usinfo.state.gov 06 March 2003

(State Department suggests trade measure need not last long) (530)

The Department of State has banned U.S. imports of shrimp from Honduras and Venezuela harvested from the wild because of inadequate protection for endangered sea turtles, the department has announced.

In a March 6 media note, the department said that imports of those countries' shrimp harvested by aquaculture and artisanal (non-mechanical) methods are still allowed.

"The Department expressed the hope that the import prohibition will be a brief measure," the note said, adding that it could send U.S. experts to work with officials of the two countries on improving turtle protection.

U.S. law requires that U.S. fleets shrimping in waters where turtles are known to migrate must use turtle-excluder devices -- which allow turtles to escape the shrimp nets. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has upheld later U.S. law that applied the same requirements on imported shrimp.

In May 2002 the State Department banned shrimp imports from Haiti and Indonesia.

Following is the text of the media note:

(begin text)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Media Note Office of the Spokesman Washington, DC

March 6, 2003

Sea Turtle Conservation and Shrimp Imports

On January 29, 2003, the Department of State determined that Honduras and Venezuela no longer meet the requirements set by Section 609 of P.L. 101-162 related to the protection of sea turtles in the course of commercial shrimp harvesting. As a result of this determination, importation of shrimp harvested in Honduras and Venezuela with commercial fishing technology that may adversely affect endangered sea turtles will be prohibited. However, imports of shrimp harvested in Honduras and Venezuela by other means, including by aquaculture and with artisanal methods, may continue.

In making this determination, the Department expressed the hope that the import prohibition will be a brief measure. The Department will work closely with the Governments of Honduras and Venezuela to address concerns that led to this determination. In particular, the Department will explore the possibility of sending teams of experts to Honduras and Venezuela to work with fisheries and law enforcement officials and to assess steps taken by the Governments of Honduras and Venezuela to enforce their requirements to protect sea turtles in the course ofshrimp harvesting.

P.L. 101-162 (Section 609) prohibits the importation of shrimp harvested in ways harmful to sea turtles unless the Department of State certifies that the harvesting nation either has a sea turtle protection program comparable to that of the United States, or has a fishing environment that does not pose a threat to sea turtles.

The chief component of the U.S. sea turtle conservation program is a requirement that commercial shrimp boats use sea turtle excluder devices (TEDs) to prevent the accidental drowning of sea turtles in shrimp trawls.

The nations and economies that remain certified follow: Argentina, Bahamas, Belgium, Belize, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fiji, Finland, Germany, Guatemala, Guyana, Hong Kong, Iceland, Ireland, Jamaica, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Russia, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom and Uruguay.

(end text)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: usinfo.state.gov)

www.alertnet.org 06 Mar 2003 18:32

WASHINGTON, March 6 (Reuters) - Spare world oil production capacity, excluding Iraq and Venezuela, may be as low as 1.5 million barrels a day (bpd), leaving little room for other countries to make up Iraq's lost oil exports if the United States were to attack the country, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said on Thursday.

OPEC is pumping at almost full production, with output averaging 24.5 million bpd in February, to offset the disruption in Venezuela's oil exports due to a workers strike and to get ready for the potential cutoff in Iraq's oil shipments in a war, the EIA said in its monthly energy outlook.

Even if the situation in Venezuela and Iraq are resolved without further oil disruptions, the additional pressure on commercial oil inventories of industrialized nations since early December will likely cause oil stocks to remain near the lower end of the 5-year average through most of 2003, EIA said.

"Months may also be needed to reach full Venezuelan production levels, resulting in new 5-year lows in (industrialized nations') commercial inventories in the second quarter," the agency said.

www.upi.com From the National Desk Published 3/6/2003 1:16 PM BOSTON, March 6 (UPI) -- New York Times

With yesterday's barely veiled French and Russian threat to veto a war resolution, the United Nations Security Council appears to be rapidly approaching a crippling deadlock over Iraq. That would be the worst of all possible outcomes. It would lift the diplomatic pressure on Iraq to disarm and sever the few remaining restraints that have kept the Bush administration from going to war with its motley ad hoc coalition of allies.

The rupture in the Security Council is not just another bump in the road in the showdown with Iraq. It could lead to a serious, possibly fatal, breakdown in the system of collective security that was fashioned in the waning days of World War II, a system that finally seemed to be reaching its potential in the years since the end of the cold war. Whatever comes of the conflict with Iraq, the world will have lost before any fighting begins if the Security Council is ruined as a mechanism for unified international action.

The first casualty is likely to be the effort to use coercive diplomacy to disarm Iraq. ...

There may be a few days more for diplomacy to play out on Iraq, but it is already clear that the great powers on the Security Council, particularly the United States and France, have brought the United Nations to the brink of just the kind of paralysis and powerlessness that they warned would be so damaging to the world.

-0- Washington Times

During a visit to The Washington Times last week, journalists from Venezuela detailed the physical dangers they are facing. And to the extent that the freedom of the press gauges the health of a country's democracy, the intimidation and harassment of the media in Venezuela signals a wider problem for the society and, if instability spreads, for the region.

Luis Alfonso Fernandez is probably Venezuela's most famous reporter. He and his cameramen covered, from the rooftop of a building in Caracas, snipers opening fire at protesters during the infamous demonstration against President Hugo Chavez on April 11 that killed 17 persons. Later, on April 13, as supporters of Mr. Chavez protested a short-lived coup, 23 protesters, probably supporters of the president, were killed.

Mr. Fernandez ... documented a member of Mr. Chavez's party in the City Council of Caracas shooting at protesters. Mr. Chavez has charged Mr. Fernandez for fabricating his report in a computer. ...

Last month, the Chavez government began "administrative procedures" against media outlets for airing reports unflattering to the government. ...

Regardless of how Mr. Chavez and his supporters regard the objectivity the press in Venezuela, the president would make a big mistake to limit its freedoms. After all, Mr. Chavez can use speeches and state-owned outlets to counter any perceived subjectivity or inaccuracies.

Weakened accountability could well result in serious human rights abuses in Venezuela, as seen in other places in the world.

-0- Washington Post

North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il has one big advantage in his face-off with the Bush administration: He has a clear strategy. His regime is racing to produce nuclear weapons, while taking steadily escalating steps to force the United States into direct negotiations at which Pyongyang can demand political recognition, security guarantees and economic bribes. Most experts believe North Korea has the means to achieve at least one of those aims, and maybe both. Once it opens a reprocessing plant now being readied, something that could happen within weeks, it will be able to produce one nuclear bomb a month. If that doesn't succeed in bringing Washington to the table, Mr. Kim can always use military provocations, like the attempt last weekend to force down a U.S. surveillance plane on North Korean territory.

There are no easy answers to the North Korean challenge, but the Bush team seems incapable of any answer at all -- or at least, of any coherent answer. ...

Though Mr. Bush was right to restore it as an option, military action must be a last and desperate resort, because it would risk mass destruction in South Korea. Multilateral pressure may be the best approach, because the Clinton administration strategy of trading economic and political concessions for unfulfilled North Korean promises has been discredited. But if direct contacts between Washington and Pyongyang could serve some purpose, they should be tried. At a minimum, the administration could clearly communicate what specific steps the North must take to restore its relations with the outside world -- and what actions will not be tolerated by the United States. Talking to this ruthless and untrustworthy regime is surely distasteful, and may well be fruitless. But it is better than doing nothing.

-0- Christian Science Monitor

The views of Americans about whether to go to war, as in Iraq, can be influenced by they way the US media has covered -- or couldn't cover -- past wars.

In Vietnam, for instance, wide-open access for journalists helped expose inherent problems in that war and made Americans gun-shy of more wars -- for a while. In Somalia, they saw US soldiers humiliated by local thugs. In the Gulf and Afghanistan wars, however, the Pentagon had learned to keep reporters away from fighting units.

Americans now have grown accustomed to what seem like relatively "clean" wars -- usually just flashes on CNN. Many of war's tragedies go unheard and unseen, like a tree falling in the forest.

But in its plans for war in Iraq, the Pentagon has decided more media coverage is better than less. It hopes journalists will present the "facts" and counter misinformation. It's started to "embed" some 500 journalists inside military units and will allow them to record almost any action that won't compromise a US victory. The journalists have had to agree to pages and pages of rules to gain that access. Local commanders will have much authority over what they do and can impose blackouts.

This experiment bears careful watching. While Americans may benefit from reports of frontline action, they must also ask if journalists will become too "embedded." How much will reporters compromise impartiality and their freedom to roam to maintain such access?

A journalist's first rule is not to become part of the story. Yet by relying on the military for protection (and room, board, flak jackets, etc.), the media expose themselves to being targets, as well as being codependent on their subjects. News organizations eager to cover the war (sometimes too eager) must alert their audiences to the conditions imposed on these journalists.

-0- Chicago Tribune

It's hard to know what France, Germany and Russia intended Wednesday when they said they would not let the United Nations Security Council approve a resolution authorizing war against Iraq.

Maybe the three nations are serious. Maybe they're stalling for time by threatening to block the council's Resolution 1441, which gave Saddam Hussein one final, immediate chance to disarm -- a distant 119 days ago. Or maybe the Europeans were just testing Bush's determination to make the nations that approved 1441 stand by its threat of enforcement. Those yes voters, of course, included France and Russia; Germany has since joined the council.

The appeasers did not have the limelight to themselves. Secretary of State Colin Powell charged that Iraq is hiding machinery to make new al-Samoud missiles even as it hands over other missiles for disposal by the UN. ...

President Bush is correct to pursue international approval for an attack on Iraq. But at some point he needs to choose:

He can defer to those who want the inspections fiasco to drag on and on and on with no hard conclusion and no enforcement.

Or he can say that as the heat and wind build in Iraq, he will not imperil his troops by asking them to fight in more dangerous weather because nations that voted for Resolution 1441 now pretend it doesn't exist.

-0- Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

If the Bush administration wants its position on global climate change to be taken seriously, it needs to get serious about keeping a presidential promise and coming up with a plan to address the issue. Granted, the administration has much on its plate right now. But so far, appearing serious on climate change seems to be missing from that plate.

At least that's the impression one gets from a report released last week by a panel of the National Academies, which commended the administration for addressing global warming but criticized the administration's draft plan for having serious gaps. ...

What the administration needs to do is change the appearance by demonstrating that it is serious about finding out what's really going on with the climate. It can start by paying heed to the National Academies report and making the necessary changes in the final plan, due out next month.

-0- (Compiled by United Press International)

www.insightmag.com Posted March 6, 2003 By Hans S. Nichols Media Credit: Rick Kozak

The International Republican Institute (IRI) plants the seeds of democracy worldwide, then monitors their growth and celebrates their success. Founded in 1983, it is a nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy group based in Washington that operates in approximately 60 countries, including some widely regarded as the world's most oppressive and authoritarian regimes.

IRI President George A. Folsom is decidedly enthusiastic about the future of democracy. "We are still very much a 'do tank,' not a 'think tank,'" Folsom tells Insight. The institute has program managers stationed across the globe, keeping IRI's headquarters apprised of democracy's ups and downs. Folsom believes he has good reason for optimism. In the era that has followed the Cold War, he claims, "Business is good for democracy; the world climate is right for democracy."

This reporter saw Folsom and his team in action in Macedonia in the fall of 2002, where IRI observed a successful multiparty election in a Balkan country that had been on the brink of civil war one year earlier. Insight recently caught up with Folsom at IRI's Washington headquarters.

Insight: Where are you most optimistic about the chances for democracy today?

George A. Folsom: Cambodia. They have parliamentary elections next July, and we will field a large election-observation mission, as in Macedonia. The Cambodians have shown the willingness to develop a deep democracy that one day will reach international standards. One of the reasons I am so optimistic is that we have been working with some truly courageous people on the ground there -- truly courageous.

Personal Bio

George A. Folsom: Fighter for democracy means business.

Currently: President, International Republican Institute, Washington.

Born: Jan. 2, 1955; Greenville, S.C.

Family: Wife, Suzanne Rich Folsom, and two children, Anderson, 5, and Rilly Ann, 2.

Education: B.A. in international relations, American University, 1977; a J.D. from the University of South Carolina, and an M.A. from the University of South Carolina in international affairs, 1982; Ph.D. candidate, May 2003, at the Johns Hopkins University School for Advanced International Studies.

Master's thesis: "International Law as an Instrument of Foreign Policy."

Favorite book: Markings, by Dag Hammarskjöld, "a short but intensive study of his personal relationship with God."

Favorite movie: Lawrence of Arabia or Doctor Zhivago. "I can't choose."

Q: In a land where the Khmer Rouge slaughtered an estimated one-third of the country only a generation ago, it must take real courage to fight for democracy.

A: Unfortunately, Cambodia still is a place where assassinations take place with regularity. And it's not just shooting someone in the head with a pistol. What they do is tie a victim's feet and head together behind their back and then hand them over to chop off the head. It's very gruesome.

Yet, in the face of even this kind of intimidation, the Cambodian people have exercised extraordinary courage. For example, we've been working with Kem Sohka, who has just started the Cambodian Center for Human Rights. He is a true Cambodian patriot, and we're in the business of helping patriots build democracies.

Q: How many countries did you visit in 2002?

A: Let's see: Cambodia, Russia, Ecuador, China, Mongolia, South Korea, Japan, Italy, Macedonia, Turkey, South Africa, Qatar, Ukraine and Thailand. That's 14.

I was just in Russia, met with the chairman of the Foreign Policy Committee at the Duma and came away with the view that when it comes to democracy Russia is a study in contrasts.

As the Russians say, you have many Kremlins "managing" democracy, but at the same time you also have the growth of political parties. What's exciting is that those parties are very interested in relating democracy and free enterprise -- tying them together to try to ensure freedom and economic prosperity.

That's something we believe very strongly in as well. You can't be truly free unless you have economic freedom. It's something practical I learned from my father and brother, from their experience running savings and loans: If you have people who own their own homes and finance them, they have a direct, immediate and material interest in local governance and in local schools.

And that's true all across the world.

Q: What's the best way to jump-start democracy in some of these countries, especially those where it has for so long seemed hopeless?

A: I don't believe in one size fits all, either in terms of democracy or economic freedom. Different countries have different histories, customs and traditions. The countries in Latin America, for example, are quite diverse, and you have to tailor your programs accordingly.

Q: How does IRI decide to get involved in a country?

A: There are three criteria to be considered before IRI might engage in operations in a country.

First: Is there an opportunity for IRI to play a role? This criterion used to be, is that country moving in the right direction? But that's been broadened, which could mean a negative direction, as in Argentina.

The second criterion: Is the country of strategic interest to the United States?

And third: Can IRI make a difference in moving that country toward democracy?

Q: How do these criteria fit with what IRI is doing in Latin America?

A: Sometimes a country such as Argentina will take a step backward. We have to accept that. But throughout all Latin America it boils down to governing with transparency.

When ordinary citizens suspect that the elites are not fairly governing the political economy, they are going to throw those elites out of power. That's what has happened in Venezuela, for example, allowing [President] Hugo Chavez to come to power.

Q: In how many countries do you maintain offices?

A: We try to operate with a very light footprint. Because we want to keep our overhead very low, we like to use regional offices. I think it was something like 57 countries at the end of this last calendar year.

But we're expanding all the time. When IRI was started back in 1984, we were in only 10 countries. During the last year we've experienced tremendous growth, increasing our size by 32 percent in one year.

And that's good business for democracy. In the years since the Cold War we have created a much more diverse organization to take advantage of this very good time for democracy.

Q: Where are the bright spots these days?

A: Our polling data indicate that, long term, we should be cautiously optimistic about the West Bank/Gaza after [Yasser] Arafat. But I need to stress the long-term part.

Q: Is it critical that Arafat goes first?

A: I am not going to be particular about the sequencing.

Q: Where are you most pessimistic?

A: I would say countries such as Belarus, where there is the last dictator in Europe. Closely behind Belarus would be Ukraine.

Still, we are working very hard with the democratic opposition and a broad array of political actors and political parties in both countries. But, at the end of the day, there's a relationship between the development of democracy and visible security. Right now the people who work for democracy in Belarus are subject to systematic physical intimidation.

Q: Do you have a program for democracy in Pakistan?

A: We have a very small one there, though it should be getting bigger this year. I am very excited about what's happening in Afghanistan and everywhere else in that region.

In Afghanistan we are working to recreate both the civil and political society. That's a big task, but we're making progress. For example, we have successfully moved an Afghan-language newspaper from Peshawar, Pakistan, back to Kabul, the Afghani capital. They are now publishing five days a week. The objective is that they publish in three different languages.

I am really looking forward to working with new Afghani political parties. I met with a coalition of them in Seoul, Korea, at the Community of Democracies conference. It was a very successful meeting.

It would make an interesting study to compare and contrast how political parties fare and operate in authoritarian environments such as Belarus, Cuba, Burma and Zimbabwe. Just what do they do under such adverse circumstances to try to advance democratic opportunities?

Q: What does globalization, that great nemesis of the current left, mean for democracy?

A: There's not a day goes by that I don't think about globalization from the democratic point of view. IRI is at the democratic tip of the globalization sphere. We are working at the micro level to build healthy democracies. Those democracies sometimes are nascent, sometimes robust. The important thing is that we are building. We are helping to build democracies and it is really exciting.

Q: Of the three countries in President George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil," where will we see democracy take hold first?

A: We already are seeing the beginnings of democracy in Iran. I would counsel that demographic trends in a country that increasingly is a nation of young people are very favorable to the development of a robust democracy.

North Korea probably would be dead last because of the extremely authoritarian nature of the regime.

Hans S. Nichols is a writer for The Hill.

biz.yahoo.com Press Release Source: NATSO Thursday March 6, 1:05 pm ET

ALEXANDRIA, Va., March 6 /PRNewswire/ -- In response to charges by the American Trucking Associations (ATA) of possible fuel price gouging by retailers, NATSO (representing America's travel plazas and truckstops) President & CEO William D. Fay delivered the following letter to ATA President & CEO William Graves and state attorneys general:

"It is sad that the trucking industry has decided to ignore the geopolitical factors that have sent crude oil prices skyrocketing and instead point fingers at a trucking community partner, America's truckstops.

Throughout the decades, crude oil prices go up and diesel prices go up. Then the price of crude goes down and diesel prices go down. Although we never hear mea culpas after prices go down, users are unfortunately wont to seek out scapegoats when prices shoot up.

Here are some facts that Attorneys-General and the trucking industry should heed:

* Crude oil prices are hovering at two-year highs.  A barrel of crude
  today sells at $36, double the $18 price just a year ago.

* Worldwide crude oil supplies are tight because of uncertainty about Iraq
  specifically, the Middle East generally, the Venezuela strike, and cold
  weather.

* Little needs to be said about the Middle East and Venezuela, but it's
  important to note that home heating oil and diesel fuel for trucks come
  from the same source.  This winter has been 30% colder than 2002.
  January in the Northeast was 32% colder than last year and February has
  followed this freezing trend.  As a result, the demand for heating oil
  was up dramatically -- this, in turn, puts upward price pressure on the
  distillates that also produce diesel.

On behalf of the nation's truckstops and travel plazas, NATSO welcomes any investigation by attorneys general, but remind them that there have been myriad investigations over the last several decades. Not one single investigation has ever turned up evidence of gouging or price-fixing.

We'll watch with bated breath for the trucking industry's mea culpa when the weather turns warmer and the war and political instability in Venezuela ends."

NATSO is the professional association of America's $42 billion travel plaza and truckstop industry. Founded in 1960, NATSO represents the industry on legislative and regulatory matters; serves as the official source of information on the diverse travel plaza and truckstop industry; provides education to its members; conducts an annual convention and trade show; and supports efforts to generally improve the business climate in which its members operate.

Source: NATSO