Wednesday June 11, 2003 The Guardian

Two traits have characterised Tony Blair's approach to government. He is a big-picture man and he is a big-tent man. Not especially fluent (or interested)

in economics, he has been happy to leave the nitty-gritty to Gordon Brown. At the same time, the PM likes to find room in the New Labour project for everybody.

For more than five years, the Blairite approach has held together reasonably well. When it came to the euro, however, the prime minister had a choice. If he left it up to his chancellor to decide whether the five tests had been passed, he knew the pro-euro campaigners would leave in a huff, resulting in a nasty gash in his big tent. So he got interested in all the heavy stuff about cyclical convergence and ensured that government policy on the euro bore his stamp.

It has kept the pro-euro campaigners happy, but at a price. The rolling programme of annual Treasury progress reports means it is that much harder for business to plan for the future. Will there be a referendum this year, next year or not for a decade? Should it start to invest in new systems, or not? Had the government said either yes or no on Monday, business would have been able to plan with certainty; as things stand, policy is unclear and risks causing economic instability.

In these matters, businesses would be better off paying attention to the financial markets than their elected representatives. The City has already decided that Brown remains the guardian of the five tests, and that in reality the chancellor is unlikely to say next spring that enough has changed to warrant a fresh assessment. The respective states of the British and eurozone economies suggest that, if anything, they will be less convergent in six or 12 months than they are today, and that therefore the transitional costs of entry - particularly the risk of setting off a fresh boom in house prices - will be too great.

Blair may believe his own rhetoric and imagine that all he has to do is say "trust me" and voters will warm to the euro. But, with all those weapons of mass destruction left unfound, trust is in short supply at the moment. So when the City says the next feasible date for reassessing the tests is the Budget of 2006, with entry in 2008 at the earliest, it is almost certainly right. Assuming Labour wins the next election, that is.

Opec eclipse

The big private oil producers were in celebratory mood last night, toasting the Iraq war. Not gloating over the spoils, of course. That would be indelicate. Instead the producers were keen to highlight the way oil markets had kept the developed world's gasoline flowing during the conflict, ensuring there was not a dry petrol tank in sight.

"No oil consumer faced a lack of availability. There proved to be no need to release [emergency government] oil stocks. In a sense the system works and has now been tested by what can probably be called a normal crisis," explained Peter Davies, BP's chief economist, marking the publication of his company's annual energy review.

All too true - and thanks, largely, to the willingness of the much-criticised Saudis to turn their production taps wide open, making up for a lack of supplies from war-torn Iraq, and strikebound Venezuela and Nigeria.

But the period when the shells were flying was the easy one; building a post-conflict peace in the oil world will prove far tougher. Ministers from the Opec cartel assemble in Qatar today and are unlikely to reduce production levels.

They should be laughing with the price of Brent blend crude bubbling away at the $27.60 a barrel level, right inside its $22-$28 target. But they know there is plenty to fret about. In 1999 a glut of oil in the world sent crude prices crashing to $10 and pushed their oil-dependent economies into a tailspin. Current shortages are keeping prices up, but global economic growth continues to falter and new supplies are gradually coming on stream.

BP figures show that Opec's output fell by 1.87m barrels a day last year while the rest of the world was happily increasing its production by 1.45m barrels. The major private oil firms have been investing furiously in non-Opec fields, such as Russia and Angola. In short, the medium term picture is one of oil prices falling back sharply once more unless Opec continues to cut output to compensate for oversupply. Yet the longer it declines to do this the more non-Opec producers find their higher-cost acreage attractive to western investors. The energy cartel's glory days are surely over.

Leery O'Leary

There's an iron law of stock-watching: when the boss sells, it's time to get out. So yesterday's disposal by Ryanair chief executive Michael O'Leary of 4m shares in his company seems like a solid "sell" signal, especially because it comes days after Mr O'Leary told a press conference that he had no plans to sell any. Then again, Mr O'Leary still has 40m, and usually sells a chunk each year. This year Mr O'Leary has been downbeat about his airline's prospects in the face of a price war with its rivals, and his 4m disposal is more timid than last year's 7m. Perhaps Mr O'Leary is more nervous about Ryanair's prospects than he is letting on.

Vanguard By Hector Igbikiowubo with Agency report Wednesday, June 11, 2003

LAGOS—ORGANISATION of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) appears split over a potential cut in production to allow Iraq come back on stream, while non-OPEC Mexico said there was no need to tighten the tap.  Abdullah al-Attiyah, president of the organisation, said the cartel would consider a cut at its meeting tomorrow in Qatar’s capital, Doha.  “Now is the right time for OPEC to study how to accommodate Iraq, how to make room for Iraq, by, you know, cutting production from others,” Attiyah, also Qatar’s oil minister, told reporters. Attiyah, citing Iraqi authorities, said Iraq’s crude production would likely be one million barrels per day and beyond from mid-June.

"Iraq will come to the market. That’s their right. We have to help them and we also have to make room for them.”  On current price levels, Attiyah said crude was selling within OPEC’s price band mechanism of 22-28 dollars a barrel.  “It’s not a high price. It’s still in the band. We’re happy to see it in the band, we don’t want to see it over the band. We’re working very hard to keep prices within the band.”  But Kuwait called to roll over OPEC crude oil production at least until September because prices were satisfactory.

“It’s better to continue with our production because we think we are still in the average price (band),” acting oil minister, Sheikh Ahmed Fahd al-Ahmed al-Sabah said.  “The latest report was 27 dollars a barrel. Therefore we are in a good situation. We have to continue, from now to September,” Sheikh Ahmed said.  “I think we will always have to cooperate with non-OPEC,” he said, adding that the cartel needed the support of non-OPEC producers “for the future.”  But non-OPEC Mexico cast doubts on the possibility that oil exporters that are not members of the cartel would automatically join in any cut.

“From our perception the market is going well,” Juan Antonio Barges, undersecretary for hydrocarbons, pointed out. “I don’t feel a (output) cut is necessary according to the economic information that we have.”  Asked what Mexico would likely do if OPEC were to cut production, Barges said: “We’ll have to do our review. As I have said, I don’t believe there’s a need for a cut.”

 Mexico is one of five non-OPEC states to attend the extraordinary OPEC meeting here as observers. The Venezuela, UAE, Nigeria, Kuwait, Libya, Indonesia, Algeria and Qatar. The seat of Iraq, where OPEC was born 43 years go, will be vacant.  The US-British coalition ruling post-war Iraq has said it would be up to a future “representative” Iraqi government to decide whether the country remains inside the organisation.

 Algeria earlier made a detailed case of the situation in some member countries including his, pointing out that the economy is slowing down. The Algerian Energy Minister Chakib Khelil told reporters that:”You have a tremendous devaluation of the dollar in respect to the euro. You have all these concerns about SARS and its effects on tourism, on demand and also you have overproduction by non-OPEC countries,” he said.  Khelil said the greenback’s depreciation affected countries like Algeria, which imports heavily from Euquarter,” he said.   

OPEC kingpin Saudi Arabia has not taken a clear position so far, but in a joint statement with Venezuela and Mexico issued Friday in Madrid said the current oil market was balanced, “with supplies adequate to meet present and future world demand for oil.”

By James Cox, USA TODAY With oil prices near 12-week highs, OPEC ministers who were set to slash output after the war in Iraq instead left production levels unchanged at their meeting Wednesday.

OPEC President Abdullah bin Hamad al-Attiyah said the 11-nation cartel will meet July 31 to reassess the situation.

Crude prices were expected to tumble after the war on the belief that, with Iraq's oil facilities largely intact, Iraqi oil would flow quickly back to export markets. Instead, looting and sabotage have prevented Iraq from resuming exports, and global oil prices have remained stubbornly high.

In New York, the price for U.S. benchmark crude closed up 28 cents at $31.73 a barrel on Tuesday.

Economists say prices have not retreated because Iraq has been slow to revive production, and political turmoil has suppressed output in Venezuela and Nigeria.

"Two months ago, they thought, 'Oh my God, in another month we could see $15 (a barrel) oil if Iraq comes back.' It hasn't happened," says Fadel Gheit, oil analyst at Fahnestock & Co.

Monday, Iraqi oil officials appointed by the U.S. occupation authority said crude exports wouldn't resume until month's end and wouldn't reach prewar levels until the middle of 2004.

Al-Attiyah said that the July meeting would look at the impact of Iraq's return to the oil market and that OPEC would consider all options to maintain its interests.

Venezuelan oil officials insisted Tuesday that the country was pumping enough to meet its OPEC quota. But "somebody's lying," Gheit says, "because if that was the case, prices would be lower."

Prices soared near $40 to hit 12-year highs during the Iraq war. But lost supplies from Iraq, Venezuela and Nigeria have partly been offset by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, which have boosted output.

Commercial stockpiles worldwide are at five-year lows. U.S. inventories are near two-decade lows.

"We haven't been able to catch up and replenish," says Tom Kloza at Oil Price Information Service. "Part of that is due to some very brisk gasoline demand, part is a hangover from a godawful winter."

Gasoline prices have come down, falling 10 out of the most recent 11 weeks, says the U.S. Energy Department. Nationally, regular unleaded is expected to average $1.46 a gallon during the summer driving season, the department predicts.

Gheit says oil prices could plunge $4 to $5 a barrel once Iraq can resume its prewar export of 2 million barrels a day. In the meantime, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is walking a fine line.

On one hand, it doesn't want to choke off a global economic recovery by keeping prices too high. On the other, it's determined to stave off a crash in prices when Iraq, Venezuela and Nigeria begin boosting their exports.

OPEC has been lobbying big non-OPEC producers Russia, Mexico and Norway to support the cartel's anticipated production cuts by holding output firm or making their own cuts.

Contributing: The Associated Press

El problema no es criticar por criticar.  Nuestro ánimo es aportar la crítica constructiva donde entendemos se comete un importante error.  Por ejemplo, ante nuestras propias narices está naciendo una corriente tan absurda como aquella en la cual nos quiere encasillar – uniformemente -- la mayoría de nuestros políticos tradicionales.   Ante lo peligroso e inconveniente de empeñarse obstinadamente en la teoría que asegura que aquí va a haber referendo revocatorio (alegándose que “eso” no está en manos del Sr. Chávez y su régimen CASTRO-COMUNISTA), está floreciendo una corriente -- radicalmente opuesta -- la cual nos invita a convertirnos en soldados de infantería y con nuestras escopetas, chopos y machetes, salir a enfrentar a las Fuerzas Armadas entregadas al cartel extranjero que desde Cuba maneja Castro.  ¡Ojalá pudiéramos!

Por ahí me salió un lector comparándome a Jean-Francois Revel, quien hizo de la crítica universal su deporte.  Revel escribió “Italianos al Desnudo”, donde señalaba que los italianos jamás han ocupado un lugar prominente en sexualidad ni en cocina.  Su obra “En France” (“En Francia”), indignó a los franceses al demostrarles su chovinista desconocimiento del resto del mundo.  Para ponerle la tapa al pomo, en su libro “Ni Marx ni Jesús” provocó la irritación de los intelectuales izquierdistas de todo el mundo al proclamar que la única sociedad verdaderamente revolucionaria en la última parte del siglo XX no era la Unión Soviética, ni China, ni Cuba, ni Kampuchea… sino Estados Unidos.

Pero lejos de molestarme con la absurda comparación, el amigo lector lo que hizo fue elevarme el ego, pues Jean-Francois Revel fue un importante profesor de filosofía convertido en periodista, ex editorialista y director del prestigioso semanario L’Express, y además de hacer muchas travesuras literarias que le ayudaron a cosechar cualquier cantidad de enfurecidos críticos a lo largo y ancho del mundo intelectual (y no tan intelectual), escribió también un aleccionador y escalofriante libro titulado “Comment les Démocraties Finissent” (“Cómo Mueren Las Democracias”), una obra espectacular que si le cambiamos algunos eventos, países y protagonistas por otros, la pudiéramos reeditar para que encaje en la enajenada realidad de la Venezuela de hoy.

En una oportunidad el amigo Revel montó en cólera ante la apreciación generalizada de muchos “kremlinólogos” occidentales quienes aseguraban -- solemnemente -- que el entonces recién llegado al poder en la Unión Soviética, Yuri Andropov, era un hombre muy civilizado porque leía novelas norteamericanas y bebía güisqui escocés, por lo tanto estaba a punto de liberizar el sistema soviético.   Revel recordaba entonces que a la muerte de Lenin, en 1924, los analistas políticos del occidente felicitaban al mundo porque el poder soviético quedaba en manos de un “pragmatista moderado”: ¡José Stalin!

La obra de Revel, “Comment les Démocraties Finissent” está llena de impresionantes ALERTAS. Tal vez en eso nos parecemos un poco… digo yo, modestia muy aparte.  En su libro Revel decía que nada asegura que la democracia pudiera ser eterna, sobre todo si ella persiste en negarse a prestar atención a las lecciones de la historia y – sobre todo – si se continuaba confundiendo DESEOS con REALIDADES.   No pongo en duda hoy que todos nosotros DESEEMOS participar en un referendo revocatorio que saque del poder al Sr. Chávez para poder hacerlo preso, enviarlo a La Haya, condenarlo por crímenes de lesa humanidad y guardarlo para siempre al lado del Sr. Milosevic, su colega en desmanes.  Pero, ¿es una aspiración basada en la realidad?

Acepto absolutamente el sentimiento de rabia e impotencia de la gran mayoría de los venezolanos ante la agresión y humillación producida por una “potencia” extranjera de pacotilla que produce en nosotros el deseo de querer salir a las calles – hoy mismo – con un revolver en la mano a enfrentarnos a las tanquetas artilladas con cañones de 60mm.  Pero, ¿podría cristalizarse ese sueño en una aceptable y factible realidad?

Revel advertía que por una combinación de ceguera y timidez, las democracias habían dejado -- desde la Revolución rusa -- que las dictaduras comunistas dispusieran todas las jugadas y fijaran la mayoría de las reglas en los asuntos internacionales.  Vemos en Venezuela cómo el régimen CASTRO-COMUNISTA de los señores Chávez y Castro, dicta las pautas y fija las reglas en los asuntos políticos domésticos, al tiempo en que intenta y sueña con hacer lo propio más allá de las fronteras cubanas y venezolanas.

El Sr. Jimmy Carter se “cogió los dedos” con Leonid Brezhnev, a quien consideraba un pragmático amante de la paz y quedó dolorosamente sorprendido cuando ocupó Afganistán.  El Presidente Carter hubiera DESEADO otra cosa muy diferente en torno a los acontecimientos que cambiaron al mundo; confundió DESEOS con REALIDADES.  Tal vez no se hubiera llevado tal sorpresa, opinaba Revel, si hubiera recordado – por ejemplo – cómo en 1921 los soviéticos extinguieron la libertad de la joven república de Georgia en el Cáucaso, donde en una previa elección democrática los bolcheviques habían obtenido sólo 24,513 votos de un total de casi 900.000 emitidos.  El Ejército Rojo, respondiendo a lo que llamó “los deseos de los georgianos”, invadió el país, ahogó en sangre la resistencia y anexó el territorio a la Unión Soviética.  Algo muy similar sucedió en 1940 con las repúblicas bálticas… y todos estos desmanes se hicieron ante los ojos de la Liga de Las Naciones, representantes – entonces – de lo que hoy conocemos como la “comunidad internacional”.

Decía Revel que como las democracias habían desistido de desafiar a los soviéticos por haber invadido territorios, los comunistas de todas partes llegaron a considerar que cualquier cosa en el mundo no comunista era caza no vedada.  Entre las reglas que según Revel los países democráticos aceptaban en mayor o menor grado, estaba aquella en la que los comunistas escogían el lugar y el momento de la confrontación, lo que les daba inmensas ventajas tácticas.  Vemos en Venezuela cómo el Sr. Chávez nos prepara cada domingo – en su programa “Aló Presidente” – la agenda de la semana por venir, escogiendo el tema de discusión, entretenimiento y  “guaraleo”, mientras nos mete cubanos del Batallón II de Infantería y envía jóvenes venezolanos a Cuba para ser entrenados en las técnicas de las “Brigadas de Acción Rápidas”, inteligencia, contra-inteligencia, tácticas de confrontación y defensa urbana, etc.

Decía Revel que Lenin, en una discusión un tanto agria con su canciller Chicherin, en 1922, le recordó que el Partido empleaba el pacifismo para desintegrar al enemigo, a la burguesía.  Revel señalaba que nada era más grotesco que el repetido anhelo de los estadistas occidentales por creer a los dirigentes soviéticos cuando estos afirmaban estar ansiosos por lograr la paz, sin embargo, antes de comenzar cualquier negociación, se aseguraban siempre de pedirnos concesiones por delante -- sin mencionar en absoluto las del lado comunista – para convencerlos de nuestra buena fe.  Franklin Roosevelt cayó por inocente en las trampas de Stalin cuando en Yalta le dio al soviético lo que éste le pidió, con la infundada esperanza de que Stalin le daría algo a cambio.  Ya vimos el papelazo en el cual culminó la llamada y costosísima “Mesa de Negociaciones” presidida por el Sr. César Gaviria y vemos hoy al Diputado Maduro hablar de paz como si se hubiese convertido al evangelismo en la tarde de ayer.

No obstante todas estas advertencias, aseguraba Revel que no había una necesidad objetiva de que las democracias mueran, puesto que éstas ofrecen a sus ciudadanos más comida, comodidades y oportunidades de realización personal que cualquier otro sistema de gobierno en la historia.  Sentenció Revel – cual profecía – que aún con todos esos baches de ignorancia y errores, un sistema tan superior como la democracia prevalecería – al final -- sobre el comunista… y fue así, salvo en países tan cavernícolas como Cuba y Corea.

Pero concluyo al igual que Revel.  Si los venezolanos insistimos en malentenderal CASTRO-COMUNISMO y negarle sus apetencias de imperialismo rojo… y dejamos que el bando contrario fije las reglas; seguimos soñando con pajaritos preñados, creyendo que con utópicos métodos electorales vamos a sacudirnos de este monstruo de diez mil cabezas o lo podemos hacer – fuera de “LA GUARIMBA” -- con un chopo en la mano y cuatro perdigones calibre 16, nos estaremos colocando en la misma posición de los atenienses en el siglo IV a. de C.

Demóstenes, el gran orador, advertía constantemente a sus conciudadanos que el poderoso vecino de Atenas, Filipo II de Macedonia, no había creado un ejército formidable con fines netamente pacíficos.  Les decía Demóstenes que la vigilancia eterna era el precio de su libertad.

Los atenienses de entonces escuchaban con cortesía, pero al cabo de pocos años se aburrieron de Demóstenes y de sus insistentes advertencias de ALERTAS sobre Filipo II.  Era más cómodo creer en otros oradores – algunos de ellos pagados por el propio Filipo II y otros verdaderamente sinceros – que decían que el rey de Macedonia buscaba la paz universal… y lo siguieron creyendo hasta que Filipo II y su formidable ejército invadieron Atenas en el año 338 a. de C.  Los atenienses no recobrarían la libertad sino 2170 años después.

Caracas, 19 de junio de 2003

ROBERT ALONSO

Envíen sus comentarios – UNICAMENTE – a robertalonso2003@cantv.net pues los otros buzones colapsan con la cantidad de correo que reciben.  --

PORTAFOLIO VIRTUAL DE ARTÍCULOS Y ENSAYOS DEL MISMO AUTOR