Caracas, May 14 (<a href=quote.bloomberg.com>Bloomberg) -- Venezuela plans to sell $300 million of bonds within days in a private transaction, the country's first foreign bond sale in two years, a top finance ministry official said.

The government also plans to sell $400 million of bonds during the third quarter and $900 million of bonds this year through private sales, said Alejandro Dopazo, director of public credit. Dopazo would not say who plans to buy the debt or the terms of the bonds.

``We're basically concentrating on private transactions since market access is not that easy,'' Dopazo said in a telephone interview.

Venezuela may not swap some of its foreign bonds this year, Dopazo said. The finance ministry said in March that it planned to swap during the second quarter some of its foreign bonds maturing this year and next. The government may not sell foreign bonds on the market this year, Dopazo added. Last Updated: May 14, 2003 11:55 EDT

<a href=www.euobserver.com>EUObserver.com

Europe is doomed to become the big loser in world economics during the next 50 years.

The big winner will be China - whose economic share is predicted to grow from 18 to 24 per cent - and by 2050 be the largest player in the world economy. (Photo: Notat)Europe is doomed to become the big loser in world economics during the next 50 years.

Great China (China, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan) will be the number one player in the world economy by 2050 followed closely by North America (US, Canada and Mexico) while Europe will fall to become a second rank economic power.

These are the bleak projections of the French research centre, Institut Francais des Relations Internationales (Ifri), presented in the report 'World Trade in the 21st Century', ("Le commerce mondial au XXIe siècle").

By 2050, Europe's share of the world economy will only be 12 per cent against 22 per cent today. Europe will find itself at the same level as the group of 12 oil-producing countries, including Iran, Iraq, Nigeria and Venezuela.

In the same period, North America will just about manage to hold its share in the world economy, falling only from 25 per cent in 2000 to 23 per cent in 2050.

The big winner will be China, which is forecast to increase its share from 18 to 24 percent and by 2050 be the largest player in the world economy.

30 million immigrants to Europe The 400-page report predicts that Europe will receive some 30 million immigrants in the years 2000-2020 because the fertility rate has dropped dramatically and European industry needs a workforce.

Despite this huge take-in from other parts of the world, the European population is still expected to decline in the years 2000-2050, from 493 million to 434 million. In the same period the population of Greater China is expected to grow from 1282 million to 1472 with the North American group rising from 413 million to 584 million.

Just a century ago Western Europe was a serious world power which had colonised major parts of the globe.

This time, however the other side of the globe will have its turn. By 2050, the economic heavyweight will be the Asian-Pacific region, the French Institute concludes.

The report also predicts that by 2050 Europe will have 30 member states; the 15 current members, the 10 to join in 2004, plus Bulgaria, Romania, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland.

It also advises Europe to improve relations with Russia and the Mediterranean countries, including Turkey - which is described as a pivotal country.

Press Articles  IHT   Report  Le commerce mondial au XXIe siècle   Website  Institut Francais des Relations Internationales (Ifri)     Written by Lisbeth Kirk Edited by Honor Mahony

Ayer recibí una llamada de un “político tradicional”.  Quería reunirse conmigo URGENTEMENTE para discutir un tema tremendamente importante – para él, no para mí – que no podía esperar un minuto más.   Fue tanto el “misterio” que me cambié el mono de gimnasia lleno de huecos de “picaduras” de cucarachas por un short “addidas” y me lancé a su encuentro.

En el camino iba fantaseando sobre cuál sería el plan  para el derrocamiento del régimen CASTRO-COMUNISTA de los señores Chávez y Castro que tendría la importante organización a la cual pertenece mi amigo desde hace más de tres décadas.   Me preguntaba si tendría tiempo para poner algunas cosas en orden antes de que comenzara “la fiesta del guatao”, por aquello que uno podría terminar con un plomo entre ceja y ceja.  La emoción se incrementaba a medida que me acercaba a la “guarimba” de mi amigo.

Cuál fue mi sorpresa cuando terminamos de tomarnos el cafecito de rigor y nos quedamos íngrimos y solos en su despacho: el hombre quería hablar del desprecio de “LA GRAN PRENSA” hacia el régimen CASTRO-COMUNISTA de los señores Chávez y Castro.  Estaba muy contento porque a la rueda de prensa convocada por el “defensor del pueblo bolivariano” en nuestra embajada en Washington, no fue ni un solo periodista.  Quería saber qué me parecía y si no encontraba un rayo de luz en el significativo evento.

Lo primero que me vino a la mente fue un refrán que siempre le he oído a “La Agatilla”, mi cuñada partiniqueña de Valle de La Pascua: “frijol no revienta…”  Una vez más sentí un profundo dolor en la boca de mi ya maltrecho estómago.  Cuando no me reúno con santeros y babalaos, me invitan los carismáticos seguidores de María… a veces termino entre abogados y otras, como en esta oportunidad: entre ilusos.  Me acordé de la sabrosa poesía que me enseñara mi “Tío Montalvo” que decía así:

Esta vida es un relajo en forma de gallinero, y aquel que sube primero, suele cagar al de abajo… pero si se sube un pavo, de peso no muy ligero, pueda que se rompa el gajo, y entonces se va al carajo… aquel que subió primero.

Nada, que los pavos de la cuarta se fueron al carajo cuando se montaron los de la quinta y así, entre gajo y gajo, todos terminaremos donde menos hoy pensamos, a menos – claro – que nos “enguarimbemos”.  Si seguimos prestándole atención al “humero” que nos lanza el régimen -- como la “Ley Mordaza”, la conformación del CNE… la realización del referendo revocatorio -- y lo que piensa ahora “LA GRAN PRENSA” (internacional), se nos irá la vida y el tren… cuando vengamos a ver estaremos muy lejos del punto-de-no-retorno, como nos pasó en Cuba, a pesar de las decenas de miles de muertos, los centenares de miles de presos políticos y una invasión a gran escala que pusimos los cubanos.

Aquellos que creen que el Sr. Chávez es poco menos que mongólico, no se olviden del personaje que tiene atrás.  Hubo una vez que el Sr. Castro era la vedette del mundo y de esa prensa que tanto evalúa mi amigo el político.  Castro perdió el favor de los medios internacionales hace décadas, aunque todavía queda uno que otro tonto útil tal vez atraído por un condimento sexo-erótico que posiblemente encuentre en las barbas del ya anciano guerrillero eterno. 

Solamente una vez en su vida de sangriento dictador Castro se ha sentido amenazado; fue cuando los “americanos” intentaban partirle el alma al “enterarse” de que Cuba servía de plataforma para la introducción en los Estados Unidos de la droga procedente de la narco-guerrilla colombiana.  ¿Qué hizo Castro quien de pendejo no tiene un pelo?  Llevar al paredón al General Arnaldo Ochoa bajo la acusación de ser ÉL  (y nadie más que él) quien dirigía – entre bambalinas y por su cuenta – las operaciones de narcotráfico que abierta y descaradamente se llevaban a cabo desde Cuba durante décadas… ¡DÉCADAS!

Castro mató dos pájaros de un tiro: se deshizo para siempre de un general muy incómodo y peligroso, cargado de laureles y de poder político-militar cosechados en las guerras africanas y aplacó la ira de los “americanos” fusilando al perfecto chivo expiatorio… y colorín, colorao.  Eso fue el 13 de junio de 1989, han pasado casi 14 años y ahí lo tenemos, tomándole el pelo a la cotorra y al cijú.

En 1985 publiqué “Los Generales de Castro” y ya en él hablaba de este floreciente negocio que además de producir divisas – o, en su defecto, “moneda convertible” -- le daba en la madre a la sociedad norteamericana, ayudando – por la vía del vicio -- a convertir en verdaderas piltrafas humanas a millones de jóvenes de la nación más poderosa del globo terráqueo.  Incluso, en mi libro mencioné con su nombre y apellido al traficante cubano-americano Roberto Vezco, quien tiene décadas huyendo del FBI y viviendo en Cuba con la anuencia y protección de Fidel.   El tirano eterno de las Antillas es como el “mapurite” (el zorrillo), que “sabe a quién pee”  (sabe a quién orinar)… como también diría mi “cuñá”.

Ya podrán volteársele en pleno al régimen CASTRO-COMUNISTA de los señores Chávez y Castro todos los periodistas del mundo, que eso a ellos no les hará ni coquito.   Ellos lo que necesitan es tiempo para cuadrar la caja en nuestro país; tiempo que muchos de nosotros desde la “oposición” les estamos regalando.  Una vez que amarren nos dirán: “Al carajo, albañiles, que se les acabó la mezcla…”

Caracas 24 de mayo de 2003

ROBERT ALONSO robertalonso2003@cantv.net

LO MAS RECIENTE QUE HE PUBLICADO EN ESTE PORTAL

DE MI MISMA AUTORÍA

PORTAFOLIO VIRTUAL DE ARTÍCULOS Y ENSAYOS DEL MISMO AUTOR

nationalreview.com May 14, 2003, 9:30 a.m. By Mark Krikorian

ast Thursday, the House International Relations Committee narrowly passed a resolution introduced by Rep. Cass Ballenger of North Carolina (R.) requiring that any amnesty deal for the five million Mexican illegal aliens in the United States be linked to an opening of Mexico's state-controlled oil industry to investment by U.S. companies.

Then the fun started.

 The Mexican press exploded in outrage. "Blackmail!" cried the archbishop of Mexico City. "Stupidity!" said a representative of the oil workers' union. A plot to "annex Latin America," intoned Nobel peace-prize winner Adolfo Pérez Esquivel. An example of U.S. lawmakers' "ignorance," "arrogance," and "imperial vision," according to a Mexican senator. The head of the leftist PRD called on President Vicente Fox to "put on his pants" — act like a man — and oppose the proposal. Fox finally joined the tsunami of criticism on Sunday and categorically rejected any privatization of Pemex, Mexico's state oil monopoly. 

None of this should come as a surprise. Mexico's seizure of foreign oil companies' assets in 1938 is central to modern Mexican nationalism; state control of the oil industry is actually written into the constitution. What's more, there are midterm elections for the lower house of Mexico's Congress coming up in July. Embracing privatization of Pemex would not be a vote getter, to say the least. And according to William and Mary political scientist George Grayson, author of Oil and Mexican Foreign Policy, "unless the PAN makes notable strides in these contests, the beleaguered Fox will find himself a lame duck with three years-plus remaining in his term."

But however outraged the Mexicans are, and however different these two issues are, it only seems fair to link them. After all, Mexico is asking us to start down the path of eliminating our southern border and embracing a European Union-style shared sovereignty — the least we can expect is for them also to eliminate barriers that are important to their nation.

Nor has this idea come out of the blue. In the July 30, 2001, Weekly Standard, economist Irwin Stelzer suggested just such an approach. Stelzer wrote that "monopoly oil prices" could offset a good part of the economic growth assumed in the president's tax cut and that "the finger of blame points squarely at Mexico." He wrote that we should insist that Mexico cooperate with the United States and other pro-free market countries and stop supporting the OPEC oil cartel and its leaders such as the Marxist Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Stelzer said that before Bush strikes any deal on amnesty, "he should insist on the free movement of ...oil from Mexico" and the opening of Mexico's oil resources to American investment.

While Mexican opposition may be no surprise, the Democrats' furor over the oil-for-illegals approach is, given the importance of Mexico's oil to the United States and the huge costs that an illegal-alien amnesty would impose on us. After all, they have no chance whatever of getting an amnesty through Congress without some kind of sweetener, and this would seem an obvious candidate.

But it is not to be. Rep. Robert Menendez was so angry that he held a press conference last Friday denouncing the resolution. He was joined by Rep. Ciro Rodriguez and Silvestre Reyes; the latter, a past head of the Hispanic Caucus, said the amendment was an "insult" to Mexico and indicative of an "insane and outofcontrol attitude on the part of a country [the United States] that believes that as a matter of public foreign policy bullying is acceptable." It was Menendez who prompted the whole dust-up in the first place; Ballenger's amendment, to the State Department appropriations bill, was offered as a substitute to a proposal by Menendez calling for the conclusion of a "migration" accord which, among other things, "respect[ed] the human dignity of all migrants, regardless of their status" — i.e., an amnesty for illegal aliens.

The partisan nature of the vote suggests the depth of opposition in the president's own party for his preferred immigration policies. The only Republican to vote against Ballenger's oil-for-illegals linkage was Pete King (who has a career grade of F on the reformist Americans for Better Immigration website). Even such flamboyant Republican supporters of high immigration as Ileana Ros Lehtinen (career grade of F), Chris Smith (D-), and Steve Chabot (D+) voted for the linkage.

However bad the immigration positions of these Republicans, they at least understand that a massive illegal-alien amnesty must be met with some gesture from Mexico. But the Democratic-party/Mexican-government position on amnesty for illegals appears to be all quid from the United States and no quo from Mexico.

Stay tuned.

— Mark Krikorian is an NRO contributor and executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies.

BY MICHAEL MCKEE <a href=www.nwanews.com>BLOOMBERG NEWS Wednesday, May 14, 2003

WASHINGTON — The U.S. trade deficit widened in March to the second largest on record as imports of oil jumped after a petroleum strike in Venezuela and in anticipation of war in Iraq, a government report showed.

The United States imported $43.5 billion more in goods and services than it exported, following a revised $40.4 billion shortfall in February, the Commerce Department said Tuesday. The record deficit was a $44.9 billion gap last December.

Crude-oil imports reached a record in March amid concern that supplies would be disrupted by war. The United States was rebuilding stocks after the two month-Venezuela strike, in December and January.

And, even as a weaker U.S. dollar may boost exports, economists said they expect little narrowing of the trade gap. "Away from energy, we don’t expect much of an improvement in the trade balance over the next few months," said Kevin Logan, senior market economist at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein in New York. "Other economies are still quite weak, with growth very sluggish, so we don’t expect the demand for exports to increase much."

The U.S. economy grew at a 1.6 percent annual rate in the first quarter, according to the government’s first estimate. Japan is expected to have grown just 0.4 percent, according to analysts surveyed by Bloomberg News. And the European Commission said the economy of the dozen nations that share the euro as their currency probably shrank in the first quarter.

The decline in the dollar may have contributed to the 2.9 percent increase in imports to $126.3 billion in March, the second highest on record behind September 2000. Goods ordered months ago and delivered in March cost more because the dollar has fallen 10 percent against the euro this year. Imports from western Europe surged in March to a record as the trade deficit with that region rose to $7.8 billion from $6.6 billion.

The drop in the dollar is expected, eventually, to help exports by making U.S.-made products less expensive internationally. The currency also has declined 11 percent this year against the Canadian dollar and 4.6 percent against a basket of currencies from the biggest U.S. trading partners. "Persistent weakness in the dollar and an expected rebound in overseas growth later this year should help to improve the U.S. trade picture down the road," said Joseph Abate, senior economist at Lehman Brothers Inc. in New York.

The value of crude oil imports surged to a record $9.1 billion in March, from $7.5 billion the previous month. The United States imported 300.7 million barrels of oil for the month, up from 247.1 million in February. The price of crude eased to $30.27 a barrel from $30.46 in February.

Imports of autos and auto parts rose 2.1 percent to $17.2 billion in March.

A record 3.53 million imported vehicles were sold in March, topping the previous record of 3.52 million set in October 2001, when automakers offered zero percent financing to lure buyers after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Exports rose 0.6 percent to $82.8 billion in March from $82.3 billion the previous month. Shipments abroad of semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and petroleum products all increased.

And exports of consumer goods rose 5.6 percent to $7.3 billion, after falling 7.5 percent in February.

Companies including 3M Co., United Technologies Corp., and Chiquita Brands International Inc. have benefited from the weaker dollar making their goods cheaper overseas and increasing the value of their international sales when they are converted into dollars.