www.vheadline.com Posted: Sunday, February 16, 2003 By: Chile Veloz

Venezuelan radio personality Chile Veloz writes: I have always thought that I am not the ideal person to counsel others ... or to call others to reason ... or to conciliate ... although many people might believe otherwise. However, this time, and only this time, I am going to give advise ... I am going to call to reason, I am going to conciliate. =

What is happening is a mystery to no one, on the contrary, waves of anguish, rage, sadness and anger, of all those feelings human beings are capable of showing when things corner us, overtake us and crush us, in other words, when the rules of the game are changed without any explanations.

Let's go back. Our first error was not having permitted Carlos Andres Perez to complete his second period. This allowed for the puppet, Ramon Velasquez, to be designated for a brief period, to be able to call for elections ... the same elections that served as tribune for the ominous Rafael Caldera to be glorified with his discourse before the Congress, after David Morales Bello had asked for the heads of the 'golpistas' (coup plotters).

Do you remember? With his discourse, Caldera, practically saved Chavez from a sure death, physically and politically ... and more so ... to pay him back for the immense favor of having helped him reach his second mandate.  Caldera liberated Chavez and restored all of his rights, which in turn helped him to rise up as 'savior' of the country ...then (Chavez) asking for the retreat of the one who had been his political benefactor, in other words, to Caldera.

Isn't it true that this is more or less how things happened?

I continue. When Chavez calls for the next elections and wins them ... where were we, those who now disagree with him? I'll give you an example to show where we were. Imagine that you live in a building where there are 24 apartments. On the bulletin board of your building, you are called to a meeting of the members of the condominium, which will take place, for instance, on Tuesday at 8:00 p.m., and you (for whatever reason) do not show up…

A few days later, there's another announcement, calling for another meeting because other people, as you yourself, did not show up at the first meeting.

The next meeting is scheduled for Friday at 8:00 p.m., and you, as many others, do not come ... or just forgets ... or goes to the movies ... or just does not give any importance to it…

This is how, as per the condominium statutes, a third meeting is called for Sunday at the same time, and, according to the statutes, with whatever number of people attending (which could be three or four) it is agreed to paint your building in a bright green color with purple dots…

Then, you go out to work on Monday and when you come back home at night, you find that your dear building has been painted in a bright green color with purple dots…

Your indignation and rage has no way to stop it ... you go up to ring the door bell of the president of the condominium board and complain: "what the heck is this? Do you think this is the Gasca Brothers' Circus?"

Without even allowing the condominium president to respond, you insult him, and push him around and you threaten to sue him, ruin him, with whatever we always threaten … but you have not taken the time to think that you had three opportunities to vote to oppose, to advise, to call to reason, to conciliate, and did not use those opportunities as your combat weapon, YOU WERE SIMPLY NOT THERE TO VOTE…

This, my dear friend, this is Venezuela ... the same Venezuela that called us the tenants, the apartment owners, its citizens, to three condominium meetings ... and we did not go, we did not answer its call, we did not come to its rescue when it asked for help ... and now my dear friends, dear fellow Venezuelans, Venezuela, my Venezuela, your Venezuela, our Venezuela is painted in a bright green color with purple dots ... and now, what do we do?

At this point, nobody misses a condominium meeting (a.k.a. marches) and meeting after meeting we wonder when would it be possible to repaint our country in yellow, blue and red and decorate it with stars?  This is the dilemma, the grand question.

We could say that, if we were absent from the condominium meetings for over 40 years, well, as punishment we will have to wait another 40 years or more for everything to get back to what once was … but that is definitely a very pessimistic way of thinking. I believe that, in order to see things more optimistically, we must tell ourselves that we have learned our lesson and we have learned it in the hardest possible way: with the loss of human lives, wounded people, with a country economically and industrially ruptured, with a country agonizing of itself, with the lowest self-esteem in the world, with an embarrassment that faces us every single day when we see less and less cars on the streets, less consumer goods in the markets, less smiles on the faces, more tears in the lives and more hatred in the hearts. Of course, with this scenario there are actors who prefer the EXIT stage right (we already have more than enough of the left) and pack up their belongings and leave.

Certainly, that's a solution ... a very comfortable one ... but a solution nonetheless, but (the “buts” of always) not all of us -- who are majority -- can do that; therefore, we have to stay ... moreover I would say must stay, and why?

Not to be too much of an advisor, I will share with you the reasons which as Segeant Hunter used to say (remember the police series on TV?) “WORK FOR ME”: One reason could be; I stay because it is here where I have everything that I have: my house, my son, my family, my friends, my job, my things, my roots … and all of these might sound quite sentimental … but … to continue…

Another one could be; that if in an epoch we: greens, whites, reds, blues and all other colors of the spectrum were capable of living together, but not mixed up, with a certain level of peace, in a very sus generis harmony, very tropical, then I do not see why we could not go back to that … and this way, I could make a long list of reasons -- some more credible than others -- to explain to you why I do stay, but in the end, I believe that only one reason is valid:

I stay just because! I stay here because this is my country, my nation, my land ... and it will be that of my son and of his sons, and that is how it should be.  This is why I am not willing to leave it to those who do not deserve it, those who have made of her (here is the joke) a building painted in bright green color with purple dots…

Think that this is the only country that we have, and, if compared with others, we are a country; beautiful like no other, with richness like no other, with a territory to be developed like very few, with good people (because Yes, there are) with its own, unique and intimate, dearly and beautiful flavors, colors and scents.

If what I write here can help you think of whether to stay or to leave, then it was worth writing. Lastly, if your decision is to leave, please, I don't want to hear you complain, about anything, or anybody ... do not talk about Cuba because you are doing what Cubans did : they left their country alone. The resistance is here, now and forever. How long is it going to take? I do not know ... I wish I knew ... but whatever the length, it would make more pleasant the flavor of the triumph for those of us who were here when a condominium meeting was called.

I will finish here with one of those phrases that one would have liked to have thought of, but you see, in the world there are people who have lived situations like these and worse and are still capable of saying: “Victory is to those who believe in it the longest!"

Chile Veloz chveloz@927fmtotal.com

Note: If you know someone who has not attended the condominium meetings, copy this and give it to him/her, and tell them to remember that it is his/her fault if the building is painted in a bright green color with purple dots.  To never again fail to vote ... that this is not the time to complain, and that each time s/he is called again to vote ... to go and vote; that because by not voting, this is why we are now all painted bright green color with horrible purple dots.

www.boston.com By Maria Cristina Caballero, 2/16/2003

ON FEB. 7, 12-year-old Camila Garcia was having dinner with her parents, her brother, and her 4-year-old sister at El Nogal, an exclusive club in Bogota. At 8:05 p.m., an explosion from a car bomb abruptly separated them. Sixteen hours later, Camila was rescued from the rubble. Her brother survived, too. But their parents and sister were dead.

Camila became a symbol because all Colombians could identify with the girl's struggle for life. She was mangled in the wreckage, brain injured and bones broken, her leg destroyed, so that doctors had to amputate it. Thirty-two people were killed and 162 injured by the car bomb.

Terrorism. Colombians have seen its tragic faces. This recent bombing, the first that targeted the Colombian business elite, is the country's worst urban terrorist attack in a decade. The Colombian government blamed the FARC, the country's largest guerrilla group; Defense Minister Martha Ramirez stated that it was a sophisticated operation that probably received assistance from foreign terrorists.

This was the latest in a series of bombings launched this year since 70 US Green Berets arrived in Arauca, a Colombian state bordering Venezuela: Five car bombs have terrorized Araucans and killed 14 people there. The US troops arrived to train Colombian troops assigned to protect the Cano Limon oil pipeline, which was bombed by rebels 166 times in 2001 and 34 times last year. The pipeline is partly owned by US-based Occidental Petroleum Co. The Green Berets are barred from participating in Colombian combats. But their captain, Lawrence Ferguson, disagrees with those restrictions. He told Reuters: ''Look at Afghanistan. The reason it was successful is that we worked with local troops, all the way.''

Anne Paterson, US ambassador to Colombia, warned in October: ''Sooner or later, official Americans will be killed in Colombia carrying out their duties; when that happens, it will be big news.'' Indeed, last Thursday, a US government plane carrying four Americans and a Colombian crashed in rebel territory in southern Colombia. Two bodies were found; three men were kidnapped by rebels.

Meanwhile, the battles in Arauca have been intensifying as different factions seek to control this oil-rich region. Colombia is the ninth largest provider of oil to the United States. About 6,500 local soldiers will be trained by the Americans, marking the first time the United States is openly training Colombians to fight rebels rather than for eradicating coca crops.

The Bush administration's 2003 foreign aid request to Congress included the first significant nondrug military aid to Colombia since the Cold War: $98 million to protect the pipeline, including 10 helicopters and weapons. While the 2003 foreign aid bill awaits debate, the Bush administration released $6 million to start the pipeline program. If all the aid is approved, Colombia's security forces will get more than $100 million more in 2003 than they did in 2002, and the pipeline program accounts for most of that increase. Democratic US Representative Gene Taylor of Mississippi said, ''It is insane for this nation to spend $98 million to protect a pipeline that Occidental owns with American lives.'' Newsweek has noted that this might be what liberals call ''corporate welfare.''

As the United States worries about Colombian oil and other ''strategic points,'' there is still the matter of what to do about Colombia's crumbling democracy. Plan Colombia - a $2 billion US package aimed mainly at eradicating coca crops - has not achieved its goal. The overall amount of coca grown in Colombia is about 150,000 hectares: three times as much as it was when the US began large-scale crop-spraying in 1996. And, as Minister Ramirez points out, ''The massive consumption of cocaine in the United States and Europe finances the attacks against innocents by Colombian illegal groups.''

So Colombia's terrorism problem is intertwined with US interests. Oil and drugs are two of the most volatile commodities on the planet, causing endless conflicts. As the United States tries to keep one flowing and stop the flow of the other, more tragedies are certain. It is time to evaluate the US policies toward Colombia, to see how the United States can do more to strengthen all institutions, which ultimately should undermine the growing threat from violent groups. In the meantime, in the new age of warfare, casualties are more likely to be civilians like 12-year-old Camila Garcia, an orphaned child struggling to survive in a world gone mad.

Maria Cristina Caballero is a Colombian journalist and a fellow at the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government.

This story ran on page E11 of the Boston Globe on 2/16/2003.

www.sfgate.com Robert Collier, Chronicle Staff Writer Sunday, February 16, 2003

Ras Tanura, Saudi Arabia -- Pipes, ducts, tanks, towers and an infinite variety of refining, storage and shipping facilities stretch for miles along the desert seashore, resonating with a low, almost imperceptible hum.

This is the heart of the Saudi oil empire, an empire that has made the conservative kingdom an indispensable U.S. ally in the Mideast.

To talk about the place is to make superlatives seem almost banal -- Ras Tanura is the world's largest petroleum products export facility, owned by the world's largest oil firm, in a nation that is the world's largest petroleum producer.

But Saudis are worried that their empire may soon be eclipsed by a powerful new challenger rising out of the ashes of war -- Iraq.

If a U.S.-led invasion succeeds in overthrowing Saddam Hussein's government and installing a pro-American regime in Baghdad, Iraq's immense, largely untapped oil wealth will be opened to foreign investment and the country could become the major economic powerhouse in the region, casting a long shadow over Saudi Arabia.

"If the United States takes over Iraq and Iraqi production rises dramatically, Saudi Arabia will lose position in the market and political influence with the United States," said a strategic planning executive for Saudi Aramco, the state-owned oil monopoly.

Such an outcome would be a triumph for the growing anti-Saudi lobby in Washington, which notes that the country produced Osama bin Laden and 15 of the Sept. 11 hijackers, and whose religious charities have funded a variety of extremist anti-Western groups.

"If Iraq gets a democratic government open to foreign investment, there would be an alternate source of oil supply to (that of) the Saudis, so we wouldn't have to defer to their blackmail, their use of the (oil) revenues that we give them for activities that are very jihadist and dangerous," said Frank Gaffney, a Pentagon adviser and president of the Center for Security Policy, a Washington think tank.

In public declarations, Saudi officials insist they are not worried about Iraqi competition. "We hope there will be enough demand to absorb new production, whether it be from the Caspian or West Africa or Iraq," said Abdulatif Al-Othman, the executive director of Saudi Aramco. "The more the merrier."

But privately, many Saudi officials wring their hands.

"Saudi Aramco doesn't like this, but of course we can't talk about it," said the company's planning executive, who wished to remain anonymous. "Some analysts say Iraq could eventually become No. 1."

Iraq has 113 billion barrels of proven reserves, second only to Saudi Arabia's 262 billion barrels. Iraq's potential remains largely unexplored because of the disruption of the past two decades of war and economic sanctions. The U.S. Energy Department estimates that Iraq has as much as an additional 220 billion barrels in undiscovered reserves, bringing the Iraqi total to the equivalent of 98 years of current U.S. annual oil imports.

FOREIGN OIL COMPANIES

It is widely assumed that U.N. economic sanctions would be quickly lifted after the ouster of the Hussein regime and that the new U.S.-installed government would invite foreign oil companies into Iraq.

"Iraq cannot do without opening to foreign investors," said Fadhil Chalabi, executive director of the Center for Global Energy Studies, a think tank in London.

Chalabi's career includes stints as secretary-general of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and Iraqi deputy minister of petroleum. He is considered a leading candidate to be installed as czar of Iraq's energy industry in a postwar administration that is certain to be heavily influenced, if not directly run, by the U.S. government.

Chalabi also is a leading proponent of selling off the state-owned Iraqi oil industry to foreign investors. "Without privatization, there is no hope for the oil industry to solve the country's dire economic and social situation, " he said in an interview with The Chronicle.

Chalabi points out that the new government will desperately need quick cash.

The cost of rebuilding the country will be sky-high, as much as $100 billion, according to some estimates.

So far, there's little American public support for spending U.S. tax dollars on Iraq's reconstruction, and it's unlikely that Arab and European nations will foot the bill, as they did in the 1991 Gulf War, particularly if a new war is not backed by another U.N. Security Council resolution.

As a result, analysts say, most of the cost will have to be borne from Iraqi oil revenues.

When added to Iraq's $120 billion foreign debt -- much of it left over from the 1980-88 war against Iran -- the result is a huge burden.

Chalabi estimates that if the best-case scenario holds -- a quick victory by U.S. forces and little damage to the country's oil fields -- Iraq could raise its production from the current level of 2.8 million barrels per day to 7 million barrels per day by 2008. Eventually, he says, Iraqi output will top 10 million barrels per day, more than Saudi Arabia's.

'A LOT OF FANTASY'

But Robert Mabro, director of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, cautions that "there is a lot of fantasy going around" about Iraq's oil future.

"It depends on many factors. Will Saddam blow up the oil fields in the first days of the invasion? Will he shoot missiles at Kuwait's oil installations? How much damage will be done during the war, and how long will it last? It's too speculative."

In part because of these uncertainties, accusations that oil is a leading motive behind the Bush administration's drive toward war are wrong, in the view of many analysts.

"If we just wanted to grab Iraq's oil, we would just get rid of the sanctions and do business with Saddam, who would be more than willing to sell his oil to us," said Gaffney. "And if we just wanted cheap oil, we'd invade Venezuela."

What seems more certain is that in the short term, a war with Iraq will cause at least a moderate jump in oil prices -- although less of a jump than expected only a month ago. At that time, Venezuela was paralyzed by anti- government protests that shut down its oil exports, the fifth highest in the world. If Iraq's production had been taken off the world market at the same time as the Venezuela shutdown, prices could have spiked to $50 per barrel or more, driving American gasoline prices well above $2 per gallon.

Now, with Venezuela's production expected to be back near normal next month -- assuming there are no further political disruptions -- the "Iraq effect" will be more moderate, oil experts say, perhaps a rise to $40 per barrel, unless Kuwait's exports are affected.

PRICE WARS

In the long run, as increased Iraqi production enters the market, prices could be driven down as far as the low teens by a price war between Iraq and Saudi Arabia, according to Fareed Mohamedi, chief economist of Petroleum Finance Co., a Washington consulting firm.

"Rather than sticking within their quota and give up their market share to the Iraqis and others, the Saudis are likely to increase production to drive down prices to push other high-cost producers off the market," Mohamedi said.

However, such a price war is likely to result in decreased revenues for the Saudis, which could lead to social instability in a country that has already experienced sharp drops in living standards since the highs of the 1980s, along with increasing levels of joblessness. Unemployment is likely to grow further because of the country's high birth rate and its reliance on low-wage laborers from Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Yemen.

"An oil price crash would be painful here, no matter how much the government has in foreign assets," said Brad Bourland, chief economist at the Saudi American Bank in Riyadh.

Still, Saudi Arabia may be better positioned to weather an oil price war than almost any oil-producing nation, including Iraq, say energy analysts. Its cost of production is believed to be less than $1 per barrel, and Saudi Aramco enjoys a sterling reputation among buyers worldwide as reliable and quality conscious.

"For those advocating a rapid restructuring of the Iraqi oil sector with massive foreign investment resulting in rapidly growing output levels, the unintended consequences could be much lower oil prices, lower oil revenues for the new government in Baghdad and a host of political problems around the world," said Mohamedi.

Ironically, Saudi Arabia and its neighbors could emerge stronger than ever from "regime change" in Iraq. Many analysts say that because of price wars and dwindling oil reserves in other regions, the Persian Gulf's share of the world's crude oil supply -- currently about 25 percent -- could rise to as much as 40 percent over the next decade.

"For those who see Iraq as a means to lessen dependence on the Saudis, in the end the world might become more dependent on Saudi oil," Mohamedi said. "So much for supply diversity as a policy."

E-mail Robert Collier at rcollier@sfchronicle.com.

www.sfgate.com Larry Habegger, James O'Reilly, Special to The Chronicle   Sunday, February 16, 2003

Middle East/worldwide: In the context of a possible war with Iraq, the State Department has renewed its "Worldwide Caution" public announcement reminding travelers of security risks to Americans throughout the world. It

also issued travel warnings for several countries in the Middle East and authorized the departure of dependents and nonemergency personnel at U.S. embassies and consulates in Israel, Jordan,

Lebanon and Syria. The U.S. Interests Section at the Polish Embassy in Baghdad has been temporarily closed, and no consular services are available to Americans in Iraq.

India: Rajasthan state might be moving toward the Hindu-Muslim violence that has plagued nearby Gujarat the past couple of years. The state government intends to ban the traditional Hindu religious icon, the trident, supposedly to protect Muslims. Hindu organizations have vowed to fight it. Increasing Hindu-Muslim tensions have been increasing and could ignite at any time, especially if the ban goes into effect.

Laos: A bus and other vehicles traveling on Route 13 north of Vang Vieng on the way to Luang Prabang, in an area populated by the Hmong ethnic group, were attacked by about 25 men armed with automatic weapons and grenades Feb. 6. At least 12 people were killed, including two passing cyclists believed to be Swiss citizens, and 26 were wounded. The attackers were reported to have been speaking the Hmong language. A Hmong insurgency had been active in the area through the mid-1990s, and the highway north of Vang Vieng had been the site of occasional attacks in the late 1990s, but the road has been heavily traveled and considered safe for the past two years.

Venezuela: After many months of unrest and more than two months of strikes trying to force President Hugo Chavez to resign, the strike has been lifted except in the oil industry, and peace talks mediated by the Organization of American States continue.

For updates, contact the State Department via phone (202- 647-5225), fax (202-647-3000) or Internet (travel.state.gov). Habegger and O'Reilly are the editors of the San Francisco-based book series Travelers' Tales

www.vheadline.com Posted: Sunday, February 16, 2003 By: Patrick J. O'Donoghue

US Congressmen belonging to the so-called Boston Group have arrived to push for dialogue in Venezuela's National Assembly (AN).  Congressman Cass Ballenger, whose voice had been noticeably absent during the critical months leading up to the national stoppage, has given his blessing to the efforts of Organization of American States (OAS) general secretary Cesar Gaviria … “we support any imitative that allows dialogue and stops people from shouting at each other.”

Proyecto Venezuela (PV) Assemblyman Pedro Diaz and Movimiento Quinta Republica (MVR) Assemblyman Calixto Ortega agree to make the National Assembly (AN) a hub of democratic discussion and consensus.

• Both Assemblymen forecast early elections and have announced that members of the Boston Group are committed to promoting national reconciliation.

US Congress Venezuelan Caucus members, William Delahunt and Gregory Meeks say they hope to meet President Hugo Chavez Frias, even though a formal meeting is not part of the visitor’s agenda.