www.kron4.com Sunday,March9,2003,8:09 PM

Caracas, Venezuela-AP -- Venezuelan soldiers have made a dent in the war on drugs. They seized more than five tons of cocaine and 220 pounds of marijuana at two beach houses under armed guard on the Caribbean coast.

A state prosecutor says nine Venezuelans were arrested in a coastal town, 250 miles east of Caracas. The value of the drugs is unknown at this time.

A Venezuelan newspaper (El Nacional) reports the drugs came from neighboring Colombia and ultimately were destined for the United States and Europe.

biz.thestar.com.my

Two major Singapore engineering companies say they will bid for Brazilian oil platform contracts worth up to US$1bil despite new rules in the South American country that require high levels of domestic involvement. 

Both Keppel Corporation Ltd and SembCorp Marine Ltd have stakes in Brazilian firms, helping them to meet the new local content rules for oil rig contracts in the country. 

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva had made the construction of the two oil platforms a campaign issue before his sweeping election win in October, saying the contracts would create jobs for the local industry. 

SembCorp Marine said it was in talks to boost its stake in a Brazilian shipyard, Maua Jurong, following the new ruling. It bought its current 35% stake in 2001 for about US$8.75mil. 

Keppel, for its part, owns 60% of Brazilian yard FELS Setal. – Reuters

www.upi.com From the International Desk Published 3/7/2003 6:01 PM

BRASILIA, Brazil, March 7 (UPI) -- Colombia's president defended his nation's crackdown on leftist rebel groups during a diplomatic visit to Brazil Friday, saying there was no other alternative to ending the nation's nearly four-decade-old civil war.

Alvaro Uribe was also searching to bolster his support base among Brazilian leaders for his war against the groups.

The Colombian leader said there was no other choice for dealing with rebel groups than by force, alleging that the time for negotiation has long since past.

"There is no defect in our road to defeating them," said Uribe, adding that the rebels -- which he referred to as "terrorists" -- have an insatiable appetite for destruction and no regard for human rights or the law.

The strife-torn nation bordering Brazil to the northwest is currently engaged in a multi-billion blitz of rebels like the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, Colombia's largest group.

Known as Plan Colombia, the country has received $2 billion in equipment and other military assistance from the United States to bolster its combat capacity.

Brazil has been critical of Plan Colombia saying it allows the United States to meddle in regional affairs and could lead to the expansion of the U.S.-led war on terror in both nations.

Despite the nation's difference of opinions on Colombian rebels, Uribe and Lula did agree in a 23-point joint statement that they need to combat terrorism "by all means possible."

Leading up to Friday's meeting analysts assumed that on Friday Uribe once again would ask his Brazilian counterpart, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, to classify FARC and other rebel groups as terrorists, a notion that Brazil has declined to do in recent weeks.

The U.S. State Department has bestowed the terrorist group moniker on the groups for their ties to violent insurgences and use of narcotics trafficking to fund their activities.

Uribe however, didn't make the request, though he stressed there is no other way to classify groups that use car bombs and other explosive devices. "It is not a value judgment, it is terrorism."

Earlier this week, Brazilian Minister of Foreign Relations Celso Amorin said Brazil would not label the groups as terrorists.

Brazil's reluctance to classify FARC and others as terror groups falls in line with its professed desire to serve as a mediator between the Uribe administration and the rebels, a move that some analysts say could ultimately cause a rift between the bordering nations.

www.athensnews.com 2003-02-24 By Jim Phillips Athens NEWS Senior Writer

Anyone who follows international news is well aware that the European Union -- the "United States of Europe" -- is now undergoing massive growing pains and internal controversy, as it struggles to absorb a raft of new Eastern European countries, codify a constitution, unify its economy, and decide whether to support the United States in its pending war against Iraq.

Athens residents and Ohio University students will get a chance to question academic experts about this jumbled state of affairs Tuesday night when a group of OU professors from various disciplines join in a symposium on "The European Union: For Good or Ill?" in OU's Seigfred Hall.

The event was organized by Robert H. Whealey, an associate emeritus professor of history who has written about European issues including Hitler's involvement in the Spanish Civil War. Whealey said Saturday that he hopes the symposium will spark interest in the EU among students and local citizens.

"I hope there's going to be a crowd," Whealey said. "It's my expectation that the students are going to be raising (the issues of) Iraq and oil."

The symposium will feature Whealey and four other speakers: OU associate professor of geography Timothy Anderson; assistant professor of political science James Mosher; Ohio Eminent Research Professor Alfred Eckes, who has written numerous books on the global economy; and John R. Gump, a Presbyterian pastor with experience among churches in Prague, Vienna and Budapest.

Whealey said his presentation will touch briefly on a number of issues: How World War II changed the European balance of power; the evolution of NATO; the evolution of the EU; how the collapse of the Soviet Union led to a reorganization of NATO; how the conflict in Yugoslavia changed the mission of the EU and NATO; and the question of the Balkans and the Middle East.

Each speaker will have 10 minutes to present, after which the rest of the panel will have two minutes to respond. Following the panel discussion, the symposium will be thrown open to audience questions, Whealey said. The event will be chaired by OU Ombudsman Elizabeth Graham.

Whealey said that although news about the EU isn't given major play in U.S. media, Americans have ample reason to follow developments in the Old World.

"Democracy is in better shape in Europe than America, so the EU has been helpful for democracy," he argued. He added that "the euro is competing with the dollar, and if the United States gets involved in the Middle East on a long-term basis, the value of the dollar is going to go down, and the value of the euro is going to go up."

Oil is also an important factor, Whealey said, noting that while Europe gets much of its oil from the Middle East, the United States is more reliant on Nigeria, Mexico and Venezuela -- which just underwent a crippling national strike in opposition to President Hugo Chavez, that massively cut back on the country's oil production.

Some observers have questioned whether the opposition of France and Germany to U.S. war plans might not be a kind of muscle-flexing among the older countries of the EU, testing whether the Union can effectively act as a countervailing global power to the American empire. Whealey said the issue is complex.

"The United States has the military dominance," he said. "So the problem that Europe faces is, if they do not support the United States in its Middle East war, they are going to have to appropriate the money for their own strike force." Pointing out that European countries spend a much smaller percentage of their gross national products on the military, Whealey predicted that "if there is going to be a parting of the ways, the economy is going to be re-oriented."

He added that while the United States has been a staunch supporter of Israel, public opinion in Europe is in favor of a peaceful resolution of the West Bank conflict, and views Israel as a major threat to regional peace.

"Israel is the elephant in the living room," he said. "(Europeans) see Israel as the biggest problem, not Saddam Hussein."

The symposium is set for 8 p.m., in Seigfred's Mitchell Auditorium. It is sponsored by OU's Contemporary History Institute, Institute for Applied and Professional Ethics, Ohio Program of Intensive English, and the departments of communication, economics, geography, history, interpersonal communication, journalism, linguistics, modern languages, philosophy, political science, social studies education, and sociology.

www.dailytrojan.com William Goodwin Kim Culotta | Daily Trojan

I find absolute rulers terrifying. Of late, one in particular has been weighing on my mind. At the helm of an oil-producing nation, he's guilty of numerous abuses of human rights and restricting freedom, accused of assassinating potential threats to his power, and is alleged to have ties to terrorists. He's a clear threat to regional stability and global security.

I don't have monsters under my bed. I have Hugo Chavez.

While that other deceptive and destabilizing dictator plagues more distant, though no less important regions, the Americas can be happy knowing they have their own autocratic ruler. President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, by imprisoning opposition leaders and, some say, orchestrating the assassinations of dissidents, has crossed the line from bully to tyrant.

In four years, Chavez has managed to undermine Venezuela's democracy, drive a growing economy into the dirt, foment unrest in an unstable region and, allegedly, support a number of terrorist groups.

Long held up as a paradigm of democracy for Latin and South America, major cracks began appearing in Venezuela's political structure at the end of the 1980s. Oil revenues had managed to prevent a fierce class dichotomy for more than 30 years; however, the last decade saw the birth of a populist movement.

Accusations of political corruption and squandered oil profits set poor against rich. Chavez was on the vanguard of this movement. In 1992, Colonel Chavez led an attempted coup with other military leaders. His subsequent imprisonment spanned more than two years and another failed military coup.

Popular support garnered him a pardon before the end of his term and ultimately carried him to election as president, after he assumed the mantle of democracy. Considering his past, one might conclude that Chavez takes, shall we say, a more "forceful" approach to governing. Over the course of his time in office, the president-turned-dictator has been quite obliging and done absolutely nothing to dissuade anyone of that opinion.

The latest child in the lineage of democratic leaders-turned-tyrants (think Robert Mugabe or Alberto Fujimori), Chavez immediately altered the constitution to permit him a second term. Media criticism accelerated the restriction of free speech. An assembly of appointed stooges replaced the popularly elected congress. With increasing regularity, basic republican values were being trampled.

The rise of authoritarian rule coincided with a vicious decline in the economy. The Washington Post commented last year, "(Chavez's) senseless mix of populist and socialist decrees seriously damaged the economy and galvanized opposition from businesses, media and the middle class."

Chavez tried to deflect criticism of his feckless economic initiatives by heaping invective on the upper classes.

Oil officials were described as "living in luxury chalets where they have orgies, drinking whiskey." The hierarchy of the Catholic Church (Venezuela is 96 percent Roman Catholic) has also endured constant attacks, according to Chavez's BBC profile. His recurring theme on his weekly call-in television address and in his addresses to the national assembly is the rift between the haves and have-nots.

Increasing poverty and economic hardship, however, have disillusioned many of the poor, on whose shoulders Chavez rose to power. Things have reached a boiling point this year. Already, Chavez has narrowly avoided an attempted coup by the military (prompted by Chavez's orders to open fire on civilian protesters outside the presidential palace). Rallies that once were massive displays of support now ring with cries for new elections.

Most recently, worsening conditions prompted a general strike that crippled oil production. The bitter fight for new elections and/or Chavez's immediate ouster let petroleum exports fall to 250,000 barrels a day, down from 3,000,000. With Venezuela typically responsible for roughly 10 percent of the United State's imports, the near-anarchy has had an immediate negative impact on our economy, albeit mildly negative.

As if alienating his own people was not enough, Chavez decided to take it to the next level and try on the international community. Besides being a good personal friend of the bearded pajama revolutionary himself, in the summer of 2000, he wined and dined with everyone's three favorite regimes; Iran, Iraq and North Korea.

U.N. sanctions notwithstanding, the-man-who-would-be-Bolivar was enchanted by the desert nations, specifically Baghdad. "His courting of Fidel Castro, Colombia's Marxist guerrillas and Saddam Hussein made him a pariah both in Latin America and in Washington," the Post reported.

Even more troubling are allegations of support for international terrorist organizations. Several high-ranking military defectors, including the former head of the border service, claim Chavez has helped conceal the identities of terrorists, many Middle Eastern, passing through the country. More fantastically, and more likely fabricated, is the charge that he funneled money to al-Qaida in October 2001, in the guise of humanitarian aid.

The testimony of former higher-ups should be taken with more than a grain of salt; however, the claims are entirely possible. Chavez has done nothing to crack down on the drug smuggling taking place in the border regions that directly benefts Colombian rebels. And he has sent members of his fanatical civilian support groups, his Bolivarian Circles (often referred to as "Circles of Terror"), to Cuba for "unspecified training."

His contentious and troublesome history aside, Chavez deserves special attention now as he carries out his pledge to make those behind the recently defeated strike pay for challenging his authority. "Twelve-armed men kidnapped the four victims on Saturday night as they were leaving a protest. They were bound and gagged, and some were tortured before the gunmen executed them, the police said," the New York Times reported Wednesday.

The killings of the three dissident soldiers and an opposition organizer, while perhaps not directly authorized by Chavez, were undoubtedly politically motivated. The Bolivarian Circles have been known to physically threaten protesters with violence. To counter this, some protesters have formed their own armed bands, raising the terrible, if still distant, specter of all-out urban warfare between opposing camps.

Such an apocryphal warning may be necessary, however, as Venezuela continues to destabilize. Labor-government negotiations are on the cusp of dissolving, and the possibility has led many to take to the streets in protests dwarfing antiwar crowds in the United States.

The downward spiral of Venezuela, both country and leader, demands close observation from the United States. Without constant attention to the democratic devolution and the ascension of Chavez the dictator, the prospect of having to a face another Saddamite is not so easy to ignore. Only this time, it's in our backyard.

Editorial columnist William Goodwin is an undeclared freshman. To comment on this article, call (213) 740-5665 or e-mail dtrojan@usc.edu.

Copyright 2003 by the Daily Trojan. All rights reserved. This article was published in Vol. 148, No. 26 (Monday, February 24, 2003), beginning on page 4 and ending on page 6.