www.vcrisis.com

I write this letter to communicate my resignation to the official invitation to represent Venezuela in the national pavilion of the 50th Venice Biennial. This decision is a fundamentally ethical one and I have taken it as a Venezuelan and as an artist responsible and aware of our reality.

It is true that my proposal “La Colmena” was presented last year to the committee that would designate de Venezuelan representation in the Biennial. But, since then, the critical situation of the country has dramatically accelerated, urging us a gesture that can represent something more than the artwork itself now: the absence-presence as the only answer.

Having been presented in several international exhibitions of this nature (including the last Venice Biennial) I know through my own experience the importance that is put upon any artistic career by being included in these events. But I consider that my main duty is to foreground my ethical responsibility over any personal interest. “I must forget myself to have access to the other” was for the philosopher Emmanuel Levinas one of the best definitions of an ethical conduct, creating a paradigmatic concept for all artists or cultural producers. This model of commitment can describe the foundations of an ethic based on respect of difference and the intention to incorporate “the other” within artistic discourse. This position was the one that led me, in its moment, to take the decision to participate in Venice Biennial with a work produced in collaboration with the communities of the “23 de Enero” and it is the same one that led me to resign today from the Venezuelan representation.

To participate in the official selection in this situation, under the patronage of the state, would be in some way a betrayal of the principles on which I have built my body of work for over a decade, principles that have always placed me side by side with the excluded ones of our society, those “invisible” subjects within the social fabric: the mentally ill confined in psychiatric hospitals, prisoners or the populations of shanty towns. I have never believed in the autonomy of the work of art over the social context and believe that the Venezuelan pavilion today embodies a toxic environment that would inevitably contaminate the reading of any work of art that deals with social inequality. Especially in moments in which the manipulation of information, violence, populism, intolerance, and nationalisms constitute the political discourses shared by the state and the “official” opposition. The terrible polarization that literally has divided the country in two makes it impossible to articulate a critical position that can operate “in-between” these irreconcilable dichotomies.

As intellectuals we must maintain a critical position in relation to any authoritative and anti-democratic discourse come where it may, because these positions cover up the corruption and struggle for power that are choking the country. The cultural sector reflects this crisis in a specific way. This is another reason that makes it unthinkable for me to be part of an enterprise that without a doubt will generate a considerable cost to the nation in a moment when museums and theatres lack electrical services, to cite only one example that illustrates the pathetic situation that our institutions are going through.

When the Vice-minister of culture suggests to the museums that they reduce their electrical consumption, I can’t help reading this in a very symbolic way and recalling ironically Simon Bolivar’s motto that supposedly is the motor of the “cultural revolution”.(‘’Morals and Enlightenment are our first needs’’) Without Morals and Light it is impossible to imagine cultural endeavors.

Do you sleep well Mr. Vice-Minister?

Javier Tellez

El Presidente jura desde una tribuna estremecida por la carga de aplausos repletos de fervor revolucionario que estamos haciendo una re-nacionalización de la industria petrolera, y remata anunciando, en su porfiado tono triunfal, que han despedido a 3500 (hoy van 12.000) traidores, saboteadores de PDVSA. Lejos de esa tribuna, el 17-01-02, Scott Wilson, periodista de El Washington Post describe para el público norteamericano lo ventajoso que resultan para Estados Unidos las razones del Presidente ¨.de reformarse la industria petrolera venezolana según lo plantea Chávez, atraería más inversión privada estadounidense. Al aumentar las asociaciones internacionales, Chávez estaría en mejor posición para evitar las huelgas. privaría a empresas venezolanas de contratos con la industria petrolera debilitando así su influencia en la industria.¨

El ministro de Energía y Minas y el Presidente de PDVSA persisten en la expulsión de los cuadros profesionales de PDVSA y corroboran la sustitución de su experticia por la contratación de empresas extranjeras para operarla, y hacen coro al Presidente en su plan de excluir a los empresarios nacionales opositores de las contrataciones y de la asignación de divisas dentro del régimen de control de cambios. Juan Forero, escribe el 9 de Febrero para The New York Times "Quienes lo conocen, ven al Sr. Rodríguez como alguien con criterio propio, decidido y con claridad sobre como disminuir la compañía... posiblemente vendiendo las refinerías y otros activos en el exterior¨.

Decía un tiburón norteamericano de las finanzas internacionales: Si Hussein no claudica, la guerra tendrá un costo muy alto numerosas vidas, unos 150.000 millones de dólares, mucho deterioro político internacional y la ampliación del hueco entre los musulmanes y Occidente. Será el costo más alto desembolsado por unos yacimientos, pero qué yacimientos, agregó, porque no son solamente los de Irak, estimados en 120.000 millones de barriles y bajo el control directo de Hussein, sino los de Arabia Saudita y Kuwait - Según el petrolero Ramón Peña Ojeda, estos últimos podrían caer en manos del rigorismo Wahabita, profesado por la mayoría del pueblo descontento con su deteriorada calidad de vida y defraudada por los príncipes, enemigo jurado de la presencia de tropas yanquis en la península y paisana de Osama Bin Laden. Es decir que los norteamericanos están echando el resto para proteger sus abastecimientos petroleros del Medio Oriente.

Esta decisión estadounidense no es extraña al Gobierno. Por eso, luego de su infausta experiencia del 11 de abril comienza a dar señales de avanzar en una estrategia que, entre otros aspectos fundamentales, apunta a negociar con Estados Unidos un audaz status quo de colaboración en medio de las diferencias que los separan. Esta negociación, que inadvertidamente recuerda la experimentada mano de Fidel, apunta a garantizar suministro petrolero a cambio de neutralidad frente a la conflictiva situación política venezolana y de permitir el financiamiento del gobierno mediante el flujo de divisas petroleras.

Para tratar de convenir ese pacto seleccionan a un profesional de los quilates del blanquísimo y ahora barloventeñizado Chadderton Matos, y para reforzar el equipo designan embajador ante la Casa Blanca a Bernardo Álvarez, experto petrolero, ex viceministro de Energía y Minas, no por coincidencia catire como Chadderton y hombre de confianza del poderoso Alí Rodríguez.

Muchos creen que los frecuentes regaños revolucionarios del Canciller se orientan a congraciarse con el Presidente, algo de eso puede haber, pero más pertinente para comprender lo que sucede es darle crédito a su inteligencia y formación negociadora, y entender esa tarjeta de presentación como una forma de mostrar a la contraparte el límite de lo que se puede conceder. Todo, menos lo irrenunciable para el Presidente y su régimen: el Poder con un férreo control de la sociedad y un lenguaje montaraz que le conserve la imagen rebelde ante sus seguidores.

El sustrato ideológico de la negociación

Para desarrollar esta negociación se requiere de unas bisagras que vinculen las partes con eficiencia. Nadie mejor que un grupo de empresas petroleras que operan en Venezuela, antiguas concesionarias y novísimas asociadas, que dominan el negocio particular del petróleo venezolano, conocen a los venezolanos tanto petroleros como políticos, a los del gobierno y a los de la oposición, y se mueven como pez en el agua dentro de un ambiente proceloso donde el dinero facilita las encomiendas.

Esas empresas tienen grandes aspiraciones de dirigir el negocio, pero hay obstáculos difíciles de superar, como la Constitución que reserva la actividad petrolera al Estado así como la propiedad absoluta de las acciones de PDVSA. También estorban la entrañable aspiración venezolana de lograr la autonomía en la conducción petrolera y las consignas antiimperialistas del régimen, cuyos líderes machacaron, al igual que los políticos de los últimos cuarenta años. De allí los esfuerzos para interpretar la legislación según las aspiraciones de las transnacionales amigas - Contratos que estiran las prescripciones de la Ley Orgánica de Hidrocarburos del 2001 -, parches prendidos de la insegura fidelidad del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia. Para ahogar la conciencia acuden al auxilio del extinto presidente de China, Den Tziao Pin, cuyo modelo, luego seguido por Cuba, justifica desarrollar el sector moderno de su economía en alianza con las transnacionales; alianzas en las que éstas aportan su capital y tecnología, producen para la exportación generándole divisas al gobierno y como contrapartida reciben protección para explotar el mercado interno y mano de obra barata y regimentada. Pero lo que hace más deseable esta alianza es la condición de neutralidad política del capital extranjero, cuestión que no ocurre con los nacionales.

El acelerador

Los acontecimientos políticos apremian el ritmo de las negociaciones. El paro general de diciembre, y sobre todo al paro petrolero, deja al desnudo importantes troneras políticas y financieras del Gobierno. Ya la opinión pública había atisbado el 11 de abril la disidencia del mundo petrolero venezolano, pero desconocía su profundidad, cuestión que el Gobierno sí visualizó, así cómo su flaqueza al no controlar la mayor fuente financiera del país. Eso explica la repatriación desde la OPEP de un hombre del prestigio nacional e internacional de Alí Rodríguez, que jugaba un papel estratégico en Viena, con la encomienda de recobrar PDVSA. Pero sus suaves modales fueron vanos para encantar a esa gente cohesionada por una cultura gerencial solidamente cultivada, cuya formación intelectual le permitió extrapolar lo que vendría, lo que venía ocurriendo desde que Héctor Ciavaldini estuvo al frente de la corporación.

Ese paro petrolero pone en evidencia ante el mundo que el petróleo no era controlado por el Gobierno y que la cesación de ingresos en divisas desarticuló sus grados de libertad al consumir inexorablemente las reservas financieras. En estas condiciones queda mermada su capacidad negociadora para lograr un acuerdo aceptable con los factores de poder del Norte. No es difícil de imaginar que se configuraba un estado ideal para las petroleras internacionales, pues ahora la salvación del régimen costaba más, podían aspirar al premio mayor.

El cerebro petrolero venezolano

El capital internacional petrolero había aprendido a respetar a PDVSA, a convivir con su sólida estructura gerencial, su seriedad y ética comercial; con su visión de largo plazo que preconizaba un desarrollo petrolero integral y vinculado al mercado; con la madurez para la construcción de una autonomía basada en la competitividad. Al momento de la nacionalización 28 años atrás, la situación era diferente.

Para ese entonces el país recibió una diversidad de compañías: una constelación de grupos con visiones y culturas empresariales diferentes y fieles a las respectivas transnacionales de donde provenían. En estos cinco lustros se creó una organización integrada al país, orgullosa de sus roles, coherente, eficiente y decidida a cumplir con sus obligaciones, una empresa cada vez más nacional pero con los ojos puestos en el mundo para que el país aprovechara las oportunidades petroleras dentro y fuera de Venezuela. Una de las corporaciones más grandes y eficientes del planeta, con mucho que mejorar, andando los caminos.

La gente que despidieron fue la que promovió la fabricación nacional de equipos petroleros y el desarrollo de la consultoría especializada, así como una red de suministradores hoy agrupados en la Cámara Petrolera, que desaparecerían si el mercado de suministros forma parte de las oportunidades de que habla el redactor del Washington Post.

Esa gente creó el centro de investigación (Intevep) y el Centro Internacional de Entrenamiento (CIE) instituciones clave para la autonomía petrolera que fueron recientemente cerradas y liquidado su personal. Esa fue la gente que amplió nuestras fronteras petroleras en la forma de inversiones de PDVSA en Estados Unidos y Europa, inversiones que permiten asegurarnos el mercado final y procesar cerca de un tercio del crudo, precisamente de crudos pesados y sulfurosos que gracias a las inversiones realizadas puede agregárseles valor.

Esa fue la gente que realizó el paro petrolero: la masa de profesionales, técnicos y trabajadores calificados que en más de 12.000 han sido botados de PDVSA, dejando a la industria petrolera venezolana sin sustancia, pues ellos son la inteligencia y la cultura de la organización que están desmembrando. Esa es la gente que articulaba la industria, algo más valioso que las instalaciones mismas. Son los expertos nuestros, un personal considerado entre los mejores del mundo. Su salida significa el debilitamiento intelectual y tecnológico de PDVSA, la destrucción de su cerebro, de la materia gris que le permitió ascender hasta ser una de las más importantes empresas petroleras del mundo.

La negociación

¿Será que ese desmembramiento se hace por ignorancia? Si así fuera habría motivos para alguna esperanza de rectificación pero las evidencias son demasiado contundentes. Alí Rodríguez y Álvaro Silva Calderón, además de experimentados y cultos conocen muy bien en qué se fundamentan la competitividad y la autonomía petrolera, banderas que esgrimieron durante mucho tiempo, de manera que ese saber de ellos agrava su barbaridad.

¿Será solamente una muestra del salvajismo político imperante? Los modales que se utilizan para tratar al personal petrolero así lo sugieren, aunque la persistencia durante cuatro años del acoso a los ejecutivos más bien son indicios de un plan premeditado. Tan premeditado luce lo que acontece que para el momento del paro de diciembre ya se tenía preparada la desmembración de PDVSA en tres empresas operadoras, las petroleras de Occidente y Oriente y una empresa de gas administrada por el anquilosado Ministerio de Energía y Minas; otras empresas van al matadero, como Pequiven, la petroquímica, que va a ser administrada por el Ministerio de Agricultura, ¿se imaginan el destino de su calificado personal? Los argumentos para prescindir de tan valiosos recursos humanos ya estaban preparados para el momento del paro. Muy banales esos argumentos, por cierto, pues se alega el ahorro de mil millones de dólares sin explicar cuánto se perdería; sin responder a la pregunta de cómo vive y se desarrolla un cuerpo sin cerebro. Todo el mundo lo sabe, pues en estado vegetal.

¿A quién beneficia esta sinrazón? Veamos: al perder Venezuela al personal entrenado en tecnología de punta y alta gerencia se destruye su competitividad y su capacidad de negociación financiera, se le inutiliza para mercadear y ni siquiera podría comprar inteligentemente equipos y servicios técnicos. De manera que, como lo sugiere el testimonio del periodista del Washington Post, este movimiento del gobierno coincide con intereses internacionales del petróleo. Hay tanta sintonía entre unos y otros que gracias a las filiales extranjeras se produjeron los 150.000 barriles durante las primeras semanas del paro. Entonces resulta pertinente la última observación del tiburón de las finanzas el premio es tan grande que bien vale la ira momentánea de la población opositora.

Ya están repartiendo los pocos números que se van a jugar en esa rifa y el que se quede fuera, fuera estará. Algunos premios fueron repartidos por adelantado al asignar los bloques gasíferos con primas increíblemente bajas, por lo menos la primas que se pagaron a la República.

Otros premios como Citgo, están anunciados desde el comienzo del régimen, ¿anunciados o negociados? El caso de Citgo es peculiar.

Esta empresa es resultado de la fusión de un grupo de compañías petroleras norteamericanas que PDVSA adquirió a muy buen precio, se rige por las leyes de Estados Unidos y funciona conforme a las prácticas comerciales de ese país. Se le satanizó en estos últimos cuatro años y se le degradó al punto de que hoy se cotiza como si fuera del tercer mundo, lograron endosarle el Riesgo País que el actual gobierno le ha configurado a Venezuela. Alguien sonríe porque ahora Citgo puede comprarse barata.

Pero hay otros premios. Miles y miles de millones de dólares en contratos, el manejo del transporte y ¿quién iba a pensarlo?

También el mercadeo del petróleo, el suministro de equipos y bienes y al final, similar a como se hace en Libia, podremos llegar hasta pagar porque nos operen los campos mismos. Ante este nuevo escenario petrolero, cabe preguntarse, cuál será nuestro papel. Qué nos quedará de los 30.000 millones de dólares anuales que vale el petróleo venezolano, ¿una regalía como en épocas pasadas?

Parece que se impone una orientación rentista, al extremo de recordar los años del General Gómez, a quien solo le importaba recibir la plata para mantenerse ampulosamente en el poder. Una época en que nuestros campesinos, sin nada que hacer, a la sombra de un cují, pasaban horas ante una cabria de perforación mirando boquiabiertos a unos catires afanados por sacar esa hediondez que llaman el petróleo.

Por eso, en los corrillos de cafetín se preguntan si a las magnas autoridades no les duele lo que está a la vista. Las respuestas sibilinas saltan las puntas de las lenguas para hacer temblar la ética de muchos al pensar en la untuosa gratificación de los intermediarios. Sin ánimo de igualar el fachendoso verbo presidencial sino para facilitarle el entendimiento de los suyos, provoca escribirlo como él mismo lo diría una verdadera puñalada al corazón de la República por unos vampiros que deleitan la sangre de la Patria.

• anónimo

By Bernardo Alvarez Ambassador of Venezuela to the US

     One of the most important responsibilities of the media in a free and open society is getting (and reporting) both sides of a story. However, "A Venezuelan police state?" (Editorial, Thursday) suggests that The Washington Times lost perspective and returned to the safety of its traditional view of how things should be. In so doing, I believe the editors have deprived readers of a balanced view of what is actually occurring in my country.

The editorial's second paragraph began with all the drama of a bad reality-TV script: "At midnight last Wednesday, business leader Carlos Fernandez, one of the leading organizers of a two-month strike that ended Feb. 4, was arrested by armed police agents while at a restaurant and charged with rebellion and incitement, among other things." To begin, it was not a "strike." Even the perpetrators of the paralyzing lockout referred to their action as "a civic stoppage." As they know, true strikes are protected under Venezuelan law.

The problem was that they were acting illegally. The workers never voted to strike, nor was there the mandatory 120-hour cooling-off period, officially referred to as the "conciliation period." It also is important to note that in the case of essential industries - such as oil production - the law not only requires that a number of workers stay on the job, but also says that the failure of essential workers to be at work for three consecutive days requires their automatic dismissal. In this regard, such essential workers are no different in Venezuela from air-traffic controllers or police officers and firefighters in the United States.

The fact is that a warrant for Mr. Fernandez's arrest was issued by a judge in accordance with our laws, and he was duly arrested. I believe you have the same procedures - and laws against inciting riots - here in the United States.

The editorial continued: "These grave charges seem inconsistent with involvement in a strike, however injurious it may have been to the economy." Again, the facts are not nearly so dramatic. Based on facts presented to a judge by a local prosecutor in Caracas, Mr. Fernandez was charged with violating several laws. This is a procedure similar to that used by U.S. prosecutors.       Does The Times wish to imply that our laws in Venezuela are irrelevant and should not have been enacted by our legislative branch? Or that Mr. Fernandez, because of his high stature in the business community, somehow should be exempt from their enforcement? Or maybe that locking out hundreds of thousands of people from exercising their right to work and feed their families does not meet The Times' threshold of illegal activity? Is not arresting people who may have broken the law - when they have been so charged in order that they may be tried in court - the way democracies are supposed to work? What would The Times say about Venezuela if people who were believed to have violated the law were allowed to walk free?       In fairness, allow me to change the perspective for a moment. What if executives at a major defense contractor or a major airline decided to lock out their employees simply because the owners did not like the outcome of an election? Can you imagine that?       In an effort that seems to justify the splashy headline, the editorial went on to state as facts that President Hugo Chavez "began threatening extra-judicial retaliation against those involved," and that "Mr. Chavez had 'sentenced' strikers from the bully pulpit."       What The Times fails to note is that Venezuela has a constitution that separates the powers of the executive branch from those of the judicial branch. While the president has asked that the court do its duty, Mr. Chavez does not have the power to order an arrest, nor has he threatened "extra-judicial" retaliation against anyone. In following the Venezuelan Constitution, both the Venezuelan courts and Mr. Chavez have adhered to the law.       The editorial closed with perhaps its most unfortunate and inaccurate accusations, implying that Mr. Chavez knew about, supported or somehow was involved in recent bombings at the Spanish and Colombian embassies in Caracas. In a country of 25 million people trying to deal with the loss of economic opportunities, food and hope caused by whoever orchestrated the lockout of hundreds of thousands of workers - and the concomitant reduction of the country's tax revenue base by more than 30 percent - there no doubt are many frustrated people. Yet, Mr. Chavez had nothing to do with the violence and publicly condemned the cowardly acts in a statement earlier in the week.       Further, is it not fair to raise the question so eloquently asked in French - cherchez la femme - when looking at the so-called evidence left behind? Who left such evidence? What is to be gained by the government's doing such a thing, then leaving a finger pointing at itself?       We remind The Times of the historic agreement signed with leaders of the opposition calling for the end of violence and hostilities. The president and the government are committed to bringing all Venezuelans together, not driving them further apart. We welcome both internal and external comments, but we simply ask other governments to leave to us the internal administration of our laws without interference, which is all the president was saying when he askedthat Spain, Colombia and the United States cease involving themselves in our internal affairs.       Mr. Chavez and the people of Venezuela should and will continue to work toward peaceful, democratic solutions to the social and economic problems facing our country; The Times should expand its narrow focus and adjust its perspective to more accurately convey the real story in Venezuela. Certainly, fairness requires no less.       In conclusion, we have been open with The Times. We shared with your reporters the two public documents issued this week: the first from the attorney general regarding the arrests and the second from the foreign ministry concerning our official regrets and our country's intent to find the perpetrators of the bombings. In keeping with that spirit of openness, I wish to invite your editorial writers to be our guests to visit Venezuela to see the reality there firsthand.       The Washington Times LETTERS TO THE EDITOR March 4, 2003

www.springfieldnewssun.com Dow Jones News Service

NEW YORK (Dow Jones News)--Crude oil futures rallied Tuesday, staging a sharp recovery after three straight sessions of declines on hopes that a war with Iraq could be averted.

Between Thursday and Monday, prices fell sharply as Iraq's increased cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors and Turkey's rejection of access to U.S. troops sparked speculation that a U.S.-led attack on Iraq could be avoided, or at least delayed by several weeks.

But prices turned around Tuesday as the U.S. stepped up military preparations for a possible war and indicated it would seek U.N. Security Council approval of a resolution on military action next week, analysts said.

At the New York Mercantile Exchange, April crude oil futures rose $1.01 to end at $36.89 a barrel after rising as high as $37.18 intraday.

April heating oil futures ended up 1.26 cent at $1.0486 a gallon, while April gasoline futures climbed 1.74 cent to settle at $1.1122 a gallon.

At London's International Petroleum Exchange, April Brent futures rose 61 cents to close at $33.09 a barrel.

Natural gas for April delivery retreated 12.1 cents to settle at $7.041 per 1,000 cubic feet.

American officials, dismissing Iraq's destruction of its short-range Al Samoud 2 missiles as inadequate and insincere, pressed ahead for a final confrontation.

Military forces continued to mass in the Persian Gulf, with the United States deploying an additional 60,000 troops to the region atop the 230,000 troops already there. Turkey is also debating whether to resubmit a parliamentary motion to allow more than 60,000 U.S. troops to use the country as a northern front against Iraq.

At the same time, officials said they plan to bring to a vote next week a Security Council resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.

The measure, backed by Great Britain and Spain, faces stiff opposition from Security Council members, with Russia's foreign minister Igor Ivanov issuing a veiled threat to veto it.

But a White House spokesman said the United States believes it has the nine votes necessary to pass the resolution, though he left open the possibility that the United States might withdraw the resolution if it concludes it would not pass.

Regardless of the outcome of a vote, the United States says it's prepared to press ahead with an attack, barring an 11th-hour decision by Iraq to give up its weapons of mass destruction.

U.S. officials say there is virtually nothing Iraq could do to convince them that it is serious about disarming. In a speech Tuesday, President Bush reiterated his determination to see Iraq stripped of its weapons of mass destruction.

Energy traders worry that an attack on Iraq could disrupt the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf.

Meanwhile, OPEC and non-OPEC oil ministers will meet next week to discuss what they could do in the event of a war in Iraq, an official from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries said.

OPEC countries have increased production in recent months in response to a strike in Venezuela and soaring oil prices. According to a Dow Jones Newswires survey, OPEC crude oil output jumped by 1.43 million barrels a day to 27.091 million barrels a day in February from January.

quotes.freerealtime.com

Mar 04, 2003 (ODJ Select via COMTEX) -- Here is a summary of Dow Jones Newswires coverage of the general strike in Venezuela, including the status of oil operations, political developments, and reaction of the oil market. Full stories can be found by searching R/VE.

TOP NEWS

PdVSA Paraguana Refinery Can't Restart Cat Cracking Unit

Venezuela's state-owned oil monopoly Petroleos de Venezuela (E.PVZ), or PdVSA, over the weekend failed to restart one of its catalytic cracking units at the massive Paraguana refinery complex, a PdVSA spokesman said Monday. Due to acts of sabotage and troubles to establish a stable natural gas feed, one of the catalytic cracking units at the Amuay plant that should help achieve a production of around 140,000 barrels per day of gasoline couldn't be started up, the PdVSA spokesman said.

Venezuela Feb CPI Soars To 5.5%, Highest in 7 Yrs

Venezuelan consumer prices soared in February up to its highest level in seven years by 5.5%, up from 2.9% the previous month, the Central Bank said in its monthly report over the weekend. The price increase was significantly higher than February last year when inflation stood at 1.8%. Accumulated inflation for the year 2003 stands at 8.4%, the Bank reported. Price controls on certain products pushed prices higher while expectations of a new currency control regime of which details are to be announced this week were among the main reasons for the jump, the bank said.

Chavez: $30/Bbl Venezuelan Oil Basket Price 'Perfect'

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez on Friday celebrated the current spike in world oil prices and said that the price of around $30 a barrel for the nation's oil basket of crude and refined products is "perfect." "The current price is really very good...I think $30 a barrel is a fair and just price," Chavez said, speaking at the state-run television network while visiting an electricity utility in Bolivar State. Venezuela's oil basket closed at $30.90 Friday and is trading some $5 below West Texas Intermediate, WTI, and almost $4 below Brent. World oil prices are hovering around $35 a barrel on fears a possible U.S.-led war in Iraq could cause a disruption of Mideast oil. Chavez didn't say what the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries should do at its meeting March 11 in Vienna. The possible intervention in Iraq is seen around that time and is hampering OPEC's ability to respond and ease world oil prices.

Venezuela May Adjust Avg Price Oil Basket 2003 - Report

The Venezuelan government may adjust the 2003 targeted average of $18 a barrel for its basket of crude oil and refined products, El Nacional reported Friday. A final decision to hike the average target price to $20 or $22 a barrel on which the nation's federal budget is based has to wait until the end of March, El Nacional reported, citing a government study. That is because of the possibility of a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq sometime in March, which could affect world oil markets seriously. Also, by then the recovery of the oil industry should be complete after a strike at the nation's oil behemoth Petroleos de Venezuela SA (E.PVZ).

Venezuela Crude Production At 1.58M B/D - Ex-PdVSA Staff

Crude production at Venezuela's state-owned oil monopoly Petroleos de Venezuela SA (E.PVZ) currently stands at 1.58 million barrels a day, former staff of PdVSA said in a daily report late Thursday. However, Venezuela's Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez told reporters in Washington Thursday crude oil production has risen to 2.08 million b/d from 150,000 b/d in early January when widespread worker protests and walkouts paralyzed the PdVSA. Production is likely to reach 2.7 million b/d by mid-March and 2.9 million b/d by the end of March, he said.

Venezuela Strike Damage Seen At $7.6 Bln - Report

The nationwide strike in Venezuela that lasted two months and crippled the vital oil industry has cost the nation $7.6 billion due to lost economic production and fiscal contribution, the local daily El Nacional reported Friday. Total loss of production in the economy caused by the strike is estimated at $6.2 billion of which $2.7 billion comes from the oil sector and $3.5 billion from the non-oil sector, El Nacional reported, citing a report of the Finance Ministry. Added to that is a loss of $1.4 billion in fiscal income for the state, El Nacional said. The Finance Ministry couldn't be reached for additional comment. The damage caused by the strike is seen as long-term and severe, the report said.

SPECIAL REPORTS

Burning Across World Economy Energy Prices Hamper Growth

Almost 30 years after an energy crisis was blamed for the lights on the U.S. national Christmas tree staying off, rampaging oil and gas prices are once again eating into consumption and growth across the global economy. The 77% leap in energy prices over the past year hasn't yet sparked the alarm seen in 1973, when customers experienced electricity blackouts even before the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries imposed an oil embargo that pushed prices to levels previously thought impossible. But the rally in the price of oil, natural gas and a host of energy products has raised a slew of concerns about the longer-term repercussions for global growth. Some economists believe a sustained period of higher prices could tip the U.S. and other major economies back into recession.

OIL MARKET REACTION

Crude oil futures rallied Tuesday, staging a sharp recovery after three straight sessions of declines on hopes that a war with Iraq could be averted. Between Thursday and Monday, prices fell sharply as Iraq's increased cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors and Turkey's rejection of access to U.S. troops sparked speculation that a U.S.-led attack on Iraq could be staved off or at least delayed by several weeks. But prices turned around Tuesday as the U.S. stepped up military preparations for a possible war and indicated it would seek the United Nations Security Council approval of a resolution on military action next week, analysts said. "The market had false perceptions of peace yesterday," an analyst said. "People were thinking that somehow Saddam Hussein's destroying the missiles and the lack of the Turkey vote would end the war." At the New York Mercantile Exchange, the nearby April crude oil futures rose $1.01 to end at $36.89 a barrel after rising as high as $37.18 intraday. At 2108 GMT, the April contract is 2 cents higher at $36.91 in overnight trade.

-By Beth Heinsohn, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-4435; beth.heinsohn@dowjones.com