asia.reuters.com
Sat March 8, 2003 08:35 PM ET By Pascal Fletcher

CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - Venezuelan police swooped on an anti-government rally on Saturday apparently to arrest an opposition leader wanted by the government for heading a recent strike, but the fugitive slipped away.

Protesters clashed with heavily-armed police who converged on the rally after Juan Fernandez, a sacked former executive of the state oil firm PDVSA, defied a government arrest order and addressed the demonstration against President Hugo Chavez.

Fernandez, who urged thousands at the rally to keep up a campaign of street protests against the leftist leader, and several other prominent opposition figures are being hunted by the authorities. They led a two-month strike in December and January that slashed oil production and exports in the world's No. 5 petroleum exporter.

After Fernandez's surprise appearance at the rally jamming an east Caracas highway, several yellow cars and vans of the DISIP security police, their lights flashing, drove at speed up to the edges of the demonstration apparently to nab him.

But the oil strikers' leader, escorted by supporters, had already slipped away from the speaking platform and angry protesters confronted the police, hurling stones at the heavily-armed officers who fired tear gas to disperse them.

Local television reported shots were fired but no injuries were immediately reported.

In his defiant speech, Fernandez told Chavez to "pack his bags ... We're going to get you out," he said.

As the leader of thousands of state oil employees whose walkout crippled the strategic oil sector for weeks during the strike, Fernandez has become a figurehead of resistance to Chavez in the determined but divided opposition.

Saturday's clash stoked political tensions more than a month after the strike had fizzled out after failing to force the former paratrooper to resign and hold early elections.

The grueling stoppage has triggered an economic crisis, forcing the government to introduce tough currency and price controls and launch a nationwide food distribution program. The crisis has also helped lift world oil prices.

CUBA SENDS FOOD HELP

Shouting "Killers" and "Lackeys," the protesters crowded around the DISIP vehicles, beating with their fists on their roofs and sides. The windows of at least one car were broken.

Chavez, a fiery populist who was first elected in 1998 and survived a coup last year, has condemned the strike leaders as "terrorists" and "coup mongers" trying to overthrow him. He has called for them to be arrested and jailed and has also fired more than 15,000 state oil workers.

Waving national flags, the opposition demonstrators demanded a halt to what they described as a political vendetta by the president against the leaders of the strike.

Anti-Chavez business chief Carlos Fernandez is under house arrest on charges of rebellion and criminal instigation. Other strike organizers sought by the government, such as Juan Fernandez and union boss Carlos Ortega, have eluded police.

As the protesters gathered, Chavez told a meeting of supporters in a Caracas theater that Venezuela had received donations of sugar and beans from communist Cuba to help his government fight food shortages caused by the recent strike.

Chavez thanked his political ally and friend, Cuban President Fidel Castro, for the cargoes of 10,000 tonnes of sugar and 5,000 tonnes of black beans. He said these were being sold cheaply to the poor in the government's food program.

"The Cubans gave up 10 million kilos (10,000 tonnes) of sugar from their own reserves ... they didn't want to accept payment, they said we could pay for them whenever we could," the president said. Cuba receives oil from Venezuela on preferential terms under a bilateral energy deal.

Chavez's opponents, who include private business leaders, union bosses and dissident military officers, accuse him of ruining the economy with his anti-capitalist rhetoric and left-wing, statist economic policies. They say he is trying to recreate Cuban-style communism in Venezuela.

The president condemns his opponents as a rich, resentful "oligarchy" opposed to his self-styled "revolution."

Chavez announced the creation of a state-run network of shops which would sell cheap food to the poor. The idea appeared to be a replica of a similar system existing in Cuba.

www.sundayherald.com By John Phelps

WOOD Group, the Aberdeen-based energy services company that swept the board at last week's Scotland plc Awards, could face a cooler reception from investors tomorrow when it checks in with its first set of annual results since floating on the stock exchange last year.

Through no fault of its management, led by chairman and chief executive Sir Ian Wood, the bulk of Wood Group's more recent investors are sitting on sizeable losses following a sharp fall in the company's share price since the group made its splash on flotation last May.

The shares, offered for sale at 195p each, quickly climbed to 230p early last summer but are now trading at just 145p amid stock-market worries about the impact of the crisis in Venezuela and fears over the pending conflict in Iraq.

Small shareholders may fret but the biggest losers are the Wood family who still own 48% of the company and have seen their investment decline from more than £500 million to a current level of around £275m.

Despite the share-price slide, Sir Ian is expected to confirm that his company has gone some way towards justifying its new title of Scotland's plc of the Year by matching earlier forecasts of maiden annual profits of around £76.5m.

He will emphasise that the Middle East as a whole only accounts for about 6% of business, a similar level to its exposure in South America, and that the group has a high degree of protection through its spread of business activities in more than 30 countries around the world.

These activities include an increasing involvement in safe areas such as the Gulf of Mexico and the US while Wood's work in the North Sea includes project management and detailed engineering for BP Clair, the largest current new field development.

The group also has expanding interest in gas turbines services and has high hopes for its new test facility in Aberdeen which has been carrying out work for Alstom Tornado and Typhoon light industrial turbine engines.

Wood is also in a comfortable situation to ride out current uncertainties because of the strength of its balance sheet following the flotation -- net debts worked out at around £131m at the end of June, just 27% of the value of the group's net assets.

While prospects must be clouded by current global uncertainties, most brokers believe Wood Group is poised for further growth in the current year and a consensus produced by Multex forecasts an increase in earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation from £100m to £122.7m.

Their optimism reflects the chairman's own view that the business can continue to grow in a hostile climate.

'The group has the management team, strategy and market opportunities to continue to develop a major international energy services business capable of delivering significant growth in shareholder value,' he said.

Those who clambered aboard last year's flotation must be hoping that he is right.

As things stand, the forecasts illustrate the huge strides made under Sir Ian, who was feted as Scottish chief executive of the year at last week's awards dinner. When he took over the family business in 1964, it was mainly involved in fish processing and farming before he steered it into new areas such as ship repair and sheet metal. Then, in 1972, Sir John spotted the potential of the nascent North Sea oil industry.

Despite almost breaking the $40-a-barrel mark 10 days ago, oil prices were more stable on Friday ahead of a key report on Iraq by United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix. After Blix delivered a mixed report on the disarmament process in the country, Brent crude futures for April initially rose 26 cents to $33.79 a barrel, while US light crude rose 50c to $37.45 a barrel.

One US oil analyst admitted that crude oil would continue to remain hostage to higher prices because inventory levels were now at record lows.

'There seems to be no chance for immediate relief as Opec [the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries] is also at the upper end of its production limits,' he said.

Oil prices have been volatile in recent weeks, with the threat of war in the world's eighth-largest oil exporter combining with fears about world energy stocks and the effects of strike action in Venezuela.

Iraq's deputy oil minister warned on Friday that if a US-led invasion begins, the price of oil could reach $70 a barrel.

After US markets reacted badly to disastrous US jobless figures and several poor company results, the FTSE-100 closed on Friday 63.8 points, or 1.79%, lower at 3491.6, having earlier slid as much as 2.3%.

www.woodgroup.co.uk

www.nytimes.com March 9, 2003 By DANIEL ALTMAN and NEELA BANERJEE

For months, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries has scrambled, with little success, to keep a lid on oil prices. With war threatening as the cartel's ministers meet in Vienna this week, prospects for the global economy are so cloudy, analysts say, there is not much left for OPEC to do.

The oil producers are not alone in their plight. Around the world, and especially in the United States, the dilemma of planning for the unknowable is upsetting the decisions of consumers, businesses and investors. That is hampering an economy struggling to better last year's meager growth, weighing on stock prices and subduing consumer spending.

Oil is a significant component of all those calculations. Crude oil prices have hit their highest levels since the Persian Gulf war of 1991, and Standard & Poor's estimates high energy prices have cost the economy $50 billion in consumer purchasing power, or 0.5 percentage point of growth, just since last fall. The Energy Department predicts that by April, consumers will be paying record-high prices for gasoline in much of the country.

In any effort to assess how prices will move — and how the economy will react — the echoes of history are inescapable. Just like in the fall of 1990, the massing of American troops near Iraq and fears that oil supplies from the Persian Gulf will be disrupted have lifted the price of oil well above $30 a barrel for weeks.

But most of the similarities end there, according to industry analysts. While few experts expect a war to lead to shortages of oil, most doubt there will be a replay of the events of the gulf war.

A dozen years ago, analysts noted, the world was awash in oil. Prices were less than $20 a barrel when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. They began to climb when the United Nations imposed an embargo on Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil, removing a bit more than 7 percent of global oil supplies, according to Leonidas P. Drollas, the chief economist with the Center for Global Energy Studies, a London research firm.

Oil prices spiked to more than $41 a barrel by October 1990, but fell once OPEC moved to compensate by increasing production to make up for the loss of the embargoed oil. A few weeks after the United States-led attack on Iraq in January 1991, oil was selling for less than $18 a barrel.

Some traders are positioning themselves for prices to plunge again should the shooting start. "People realize that there is a tremendous downside risk," said Neal L. Wolkoff, the chief operating officer of the New York Mercantile Exchange, where crude oil is traded.

Most analysts say, however, that key indicators of the oil industry's health — notably low inventories of oil and petroleum products at American refineries — suggest that now, prices would remain steep regardless of military action.

A yearlong series of production cuts by OPEC in 2002 gradually reduced global oil supplies as world economies were growing stronger. Then a strike in Venezuela stripped 4 percent of the world's oil supply from the market. So the balance between supply and demand is much tighter than it was on the eve of the gulf war.

Today, a war in Iraq would remove about two million barrels of oil a day from the market, analysts estimate. Some believe that OPEC, which does not disclose its production, has the spare capacity — concentrated in Saudi Arabia — to replace that oil. Others say they think the cartel's members are already pumping at full capacity, both in an effort to keep prices from spiraling even higher, at the risk of stifling demand, and to take advantage of the unusually high prices.

"I think they're effectively tapped out," said Edward L. Morse, executive adviser at the Hess Energy Trading Company. "They're producing very close to as much oil as they can produce."

One step that helped drive prices down once the gulf war began was the decision by the White House to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Lately, the Bush administration has said that it would tap the 600-million-barrel reserve only if supply disruptions occur — not to rein in high prices.

Analysts, oil traders and even some Republican politicians have called on the White House to move more quickly, given the market's jitters. "They must release the oil because there is one fly in the ointment: consumer behavior," said Mr. Drollas of the Center for Global Energy Studies. "If people panic and start filling up their cars, the system will run dry."

Ultimately, the price of oil will likely swing with the progress of a war, industry executives and analysts said. If any fighting ended quickly, prices will probably fall — though not as sharply as in 1991, given generally tight supplies. But if the conflict dragged on, or if oil facilities in Iraq or neighboring countries were damaged, prices could remain high.

Faced with such uncertainty, OPEC will likely do nothing formally when it meets in Vienna, except pledge to continue at high levels of production, analysts said.

"It doesn't matter what they say in Vienna, because OPEC has only one option — that is, provide the barrels that are being asked of them," said Yasser Elguindi, the director of the oil and energy unit of Medley Global Advisors, a New York consulting firm.

The impact of a war on the broader economy is as hard to read as the prospects for oil prices.

If war comes, it could end in anything from quick victory followed by democratic change to chaos and terror worldwide. The rosiest outcome could bolster the United States economy by $50 billion this year, according to a much-cited report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, while the worst case could cost $450 billion.

In the meantime, the suspense is taking its toll, said Laurence H. Meyer, the former Federal Reserve governor who wrote the report. "Timing is not unimportant," he said, "because it lengthens the weaker period early in the year and pushes the rebound later in the year."

During the gulf war, the allies' early success briefly emboldened consumers, but there was little of the customary wartime boom. The nation was already in a recession when Iraq invaded Kuwait. By the time President George Bush declared Kuwait liberated, the unemployment rate had already begun its usual postrecession climb and the president's wartime popularity evaporated.

That chain of events fit a timeworn pattern, said Gail D. Fosler, the chief economist of the Conference Board, a business research group in New York. "Whether you're looking at the Arab oil embargo, the Iran revolution that led to the oil shock in the late 1970's or the gulf war, it occurred towards the end of our economic cycle," she said. "You were susceptible, and you got sick."

This time, by contrast, the economy has recently endured recession and, some economists say, may be closer to the start of a new boom.

But the potential side effects of a war could place an unprecedented drag on the economy.

"During the gulf war, you didn't have people being put on heightened terror alerts," Ms. Fosler said. "There's too much emphasis that's put on the war, and not enough emphasis that's put on the terror."

www.dailytimes.com.pk By Chris Floyd The war is always coming; it’s always here, either in utero, full fury or chaotic aftermath. The newest war the invasion of Iraq will come because a gang of like-minded men is willing it into being. They want it it’s as simple as that. They want what they believe this war will give them: wealth, dominion, and empire. The ultimate goal is not Iraq that bombed, blockaded state partially controlled by a witless thug whom the gang once succoured but domination of the world’s oil supplies in the coming century, when the surging nations of China and India will reach their economic peak. These vast entities could eventually tilt the imbalance of world wealth away from the Anglo-American elites who have for so long held the high and palmy ground of privilege. But the voracious economies of the Asian behemoths will require unstinting draughts of the oil reserves now locked under the sands of Iraq and Saudi Arabia. There is oil elsewhere, yes but nowhere else in the world are there reserves deep enough to satisfy the thirsts of China and India as they come into their own.Therefore it is imperative for the Anglo-American elites to dominate this indispensable resource, if they are to maintain their wonted ease beneath the palms. Or so they believe. Actually, the narrowly-concentrated wealth of the West is so staggeringly great that these elites could quite easily devote abundant resources toward developing new forms of energy, national self-sufficiency, and what used to be known in Abraham Lincoln’s day as “internal improvements” roads, schools, hospitals, parks, the extension of liberty, leisure and opportunity and still keep their corpulent noses planted deep in the trough of their unearned riches. But alas, they too like the thugs they hire and fire so easily (Noriega, Saddam, bin Laden) are moral idiots. They don’t care about their own nations. They don’t care about the hapless people they rule except, of course, as cannon fodder or hired help. The “national interest” is what best serves the elites and their retainers. Throughout history, elite factions have always acted in similar ways to maintain and augment their dominance. At various times, for various reasons, their interests converge and they act loosely in concert; at other times, they tear each other to shreds killing millions of people in the process. You can see this pattern of behaviour the belligerent lust for dominance coupled with crafty temporary alliances at work among many primate groups. Our modern “elites” (the Ba’athist clique, Al Qaeda, the Bush Regime, the British Establishment, etc.) are simply secretions of the most primitive and ape-like elements still lurking in our brains. They’re a kind of heavy scum that forms on the free-flowing, light-dazzled stream of human existence. So, the attack on Iraq isn’t really a war for oil, not in the strictest sense. The United States doesn’t need Iraq’s oil. In recent years, America has been carefully diversifying its own sources of foreign oil, and is no longer overly dependent on the Arab-held fields. In fact, that’s one reason the long-planned attack on Iraq is coming now. Before, America couldn’t risk a military takeover of one of the major oil states (minor Kuwait, of course, has been occupied since 1991): Too much could go wrong, irreplaceable supplies could be cut off. Now, however, the game is worth the candle; even in the highly unlikely event of disaster an Arab oil embargo, a long, intractable war the Bush Regime believes they can ride it out until the situation stabilizes by drawing on other sources: Africa, Venezuela, Russia, plus the oil still lying off America’s coasts and under its scarce remaining wilderness. Iraq is not the end, but the means. What America needs or rather, what the thugs in the Bush Regime desire is dominance of Middle Eastern oil in order to hold the economies of China and India hostage in the coming decades. The aim is not conquest, in the classic sense; our elites are imperialists, not colonialists. They don’t want to settle amongst all those funny-looking foreigners; heaven forefend! It’s bad enough there are so many of them in God’s country already, where, as one august national leader, Republican Representative Sue Myrick, noted recently, they “run all the convenience stores,” thus posing the ever-present danger of gustatory terrorism. (“What’s that white powder on my donuts? Aieee!”) No, what is sought what is demanded, what will be enforced with human cannon fodder and treasure extorted from ordinary citizens (“You’re under attack! Give us your money!”) is that the emerging powers become pliant “friends” and business partners, along the lines of Western Europe. Naturally, this will require a heavy US military presence in the vicinity for generations, as in Europe (58 years and counting); naturally, as in Europe, obedience to US “interests” will be mandatory or else, as warlord Donald Rumsfeld recently threatened Germany, there will be “punishment”: the threat of economic ruin. And of course, there will be the overarching “missile shield,” the exciting “new generation” of nuclear weapons the Regime is developing, and the “full spectrum dominance” of space-mounted super weapons to provide that hint of violent coercion so essential to any warm friendship. So the game’s afoot; the knives are out; the gangs are on the march. What happens next, no one can tell, but this much is certain whatever the cost, in lives and lucre, the elites will not be paying it. —The Moscow Times

www.narconews.com By Reed Lindsay Narco News Authentic Journalism Scholar March 8, 2003

Fernando Buendía leads of one of Ecuador’s most powerful political parties, the Pachakutik Movement. A small, balding, sociologist with gracious manners, he speaks slowly and deliberately, measuring each phrase and stopping for long pauses.

But his unprepossessing demeanor is soon forgotten when he unleashes the fire in his tongue. Buendía is piercing and direct, and he plays no favorites. His fool’s gallery includes such luminaries as the U.S. government, the International Monetary Fund, Plan Colombia and some of the policies of his current ally, President Lucio Gutiérrez.

In an interview with Narco News on the eve of last November's presidential election, Buendía claimed the United States was violating its agreement to use the airbase at Manta solely in drug interdiction efforts. He also raised the possibility of opening a debate about drug legalization.

At that time, he was overseeing the work of those officials charged with drafting a plan of operation for the new Gutiérrez government. Since then, as an independent advisor at the Economy Ministry representing the Pachakutik Movement, Buendía has become an increasingly important player in the new coalition government. He was interviewed recently in Mérida, Mexico, where he attended a drug legalization summit co-sponsored by Narco News.

Narco News: What is the legal status of drug use in Ecuador?

Fernando Buendía: Under Ecuadorian law, the consumption of drugs is not penalized. It is considered a disease, and the drug user is not persecuted nor punished, although the drug trafficker is…

Narco News: You can use drugs in the street and nothing will happen to you?

Fernando Buendía: It is not socially permitted, but it is not a crime… If you are taking drugs on a street corner and a policeman arrives he can cause problems if you’re obstructing the street, but he can’t bother you for taking drugs…

Narco News: Is drug consumption a problem in Ecuador?

Fernando Buendía: It is a growing problem...In the Third World the consumption of drugs has to do with poverty, while in the First World, it has to do with alienation.

Narco News: How has Ecuador been affected by drug trafficking?

Fernando Buendía: Criminalization has provoked grave consequences for Latin America and for Ecuador. We’re paying an extremely high cost for prohibition… In Ecuador’s case, there are thousands of people in the jails who worked as mules, or small-scale transporters of drugs, who lacked other opportunities and turned to drug trafficking as a way out of poverty. The Ecuadorian jails are full of people who were linked in one way or another to drug trafficking.

Narco News: Has drug production in Colombia spilled over into Ecuador?

Fernando Buendía: As a result of the war in Colombia, there is evidence that coca leaves are beginning to be cultivated in Ecuador and that clandestine laboratories are functioning. Last year, two labs were discovered and eliminated… Along with this problem there is an economic problem. The volume of money laundering in the case of Ecuador must be extremely high, because Ecuador has a dollarized economy and the flow of currency can no longer be controlled. Ecuador is now a paradise for narco-laundering, and it is generating serious distortions in the economy because money is being invested in consumption, in real estate, in the financial system, and as a result we have heavy speculation that works against investment in productive industries.

Narco News: Is Ecuador’s economy becoming narcotized, like Colombia’s?

Fernando Buendía: In last year’s trade balance, the country had a deficit of 1.4 billion dollars, or approximately 8 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product. This is very high, and it’s explained in part by narco-laundering…

There is a strong pressure on demand. Where do these resources that maintain the pressure on demand, especially on luxury articles, come from? In part, it is explained by the remittances from emigrants, and on the other hand it is explained by narco-laundering…

We also have a political problem, which is that the quality of our democracy is being eroded, because the resources from narco-trafficking help finance electoral campaigns and buy judges and government officials.

Narco News: How can Ecuador resolve these problems?

Fernando Buendía: If we don’t resolve the problem of poverty, we aren’t going to be able to attack the structural causes of the problem of drug consumption…

The other issue that goes to the heart of the matter is foreign policy. We have to begin constructing an international arrangement that would be more balanced in the face of this unilateralism (of the United States), and in this context falls the issues of decriminalization of the drug trade. For this reason, it is important that we construct spaces of alliance among the Latin American countries, of the countries from the South…

We think that we’re on the offensive and that in the coming years there will be important changes in Ecuador, in Brazil, in Venezuela and even in Argentina, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay, which are behind the others, but whose social movements are beginning to make important advances.

Narco News: What can Ecuador do in the face of the U.S.-promoted “Plan Colombia”?

Fernando Buendía: “Plan Colombia” is the form in which the conservative ideology is taken advantage of to channel interests that don’t have to do with the problem of drug production, but more specifically with the imperial efforts to control the Amazon region.

Narco News: Will Ecuador take any action in opposition to “Plan Colombia” or in favor of drug legalization?

Fernando Buendía: Ecuador is 0.04 percent of the world economy. The government wouldn’t last a week if it legalized drugs. For example, look at the (U.S. military’s) Manta airbase. We suspect the United States has come to stay for a good while and they’re here to extend their presence until they convert this base into the one they lost in the Panama Canal. The capacity of the runways is being increased, for example. The asphalt has been raised 25 centimeters and the extension of the runway to 1.5 kilometers. What (drug) interdiction plane needs so much space for this type of runway? Only the Galaxy. And the Galaxy is not a toy plane. It is the biggest plane in the world and it transports heavy war machinery.

We are at the point at which what happened to Panamá under Noriega could happen to us. The Galaxies land, they unload combat vehicles and in eight hours they are in Ecuador’s capital overthrowing the government. Our sovereignty, our capacity of movement is very determined by the broader context.

I was in the meeting with the International Monetary Fund, after the president had resolved to choose the route of negotiation with the IMF. I was conscious that we could demand, criticize and even shout, but we had to reach an agreement with the IMF. If not, the country would become economically unviable. That is, the government didn’t have the money to pay the teachers’ salaries that month. This is a process that has established itself over time. We have a state with limitations on its economic and political sovereignty. The influence that the United States and the international organizations have in this country is huge. (You are) obliged to negotiate because you have a knife to your throat, but it is quite another thing to adopt policies of such a worn-out economic model, of the neoliberal model.

Narco News: How do you evaluate these first weeks of President Lucio Gutiérrez’s administration?

Fernando Buendía: The initial moves by Lucio are very conflictive, from the perspective of economic policy, foreign policy and also as regards political reform. The Pachakutik Movement characterizes this government as transitional. It is not a popular government nor is it a government that is going to make deep changes… In general, the Pachakutik Movement is not content with the policies of President Gutiérrez. They don’t correspond with the accords of the alliance we formed with the government… Now, the president wants to dissolve Congress any way possible, whether it is in according to the Constitution or outside the Constitution. This runs the risk of becoming a new Fujimorazo... Lucio comes from a military tradition. He believes more in presidential systems, in the executive being above all other powers of the state.

Full Disclosure: The author wishes to acknowledge the material assistance, encouragement, and guidance, of The Narco News Bulletin, The Narco News School of Authentic Journalism, publisher Al Giordano and the rest of the faculty, and of the Tides Foundation. Narco News is a co-sponsor and funder of the international drug legalization summit, "OUT FROM THE SHADOWS: Ending Prohibition in the 21st Century," in Mérida, Yucatán, and is wholly responsible for the School of Authentic Journalism whose philosophy and methodology were employed in the creation of this report. The writing, the opinions expressed, and the conclusions reached, if any, are solely those of the author.

Apertura total: El autor desea reconocer la asistencia material, el ánimo y la guía de The Narco News Bulletin, La Escuela de Narco News de Periodismo Auténtico, su Director General Al Giordano y el resto del profesorado, y de la Fundación Tides. Narco News es copatrocinador y financiador del encuentro internacional sobre legalización de las drogas “Saliendo de las sombras: terminando con la prohibición a las drogas en el siglo XXI” en Mérida, Yucatán, y es completamente responsable por la Escuela de Periodismo Auténtico, cuya filosofía y metodología fueron empleadas en la elaboración de esta nota. La escritura, las opiniones expresadas y las conclusiones alcanzadas, si las hay, son de exclusiva responsabilidad del autor

Abertura Total: O autor deseja reconhecer o material de apoio, o propósito e o guia do Boletim Narco News. a Escola de Jornalismo Autêntico, o editor Al Giordano, o restante de professores e a Fundaçáo Tides. Narco News é co-patrocinador e financiador do encontro sobre a legalizaçao das drogas Saindo das Sombras: terminando com a proibiçao das drogas no século XXI em Mérida, Yucatan, e é completamente responsável pela Escola de Jornalismo Autêntico, cuja filosofia e metodologia foram implantadas na elaboraçao desta reportagem. O texto, as opinioes expressadas e as conclusoes alcançadas, se houver, sao de responsabilidade do autor.