www.voanews.com VOA News 27 Feb 2003, 23:13 UTC

Venezuelan authorities say a device has exploded near the home of Colombia's ambassador in Caracas.

Investigators say the blast happened Thursday, 40 meters from the home of Ambassador Maria Angela Holguin. The explosion damaged nearby buildings, but there were no immediate reports of injuries.

The trouble comes two days after twin explosions ripped through Colombia's consulate in Caracas, and the Spanish Embassy there.

At least four people were injured in the attacks that supporters and opponents of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez have blamed on each other.

Two days before the Colombian and Spanish diplomatic missions were attacked, President Chavez accused Colombia, Spain and the United States of meddling in his country's internal affairs. The U.S. embassy in Caracas also closed for one day Thursday after receiving a threat.

The three nations had expressed concern about the recent arrest of a Venezuelan business leader, Carlos Fernandez, who helped organize a two-month general strike against Mr. Chavez. The two-month walkout was aimed at forcing the Venezuelan president to resign and call early elections.

Venezuela's government and the U.S. State Department have condemned the attacks on the diplomatic missions.

In a related development, the Reuters news agency says the six-member "Group of Friends" of Venezuela will meet in Brasilia March 10 in another bid to help the troubled Andean nation resolve its political crisis.

Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Portugal, Spain and the United States comprise the group that was formed several weeks ago to help facilitate a dialogue between Venezuela's government and opposition.

Thursday, February 27, 2003 · Last updated 3:57 p.m. PT By H. JOSEF HEBERT ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- Venezuela's energy minister gave an optimistic forecast Thursday for resumption of oil shipments to the United States, saying the country was expected to boost production to 2.4 million barrels within a few weeks.

Rafael Ramirez, Venezuela's minister in charge of energy and mines, told a conference that oil production, at a virtual standstill in January, recovered dramatically in February.

Ramirez briefed Energy Department officials and said they were "pleasantly surprised by our recovery."

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham told a Senate hearing Wednesday that while the crisis in Venezuela appeared to be ending, it could take 60 to 90 days before oil imports from the South American country would get back to normal.

Energy Department spokeswoman Jeanne Lopatto declined to characterize the meeting. "We appreciated their sharing the information with us," she said.

Ramirez estimated that Venezuela was exporting about 1.5 million barrels a day, about half its average daily export last year. He also said gasoline exports from Venezuelan refineries were likely to resume in mid-March.

The Venezuelan government's past assessments on the recovery of the country's oil industry have been disputed by critics, who have said they are overly optimistic.

Political turmoil and strikes beginning in December paralyzed the industry and brought Venezuela's oil exports to a halt.

The shutoff of Venezuelan supplies - along with nervousness about a possible war with Iraq - have caused crude oil prices, as well as the cost of gasoline and heating oil, to soar.

The world's fifth largest oil producer, Venezuela is a major source of oil for the United States, accounting for about 14 percent of U.S. oil imports last year, or about 1.3 million barrels of crude and refined gasoline.

During a meeting Thursday at Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington group specializing in Western Hemisphere affairs, Ramirez said oil shipments in the eastern part of Venezuela have nearly gotten back to normal in recent weeks. He said ExxonMobil and Valero Energy are inspecting shipping facilities in anticipation of resuming shipments into the United States.

Ramirez said his government expects oil production to reach the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries' quota by the end of the month. He said production has risen from 150,000 barrels a day in early January to just over 2 million barrels a day. He said production is expected to reach 2.9 million barrels a day by the end of March.

www.dailytimes.com.pk

By Khalid Hasan WASHINGTON: Pakistan signalled to the United States on Wednesday that it will back a new resolution on disarming Iraq, according to an exclusive report in the Los Angeles Times. The report described it as “a major boost from an Islamic nation that could help swing wavering votes on the Security Council,” quoting US and Pakistani officials. Daily Times was unable to obtain confirmation of the reported decision from officials at Pakistan’s permanent mission to the United Nations. “We are very good allies of the United States and value our relationship and want to see that blossom,” a senior Pakistani official told the Los Angeles Times. “The issue of Iraq will not become a problem between us.” “Pakistan’s decision came as Mexico also signalled its potential backing, and as the United States intensified the diplomatic squeeze for key votes from the council’s African and Latin American members. US diplomats hope that building up a bloc of support will put pressure on France and Russia not to veto the resolution, which would allow the use of force against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein,” said the Los Angeles Times report. Pakistan’s private signal of potential support could mark a turning point, US officials said Wednesday. Besides adding an important vote, its critical decision could prevent any move to create a bloc among the 10 rotating members of the council. Six of the 10, including Pakistan, have discussed group abstention, which would cause a resolution to fail if the permanent members can’t find common ground. The intention, they have said, would be to preserve the council’s moral authority. The report said that the decision has not been easy for Islamabad, which has favoured giving the process more time and working through the United Nations. The government, already struggling to control anti-American sentiment, could face a popular backlash for supporting further action perceived to be against Islam. “We have public opinion very exercised about the plight of the Iraqi people, and we wouldn’t like them to suffer any more. But we have a firm position that Iraq must comply with the Security Council and Resolution 1441 and divest itself of weapons of mass destruction,” the senior Pakistani official who was not identified told the newspaper, referring to the November resolution that returned inspectors to Iraq. “It’ll help us politically to have UN inspectors come back and say Iraq is in final material breach,” a second official said. “But will the [Pakistani] government fall if this does not happen? No. A lot of American flags are being burnt, but we can weather that,” he added. The report noted that the economic backlash is a greater immediate concern in Islamabad, Pakistanis say. About 70 percent of Pakistan’s imported oil comes from the nearby Persian Gulf, mainly Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. Instability in the region could have severe repercussions, and Pakistan would need help if the supply were cut off. “We don’t have Venezuela and Mexico nearby to back us up,” the second Pakistani official said. Despite the potential political and economic cost to the government, Pakistani officials insisted that the United States did not offer President Pervez Musharraf any deals in exchange for his country’s vote. “We are not asking any price for our support. The US has not leaned on us. We have a principled position. We’re aware of each other’s point of view and agreed on what Iraq has to do,” the senior official said. The report said that the United States has been pressing its case in frequent contacts, and in the context of the importance of Iraq in Islamabad’s long-term relationship with Washington, according to other Pakistani sources. “The issue was not framed in terms of merely, ‘Are you with us or against us?’ It was more like, ‘Just how with us are you?’” said an additional Pakistani source.

www.vheadline.com Posted: Thursday, February 27, 2003 By: Julian Coningham

Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 22:33:14 +0000 From: Julian Coningham coninghams@hotmail.com To: Editor@VHeadline.com Subject: "placing" bombs in foreign embassies

Dear Editor: The idea that Mr, Chavez and/or his followers are "placing" bombs in foreign embassies does not make sense at all. If Mr. Castro, for example, is an ally of Mr. Chavez, etc., how come the Cuban Embassy was threatened with a bomb?

Brazil's too (Lula is a friend of Chavez). Also, when the Algerians decided to help the Venezuelan government re-start the oil industry (strike), the embassy was bombed.

In short, if we are to believe certain propaganda, Mr. Chavez & Co "bomb" their friends. CRAP.

We know that the opposition tried to enter by force into the Cuban embassy. Needless to say that they did not care that it was contrary to international law.

It is not in the interest of Venezuela's government to destabilize their government bombing foreign embassies. Consequently, since they are not so stupid, they would not place bombs to "blame the opposition."

The time has come to recognize that the opposition has a problem with criminals and terrorists (outlaws).

When a little innocent girl is injured, it is time to speak out against these criminal acts.

Finally, one thing is legitimate democratic opposition and another terrorism, etc.

regards Julian Coningham coninghams@hotmail.com

www.dailytimes.com.pk

Speaking at an informal summit of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) at Kuala Lumpur, the Malaysian prime minister, Mahathir Mohamed, said that the summit should consider using an oil embargo “to deter the United States from attacking Iraq”. Further elaborating the theme, he said that an oil embargo by the Islamic oil-producing nations could be resorted to “with regard to both the Palestine and Iraq”. But he was also careful to note that an embargo could prove to be a double-edged weapon, hurting the third world states more than the targeted United States. He clarified that the OIC had agreed “to think about the idea”. In the meanwhile, he recommended that the Islamic world should make common cause with the European states who were opposed to the war on Iraq. Mr Mahathir Mohamed must be thinking of a very sophisticated strategy of oil embargo that would neatly target only the United States and those siding with it and exclude those on the side of the Muslim world and its sympathisers. But even as far as the United States is concerned, it is likely to be affected by the embargo only partially. To be exact, only to the tune of 18 percent as that is the share of the Gulf in the American imports of oil. Today, the South Atlantic region supplies between 45 and 48 percent of oil imported by it. Combined with imports from Canada, the North Sea, South America (Venezuela and Mexico), Western East Africa (Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea, Angola and the Congo) the total non-Gulf oil represents 81 percent of the oil imported by the United States. During the Gulf War (1990-91) 27 percent of American oil had come from the Gulf. That could be one reason why the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) pledged never to use the oil weapon again and has not proposed an oil embargo in response to the continuing Israeli acts of wanton cruelty in Palestine. Only Iran has been calling for one and it even cut its production in April last year for a month to demonstrate its willingness to use the “oil weapon”. But if the OIC states decide to use the weapon now they will have to take a close look at what happened when it was used by them in 1973. Though ostensibly provoked by the Ramadan war, the embargo was not only against America but also against the entire industrially advanced world using cheap OPEC oil to keep their economies going. The price of crude oil climbed immediately from 2.5 dollars per barrel to 10 dollars and then went up to 40 dollars in the spot market. If the purpose at that time was to deprive the United States of oil, the strategy failed because the oil got to it nonetheless through third party importers. It benefited the American and Western manufacturers of high-technology goods and weapons as prices of such items were hitched up. However, Iran was able to afford the new prices of such imported commodities because income from oil rose considerably, and some observers think that Iran in fact was encouraged by some Western advisers to resort to the embargo to acquire enough income to be able to buy American arms. The Arab oil producers also saw their coffers fill up but most of the new “petrodollars” found their way into banks in the West to slake the region’s thirst for weapons and luxuries. As Mr Mahathir Mohamed said, the crunch came on the poor third world countries which could neither afford the 40 dollar per barrel oil nor buy the Western capital goods at the new inflated prices. Pakistan was one of the countries that went belly-up: it had to massively devalue its currency, causing the industrial sector to collapse and borrowers to default on loans. As oil prices went up in 1974, alternative sources to oil became economically viable. The West, armed with nuclear technology, converted to nuclear power and opened up the heretofore uneconomical offshore wells in the North Sea. In 1980, OPEC collapsed under the burden of its own embargo when the prices collapsed below 10 dollars per barrel and there was a glut in the market created by buyers building up huge reserves. What happened to the “petrodollars” is another sad story. Enriched with oil money, Iraq fell upon an Islamic revolutionary Iran and spent billions of dollars borrowed from the similarly enriched Gulf states to prosecute a war that is believed to have cost over 160 billion dollars. Embargo-enriched Iran suffered a fall in oil production that it still has not regained and is today dogged by economic problems incidental to non-oil producing third world states. After the 1991 Gulf war, the oil producers now being asked to go for another embargo were further impoverished and their leader Saudi Arabia was forced to borrow billions of dollars to meet its budget deficits. In 1973, the Islamic states had 70 percent of the world oil market; today they have 40 percent of it, and that 40 percent mostly includes states that don’t support attack on Iraq. An oil embargo will not work but a cutback in oil production will definitely jolt the world market. The crunch will also come on the “potential” oil producers in the Islamic world now struggling to bring themselves on line on the Caspian littoral. Foreign capital and technology will converge again on these Central Asian and Caucasian republics and effectively wean them away from any collective OIC decision to resort to a new oil embargo. Therefore our advice to Mr Mahatir is: Let’s not think of such ideas. *