www.voanews.com VOA News 09 Mar 2003, 02:34 UTC

Venezuelan police fired shots into the air and launched tear gas Saturday during a failed attempt to arrest an opposition leader.

Police tried to arrest Juan Fernandez at an anti-government rally along a crowded highway in Caracas.

The former executive of the state oil firm PDVSA eluded police by slipping away after he addressed the crowd of demonstrators, who were protesting against President Hugo Chavez.

Mr. Fernandez warned Mr. Chavez to, in his words, "pack his bags." Angry protesters confronted police, hurling stones at the heavily-armed police officers. The police, in turn, fired tear gas and shots into the air.

Demonstrators showed their support for opposition leaders who led a failed two-month strike against Mr. Chavez. One of the leaders is under house arrest, and several others are running from authorities.

Opposition leaders have called for early elections, saying Mr. Chavez has done more harm than good to Venezuela's economy. The president has called his opponents coup-plotters trying to return to the old status quo, when power was held by an elite minority.

www.jamaicaobserver.com TONY LOWRIE, Observer staff reporter Sunday, March 09, 2003

SAMUDA... feared Jamaica would be subject to US trade sanctions

A senior official in the United States embassy in Kingston has said that America was not considering trade sanctions against Jamaica although the island was on a Watch List for failure to enact trade laws protecting patents, industrial designs and plant variety.

According to Michael Koplowsky, political and economics chief at the US Embassy, although Jamaica has been placed on the Watch List for missing a January 1, 2000 deadline for enacting the appropriate legislation, the country was not currently in danger of facing US trade sanctions. KNIGHT... the new legislation will be introduced in Parliament early in the next legislative year

Koplowsky was responding to a concern raised by Opposition parliamentarian, Karl Samuda, last week that Washington could act against Kingston because of the Patterson Administration's failure to pass the law.

"If we don't enact the appropriate legislation I suspect we would be subject to trade sanctions because we are on the watch list and any country that is on that list can be subject to sanctions," Samuda had told the Sunday Observer.

But Koplowsky dismissed any consideration of trade sanctions, stating that "Jamaica has world class copyright protection, trademark protection and is making good efforts to negotiate the right agreements with copyright holders on cable broadcast and television programmes".

Samuda, the Opposition spokesman on industry and commerce, served notice at Tuesday's sitting of the Lower House that he would move a resolution calling on the Government "to table a report outlining the reasons for the inordinate delay in bringing this vital piece of legislation to Parliament".

Jamaica's delay in enacting the law has resulted in the United States trade representative, acting under "Special 301" section of the US trade law, placing Jamaica on a Watch List.

"Lack of parliamentary action to bring Jamaica's patent, industrial design, and plant variety laws into conformity with international standards remains the primary motivation for the country's inclusion on the Watch List," the US trade representative says in the Special 301 Report. "The United States urges Jamaica to complete the process of enacting the necessary legislation."

But the report praised Jamaica for the creation of an intellectual property office and for enforcing existing intellectual property rights laws, including the misuse of well-known marks.

Koplowsky said that the watch list is intended to draw attention to the need for countries, like Jamaica, to fulfil all international obligations under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS). He said that because Jamaica has been on the Watch List for some years now, there may be some danger of the country being placed on the Priority Watch List following the current spring review.

He noted, however, that "Jamaica's patent law is dated 1857 and therefore does not provide the modern international patent protection required by the WTO". He said that this was important, "because when investors, especially manufacturers, are considering coming to the country to set up operations, issues of adequate intellectual property rights protection, particularly patent protection for industrial designs (an essential for high-tech industries) carry considerable weight in their decision".

Koplowsky said that trade sanctions were not the route of choice of the US Government and that when countries are placed in the highest list of Priority Foreign Countries, it is an indication that the United States is taking a case against them under the WTO.

He said, however, that there are certain US trade practices that are beneficial to other countries and "if such countries do not provide adequate intellectual property rights protection, those trade preferences could be in jeopardy".

In response to Samuda's motion, Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade Minister K D Knight told the Sunday Observer that the Government was aware that Jamaica had been placed on the watch list and that the new legislation would be introduced in Parliament during the early part of the next legislative year.

"The Government of Jamaica has all intention to ensure it complies with the WTO's TRIPS requirements and my ministry is making every effort to ensure that the appropriate legislation is enacted in the quickest possible time as we are acutely aware that the matter needs to be accorded the highest priority," said Knight.

Also included among the 33 countries currently on the US trade representative's Watch List are: The Bahamas, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, New Zealand, Peru and Venezuela.

Among the 15 on the "Priority Watch List" are: Argentina, Brazil, The European Union, India, Russia and Uruguay.

The only "Priority Foreign Country" currently listed is the Ukraine.

news.independent.co.uk By Jason Nissé 09 March 2003

When the First World War started, the saying was "It'll be over by Christmas". With the potential conflict in Iraq, the timeframe is even shorter. Some are talking about it being over before Gordon Brown stands up to present the Budget at lunchtime on 9 April.

Even if these optimists are right, though, this conflict will end up as one of the most expensive in history. Last year Larry Lindsey, George Bush's chief economic adviser, estimated that it would cost America $140bn (£87.5bn). But this figure has already been exceeded and the bill is getting larger by the day.

First there is the direct cost of the build- up of troops in and around Iraq, along with the ships and planes carrying them, their supplies and logistics, the potential cost of the weapons and fuel they will use up, and the potential loss of expensive machinery and soldiers' lives. Last week the Bush administration gave an indication of how much extra it would need from the Federal budget to cover all this, quoting between $60bn and $95bn. Few people think the final bill will come at the lower end of this range.

This doesn't include the UK's expenditure. Last week the Chancellor said he would need to allocate more than the £1.75bn he has put aside so far for the war, but could not say how much. This could take the total allied bill past $100bn.

To put this in context, this is about 50 per cent of the cost (in today's money) of America's late involvement in the First World War, just under a third of the cost of the Korean War and a fifth of the expenditure on the conflict in Vietnam.

It is also a third more than the last Gulf War in 1991. This is not because it is any more expensive to wage this conflict, just that the UK and the US have to pay for all of it. "The allies have to foot their own bill this time," explains Mark Cliffe, chief economist at ING Barings. "In 1991 the Gulf states, Japan and Germany all paid out to help cover the costs."

This $100bn assumes a short conflict. The Congressional Budget Office has priced war at between $6bn and $9bn a month just for the cost of munitions and supplies, while deploying troops would cost another $9bn-$13bn a month, and occupation would come in at between $1bn and $4bn a month. A month-long war with a year-long occupation would cost up to $70bn, but a three-month war and two years of occupation could cost $200bn.

The $95bn estimate includes some of the compensation the US government is going to offer Turkey for letting US troops use its bases. But as the Turkish parliament has thrown out the US plans and intense negotiations are under way, there could be substantially more aid for Turkey. The total bill could exceed $30bn and it is not clear how much of this is included in the war funding being put before Congress.

And Turkey isn't the only country looking for compensation. Israel has asked for $12bn in a mix of aid and loan guarantees, Egypt is pressing for up to $8bn and Jordan is likely to seek up to $2bn. Others may also look for help, leaving a total bill for assistance to "friendly" countries of over $50bn. This means that in the case of a long but successful war, the total direct cost could be at least $250bn.

All this ignores the impact on the world economy, which is much harder to quantify. The most obvious effect is on the oil price. On Friday it closed at $33.60 a barrel, over $10 higher than it was before this crisis started. But economists and oil traders cannot agree on how much of this rise is due to the Iraq situation and how much to problems in Venezuela.

However, assuming the price would be around $25 without the crisis, then it is making oil some $8 a barrel more expen- sive. The world consumes 75 million barrels a day, which makes the daily increased cost $600m. Even given a short war, the crisis will have lasted about six months, for a total extra cost to the world of $36bn.

Optimistic economists believe the oil price will drop once the war is over, as it did in 1991. But others have changed their view. "We thought the price would fall back to $20, but we now think it will only be to around $27 or $28," says Keith Wade, chief economist at Schroders Investment Management. "This is because inventories are so low and it will take some time before Iraqi oil comes on stream."

HSBC estimates that each $5 rise in the price of oil would cut world economic growth by 0.1 per cent, or $32bn. So if the oil price stays $8 higher for the year, this would cost the global economy $51bn.

The knock-on effect could be even more marked. Already the world's economies are suffering as investment decisions are put off and people are thrown out of work. "Early estimates of US GDP growth for the first quarter ranged around 3 per cent, but these seem wide of the mark," says Stephen Lewis at Monument Research. "There must be some doubt about whether there will be any growth at all." In effect, this means the crisis has cost the US economy $300m in the first three months of this year alone.

And what happens after the war? Mr Cliffe at ING Barings was initially derided as too bearish when he said world economic growth could be cut by up to 1.7 per cent because of the conflict. However, many are coming round to his view. If Mr Cliffe is right, this would mean a bill for the world of $530bn this year – and he was assuming a sharp recovery in global activity after the war. But now he is not so sure, pointing out that recovery could be slow or even negligible until the political uncertainty is sorted out.

Mr Wade agrees: "The cost of the war and of occupation is pretty open-ended. And if Bush then goes after Iran or North Korea, the uncertainty will continue. Even an ideal, short war will not put the world economy back on a recovery path."

www.taipeitimes.com REUTERS Sunday, Mar 09, 2003,Page 10

World oil prices hurtled higher again on Friday as the US and Britain set a March 17 ultimatum for Iraq to disarm or face war.

A revised draft resolution circulated by British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw at the UN, backed by Washington, gives Baghdad 10 days to meet UN demands.

The two allies during that time hope to garner support in the bitterly divided 15-member UN Security Council for military action against Iraq, which ships around 4 percent of world oil exports.

US light crude climbed US$0.78 to US$37.78 a barrel, barely US$2 short of a recent 12-year high. Brent crude futures rose US$0.57 to US$34.10 a barrel, a two-year high.

"News of that deadline is certainly keeping the market very strong," said broker Christopher Bellew of Prudential Bache in London.

"Any final deadline will give the market another shove to the upside," said Tom James of broker Carr Futures.

Oil prices have already jumped 20 percent this year on fear that war in Iraq will hit exports from the Middle East, which pumps a third of the world's oil. Concern is growing that rising energy costs will further strain a weak economy.

An oil workers' strike in nearby Venezuela, and strong heating demand in a bitter northern winter has already drained US fuel stocks. The government warned on Thursday that gasoline prices would hit record levels this summer.

Saudi Arabia, the biggest producer in the OPEC cartel, has said it will raise production to meet any shortfall international market

rutlandherald.nybor.com March 8, 2003 By KAREN PAUL

It may not surprise you to know that there is no mere mortal on this planet who knows where the stock market will head or what magic number it will close at as dusk falls on the last day of this coming December. Ok, so that’s not a riveting statement nor is it rocket science or brain surgery (although a brain surgeon once told me that brain surgery isn’t really all that complex but I think he just said that.)

Riveting or not, it still does not stop Wall Street from hiring gurus and paying them stratospheric seven-figure incomes to tell us what the stock market is going to do six, 12 and 18 months down the road. You don’t hear Alan Greenspan forecasting interest rates or the stock market but then again, his pay isn’t in the ozone.

There are a great many myths in the investing crystal ball and some have repeated themselves so an argument can be made that they could happen again. Still others are just a lot of hopeful thinking or perhaps praying better describes it. Let’s talk about those that seem possible but really are far from it.

We know that there has been one time in history when the stock market has declined four years in a row. It’s so historical that it garners a title in capital letters, The Great Depression. From 1929 to its low in 1931, the stock market fell over 70% in four years before advancing into 1932.

We are not in the next great depression. I won’t bore you with all the reasons the last three years are different from those dark days around 1930. There is a myth whirling around Wall Street that just because the stock market has already declined 50 to 80%, depending on what average you cry over, the market can’t decline in 2003. We have already sunk low enough. Not necessarily true.

History is a guide, not a law. An argument can be made that valuations are still very high, that the economy is still very weak and that investors still face a deep crisis of confidence in American business and their ability to accurately inform the public. Last but certainly always on our collective minds, Iraq, North Korea and Venezuela loom with the darkness of immense uncertainty. A recent study by some noted British academic economists stated that in the course of “stock market performance shows that across 16 markets, the probability of a fourth down year is 40 percent.” Interestingly, according to market historian Yale Hirsch and others, that is also the probability than any year will be a down year. In other words, while the bullish side may have an edge here, it’s just that and nothing more.

Shortly after the beginning of this millennium, there was a widespread and wide-eyed belief that if Alan Greenspan would just lower interest rates, all our problems would be solved. Most investors would have thought I was losing my stock market marbles if I told you in 2000 that after a dozen interest rate cuts, the stock market was down over 50 percent. Case in point: lower interest rates do not guarantee a higher stock market. No one thing causes the stock market to go up, at least for very long. Granted, during the Gulf War in 1991, the stock market took off when it appeared we would be victorious but there were other factors in place that perpetuated that advance. An economy recovering from recession, improved corporate profitability, Wall Street expectations for companies that were met or were exceeded, and falling interest rates continued to fuel that rally.

Another investing myth portends that if you just wait long enough, buying and holding a stock will pay off in the long run. That may be true with some stocks but so untrue with so many others. While I might agree that it is possible to have an inkling of the future probability that some companies will be profitable over two or three years, believing that you know what some company will do over 10 or 20 years is unreasonable. You can take a leap of faith and buy a stock and hold it for 20 years, dust it off and hope for the best but that’s what it is. In this same British study, the authors observed that out of those same 16 national stock markets, investors in only five of those markets would have been guaranteed positive annualreturns over every 20-year period during the last century.” Wow, put that in your buy and hold pipe and well, up in smoke.

The ultimate truth is that there is always risk in the stock market. Diversifying can lessen the some of these ugly menaces that can erode returns. Having cash on the sidelines will give you the tool needed to participate in the stock market when your comfort level is reached.

In the meantime, put aside the rumors and the myths and concentrate on the reality, which is that no one has all the answers. You are going to make mistakes on your road to realizing your investment goals. As long as your decisions are diversified and grounded in fact, your rewards will be as well.