<a href=www.sun-sentinel.com>sun-sentinel.com By Erwin M. Vasquez Posted May 11 2003

On my way back to Venezuela in 1979 from a cold and snowy Washington, D.C., I drove for hours and decided to rest in Fort Lauderdale before reaching Miami International Airport.

At a restaurant, I was conversing with some people who told me a hospital on the beach was seeking physicians. I drove over to what then was North Beach Medical Center on State Road A1A in Fort Lauderdale and spoke with the staff there.

As destiny would have it, I decided to stay in Fort Lauderdale and open my cardiology practice. That was the beginning of my journey, and the horizon was infinite.

I used to vacation in the United States as a child with my family, but in 1971 I came to Miami to take a foreign medical graduate test. After passing that exam, I started an intensive English course at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

Then I did an internship at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, completed my residency in Detroit, and finished a cardiology specialty at the University of Pittsburgh. I was quickly learning the American culture.

Medicine was my dream, and to be a good physician was my goal. My father was a fisherman and my mother was a pious woman who concentrated on my values and education. My parents instilled a foundation for me and the courage needed to later endure the difficult medical internship with my language limitations.

Medicine gave me the financial independence to practice the values given to me. I have always been interested in every aspect of social justice. When I was a child, I remember my mother placing food out by the kitchen door every night for the poor and forgotten. My religious upbringing was strong, and our belief to help those who are suffering was part of my formation.

I wanted to expand my profession toward that aim. In 1989, after treating so many poor immigrants through my practice, I founded the Light of the World Clinic (Clinica Luz del Mundo), along with a priest and a number of volunteer Hispanic physicians. It was meant to serve as a primary medical clinic for the needy and underserved families who fall between the cracks of an already burdened public health system -- understanding the limitations that these families face with language barriers and no jobs or money.

Today, the clinic remains a free volunteer-run facility, totally supported through small grants and private donations. Without any state or county funds, the clinic provides services to more than 12,000 people a year with general medicine, cardiology, dermatology, gynecology, pediatric, psychology and nutrition programs. With a cadre of volunteers, medical professionals and students who give of their time from the heart, this is truly a community project of love.

Around the time I opened the clinic, I sought to expand my volunteer efforts and my path crossed with my future wife, Elaine Micelli, who had had a different experience in her life. As a then-single mother of three daughters from Brooklyn, N.Y., she dedicated her time to them and worked two to three jobs to make ends meet.

Her career spanned the gamut from the cable television industry to the Hispanic market. She has helped organize fund-raising and educational events with the aim of adding a Hispanic flavor to the mainstream, and runs El Heraldo, which went from a monthly to a weekly publication.

She brought the American way into my life and made me believe we could achieve the dream together. We have been combining our volunteerism for many years. It keeps us centered and aware of the numerous people who touch us and whom we touch, producing a communion of souls.

We believe we should "give until it hurts," in the words of Mother Teresa. Our faith helps us endure the pain of seeing people suffer, and to be able to accomplish a number of tasks all at once.

Although our worlds were different, our principles and values were essentially what brought us together. Our parents gave us a similar foundation: to love thy neighbor and do no harm unto anyone.

As an immigrant in this land of the free and brave, I have been fortunate to have good mentors who have shown me the way with so much love.

Still, the work is not complete.

There is poverty, homelessness, discrimination and racism. Our work will be complete when these fade from society. The occasional "My Story, A New Life" features people from outside the United States who have established themselves successfully in South Florida.

oregonlive.com Margie Boulé 05/11/03

Either I am on the list or I am not. This is not rocket science. So what kind of research is required? Does this mean a minute examination of my entire life? RALPH PRATT PORTLANDER WHO SUSPECTS HE IS ON THE LIST OF SUSPICIOUS NAMES BUT HASN'T BEEN ABLE TO FIND OUT YET Perhaps it's just coincidence, but some people found it funny and ironic last Sunday when soloist David Nelson stepped forward at the Willamette Master Chorus concert and sang, "Nobody knows the troubles I've seen."

Just that morning, in this column, readers learned of the problems men named David Nelson have been encountering at airports across the country and around the world since the terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2001. Since then, the U.S. Transportation Security Administration has put together two lists of names of people to be scrutinized before being allowed to fly on commercial air flights. One is a "no fly" list, rumored to have about 300 names. The other is a list of "selectees," who are to be questioned, searched and cleared before being allowed to travel. The second list appears to be much longer.

Last week TSA spokesman Nico Melendez confirmed the existence of the lists but would not answer questions about when they were created, what criteria were used to add names or how names are added or removed.

One thing is clear, however: the name David Nelson is on one of those lists. The 18 Oregon men interviewed for last week's column all said they had been questioned and delayed whenever they flew. And they were just the beginning. After the column ran, one David Nelson, a professor at OSU, wrote that he's not been bothered at airports. But many other David Nelsons reported they'd been hassled and delayed every time they flew in the last few months. Some missed connecting flights. A number were told their name is on a list of suspicious people.

For some, the column was an explanation. "Thanks for letting us know why it took something short of a strip search at the airport when my husband, Dave Nelson, and I flew to Hawaii in March," wrote Shirley Nelson of Gresham. Dave and Shirley thought it was just bad luck when Dave was pulled aside every leg of their trip. Shirley says "he'll think hard about future air travel until his name is removed from the list."

Most David Nelsons agree there is a need for heightened security at airports. What bothers them is there's no way to clear themselves for future flights, and no way to get their name removed from the list. "They should have some clue about the person" they're seeking, wrote David A. Nelson, who works at Tektronix. "A basic description, for example. At least then the Davids who do not fit the description could get a quick pass. . . . Better yet, after hassling each of us once, create a leave-these-guys-alone list."

But reader David D. Gray says that would never work. "What permanent ID do you provide . . . that can't be transferred or modified by terrorists? Photo ID? Like the ones routinely faked by terrorists? . . . I suggest leaving the job up to the people in charge and experienced in doing it. . . . I think they're doing the right thing."

But are they?

Last week The New York Times reported civil rights advocates have filed suit in San Francisco, demanding the government provide reasons why "hundreds of people -- some of them vocal critics of the Bush administration -- have ended up" on the airport lists. The article cited and quoted antiwar demonstrators and other political critics who claim their names are on the lists.

Of course, many people who are not activists or terrorists or security threats are discovering their names are listed. Like Portlander Lois Kincaid. "I found out about it on my last flight, May 2," Lois wrote. "I have been so relentlessly hassled in airports, I finally asked an intelligent-looking agent what the deal was. His reply? 'You're on a list of suspicious people.' " Lois flew to Caracas, Venezuela, with a group of 10 Americans recently. "I was the only one checked, and I was checked in every single airport. . . ." At one, Lois says she was "terrified" when "agents came at me snapping on rubber gloves."

Since she hadn't known about the existence of any lists, Lois "made up a scenario -- that because I'm female, small, blond, and nearly 60, I'm the exact opposite of what they're looking for. Therefore, by checking me they defy accusations of stereotyping."

Nice try, but the truth is probably that she shares a name with a suspected terrorist or other person objectionable to government agencies.

More amazing to Lois is that her son appears to be on the list as well. He's a commercial pilot "who flies the C-5 in the Air Force Reserves. . . . If he can be trusted to fly the largest aircraft in America and for the military, no less, should he not be trusted to board a commercial aircraft?"

Portlander Ralph Pratt suspects he is on the list, too, because of constant airport delays and searches. After reading last week's column he e-mailed the TSA to ask. "Your e-mail requires research," was the response.

"Either I am on the list or I am not," Ralph said. "This is not rocket science. So what kind of research is required? Does this mean a minute examination of my entire life?"

At least he may get an answer. Sharon Cunning called the TSA (866-289-9673, a number the agency provided last week) to ask if her name was on the list. "They would not give me any information," she says. "The woman said, 'You have to buy a ticket and find out if they give you a boarding pass or not.' "

The existence of secret government lists, with no way citizens can find out if their names are on them, or how their names got on them, with no way to remove their names . . . Lois Kincaid finds the situation "Orwellian."

Dennis Radke finds it ominous. "Given sufficient time, is it unreasonable to expect we Americans will be required to carry travel papers inside the U.S., just as residents of Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union" did? "So what are the collective David Nelsons' options: going to . . . court and petitioning for a change of name?"

"Isn't this proof Osama has won?" asks Glen Evans. The administration "has instigated procedures that have removed our freedoms, and we have accepted them without a whimper."

Well, not exactly. Many David Nelsons are exasperated, and a lot of readers are sympathetic and concerned. "This country has gone crazy on security matters," says Nina Rae Cleveland of Salem. "It wouldn't be so dangerous for us if there were a way to clear our names, which I hate to say because we shouldn't have to."

"Sounds like a list . . . from a 1950s story," wrote Kim Schafer of The Dalles. "The TSA is acting like a man named McCarthy. And a list you can get on and not off of sounds like the obit page."

Most David Nelsons and non-David Nelsons seem to agree: The list has created an absurd situation. To make that point even more clearly, several readers suggested all the local David Nelsons should make reservations for a single flight somewhere. "One flight for all David Nelsons," wrote Judith Lenhart. "Wouldn't that be something?" Margie Boule: 503-221-8450; marboule@aol.com

<a href=www.gulf-news.com>gulf-news.com  |  | 11-05-2003

Lenin once remarked that there were decades in which history would stand still, and weeks when it would move forward by a decade. It seems that in the past few weeks it moved forward by a decade. In the past few weeks we witnessed not only the rise of the U.S. as the super power arranging the world order but also as the key player preventing any other power from being an effective partner in the international arena.

Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. had, in fact, maintained its superiority. The decline of the Soviet Union made America even stronger and more powerful. There were hopes that Europe would become an alternative power source to the U.S. but it has been hobbled by habits of weakness, and despite its unity, it is not yet apparent whether the EU will ever be able to play an effective role in international affairs.

In fact, the EU does not behave like a great power. Europe, therefore, could not become a rival to the U.S. In the absence of any counterparts, America was left alone to re-arrange the current structure of the world.

The absence of any major player that might compete with America is due to several factors. The U.S. has more military power than all of the five next powerful countries of the world combined. In addition, the U.S. military superiority is backed by an economy that is again as big as that of the five next economies combined (Germany, Japan, France, Canada, and England).

With all its military and economic superiority, the U.S. is also supported by a pervasive popular culture, a culture that favours power and authority. This explains why America would like to control the world and not allow any other power to emerge. So far the U.S. has used all that power for a distasteful cause.

The Americans indicated during the Iraqi crisis that they are willing to pay for those who supported them. And while some countries have the ethic not to support illegal actions, others chose to ignore ethics and opt for the lucrative U.S. support. The collation of the willing became nothing but a collation of the billing.

The French, Chinese, Germans and Russians all could be major players in international affairs if the U.S. wishes to allow them the space and the opportunity. But America insists on playing a unilateral role. In fact, Washington was working hard in the last few months to dismantle the Western alliance and expose the weakness of its unity vis-a-vis American power.

The U.S. has isolated the European states so they will play no role in the Middle East peace plan or in the conflict in North Korea or other issues of concern to the entire global community. France has tried to set itself up at the head of all countries that resent the American foreign policy and American hegemony, but its actions failed to produce satisfactory political results.

Germany, as well, tried to form an alliance with France, and oppose American superiority, but both countries failed to have a profound impact on America's attitude or foreign polices. If this situation persists, these countries and others will no longer be effective players in international affairs. America could be left alone to decide the future of the globe, and that could be very dangerous for America and for the rest of the world.

Since the late 1940s, the U.S. has assigned to itself the role of the dominant power and embarked on policies aimed to ensure that it maintains its stranglehold over world affairs. Washington also gave itself the right to interfere in any country's internal affairs and to redress the wrong doings of any nation. Such a task of policing the world has proved extremely expensive and complex.

It has meant that the U.S. should spend on its military capabilities more than any country in the world. Some policy-makers argued that America's national security deserves this lofty price. Others, however, were in favour of just the opposite.

During the Cold War, when the world was essentially divided into two camps: the U.S. and the Soviet Union, a number of American policy-makers, including Senator George Kennan and William Fulbright, argued that it was in America's interest to encourage Western Europe and Japan to claim their righteous place in the world arena in order to relieve the U.S. of the "burdens of bi-polarity".

Their argument was based on a sound belief that policing the world is a costly matter and could endanger American interests, rather than safeguard it.

They argued that by allowing Western Europe and Japan to defend their own interests, Washington would relieve itself of such burden. Nonetheless, the majority of American policy-makers held the view that the U.S. has to contain its allies as much as it had to contain the Soviet Union.

The slogan of "the White Man's Burden" has an interesting history among western powers. Almost a century ago it was Great Britain that carried the torch of this slogan, which also highlighted Britain's responsibility in policing the world. Now it is America's turn to do so and decide the fate of the world. By assuming such a task, both take their share of troubles and political surprises.

Washington, so far, has contained, and in many cases prevented, any power from developing its military capability and providing security to its own interests.

The zealots who craft America's foreign policy believe that America must continue to dominate the world, and in order to be able to do that, it must discourage, and in fact prevent, the advanced industrial nations from challenging its leadership or even aspiring to a larger global role. To do this Washington must retain its powerful role in the world, and do nothing to encourage other powers to challenge the American superiority.

To accomplish this end America must be ready to re-address those wrong doings which threaten America's interests or that of its friends and allies. This interpretation provides America with moral obligations not only to defend its allies but also to defend the whole world. In other words, America must be ready at any time to defend not only its interests but also that of its friends and allies.

Some critics argue that in pursuing such pervasive policy, America is treating its allies not as equal partners but as inferiors. Its "Adult supervision" policy is not in the interest of America because these states are developing a sense of dependency on the U.S. and accordingly not developing their own military capabilities.

Therefore, America needs to spend more on its military capability in order to meet the challenge of defending the interest of its allies.

However, those who are in favour of a greater American role argue that the American strategy requires a good calculation of the world situation. For instance, although most Americans believe that a free and democratic Iraq and nuclear free North Korea would be in America's interest, some argue that this situation would constitute a challenge to American national security.

The argument goes that the situation in Iraq and North Korea would probably require the presence of more American troops, which could lead to a U.S. pullback from other vital areas in the world that could, in turn, lead to another power becoming militarily more self-sufficient, leading to political and military rivalry among major powers.

A similar point is made on the heavy American involvement in the Gulf region. Many argue that it is oil which makes America's polices so entangled in the Gulf. But that is misleading. The Gulf provides America with only 25 per cent of its oil needs while the rest comes from other sources such as Venezuela, Canada and Alaska.

By pursuing a certain economic policy, the U.S. could free itself totally from its dependence on Gulf oil. However, with America's role in the world and its assumed responsibility for the stability of its allies like Japan and Western Europe and possibly China, America wants to discourage those powers from developing the means to rely on themselves to secure their oil supplies.

By acting on their behalf, the U.S. wants to send these countries a message that their oil supplies are secure, and therefore, they should not feel the need to create their own military power to secure their economic interests.

As a result, America would remain the sole power in the world. Despite their acceptable logic, American policy- makers fail to see that power is indeed a seductive matter. In its search for absolute authority, America might risk its own security. History has shown that when a state acquires too much power, others fear that it enhances itself at their own expenses.

This explains why great empires faced great universal resistance. America's recent involvement in Iraq crystallised fears of U.S. hegemony, prompting not only the emergence of anti-U.S. sentiments worldwide but also fear and doubt among its allies and supporters.

The role the U.S. has assigned to itself in the world today could trigger a hostile reaction towards itself and towards its interests worldwide. Beside its lofty price, America's role in world will make it, not the European Union or Japan, a vulnerable target to backlash.

Aggrieved groups throughout the world would direct their dissatisfaction and anger towards the U.S. and its interests worldwide. This highlights further the vulnerability of the U.S. For the sake of its national security, this is why America should accept the inevitability of the rise of new powers.

The witer is a visiting scholar, Georgetown University, Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. 

Markets in the region have staged an impressive recovery and many of the economies are looking better than they have in a long time, CAROLYN LEITCH writes

globeandmail.com By CAROLYN LEITCH Saturday, May 10, 2003 - Page C1

Closing Markets

Friday, May. 16

S&P/TSX -16.4 6742.03 DJIA -34.17 8678.97 S&P500 -2.37 944.3 Nasdaq -12.85 1538.53 Venture 2.98 1074.65 DJUK 1.68 165.67 Nikkei -6.11 8117.29 HSeng -32.89 9093.18 DJ Net .55 53.58 Gold (NY) +2.10 354.90 Oil (NY) +0.40 29.14 CRB Index +0.70 241.33 30 yr Can. -0.02 5.25 30 yr U.S. -0.05 4.44 CDN$ buys US$ +0.0050 0.7317 Yen +0.6700 84.8900 Euro -0.0003 0.6339 US$ buys CDN$ -0.0094 1.3667 Yen +0.1300 116.0200 Euro -0.0065 0.8663

It took courage to put money into Latin America in recent years. In 2003, the brave are reaping their rewards.

Many investors fled the region last year after Argentina had embarked on the world's biggest debt default and many feared that South America's largest economy -- Brazil -- would soon topple into its own morass.

But this year, Brazil's recently inaugurated President Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva, known as Lula, has won praise for his policies and calmed fears among his critics that the former trade unionist would drive down the value of Brazil's currency, stocks and bonds.

By all accounts, Latin America's financial markets have staged an impressive recovery and many of the region's economies are looking better than they have in a long time.

At the same time, the currencies have been gaining strength against the sliding U.S. dollar.

While many investors have veered toward Mexico and its relatively stable economy buttressed by the United States, Mexico's Bolsa index has risen 7.3 per cent in local currency and 9 per cent in U.S. dollar terms this year. Compare that with the stunning rise in Brazil's Bovespa stock index, which has soared 15 per cent this year in local currency and 38.1 per cent in U.S. dollar terms. There has been money to be made, too, in Argentina, where the Merval index has jumped 21.9 per cent in local currency and an eye-popping 49.2 per cent in U.S. dollar terms.

So sharp has been the runup in Brazil that Nandu Narayanan, chief investment officer at New York-based Trident Investment Management LLC and manager of the CI Emerging Markets fund, has begun taking profits in his holdings there.

Mr. Narayanan notes that Brazil's president still faces challenges, because the country's very high debt and real interest rates are difficult to grapple with. But he believes Lula has the support to push through painful changes because he is perceived as one of the workers.

"Lula, if anything, has proven a very pragmatic and sensible president who, in a way, is the best thing Brazil could have asked for."

But Mr. Narayanan points out that developing economies are geared to global growth. As a result, Brazil and other Latin American countries face harm from the spread of SARS in China.

While the economies of the United States, Europe and Japan stagnate, many economists have been looking to China to drive the world's growth. The country is a net importer of raw materials, and if SARS slows China's expansion, many economies will be hurt, the strategist says.

Meanwhile, Brazil's enormous debt load means that it needs to be on the receiving end of foreign capital all the time.

"A lot of the export story that drove Latin America is starting to be in question."

Mr. Narayanan has shifted his focus to Mexico, which he believes could prosper with a rebound in the U.S. economy.

"The policy mix in the U.S. is most conducive to driving growth."

Mexico has also benefited from oil exports, and the country's policy makers have the flexibility to weaken the peso further against the U.S. dollar and thereby fuel growth.

"They have a lot more policy flexibility than Brazil."

The long-term story in Mexico has been the improvement in living conditions, and Mr. Narayanan expects that to continue.

As a result, he likes companies such as Wal-Mart Mexico SA de CV, Coca-Cola Femsa SA de CV and Telefonos de Mexico SA.

"It's still pretty attractive, given the prospects in the rest of the world."

The strategist is steering clear of Argentina, because the country's markets offer huge risks and little clarity. Mr. Narayanan likens Argentina to a broken Humpty-Dumpty and says it's not clear how politicians will be able to put it together again.

"To tell you the truth, we couldn't call Argentina right now."

Political turmoil in Venezuela -- including a two-month oil industry strike orchestrated by opponents of President Hugo Chavez as part of a national protest designed to drive the populist leader from office -- has also kept Mr. Narayanan out of investments in that country for some time.

"You've got almost a rich-versus-poor battle going on in Venezuela," he says. "It's a very difficult situation and it's not one that I can see an easy resolution to."

So deep is Venezuela's malaise that economists estimate the economy will contract 12 to 15 per cent this year.

Scott Piper of Morgan Stanley Asset Management Inc. has a different view of the big picture in Latin America. The co-manager of the TD Latin American Growth fund has been shifting assets out of Mexico and into Brazil, Argentina and Chile in recent months.

In the previous two years, Mexican corporations offered better management teams and more predictable earnings, he said. Countries in South America, meanwhile, were overly indebted with poor underlying growth prospects and shaky reform initiatives.

Mr. Piper sees three trends that he believes are bullish for South America:

The declining U.S. dollar is making currencies of countries in the region more competitive;

Current account deficits as a percentage of gross domestic product are shrinking as a result;

Economic reform initiatives are improving conditions.

Mr. Piper notes that investors have woken up quickly to Brazil's brighter prospects and he is expecting the market to pull back after its recent rally. But he is continuing to increase his holdings in the country.

In Brazil, Mr. Piper favours commodities. While the strengthening Brazilian currency hurts exporters, the manager notes that the country is rich in natural resources and the lowest-cost producer in the world for commodities such as iron ore.

Mr. Piper is wary of Brazil's regulated sectors, such as electricity and energy, which could see more government interference in future.

The country's banks are well-managed and offer a good hedge against inflation, he says, but Mr. Piper says bank stocks look fully valued to him.

Mr. Piper has been trimming some holdings in Mexico at the same time because the outlook for U.S. economic growth is so uncertain.

"Mexico is essentially at the whim and will of the U.S. economic cycle."

Morgan Stanley has trimmed its growth forecast for Mexico's gross domestic product to 2.1 per cent this year from its previous forecast of 3.5 per cent.

But the manager has not been more aggressive in selling down Mexico, he says, because on a bottom-up basis, he still finds plenty of well-managed companies with good prospects. He notes that a growing number of people in Mexico are gaining access to credit. As a result, he likes the country's bank stocks and Wal-Mart Mexico SA de CV.

Looking at Argentina, Mr. Piper notes that the dramatic currency flight of last year has normalized. And while the country faces a landmark runoff election this month, he believes that regardless of the outcome, Argentina's newly elected leader will have to negotiate a new agreement with the International Monetary Fund and current bondholders.

"Both candidates have to address those problems and they know it."

Morgan Stanley is forecasting GDP growth for Chile this year of 3.5 per cent. Mr. Piper says this relatively robust growth should fuel consumer demand, while credit growth will be good for the country's banks. Mr. Piper has added to positions in sectors such as telecommunications and beverages.

While Mr. Piper has increased his weighting there in Chile, he still finds it difficult to find good value because stocks tend to be very expensive compared with others in the region.

Annette Hester, an economist and director of the Latin American Research Centre at the University of Calgary, sees bullish signs in the region but she warns that the economies are still vulnerable.

Brazil, for example, recently managed to float a $1-billion (U.S.) bond issue that was six-times oversubscribed.

"It looks good, but it's Latin American and it's a world that's very susceptible to shocks," she says of Brazil and its trading partners.

The Argentine economy seems to be doing better but the fundamentals are not there, she says. Venezuela, meanwhile, is split between those for and against President Chavez.

"It's very uncertain, very volatile and very polarized," Ms. Hester says of the political and economic landscape.

Ms. Hester add that the economies of Chile and Mexico are faring relatively well, but whether the economies of the United States and other trading partners will rebound remains to be seen.

"I'm leery of making big forecasts, knowing how unique and volatile the situation is in each individual country."

MEXICO GDP 2002: 0.9% 2003 forecast: 2.9%

Outlook: Mexico's economy moves in tandem with the United States. The outlook for growth is uncertain.

BRAZIL

GDP 2002: 1.5% 2003 forecast: 1.2% Outlook: The new president has inspired confidence and a rally in the stock market, but slower growth in China could dampen prospects for the resource-rich economy.

CHILE

GDP 2002: 1.9% 2003 forecast: 3% Outlook: Chile has fared well despite negative effects spilling over from Argentina and adverse terms of trade, but the expected firming of copper prices should underpin growth.

VENEZUELA

GDP 2002 est.: -8.9% 2003 forecast: -15% Outlook: Venezuela will be facing lower oil prices, which will make necessary reforms even more difficult in the middle of an acute political crisis.

ARGENTINA

GDP 2002: -11.1% 2003 forecast: 2% Outlook: The country faces enormous obstacles in its financial system and while the situation has stabilized somewhat in 2002, the authorities will face a difficult situation in containing inflation in 2003.

JAMES STEVENSON <a href=www.canada.com>Canadian Press Friday, May 09, 2003

CALGARY (CP) - America wants more Canadian energy and regulatory rules need to be streamlined to allow that to happen, U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci said Friday.

Capping off a visit to Canada's oilpatch nerve centre, Cellucci told the Calgary Chamber of Commerce that the United States needs easier access to the oil, gas and electricity reserves of its northern neighbour.

"We want to be less dependent on Venezuela, where they turned the spigot off a few months ago; We want to be less dependent on the Middle East," said Cellucci.

"We know that we have the resources here in North America to fuel the economies of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico," he said.

"And we need a regulatory climate that encourages investment not only of the source, but of the transmission of this energy as well."

After the speech, Cellucci said the U.S. expects to import nearly 1 million barrels of oil per day from the northern Alberta oilsands, and that number will likely double within the next decade.

The U.S. recently changed its global energy reserve estimates to recognize the oilsands as proven reserves. This bumped Canadian oil reserves from five to 180 billion barrels, placing Canada number two in the world behind Saudi Arabia.

Washington also believes that access to large natural gas reserves in Alaska and the Mackenzie Delta region of the Northwest Territories is vital to its future energy needs.

Yet the energy companies behind both the $4-billion Mackenzie valley pipeline proposal and the estimated $20-billion US Alaska highway project have not even filed for regulatory approval yet - a complex step needed before construction can begin.

"It's pretty clear to us that we're going to need gas from both areas," said Cellucci, adding that the U.S. was in favour of a quick permitting process.

Demand for natural gas continues to grow in North America as more new power plants are using cleaner-burning natural gas instead of coal. But conventional supplies are quickly drying up.

When the top energy regulators for Canada, the U.S. and Mexico met earlier this week in Banff, Alta., they agreed that strong demand coupled with scarcity of new supplies would keep the price and consumers' gas bills highly volatile for at least the next three years.

During his visit to Calgary, Cellucci also met with Ralph Klein to "personally thank him" for the Alberta premier's support of the U.S.-led war in Iraq contrary to Ottawa's position.

But Cellucci's appearance was not without protest, as a small group of people huddled together against a May snowstorm and waved anti-U.S. placards.

"Canada's been a trading nation for 150 years and we've never been opposed to trade as workers or as an organization," said Gord Christie of the Calgary and District Labour Council.

"But we want fair trade, not these free trade agreements and this giving away our resources under the guise of free-trade."