www.thenassauguardian.com

Not surprisingly, oil prices are climbing, due to instability in Venezuela and the Persian Gulf.

Last week, the price of a barrel of crude reached almost $40, the highest since 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, and about 69 per cent higher than last year.

According to the New York Times, "every time oil prices have risen by at least 60 per cent since World War II, a recession has occurred in the United States, with the exception of a one-month blip in oil prices in 1987."

Higher prices for crude oil have a multiplying effect that flows through the global economy, raising the costs of transportation, production, heating, and other activities. Energy costs are the single most significant indicator of economic trends.

And once again, airlines are being hit hard. The Times reported that American Airlines, a major carrier to The Bahamas, will spend more than $200 million extra on fuel this quarter than in the same period last year. Analysts are predicting that oil costs will soon force American to file for bankruptcy protection.

But how this will affect the Bahamian tourism industry is anyone's guess at the moment, because the politicians responsible for managing our economy are not talking.

Perhaps they are counting on government price controls to resolve the problem.

3/4/03

www.anacortesonline.com

A new column from Brent Stavig --  

Now that the “war” with Iraq is inevitable and appears to be only a scant few weeks away, I think it’s a safe assumption that most Americans have decided where they stand on the issue. The polls indicate that the majority of Americans are supportive of a “war” with Iraq. But the voices of those who are opposed are still loud and strong.

These two groups have very defined reasons behind their support or disapproval of the pending conflict. Those in support see Saddam Hussein as a grave danger to America and the rest of the “free” world. They believe Bush’s assertion that Saddam is hiding vast arsenals of biological and chemical weapons and stands poised to use them whenever he sees fit.

Those who oppose the war see little evidence that Saddam has much of anything that can threaten America or the countries that border Iraq. They also see the enormously powerful American military; guided by the hand of the Bush administration, ready to pummel an entire country of innocent people because America disapproves of a single individual.

Much like the seemingly never-ending debate about abortion, the pending “war” in Iraq has created a line in the sand for most Americans; you’re either for it, or against it, and no amount of sound bites and U.N. speeches will sway either side’s opinion. But I get the feeling that there is a large percentage of Americans, who aren’t represented in polls, who are simply sick and tired of hearing about the issue. How many days can we wake up, turn on the news, and hear more rhetoric from Washington about Saddam not “complying”? How many more newspaper articles about the threatening yet invisible “weapons of mass destruction” can we stomach before we start throwing away Section A and reaching in haste for the Sports Section? How many inane and pointless speeches by President Bush, again and again calling on Saddam (not Iraq) to disarm can we be subjected to before we decide to simply shut Bush out?

The thing that bothers most people I know about Bush’s anti-Saddam rhetoric, is that it never quite makes a concrete or legitimate point. Surely President Bush must be getting frustrated that a large percentage of the American people simply aren’t buying his arguments for attacking Iraq? If there were a clear and obvious danger to America, wouldn’t it be painfully obvious to all of us? Would it really be necessary to try and convince us over and over? If America truly felt threatened by Saddam’s vast arsenal of chemical weapons wouldn’t we be cheering on the Commander-in-Chief with unbridled vigor and “patriotism”?

President Bush has tried to scare the American people into supporting the coming “war”. The Code Orange alerts, duct tape advice, lists of most-targeted cities, speeches from Osama Bin Laden that loosely purport a connection between Al Quaeda and Saddam, and malicious attempts at branding anyone who dares oppose the will of his administration as unpatriotic citizens, simply haven’t worked.

Now the Bush administration is changing tactics. Wednesday night he took to the airwaves in front of Old Glory, and with a gentle smile on his lips tried to convince the American people that we’re going into Iraq to “save” the citizens, not kill them. Well, obviously you don’t slaughter hundreds of thousands of people so they can be liberated. Or are we to understand that the pending Iraqi casualties were sacrificed to pave the way for Democracy?

Of course, one of the most dominating objectives of the invasion of Iraq is to seize the oil resources. On Wednesday night, President Bush addressed that issue too, stating that we want to “save” the oil resources so they’ll be intact for the benefit of the Iraqi people. Can you believe the sheer audacity of this man?

Many people have taken to the airwaves lately to make the case that oil is not the primary objective of the “war”. They argue that we don’t need Iraq’s oil since we get most of our oil from Venezuela and other sources. They argue that if we truly wanted Iraq’s oil we could simply purchase it from a very willing Saddam. They say that if we really wanted Iraq’s oil reserves we could simply walk in and take it without worrying about what the governments of the world think about it. Well, isn’t that what we’re about to do?

I don’t know what our real objective is. But I’m pretty sure it has nothing to do with “weapons of mass-destruction”, or the civil rights of the citizens of Iraq. I’m not even convinced that oil is the de facto reason for invading Iraq. Though how can it not be an enormous consideration? It’s estimated that the oil reserves in Iraq would supply the United States with energy for the next century. Let alone make close friends of the “Bush” White House wealthier than Saddam Hussein. How can that not be an attractive objective?

Lately I’ve heard “experts” saying that the primary goal of the invasion of Iraq is to establish an American stronghold smack in the middle of the ever-volatile Middle East. Our threatening presence would serve as a constant reminder to the other Middle Eastern countries that they are on “double secret probation” and had better watch their step. We would become the babysitter of the Middle East, with a front row seat to keep an eye on any aspiring terrorists, and to better control OPEC.

Let’s face it; the estimates of when the American forces will pull out of Iraq are a farce. Once America is in Iraq we are there to stay. Forever. We will install the leader of our choice, possibly draw up a new constitution for Iraq like we did for Japan after World War II, provide well-connected American construction firms with decades of work rebuilding the infrastructure of the country, and establish enormous military bases where our troops will be constantly at the ready for any neighbor who dares to get out of line.

I feel as beaten down as anyone about the pending “war”. But mostly I’m tired of feeling insulted by President Bush, who doesn’t even try to tell us the truth or primary objective for the invasion. I feel embarrassed having a “leader” who shows no respect to our allies, and arrogantly drives a wedge between us. I feel frightened for the safety of our troops who are about to enter into an unknown arena of warfare, where their health is probably more in jeopardy from the inoculations they’ve received than by any weapons Saddam might use against them. And I feel terrible about the thousands of Iraqi civilians, most of whom are 18 years old or younger, who are about to lose their lives in horrendous fashion.

The nervousness and apprehension we feel on this side of the pond is surely felt by our men and women in uniform who are stationed on the other side. I can see the uncertainty trickle uphill to the commanders who will decide to unleash a hellishly ferocious barrage on Baghdad in an attempt to thwart any possible retaliation, and in the course of gross overkill, reduce thousands of kind and beautiful people to a bloody smear on the sand.

Politicians have a mantra these days, “Nobody wants a war!” Well, avoiding a war is very simple, especially when your opponent can’t fight back.

www.vheadline.com Posted: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 By: Oscar Heck

VHeadline.com commentarist Oscar Heck writes: I have been getting some flack from some irate opposition people recently ... again ... calling me "ignorant and uneducated." Why? Because they think I have some figures mixed up.

I will explain: According to the opposition, the recent Firmazo (Signing) of February 2, 2003, accumulated 4.4 million signatures in several petitions including one asking Chavez to resign.

According to recent opposition sponsored press announcements, TV ads and newspaper editorials, 70-80% of the Venezuelan population want Chavez to resign.

Where do they get these figures?

The only explanation I have seen is the following:

4.4 million signatures of a possible 6 million, represents 73%.

Why 6 million? Because, they base themselves on the voter turnout of 1998, when Chavez won the elections with approximately 56% of the votes (3 million+ votes).

The abstention rate was approximately 50% at the time.

Now, what perplexes me? The firmazo was intensely advertised (and pounded into people's heads) for weeks previous to February 2, 2003.  There was a monumental effort by the opposition to have as many people as possible show up to sign. So, if the turnout for the firmazo was say 80%, which I believe is a little low (i.e., abstention of 20%), then this means that the maximum number of anti-Chavez signatures could have been 5.5 million signatures.

Now, if elections were held ... and the abstention rate is 20% ... this means that 9.6 million people would vote and Chavez would get 4.1 million votes (43% of all votes). Together, all other opposition parties would have a total of 5.5 million votes, that is 57% of all votes. (It seems to me that 57% anti-Chavez votes are a far cry from 70-80%.)

Based on the above figures, for Chavez to lose the elections, one opposition party would have to have at least 4.1 million votes +1, that is 4.1 of 5.5 million anti-Chavez votes, or 75% of these votes.

I suppose, theoretically, this could happen ... but I doubt it, especially since there are 18 political parties represented in the National Assembly, a good portion of them being anti-Chavez.

Another point is that if the turnout for the 'firmazo' was higher that 80 % ... say 90% (which I believe is closer to reality - especially after all the advertising) ... then Chavez would win the elections, no matter how many votes the opposition would get -- the maximum number of combined anti-Chavez votes would be 4.9 million of a total of 10.8 million, or 45%.

The flack I have been receiving is precisely concerning the above discussions.

Does the opposition really believe that if there were elections, there would be 80% anti-Chavez voter turnout and say 50% pro-Chavez voter turnout?

Or that if an election were held, the voter turnout would still remain at 50% ... as it was in 1998? I don't think so!  I believe that voter turnout will be the highest in Venezuelan history. My prediction is that the anti-Chavez and pro-Chavez voter turnout will be about 80%.

The fact that the opposition is claiming that 70-80% of the Venezuelan population wants Chavez out, is based on a false premise that the turnout for the 'firmazo' was 50%!

I don't think so ... considering the amount of advertising and incitement that went on, my estimate is that the turnout for the 'firmazo' was closer to 90%.

Furthermore, if elections were called, Chavez would ask all his supporters to go to the ballot box ... just as the opposition would.

Now, supposing that the opposition's premise (50% turnout) is correct ... then Chavez would win 1.6 million votes.  For Chavez to lose, one anti-Chavez political party would have to win at least 1.6 million votes ... or 26% of the anti-Chavez votes.

According to the Venezuelan National Assembly site the anti-Chavez political party that holds the largest number of seats is Accion Democratica (AD) with 15% of the seats. (Remember that there are a total of 18 political parties represented at the National Assembly).  This would mean that Accion Democratica ... one of the conventional Venezuelan political parties ... would have to increase their votes by approximately 75%!

Considering that the Accion Democratica is still, in the eyes of many Venezuelans, the party that is associated with Carlos Andres Perez and massive proven corruption, it appears to me that an increase of 75% is asking a lot.  I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Now, I can understand that many opposition people would love their premise to be correct. If it is correct, I must congratulate them for seeing more deeply into the situation than I have been able to do.  However, I find it difficult to believe, especially since 12 weeks of travel across approximately half of Venezuela's territory has not demonstrated to me that the premise is valid.

Another factor:  The opposition claims that many people who voted for Chavez in 1998 signed at the 'firmazo.'  Numbers-wise this bit of information only has bearing on the matter if their premise is correct.

Another interesting fact: The opposition has been inviting all Venezuelans to take to the streets for the last 3 Sundays ... a  religious march for "Venezuela", "for peace", "for democracy". This past weekend they added "against political persecution."

Oscar Heck oscarheck111@hotmail.com

www.vheadline.com Posted: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 By: Patrick J. O'Donoghue

Andres Bello Catholic University (UCAB) and the Metropolitan University are the only universities that kept their promise to recover classes lost during the two-month national stoppage during the Carnival holiday.

Attendance Monday at UCAB’s Faculties of Education, Media Studies and Engineering was around 100%, while 50% of law students preferred to stay away and enjoy the holiday break.

Private and public secondary schools did not open either.

Venezuelan Teachers Federation president Jaime Manzo failed to live up to his promise to recommend union members to show President Hugo Chavez Frias how determined they were and recover classes during the weekends and holidays. As expected and true to form, teachers opted out of their pledge to turn up for classes during Carnival.

One critic says he is disappointed ... "anti-Chavists failed to gain political and moral capital, while pro-Chavist teachers show they are just as mercenary as their colleagues."

www.forbes.com Reuters, 03.04.03, 1:29 PM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Exxon Mobil Chairman Lee Raymond said Tuesday that the Bush administration could release emergency crude reserves in the event of a war with Iraq, depending on the extent of disruption to oil supply. "It's clear if there's going to be a war, then Iraq is going to stop exporting," Raymond told analysts in New York. "The U.S. government could release some oil from the SPR. I wouldn't want to suggest to you that there will be clarity on this at all. There are a lot of what ifs and whens," he added. World crude prices have recently soared to 12-year highs on fears of a U.S. military strike against Iraq, the world's eighth largest oil exporter. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said last week that the United States was prepared to act quickly to release emergency crude oil reserves if needed to offset a severe disruption to Middle East supplies in the event of war. Raymond said that the OPEC oil cartel, which pumps a third of world supply, may be able to raise production enough to cover the supply shortfall. "(It) depends on how long a war is going to be or has Saddam Hussein torched his oil fields. I have no doubt OPEC could deal with that... I believe the Saudis have more capacity," he said. Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil exporter has raised production around one million barrels per day (bpd) to nine million bpd since the start of the year as a workers' strike in Venezuela cut into global supply.