www.agenziaitalia.it Italy On Line Special service by AGI on behalf of the Italian Prime Minister's office

ITALY-VENEZUELA: LETTA, GOVERNMENT WILL FOLLOW OUR COUNTRYMEN (AGI) - Rome, Italy, Feb. 14 - The Italian Government confirms "its priority attention and maximum assistance" towards its countrymen and women resident in Venezuela and stresses that "Italy hopes for a peaceful solution to the political confront underway." This was said by undersecretary to the Office of the Prime Minister, Gianni Letta, who yesterday met with a delegation of Italian residents in Venezuela, accompanied by the General Secretary for Italians in the World, Romeo Ricciuti, in Palazzao Chigi.    A statement announces that during the course of the meeting the Italians representing Italians in Venezuela illustrated the difficult moment which the country is going through, as a consequence of the internal political situation and the consequences of this crisis on the Italian community.    The Undersecretary Letta informed the delegation that the Government had been following developments with great attention and apprehension, and is in constant contact with Italian diplomatic representatives in Venezuela. He pointed out that in December Italy had promted for a EU statement on Venezuela and had announced its willingness to become part of the Group of Friends of Venezuela, the group created on the initiative of the Organisation of the American States.    Italian diplomatic and consulate offices in the country have also been given instructions to offer maximum assistance to Italians there.    Letta also confirmed that the priority attention of the Italian government towards its countrymen and women in Venezuela and stressed that Italy will continue to follow the situation and hopes that a peaceful solution to the political confront will be reached. (AGI) 141252 FEB 03

www.washingtonpost.com By Marcela Sanchez Special to washingtonpost.com Friday, February 14, 2003; 11:27 AM

At a time when Washington's relations with other nations are fraught with tension, there is something endearing in hearing a foreign leader effusively proclaiming that he wants to become the best U.S. ally around.

Lucio Gutiérrez, the new Ecuadoran president, did just that during his trip to Washington this week. And, genuine or not, his gesture appeared to defuse any suspicions about his intentions.

This was no small feat, especially considering that Gutiérrez is the same former coup-plotting colonel who two years ago helped topple an elected president. Elected president himself in November in a tough campaign in which he ran as the populist candidate of the left, he has been described by some as part of a leftist force of ``evil'' taking over Latin America and is often likened to Venezuela's polarizing president, Hugo Chávez.

How can such a leader suddenly become Washington's best ally? Or more importantly for Gutiérrez, what future would such a president have when it is distrust and even hatred of Washington's dominance that propels outsiders like him into office?

In his defense, Gutiérrez says he is a victim of a ``satanized'' image. He argues rather that he is the embodiment of changing times in the region--not the radical changes and revolutions that years ago transplanted the Cold War to Latin American soil, or that have left modern-day Venezuela a broken nation.

Gutiérrez says there are ``fresh, gentle and positive'' winds of change pushing leaders to restore faith in the democratic system. It is not a matter of whether they come from the left or the right, but whether they will be able to address the growing needs of their people. Washington can choose to help, or turn its back. Right now it seems to be giving Gutiérrez the benefit of the doubt.

Washington generously opened its doors--and its wallet--to Gutiérrez, who has been in office barely a month. He is the first Ecuadoran head of state to pay an official visit to the White House in more than a decade. The International Monetary Fund formalized a $200 million loan agreement that his predecessor had been unable to obtain despite nearly a year of trying. And in the U.S. budget plan unveiled last week, President Bush requested $15 million in military assistance for Ecuador--15 times more than sought the year before.

Why such generosity? Possibly because in such a short period of time, Gutiérrez has said and done all the right things in the eyes of official Washington. He has sought and apparently taken to heart the recommendations of various officials here regarding the reforms necessary to maintain economic stability. He also has demonstrated a willingness to leave behind the tactic of kicking and screaming for more attention that created mutual frustration.

Instead, he has offered his full cooperation in the wars against terrorism, drugs and corruption. He has expressed interest in making his country an attractive place for foreign investment and trade with a proposal to make Ecuador, among other things, a reliable regional source of oil.

This is definitely the kind of ally Washington is looking for and should be interested in maintaining. Yet supporting Gutiérrez will not be easy. After all, he heads a country that has had five presidents in the last six years and forcibly removed the last two it democratically elected.

Gutiérrez came to power with the help of Ecuador's politically potent Indian voters. Yet numerous analysts contend that his first month in office has exposed the weakness of that coalition. The Pachakutik indigenous movement has had an especially tough time accepting the economic reforms required to obtain IMF support, but Gutiérrez asserted that his political marriage with the movement would continue ``until death do us part.''

That, obviously, remains to be seen. Just as it remains to be seen whether Gutiérrez's gambit to ally himself so closely with Washington is worth the doubts and suspicions he has already raised in his country.

The Bush administration can help demonstrate to Ecuadorans that its interests go beyond a security alliance. By backing Gutiérrez's social agenda, including his fight against corruption and his crusade against poverty, Washington could prove itself to be a true ally.

In play, after all, is not only the future of Ecuador but also the need to ensure that the winds of change sweeping across the region will remain gentle and positive.

www.asahi.com

War on Iraq is sure to have an economic impact.

After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the United States helped restore Kuwait's oil fields and U.S. oil companies thus gained influence there.

Tension is growing over the possibility of an attack on Iraq. In Europe, opposition to military action against Iraq probably stems from skepticism about the U.S. rush to war. Some skeptics suggest the war is intended to bring Iraq's oil interests under American control.

The U.S. line is that a war is necessary to get Iraq to give up its presumed weapons of mass destruction. We do not believe the United States would wage a war solely over oil interests. But it is also true that war would have a decisive impact on economic conditions that involve Middle East oil.

U.S. President George W. Bush's administration, which includes several people with ties to the oil industry, has begun to shift its diplomatic policy on natural resources. Especially striking has been the way the U.S. government has approached its relations with Saudi Arabia, long a central element of U.S. Middle East policy, since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack.

Since more than half the Sept. 11 hijackers hailed from Saudi Arabia, an anti-Saudi attitude has gained some ground in the United States. And Saudi Arabia's political regime is hardly a democracy. In the medium and long terms, there is no assurance of political stability in Saudi Arabia.

Iraq is a major oil producer, with the world's largest proven reserves after those of Saudi Arabia. If the United States could bring Iraq within its control, it could be less energy-dependent upon Saudi Arabia. After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the United States helped restore Kuwait's oil fields and U.S. oil companies thus gained influence there. That could be another reason an attack on Iraq is assumed to be about oil.

The Council on Foreign relations, a New York-based think tank with considerable influence over U.S. foreign policy, recently published a report that points out Iraq's oil belongs to Iraqis and proposes a policy approach after Saddam Hussein that, among other things, advocates creation of an international organization with the Iraqis to restore and develop Iraq's oil fields.

One interpretation is that the authors of the council report, conscious of the suspicions the U.S. is intent on a war with Iraq over oil interests, specifically framed that proposal.

Countries with misgivings about war with Iraq also have oil interests in mind. Russia and China have oil-extraction contracts with Saddam Hussein's government. They are involved in dealing oil that Iraq exports under the United Nations economic sanctions. France is also negotiating with Iraq over oil-production rights.

Some critics go so far as to take the view that these countries would not continue to resist an attack if the United States were to promise to safeguard their oil interests in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.

Such maneuvering over oil interests attracts world attention because of the volatility of the oil market. What had long been a buyer's market has become a seller's market. On the supplier's side, there are concerns about the political stability of such large-scale oil exporters as Saudi Arabia or Venezuela still under a general strike. On the buyer's side, China, with its rapid economic growth, has become a big oil importer.

Oil prices are already up. And if an attack upon Iraq is followed by a drawn-out war or the oil fields are destroyed, prices will inevitably soar dramatically, draining the world economy.

Does Japan, the world's largest oil importer, with dependence upon Middle East oil growing year after year, dare to sit on the sidelines over what to do about Iraq?

--The Asahi Shimbun, Feb. 13(IHT/Asahi: February 14,2003)

www.thescotsman.co.uk GETHIN CHAMBERLAIN THE discovery of a live grenade in the luggage of a passenger arriving at Gatwick airport and the arrest of two people near Heathrow airport yesterday added to the state of heightened tension over the risk of an al-Qaeda terrorist attack on Britain.

The incidents came amid intense political wrangling in advance of today’s crucial meeting of the United Nations Security Council in New York, with the United States and Britain urging other nations to hold their nerve and claiming the discovery that Iraq possessed long-range missiles, in breach of UN resolutions, proved Baghdad was intent on defying the will of the international community.

The Home Office initially played down the grenade incident, claiming "it is not uncommon for people in airports to be discovered with some form of weaponry" and adding: "It doesn’t mean they are all al-Qaeda terrorists".

But David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, was quick to seize on the incident as proof Britain was facing a real terrorist threat.

He said: "It reinforces that we really do have a problem as people have been saying that it doesn’t exist."

Earlier, Mr Blunkett had repeated his warning that Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network posed a serious threat to the country’s security.

He warned: "We know that al-Qaeda will try to inflict loss of human life and damage on the UK."

The grenade was discovered in the luggage of a 37-year-old Venezuelan man who arrived from Bogata, in Colombia, yesterday afternoon on a British Airways Boeing 777 with 125 passengers on board.

BA said that although all baggage was screened before it was loaded on to its aircraft, the grenade was not detected until the man arrived at Customs at Gatwick.

The discovery prompted the immediate evacuation and closure of the airport’s north terminal and the man was taken to London for questioning by Metropolitan Police anti-terrorist officers.

But the Home Office said police needed time to assess "whether this was anything more than a lone individual carrying something he shouldn’t have been".

Venezuela is not noted as a hotbed of anti-western terrorism and although the Foreign Office advice on visiting the country includes warnings on kidnapping, piracy, street crime and an unstable political situation, it adds: "We are unaware of any evidence of a threat to western interests from terrorism in Venezuela."

The other arrests came after police stopped a car in Hounslow, near Heathrow airport, to question two men under anti-terrorism legislation . The pair were last night being questioned at a police station in west London.

With the international community split over the need for military action against Iraq, the US and Britain spent much of yesterday attempting to rally support for war in advance of the report by Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, to the Security Council.

George Bush, the US president, urged sceptical allies to "show backbone and courage" and stand up to Saddam Hussein. He said: "I believe when it’s all said and done, free nations will not allow the United Nations to fade into history as an ineffective, irrelevant debating society. I am optimistic that the UN Security Council will rise to its responsibilities and, this time, ensure enforcement of what it told Saddam Hussein he must do."

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said there could be "no illusions that this means disarmament by force". He said: "For the international community now to lose its nerve would significantly undermine the authority of the UN and make the world a much more dangerous place ."

And Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, said it would be highly significant if Mr Blix confirmed that Iraq had missiles with a longer range than permitted under previous UN resolutions.

"It indicates the futility of simply going on with more and more and more time, when it’s perfectly obvious they’re not co-operating," he said.

But Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi deputy prime minister, in Italy to meet the Pope, dismissed suggestions that Baghdad’s Al-Samoud II missiles breached UN rules and accused the US of planning to invade Iraq to dominate the Middle East and its oil.

Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, increased the pressure on Iraq, refusing to rule out the US use of nuclear weapons in any war. He told a Senate committee: "Our policy historically has been generally that we will not foreclose the possible use of nuclear weapons if attacked."

When Mr Blix delivers his report today, London and Washington will be looking for confirmation that Iraq remains in material breach of its obligations to disarm, but they face strong opposition from the anti-war camp within the UN by France and Germany, who could block a fresh Security Council resolution authorising military intervention.

NATO, too, remained split, putting on hold its wrangling over how and when to offer Turkey assistance in defending itself from Iraqi attack in the even of war until after the Security Council meeting.

Meanwhile, Jack McConnell, the First Minister, moved to reassure the Scottish public, insisting that while the UK as a whole remained at risk, Scotland did not face any specific terrorist threat.

sg.biz.yahoo.com Friday February 14, 3:51 AM (MORE) Dow Jones Newswires 02-13-03 1341ET By David Bird Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- U.S. crude oil imports from Venezuela dropped by 55% in December from November to just 652,000 barrels a day, the lowest level since May 1991, as an oil workers strike slashed the flow from the U.S. fourth-biggest foreign supplier, early data show.

But preliminary figures from the Energy Information Administration show imports from Saudi Arabia and Mexico rose sharply to cover for some of the lost Venezuelan supplies.

Preliminary data from oil-importing companies show crude imports from Saudi Arabia rose by 23% from November to 1.815 million b/d, the most for any month since August 2001.

Crude imports from Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer and exporter, were up 33.75% from a year earlier.

The Saudis were the top supplier in December and - for the fifth straight year - were the biggest supplier for all of 2002, the data show, with U.S. crude imports for the month and the year down from a year earlier.

December crude imports were 8.619 million b/d, the company data show, down 2.5% from a year earlier. Full year 2002 figures were down 3% at 9.045 million b/d, the latest preliminary figures show. EIA has published other preliminary data showing December and 2002 slightly higher, at 8.844 million b/d and 9.066 million b/d, respectively.

Mexico, which was the second-biggest source of U.S. foreign crude supplies in both December and all of 2002, posted records for both periods.

U.S. December crude imports from Mexico jumped 13.3% from November, to 1.734 million b/d and were up 11.3% from December 2001. For the full year, crude imports from Mexico averaged a record 1.483 million b/d, up 6.4%.

Mexico supplied 19.6% of U.S. crude imports in December, up from 16% in November, and the highest monthly share since November 1985.

(MORE) Dow Jones Newswires

02-13-03 1427ET

US Dec Venezuela Crude Imports Down 55% Versus Nov - EIA -3

Canada was the third-biggest source of foreign crude in December and for all of 2002. December crude imports averaged 1.490 million b/d, little changed from 1.485 million b/d in November and up from 1.408 million b/d a year earlier.

Full-year crude imports from Canada were up 5.8% at 1.434 million b/d.

Despite the severe cut in volume, Venezuela held its usual spot as the fourth-largest crude oil supplier in December.

Caracas held a share of just 7.4% of U.S. crude imports in December, its lowest level since July 1989 and less than half the 15% share in November.

Full-year crude imports from Venezuela averaged 1.195 million b/d, down 7.4% from the 2001 level and was the lowest since 1999.

Combined December crude oil and petroleum products imports from Venezuela plunged 51% from November, to 778,000 b/d, and were the lowest since June 1989.

Crude imports from Nigeria in December averaged 625,000 b/d, up from 556,000 b/d in November and 579,000 b/d a year earlier.

But full-year crude imports from the fifth-largest supplier plunged to 566,000 b/d from 842,000 b/d, the lowest annual level since 1987, EIA data show.

Crude oil imports from Iraq dipped to 366,000 b/d in December from 380,000 b/d in November and were down a huge 67.5% from 1.126 million b/d in December 2001 as tensions heightened over a possible U.S. war with Baghdad.

Full-year 2002 crude oil imports from Iraq dropped 44.3% to 443,000 b/d from 795,000 b/d, the lowest level since 1998.

Under an exemption to United Nations sanctions, Iraq is allowed to sell crude oil under a U.N.-monitored program which oversees the use of the oil-sale revenues. U.S. oil companies buy the Iraqi crude from foreign companies who hold contracts with Baghdad.

(MORE) Dow Jones Newswires

02-13-03 1451ET