BBC A key player in a strike which crippled Venezuela for two months has left the country for exile in Costa Rica.

Carlos Ortega was facing charges of rebellion and treason - charges that can be punished with 20-year jail sentences - when he walked into the Costa Rican embassy and asked for political asylum on 14 March.

The head of the one-million-member Venezuelan Labour Federation said he feared for his personal safety and was granted asylum.

On Thursday, Venezuelan television showed him boarding a plane bound for the Costa Rican capital San Jose, having been given a federal police escort to the airport.

Earlier, as he got into the car, he reportedly raised his fists in a final victory salute to a number of fellow government adversaries.

Others emerge

Another strike leader, Carlos Fernandez of the Venezuelan business confederation Fedecameras, is under house arrest facing treason charges.

A court ordered him to be released last week after deeming the evidence insufficient, but the attorney general has appealed the decision.

Seven former executives of the state oil company PDVSA emerged from hiding last week after a judge revoked warrants for their arrests on charges of interrupting the country's fuel supply.

President Hugo Chavez has allowed two other major political foes to leave the country over the past year:

• Pedro Carmona, who briefly replaced him as president during a short-lived coup in April last year, was allowed to leave for Colombia

• Naval officer Carlos Molina, who faced an investigation for his part in the coup, was granted refuge in El Salvador

Bill of billions

Before petering out in January, the strike severely affected oil exports and in some areas caused food and fuel shortages.

It is estimated to have cost the economy between $4bn and $6bn.

But Mr Chavez said he would never give in to demands that he resign or call a referendum on his presidency.

A Naked Display of Imperial Power By TARIQ ALI

The historic significance of the protests against the war in Iraq is that they have been unprecedented in size, scope or scale. This is the first truly global response to a political event: millions have come out on the streets of Western Europe, North and South America, Western Europe, the Far East, Australia and New Zealand and last week, the Arab street exploded with the largest spontaneous demonstration Cairo had seen since Nasser’s funeral.

What will be the effect of the war now raging in Iraq on the peace movement? Its fair-weather friends (symbolised in Britain by the pathetic and spineless figure of the Liberal leader Charles Kennedy) will naturally drop out, but the movement itself will grow in strength and determination. The US occupation of Iraq will necessitate a change in tactics, but the overall strategy of the global peace movement will not alter.

It is now obvious to a large majority of the world’s population that the real threat to peace and stability comes not from the depleted armouries of decaying dictatorships, but from the rotten heart of the American Empire or its regional satrapies (Israel, Britain). It is this new awareness of world realities that has radicalised a new generation across the globe. Those who accept the official justifications for the conflict simply cannot understand the resistance to this war. It has nothing to do with support for Saddam, but reflects a refusal to believe the untruths being spouted by Bush, Rumsfeld and Blair and their apologists in the media. Apart from the United States, few citizens elsewhere believe that the fiercely secular Ba’ath Party of Iraq has any links with Osama’s gang. As for ‘weapons of mass destruction’ the only nuclear stockpile in the region is situated in Israel. And even if Saddam Hussein had the capacity to acquire these weapons, an imperial princess had already pointed out that it would be a futile act.

In the January/February 2000 issue of Foreign Affairs, for example, National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice wrote: “The first line of defense should be a clear and classical statement of deterrence‹if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration.”

Unusable in 2000, but now Saddam must be removed by bombing Iraqi cities and a land invasion before he gets them? Like many of the other pretexts for this war it doesn’t add up, thus fuelling a broad-based opposition.

What appears to have happened is that a Christian-Jacobin faction from the extreme-right of the Republican Party (backed by hard-core Zionists) has utilised 9/11 to capture the White House, the Pentagon and the Department of Justice. Their aim is the pursuit of a bold and audacious imperialist agenda of which the occupation of Iraq is seen as the first step. Iran and the Korean Peninsula are the next targets.

Its spokespeople, compared to the flatulent rhetoric of their New Labour toadies, are refreshingly honest: in order to preserve US hegemony they will use force wherever and whenever necessary.

European hand wringing leaves them unmoved. If the United Nations can’t be used as an instrument of US power it should be dumped without too much delay. And, one could argue from the other side, if the UN is genetically incapable of preventing pre-emptive strikes by imperial rogue states that openly violate its charter (leave alone ratifiying the occupation of Iraq and becoming an after-sales service for the Empire) then it is time to think of other more effective arrangements. The creation or strengthening of existing regional associations of nation states would be an obvious next step. Recently, the Organisation of American States isolated the US and refused to endorse any attempts to topple Hugo Chavez in Venezuela (another oil-rich state considering moving from the dollar to the Euro).

The antiwar movement was given a tremendous boost by the French-German decision not to back the war. This is the first occasion on which a disagreement between the inner core of the EU and the United States exploded into a public rift and helped polarise public opinion both in Europe and North America. Add to that the Turkish parliament (unlike the House of Commons) disrupted the war effort and the Canadian Prime Minister used strong language to denounce the conflict. The opposition of these states is limited (only Belgium refused to permit the use of its air space), but that it exists at all marks a turning point in European-US relations. If the US continues on this course then the EU will have to re-open a public discussion regarding its future. A fierce private debate is already taking place in France and Germany. The ramifications of the assault on Iraq will have global consequences and a resistance to the Empire is inevitable. Its timing is the only point of dispute. Where will this take the peace movement?

The model of what needs to be done by today’s dissenters was established in the last year of the 19th century. Mark Twain, shocked by the chauvinist reaction to the Boxer Rebellion in China and the US occupation of the Philippines, sounded the tocsin. The problem, he argued, was imperialism. It had to be opposed. His call led to a mammoth assembly in Chicago in 1889, which founded the American Anti-Imperialist League. Within two years its membership had grown to over half a million and it attracted some of the most gifted writers and thinkers of the United States (Henry James, Charles Elliot Norton, W.E.B. Dubois, William Dean Howells, Frederic Douglass, Jr, etc.)

Today, when the United States is the only imperial power, the importance of a global Anti-Imperialist League cannot be understate, but it is the US component of such an organisation that will be crucial. The resistance can only be political. The history of the rise and fall of Empires teaches us that it is when their own citizens finally lose faith in the efficacy of infinite wars and permanent occupations that the beast implodes.

The World Social Forum (which hosts the movement of movements every year) has, till now, concentrated on the power of multinational corporations and neo-liberal institutions. But Friedrich von Hayek, the inspirer of the “Washington Consensus”, was a firm believer in wars to buttress the new system. The World Social Forum should think of campaigning against the military presence of the US in 120 countries. Economics is after all only a concentrated form of politics and war a continuation of both by other means.

Tariq Ali’s latest book, The Clash of Fundamentalisms is published in paperback by Verso.

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic news Posted: Thursday, March 27, 2003 By: PETROLEUMWORLD

Crude oil futures at the New York Mercantile Exchange are expected to open more than $1 a barrel higher Thursday, on growing fears that Iraqi production may stay off the market longer than many had expected as the war in Iraq drags on.

UK Air Marshal Brian Burridge reportedly said Thursday that it would take three months to restore oil production from Iraq's southern Rumailah field.

Allied forces have seized control of the 1.8 million-barrel-a-day field, and there been reports that oil could start flowing from the region even before the conflict is over. But Burridge dashed those hopes, saying the poor condition of the equipment in the filed will mean it will take much longer to restore production.

"They are in terrible condition," he said. "It will take three months and then we can begin pumping oil.

The comments come amid growing signs that the US-led war is likely to take much longer than many had expected, analysts said.

"People are talking about signs of war being extended longer than expected," said Tom Bentz, an energy analyst at BNP Paribas Futures in New York.

Nymex crude oil futures are expected to open $1 higher, while heating and gasoline futures are seen opening 300-350 points higher.

Also supporting prices are uncertainty over the outage of nearly 40% of Nigerian production and concerns about tight gasoline supplies ahead of the summer driving season, Bentz said.

All of those factors are likely to lift the front-month May crude futures to $30 a barrel, Bentz said. Once that psychologically important level is taken out, prices could surge as high as $31 a barrel, he added.

May-June Crude Spread Widens

In a sign of growing supply tightness, the nearby Nymex May-June spread has widened to nearly $2 a barrel. The spread had narrowed to less than $1 last week as prices tumbled on hopes of a quick end to the Iraq war.

Meanwhile, it remained unclear how quickly Nigerian output would return to normal.

The Ijaw militants battling Nigerian forces in the oil-rich Niger Delta called for a ceasefire Wednesday after the state government agreed to support their demands ahead of next month's general elections.

The move raised hopes that Nigeria's production, down 40% because of the violence, will quickly return to normal as oil companies resume operations.

But the three major oil companies have yet to restore production or return staff to the country, and traders say the production shut in continues to cause severe delays in oil loading out of Nigeria.

"There are still disruptions in Nigeria," one trader said. "It's very difficult to say where the delays are. April cargoes are also being switched around now. There have been a lot of date switches and no one seems to know where their cargoes are."

The situation is likely to remain unclear for some time, he added.

In overnight trading, May crude ended up $1.07 at $29.70, while April heating oil futures were up 289 points at 77.30 cents a gallon. April gasoline futures were up 353 points at 95.95 cents.

By Masood Farivar, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-2094; masood.farivar@dowjones.com

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Thursday, March 27, 2003 By: Patrick J. O'Donoghue

Venezuelan business sectors claim that Interior & Justice (MIJ) Minister Diosdado Cabello is mixed up in the purchase of Eveba tuna co bases in Cumana (Sucre).   Eveba deputy president, Majed Khalil denies the charges alleging that the new owners have nothing to do with Cabello and that the purchase was business ... "a business opportunity." 

Rumors have been circulating for several weeks that Minister Cabello and new owner, Arab businessman Khaled Khalil are connected. 

Critics point to the ease with which Khalil received a hefty Banco Industrial de Venezuela (BIV) credit and ... according to media sources ... the Castro family sold Eveba to the Arabs for $30 million, even though its real value is estimated at $10 million. 

The Arabs paid $2 million in cash and the rest was made out through BIV loans.  However,  the BIV gave out $8 million because of liquidity problems but opened a credit line for  the remaining $20 million to be paid in 6 years. 

Khalil denies the loan, saying he paid with" fresh money." Political sectors are now asking the Minister to clarify his and BIV's role in the deal. Eveba is said to have 10-15% of the domestic tuna market.

<a href=www.voanews.com>VOA News 27 Mar 2003, 21:49 UTC

Venezuelan labor and strike leader Carlos Ortega has left for asylum in Costa Rica, two weeks after taking refuge at its embassy in Caracas.

The opposition leader boarded a plane for San Jose Thursday after heavily-armed police escorted him from the diplomatic mission. His departure came one day after the Venezuelan government agreed to allow him to leave the country.

Mr. Ortega was one of the organizers of Venezuela's two-month general strike that failed in its bid to force President Hugo Chavez to resign and call early elections.

He went into hiding last month after the Venezuelan government sought his arrest on treason and rebellion charges for his role in the strike. Mr. Ortega later took refuge at the Costa Rican Embassy, saying he feared for his safety.

Mr. Ortega is the third major opponent of President Chavez to seek asylum. Last year, Colombia granted asylum to business leader Pedro Carmona - who briefly replaced Mr. Chavez during last April's failed coup against the populist president.

El Salvador granted asylum to retired naval officer Carlos Molina, who faced an investigation for his role in the coup.