His remarks followed recent comments from Saudi Arabia suggesting that Riyadh was not expecting to an IEA release of emergency stocks, last used in 1991 after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi said in Abu Dhabi at the weekend that discussions with consumer nations had left them confident in OPEC's ability to make up any shortfall without the use of the reserves. Mandil meets with OPEC Secretary-General Alvaro Silva in Vienna on Friday and is expected to discuss the issue. The cartel, fearful of a post-war price crash, will he hoping to convince Mandil that a release is not required unless Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein pulls a surprise and is able to inflict significant damage on Saudi or Kuwaiti facilities. "What will be most important to judge is whether the war will spread and hurt other countries," said Klaus Jacoby, head of emergency planning at the IEA. With fundamentals on world oil markets always difficult to read, the Paris-based agency is faced with a tricky decision. Mandil said the extent of any war damage to Iraqi or neighbouring facilities, growth in Venezuelan production, the weather and the lull in oil consumption after peak winter demand were all factors. Saudi Arabia already is pumping more to make up for a loss from fellow cartel member country Venezuela where exports have been hit by a two-month-old strike aimed at ousting President Hugo Chavez. Venezuelan output also is on the rise again after dipping to less than 700,000 barrels a day on average in January, less than a quarter of normal production. Mandil said the IEA had the flexibility to review any decision to release reserves day by day. "Perhaps we will have to take a decision one day and take a different decision, say, eight days later. We can reassess the situation on a daily basis," he said.

www.usforacle.com By Vanessa Garnica Staff Writer February 07, 2003

In a packed room in Cooper Hall, visiting scholars from La Universidad Central de Venezuela discussed the political crisis of Venezuela, the fifth largest oil exporter in the world.

In a lecture titled "Ni Un Paso Atras" or "Not Even a Step Back," visiting scholars Omar Astorga and Ana Beatriz Martinez gave a vivid presentation on the delicate situation with which Venezuelans are currently dealing.

The two scholars addressed the events leading up to the legitimacy of Hugo Chavez, current president of Venezuela, as a leader and the various political scenarios that led to the present crisis.

"On Feb. 4, 1992, Chavez, then a lieutenant-colonel, led a coup into the presidential home that later failed. That was the beginning of Chavez's presence in Venezuelan homes, as he transmitted a televised message to those few soldiers that in silence collaborated with him," Astorga said.

Chavismo, a term used to describe a structure of radical ideas led by Chavez, constructed the reasoning on which the present Venezuelan crisis is justified.

In the seven years following Chavez's failed coup, Venezuela suffered from hyperinflation, the bankruptcy of the financial sector, skyrocketing unemployment and corrupted leaders. These factors inspired the majority of the people to elect a self-proclaimed radical, Chavez.

In 1999, Chavez was elected president of Venezuela. He won with not only the support from the popular sector but from the middle class, corporations, labor unions, media and intellectuals.

"Chavez proclaimed the end of the previous political period and the birth of a new one. To many he represented the hope for change," Astorga said. "He announced plans to help homeless children, improve the lives of indigenous people, eliminate corruption within the government and improve the poverty conditions in Venezuela by revamping housing, health and education."

Astorga said the creation of a new constitution, which was supported by the majority of the social sectors, was an important event in the reorganization of the state. Furthermore, this new document recognized human rights, particularly for the indigenous.

The media, especially television, plays a decisive role in Chavez's popularity. Every Sunday, Chavez transmits a state of the republic message that average four hours in length to the masses.

Astorga said Chavez had an accessible and popular image, that brought with it a promise for radical changes.

But many people started to doubt Chavez's intentions in late 1999. It began with the Chavistas.

The Chavistas are Chavez's supporters and/or members of Chavez's new radical political party. They held a wide majority in the national assembly. With that power, Chavez and the Chavistas were able to designate people in high places, such as in the supreme court and the office of attorney general. Chavistas eventually held power in most public offices.

"Because of that, the principle of separation of powers was put in danger," Astorga said. "People started to ask questions."

Early in Chavez's term, the price of a barrel of oil, Venezuela's main export, went up 100 percent. Chavez used this revenue to implement social programs to help communities across Venezuela.

"With programs such as these, Chavez's promises started to manifest with tangible actions and subsequently shown through the different media sources," Astorga said.

Chavez began losing popularity as he continued to present his weekly-televised addresses promising change and failing to deliver.

The unemployment numbers skyrocketed and the economy did not improve.

Martinez said media sources began reporting on the number of children in the streets and the numbers of corporations going bankrupt.

The Venezuelan people continued to question Chavez, who, in return, answered with promises.

"The Bolivarian Circles, named after Simon Bolivar, were 'social groups' created by Chavez to control the people within the communities ... These circles began to be associated with violence," Martinez said.

"Unexpectedly, Chavez started giving his speeches a radical twist ... He started talking about a revolution and openly suggested attacks on private property and mass media sources."

Chavez began to see the media as the enemy, but still tried to use it in his favor.

Martinez said, on his weekly televised message, Chavez said that private property was not sacred to those who own it.

With declarations such as these, Chavez began to lose popularity in the private sector as well as within the working class.

The media amplified the fracture of the leader just as much as they had shown his rise to the top.

"The president now wants to kill the messenger," Oscar Lucien, a famous Venezuelan moviemaker, said referring to Chavez's criticism of the press coverage of his administration.

From January 2002, the opposition led marches all over the country. A monumental event occurred on April 11, when a national march of more than a million people descended on the capital city of Caracas.

Martinez said 19 people were massacred by Chavez's sharp shooters as the march headed toward the presidential palace.

Chavez was forced to sign a letter of resignation, and a provisional president, Pedro Carmona, was sworn in.

Chavez came back to power the next day, and Carmona was removed.

The opposition has organized more than 60 marches. And more than 100 military officials have been cited with civil disobedience due to their open support to the opposition, Martinez said.

On Feb. 3, a two-month civic national strike involving all sectors of Venezuela, came to an end after massive financial losses for the nation.

Martinez said as of right now, Venezuela's poverty level is up 16 percent since Chavez took power. She said those without food have increased five percent and the unemployment rate has increased from 11 percent to 16 percent, she said.

Both Astorga and Martinez mentioned that scholars, sociologists, as well as philosophers, who are direct witnesses to these events, might have a disadvantage when giving an objective vision. However, Astorga and Martinez mentioned their intent to give those present an impartial talk by citing the news media such as El Nacional, El Universal, and Globovision.

If this history was real, did you believe that Chávez would have been returned to the power by the people? Think about it again... Rose Asistent Caracas - Venezuela

What a load of CRAP by these supposed students. For the REAL STORY about what is happening in Venezuela logon to VHeadline.com Venezuela at www.vheadline.com Roy S. Carson editor@vheadline.com

Letter addressed to: The Oracle, University of South Florida re: Article written by Vanessa Garnica, " Speakers attempt to explain strike crisis"

Well presented Vanessa Garnica....but I have a problem with the content....or perhaps, better stated, with the origins of the content:

the two visiting "scholars" (as your article calls them),Omar Astorga and Ana Beatriz Martinez.

I came to Venezuela in mid-December expressly to SEE with my own eyes what was really happening.......I could no longer believe the news coming out of El Nacional, El Universal, and Globovision (which appears to be the media sources quoted by the "scholars")....... the same Venezuelan privately owned media which is presently, and justifiably so, being taken to court by the Government since they have CLEARLY and PUBLICALLY broken the rules of their Charter and have participated DIRECTLY in the opposition's efforts to sabotage Venezuela and its Government....not to mention being ACTIVE participants in aiding and abetting in the destruction of the Venezuelan economy.....which included stockpiling and stoppage of manufacturing and distribution of Venezuelan food staples!

I have been traveling throughout more than half the country since my arrival.....and writing about what I see....on Vheadline.com.

What Omar and Ana SEE is what they want to see....... a few facts mixed into a lop-sided and pro-opposition format reminiscent of Globovision, RCTV, TeleVen, Venevision, El Nacional, El Universal, etc.....untruths and manipulation of facts and events in an attempt to oust Chavez (a democratically elected President) from power, particularly after the National Assembly DEMOCRATICALLY approved reformatory laws, including land reform (November 2001). For your information. Chavez's political party, MVR, holds 71 of 163 seats in the National Assembly.

Let me give your readers a few examples of the manipulation of events/facts demonstrated by Ana and Omar:

1)"....Chavismo, a term used to describe a structure of radical ideas led by Chavez, ......" Radical ideas?.....maybe for the middle-to-upper class Venezuelans....Radical ideas...like paying due income tax, like land and agrarian reform....which most developed nation has gone through in the past.....like attempting to raise the minimum wage .....which to date is still pitiful!....about 100-120$ US per month......like creating penal codes that are reflective of laws (past and present)...penal codes that were, in the past, either never created or conveniently neglected......Radical ideas?.....like serving saboteurs with court orders.............radical???????

2)"....."The Bolivarian Circles, named after Simon Bolivar, were 'social groups' created by Chavez to control the people within the communities ... These circles began to be associated with violence," Martinez said..... " Who began associating the Circulos Bolivarianos with violence?....the answer...the Venezuelan privately owned media....which is almost entirely anti-Chavez.

3. "...."Unexpectedly, Chavez started giving his speeches a radical twist ... He started talking about a revolution and openly suggested attacks on private property and mass media sources." ...." I challenge Martinez to show ONE precise instant in which Chavez actually SAID such a thing.......in the CORRECT context!

4)Here we go again... "...Martinez said 19 people were massacred by Chavez's sharp shooters as the march headed toward the presidential palace. ". Because Martinez says it is true, then it is true?. For your information....this has NEVER to date been authenticated....so, as far as I know, Martinez is lying through her teeth.

5)"....Chavez was forced to sign a letter of resignation, and a provisional president, Pedro Carmona, was sworn in.....". Not true.....Chavez did not resign....he was kidnapped by the people who led the coup (and apparently, the USA was heavily involved)........and the reason Chavez came back to power in less than 48 hours is because hundreds of thousands of people (mostly from the lower classes) marched to the Government buildings forced Carmona and his cronies out of office. Did Ana and Omar ever mention that none of the coup plotters and/or participants were criminally charged, none went to jail.......... and they (the opposition) call Chavez a dictator?

6. ".....On Feb. 3, a two-month civic national strike involving all sectors of Venezuela, came to an end after massive financial losses for the nation......." There is only one truth in this statement the rest is a complete lie! First of all, it WAS NOT a strike......... yes there were a few strikes for very short periods of time......but.......the vast majority of the stoppage was due to lockouts by the employers......and this is verifiably TRUE. In addition it was NOT at the national scale.... the biggest stoppages occurred in Caracas, Maracaibo, Valencia and Barquisimeto. The eastern and south eastern states were barely affected and the Andean region had little stoppages (central and south western states).... and all this is verifiably true. In addition the stoppage DID NOT involve all sectors of Venezuela.....the transportation industry never joined the stoppage willingly...at times they did not operate.....yes....but due to lack of fuel....the transportation industry Unions were repeatedly on TV stating that they NEVER said that they would join the stoppage.....even if Ortega and his opposition gang continuously said the contrary. Who are you going to believe....Ortega (who has apparently taken his family out of Venezuela) or the Transportation Industry Union Leaders? By the way, this is only one example....there are many more.

7. I do not know how Ana and Omar can state that they wanted to give an "impartial" talk.....when basing their information on El Nacional, El Universal, and Globovision. Think about it.

Oscar Heck oscarheck111@hotmail.com Reporter/Editorialist - Vheadline.com Venezuela