IHT, By Juan Forero NYT Thursday, June 12, 2003   This gritty, working-class district in the western end of metropolitan Caracas, with its jumbled brick homes and towering housing projects, is said to be fiercely loyal to President Hugo Chavez and sharply opposed to those who call for his removal. But in a two-story, nondescript building in the heart of Catia, in a dank room with fluorescent lights and bare walls, a group of political activists are plotting subversion. Here, Jose Uzcategui, 32, and other activists of First Justice, a political party usually associated with young, affluent professionals from the eastern end of Caracas, talk strategy: Where to go door-to-door to register prospective turncoats who will one day vote against Chavez. What political pitch to make to people who had found resonance in Chavez's class-based rhetoric? The tactics, while low-key, represent a sea change from the past for a large but unwieldy opposition out to end Chavez's tumultuous rule. The president's foes had loudly and publicly claimed the poor were largely opposed to the left-leaning president, as they started a failed coup and four national strikes that devastated the economy. But now, with Venezuelans preparing for what may be their last shot at ending Chavez's presidency - a referendum that could take place later this year - the opposition is taking small, tentative steps to strike a chord with the poor. The strategy is crucial since the government has already begun aggressive efforts to reinforce its support by registering voters and ratcheting up small-scale social programs. "We want the people to hear from us what we are about," said Uzcategui a butcher shop owner who lives in a poor barrio and recently joined First Justice. "We want people to know there is an opposition in the barrios." It has not been easy, though. Many people in poor neighborhoods openly reject Democratic Action and Copei, the two corrupt political parties that had ruled Venezuela for years and form important components in the anti-Chavez coalition. "They are seen as spoiled rich kids," said Ronny Silva, 29, who lives in a Catia but opposes Chavez. "There a lot of blind people over there. They need to start offering realities." Many poor Venezuelans also openly distrust individual opposition leaders, whom they view as part of a privileged class that greatly benefited from a succession of Venezuelan governments until Chavez won election in 1998. To many of the poor, Chavez remains a viable option, even if Venezuela's economy is crumbling. "That is Chavez's strength, and until this day it continues to be this way," said Ana Maria Sanjuan, a sociologist at the Central University in Caracas. "Just like the opposition claims Chavez has excluded them from his political decisions, the poor claim Chavez has included them." The sharp divide between many of the poor and the opposition - a gulf Chavez helped create with his high-octane rhetoric - has made it particularly difficult for some government foes to freely express themselves in the hillside slums where the president still has strong support. The threat of violence has, indeed, staunched political activism. Three weeks ago, in a rally in Catia held by Democratic Action, one person was killed and more than 20 injured when gunfire broke out. Though it remains unclear who was responsible, some people in the opposition, including the former secretary general of Democratic Action, say the party was largely at fault and may have provoked the violence. Democratic Action had touted the rally as the "re-conquest" of Catia. "We told them this is not the way to go into that sector, but they rejected what we said," said Arquimedes Espinoza, coordinator of ProCatia, a community organization in Catia that is opposed to Chavez. "The way to go in is to first understand the problems of the people." While loud, raucous anti-Chavez protests are common in the affluent east of Caracas, such rallies can backfire in the poor west. Instead, activists say they prefer to go door to door, taking time to explain their party's position. Political gatherings are often only convened after a neighborhood has been staked out, to ensure there is a welcoming atmosphere. A key is avoiding hard-line government supporters, whom opposition leaders say can react violently to outsiders. "We have people working in Catia, but they must go underground," said Henrique Salas Romer, a former governor who has broken with the opposition coalition and is considered a leading presidential contender. "We are not making any noise." Still, political parties and a host of community organizations opposed to Chavez have started to gear up political activities in poor districts in preparation for the referendum on Chavez's rule. Though a date has not been set, Chavez and his adversaries last month agreed to hold a vote that will ask Venezuelans whether they want him to continue in power. The New York Times

<a href=ogj.pennnet.com>Oil & Gas journal By OGJ editors HOUSTON, June 11 -- Global energy consumption increased by 2.6% in 2002 vs. the year before, "well ahead" of the 10-year trend of 1.4%/year. Worldwide oil production capacity, meanwhile, "comfortably exceeds" world demand and world oil supplies are "becoming more diverse," reported Peter Davies, BP PLC chief economist, in BP's annual Statistical Review of World Energy 2003.

BP's report, released Tuesday, said that as a result of these factors, "producers were able to meet the needs of oil consumers during the Iraq war and during unplanned supply disruptions in Venezuela and Nigeria." As a further consequence of this, Davies added, "Consuming nations were not required to tap their emergency reserves. This is good news for those concerned about energy security, but it should not lead to complacency."

During the war on Iraq, Davies noted, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries used its spare capacity of nearly 4 million b/d "to keep the market supplied," although the organization cut its average output by 1.87 million b/d "in response to weak global oil demand and a 1.45 million b/d increase in non-OPEC production," Davies said. He added that OPEC production has declined in 3 of the last 4 years.

"The story is one of supply momentum that looks set to continue," Davies said. "Russian oil production is up 25% in 3 years and Russia has been joined by a new group of oil producing basins, across several continents and regions, that have begun to grow rapidly," he added.

Oil prices, supply, demand Brent oil prices averaged $25.19/bbl in 2002, according to BP, which was up only slightly from 2001's average price of $24.77/bbl. This price, however, was "well above" the post-1986 yearly average of $19.40/bbl, BP reported. "Prices during 2002 ranged from a low of around $18/bbl in mid-January to peak just before the end of the year at $32(/bbl)," the report said.

Global oil demand, meanwhile, was "broadly flat," BP said, increasing 290,000 b/d to 75.7 million b/d from 75.5 million b/d. "All of the increase is attributable to China where oil consumption increased 5.8% or 332,000 b/d," BP said.

Global oil supply declined by 415,000 b/d, or 0.7%, to 73.9 million b/d from 74.4 million b/d, BP reported. "OPEC daily oil production fell to 28.2 million b/d, a drop of 1.87 million b/d (6.4%). The steep fall resulted from a number of unplanned disruptions and because some OPEC producers, primarily Saudi Arabia, curtailed production in response to weak demand and to a significant 1.45 million b/d increase in non-OPEC oil output," BP said. Some of the more substantial production increases, BP reported occurred in Russia 640,000 b/d, Kazakhstan 150,000 b/d, Canada 170,000 b/d, Angola 160,000 b/d, and Brazil 160,000 b/d.

In 3 years' time, oil production from Russia, the Caspian Sea, and from the deepwater Atlantic Basin and Canada has increased 3.3 million b/d, or 26.5%, "and has the potential to increase another 5 million b/d by 2007," the report said.

China, meanwhile, accounted for 68.5% of the increase in global primary energy consumption in 2002 and has become a "major energy consumer and importer," according to BP's report. "Consumption of coal, which accounts for 66% of Chinese energy use, grew a massive 27.9%. Oil consumption increased 5.8%, or 332,000 b/d, accounting for all of the world's oil consumption growth in 2002," BP reported, adding, "China replaced Japan as the world's second largest oil consumer."

Natural gas supply, demand Global demand of gas increased in 2002 by a "relatively strong 2.8%," BP reported. This increase was "on the strength of a 3.9% increase in US consumption and a 7% increase in non-OECD Asia-Pacific consumption," the company said. "Growth in natural gas consumption outpaced growth in world primary energy and its share of total energy consumption is now roughly equal to coal at 24%," BP reported.

Global gas production, meanwhile, increased 1.4%, to 2,527 billion cu m (bcm) from 2,493 bcm, the report said. "North America was the only region to experience a production decline, falling 1.8% to 766 bcm from 779 bcm. A price-driven drop in drilling activity explains some of the production decrease, but the maturity of US and Canadian gas producing basins was also a factor," BP noted.

"Natural gas is the world's preferred non-transport fuel. Outside the former Soviet Union, gas consumption has grown 3.4%/year over the past decade and its share of total energy consumption is now roughly equal to coal at 24%," the report said.

Consumption of gas in the US increased 3.9% in 2002 "as North American gas production fell 1.8%," BP said. "Imported LNG is filling part of the gap. Producers are now considering options for delivering new sources of pipeline gas and LNG to this growing gas market," BP reported.

Other energy sources Coal was "the fastest growing fuel in 2002," BP said, with consumption of the fuel rising 6.9% during last year. This increase was "on the strength of an extraordinary reported increase in China of 27.9%," BP said. Excluding China, world consumption of coal "increased just 0.6%," BP said.

Nuclear power demand, meanwhile, rose 1.5%, "with most of the increase coming in Asia," BP said. "World consumption of hydroelectric power increased 1.3% from 2001 but was still less than in 2000," the report said, adding, "Nuclear and hydroelectric power each account for about 6% of total world energy consumption."

ForbesLuisa Kroll, 06.11.03, 5:47 PM ET

NEW YORK - North America's wealthiest individuals saw their accumulated wealth fall 2.1% in 2002 to $7.4 trillion, its first decline in seven years. And the number of high-net-worth individuals (defined as people with financial assets of more than $1 million) slipped slightly as well. In the U.S., the number of high-net-worth individuals fell by 100,000 to 2 million. Those are some of the conclusions of the 2003 World Wealth Report, published today by Merrill Lynch and Cap Gemini Ernst & Young.

While Forbes is the definitive source for the 400 richest Americans and for tracking the world's billionaires, Merrill Lynch (nyse: MER - news - people ) and Cap Gemini Ernst & Young have made their marks tracking the matters of mere millionaires for the past seven years. And while news from North America was rather glum, elsewhere things were looking up for the world's wealthy. All other regions saw an increase in financial wealth and all except Latin America saw the number of individuals grow, despite the tough economic environment. The ranks of the world's wealthy grew 2.1% to 7.3 million individuals while the worth of their financial assets grew 3.6% to $27.2 trillion.

This growth is a far cry from the numbers posted in 1999, when wealth expanded by 18% and is in fact the lowest growth in seven years. But it is impressive when compared with the performance of the major stock exchanges around the world, which were down 16.9% last year.

The wealthy racked up these gains in such tough economic times largely by diversifying and shifting their financial strategy to wealth preservation from accumulation. "The more affluent the investor, the more immune they turned out to be," says James P. Gorman, president of Merrill Lynch's Global Private Client group, "Clearly you are seeing the benefits of diversification."

According to the report, these individuals stashed 25% of their assets in cash/deposits, another 30% in fixed income and only 20% in equities. The 58,000 ultrahigh-net-worth individuals (defined as folks with more than $30 million in assets) are even more likely to concentrate their assets out of the equity markets.

Some other areas where these individuals increased their investments included real estate, both in direct ownership and through real estate trust funds and luxury collectibles. Auction houses such as Christie's saw increased sales in art and wine collections. A wine index, compiled by Fine Wine management, outperformed equities by 97% from 2000 through 2002.

So why did North American lag? In part, because people in the U.S. had greater faith in equity markets than their non-U.S. counterparts, retaining a larger portion of their financial assets in equities. This group also was hurt by the poor dollar. Still their portfolios did much better than the 22% drop in value of the Standard & Poor 500 index over 2002, "indicating that high-net-worth investors had strategies in place for wealth preservation," says Gorman.

Of the major regions, Asia-Pacific enjoyed the biggest gains in wealth, up 10.7% to $5.7 trillion, due to relatively high savings rates, local currency appreciation and relative strength of regional stock markets. This pace is unlikely to be repeated in 2003 as the region suffers the impact of SARS.

Interestingly, political and economic upheaval in certain countries such as Israel or Venezuela doesn't necessarily affect that country's richest individuals. There doesn't appear to be a correlation between a country's problems and this group's performance, because they move much of their money offshore and invest in many countries.

These millionaires aren't afraid to get help with their finances. Indeed, 55% use financial advisers, up from 45% last year, according to Merrill Lynch, who has the world's greatest number of financial advisers (14,000 in 2002). And it's putting more emphasis on this group; it recently invested $1 billion to improve the technology of the financial advisers' workstations. Since 2001, it has been expanding into new areas targeting wealthy niche groups including Indians, Asian-Americans and Hispanic-Americans. It faces stiff competition from other financial services giants such as Citigroup (nyse: C - news - people ) and UBS (nyse: UBS - news - people ).

GRANMA International • Cuba rejects the interfering and disrespectful language of the most recent EU Statement

ONCE again the European Union has decided to capitulate to the U.S. government over the subject of its policy towards Cuba.

The European Union, ignoring usual diplomatic practices, published a communiqué on the morning of June 5 in which they announced punitive measures against Cuba and told the international community that they had sent a letter to Cuban authorities. This only reached the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that afternoon.

This did not take the Foreign Ministry by surprise: we were very well aware that Europe most probably hoped that the aforementioned document would be seen in Washington before it was seen in Havana.

They are very conscious in Europe that their decision to join in the U.S. government’s attacks against Cuba will be seen as more proof of their contrition and repentance over the differences that arose over the war in Iraq between “Old Europe” — as Mr Rumsfeld called it— and the imperial Nazi-fascist government which is trying to impose a dictatorship on the rest of the world.

The new statement signed by the Fifteen is the culmination of a stage of continual pronouncements and aggressions against Cuba made at the very time when our country has had to deal with the cunning plans which people in Miami and Washington are hatching to try to come up with pretexts for a military attack on our country.

That escalation included:

• March 25, a Note from the Presidency protesting the fair sentences handed down by Cuban courts on a group of mercenaries in the service of the U.S. government.

• April 14, a new Statement from the Union’s Foreign Relations Council, proposed by the Spanish foreign minister, in which the mercenaries are referred to as political prisoners and Cuba is crudely threatened with steps that would affect “plans to increase cooperation”.

-April 18, another protest Note from the Presidency that repeats the threats against Cuba.

-April 30, at the request of a Spanish commissioner the European Commission’s College of Commissioners decides to postpone indefinitely any consideration of Cuba’s application to join the Cotonou Convention. Therefore, given Europe’s treacherous behaviour, Cuba decided for the second time to withdraw its application that it had made because unanimously urged to do so by the Group of African Caribbean and Pacific Countries.

Later, on May 27, there was another attempt to deliver a protest Note, but our Foreign Ministry refused to accept it because it thought this now constituted intolerable inference in Cuba’s internal affairs.

And, lastly, this new Declaration appears and Cuba first learns about it from the foreign press and not from the European Union itself.

This unheard of display against our country has been all the more noticeable because of Europe’s proverbial wisdom about keeping respectfully silent when it suits it and even in being a tolerant bystander to behavior and acts far worse than those of which Cuba is now being groundlessly accused. How, for example, are we to judge its silence over the U.S. army’s crimes against the Iraqi civilian population?

It’s too much.  After exhausting its patience and capacity for dialogue and tolerance, Cuba feels obliged to reply to what it considers to be the European Union’s hypocritical and opportunist behaviour.

In its most recent Declaration, “the European Union laments that Cuban authorities have ended their de facto moratorium on the death penalty. “

CUBA HAS NEVER HEARD ONE WORD FROM THE EU CONDEMNING THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE USA

Cuba will not go into great detail about the extraordinary reasons, explained more than once, that forced it to take energetic measures against three armed hijackers with criminal records who threatened to kill dozens of hostages, including several European tourists. Cuba has never heard a word from the European Union condemning the death penalty in the United States. It has never seen the European Union spearhead a motion in the Human Rights Commission condemning the United States for inflicting the death penalty on minors, the mentally ill and foreigners who were denied their right to meet with their consuls. Cuba has never heard the European Union criticize the 71 executions that took place in the United States last year, including the executions of two women. Why does the European Union condemn the death penalty in Cuba and not in the United States?

Therefore Cuba does not take the Union’s lament seriously; it knows it is replete with hypocrisy and double standards.

The Declaration quotes verbatim from the letter delivered to the Cuban Foreign Ministry in which it repeats the same arguments the U.S. government uses. It is once again seeking to disguise as “opposition members” and “dissidents” mercenaries in the pay of the U.S. government, who hope to play their part from inside Cuba in the U.S. government’s goal of overthrowing the Cuban Revolution.

Later on, the European Declaration appeals to the Cuban authorities to ensure that the prisoners do not suffer unduly as prisoners and are not exposed to “inhuman treatment.” Cuba will make no attempt to comment on this offensive appeal. All it will say is that it is a despicable thing to do.

Cuba will not repeat the arguments it has used over and over again. It will only point out that it has never heard the European Union say one word of censure about the hundreds of prisoners —some of whom are Europeans— whom the United States is holding, in violation of the most basic norms related to human rights, in the naval base in Guantanamo which it has forced on us against our will. The European Union has never said a word about the thousands of prisoners that the United States has kept locked up since September 11, often simply because of the way they look or because they are Muslims. These people do not enjoy even the most basic legal safeguards, nor have they been tried, and their names have not even been made public.

Four measures have been announced.

First:  To limit bilateral high-level government visits.

We must remember that in the last five years not one European Union head of state or government has visited Cuba.

Not even the King of Spain, Don Juan Carlos 1, whose natural charm and modesty have earned him the respect of the Cuban government and people, was able to carry out his official visit; the head of the Spanish government, José María Aznar, who, according to the constitution must give his approval, was categorical. “The King will go to Cuba when it’s his turn.”

What is more, only two of the fifteen’s foreign ministers have visited Cuba since 1998: Mr. Louis Michel, of Belgium in 2001 — he made a genuine effort to expand relations— and Mrs. Lydie Polfer from Luxembourg, in 2003.

No one else in Europe — and they have even less desire to do so— wanted to upset Washington. Meanwhile in 2002 alone, 663 high-level delegations from the rest of the world visited Cuba, including 24 heads of state or government and 17 foreign ministers.

Second: To reduce the participation of member States in cultural events.

On this unheard of decision by educated and civilized Europe we will only say that its authors should, at the very least, be ashamed of themselves.

To make artists and intellectuals, both European and Cuban, and our people who benefit from cultural exchanges, into the particular victims of aggression is such a reactionary measure that it seems inconceivable here in the 21st century.

The first indication of this absurd policy came from the Spanish government in April when it cancelled the Spanish delegation’s participation in the “La Huella De España” (Traces of Spain) festival whose mission is to pay homage to the culture of this sister nation.  And to that is added the fact that the Spanish Cultural Centre in Havana, far from promoting Spanish culture in Cuba, the purpose for which it was created, has, in open defiance of Cuban laws and institutions and in flagrant violation of the intent of the agreement that set it up, programmed a series of activities that have nothing to do with its original function.

In the next few days the Cuban authorities will take the appropriate measures to convert this center into an institution that truly meets the noble aim of popularizing Spanish culture in our country.

EUROPEAN AMBASSADORS, VIRTUAL EMPLOYEES OF THE HEAD OF THE U.S. INTERESTS SECTION

Third: To invite Cuban dissidents to national holiday celebrations.

This decision, which will, to all intents and purposes, convert European ambassadors in Havana into Mr. Carson’s hired hands, and which will put the embassies of the European Union’s member countries at the service of the U.S. Interests Section’s subversive work — something that up until now only the Spanish embassy has done openly— formalizes the European Union’s intention of defying the Cuban people, their laws and institutions.

Cuba calmly but firmly issues a warning to European embassies and to local U.S. government mercenaries that it will not tolerate provocation or blackmail. The mercenaries who try to turn the European embassies in Havana into centers for conspiring against the Revolution should be aware that the Cuban people are quite capable of demanding that our laws be rigorously applied. European embassies should be conscious of the fact that they will be failing to meet their obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations if they allow themselves to be used for subversion against Cuba.

The responsibility for any measure that Cuba may have to take to defend its sovereignty and the consequences of these measures will lie exclusively with the European Union, which, with unmitigated arrogance has taken a decision which profoundly offends the Cuban people’s sensibility and decorum.

Fourth: To re-examine the European Union’s Common Position on Cuba.

This last point is Mr. Aznar and the Spanish government’s way of announcing, from this moment on, its hopes of making the wording of the so-called Common Position on Cuba tougher. The Position, it is worth remembering, was imposed by Spain on the rest of the European Union in 1996.

On November 13 of that year, under the headline: “Spain proposes that the European Union cut credits to and cooperation with Cuba” the Spanish daily El País reported that:

“In Brussels tomorrow, the Spanish government will propose to its partners in the European Union that they implement a strategy of economic harassment of Fidel Castro’s regime (…) The package Aznar is proposing closely follows the line of current U.S. policy. The plan Aznar’s government wants to push through entails cutting off the flow of cooperation and credits from the Fifteen and raising the level of dialogue with the anti-Castro opposition.

“(…) The measures planned by Aznar … envisage a complete break in Spanish Cuba policy…”

This proposition would be added to the measures reported on by the newspaper that day — these includes Aznar’s attempt to cancel cooperation between the fifteen countries and Cuba, the end of business agreements and the elimination of the scant, expensive and short-term credits that Cuba used to receive at that critical time in the special period.

Dialogue with the opposition. Each of the fifteen European ambassadors in Cuba would appoint a diplomat who had specialized in setting up a high level dialogue with groups that oppose Castro. The European governments would invite these groups to maintain high-level permanent contacts with them.

“This package would be made formal through an EU “common position” and would be directly inspired by the U.S. policy of harassment trumpeted abroad by itinerant U.S. ambassador, Stuart Eizenstadt”.

According to El País, and this was later confirm by what happened: “This U.S. diplomat has gone around the European foreign ministries stressing the need for the European Union to abandon its current strategy …” towards Cuba.

“Eizenstadt has also promised that if the fifteen members of the Union go along with the U.S.  Way of seeing things, Washington will “grant” its partners successive postponements in the application of the Helms-Burton Act which tightens the blockade on Cuba and harasses European companies investing in Cuba”.

El País ended by saying:  “Spain, which used to be the mainstay of an autonomous way of doing things, would thus become, if its initiative was successful, the spearhead of the opposite tendency”.

And Mr. Aznar’s initiative was successful. The Common Position sprang from it as did later the shameful European Union’s Understanding with the United States over the Helms-Burton Act in which European governments agreed to bow to the conditions imposed by the United States in return for a U.S. promise not to sanction European companies. This new campaign of the European governments against Cuba also stems from Aznar’s initiative.

AZNAR: MINOR ALLY OF THE IMPERIALIST YANKEE GOVERNMENT

Mr Aznar, obsessed with punishing Cuba and now a minor ally of the Yankee imperial government, has been the person mainly responsible for the fact that the European Union has not developed an independent and objective approach to Cuba and today is the man mainly responsible for its traitorous escalation in aggression, just when our little island has become the peoples’ symbol of resistance to the threat of the United States imposing a Nazi-fascist dictatorship on the rest of the world, including the European peoples —who were recently unrecognised and humiliated when their stalwart opposition to the war in Iraq was ignored— and even on the American people themselves.

Cuba knows that the Spanish government has been funding the annexationist and mercenary groups that the superpower is trying to organise in our country— just as the U.S. government does, following the dictates of the Helms-Burton Act.  

How can we explain Mr Aznar’s interest in “promoting democracy in Cuba” if he was the first and only European head of government to support the fascist coup in Venezuela and offer his “support and availability” to the ephemeral ”president” of the Venezuelan coup?

Nevertheless, Cuba places no blame on the noble Spanish people, or on any of the other European peoples. On the contrary, Cuba is aware of how much warmth and admiration it arouses in many of the citizens of those countries — in spite of the loathsome media campaigns— the source of almost one million visitors every year. Cuba knows how much solidarity it arouses in Europe and throughout these years has received a helping hand from thousands of European non-governmental organisations, civic associations and town councils.

Cuba is aware that the European peoples — giving an exemplary ethical and humane lesson— opposed the war in Iraq, which the European Union could not, however, avoid, divided as it was by the betrayal of the rest of Europe led by the Spanish government and humiliated by a superpower which went so far as to announce that it would launch a military attack on the Hague if a single U.S.  soldier was brought to trial at the International Criminal Court there.

Cuba has only feelings of friendship and respect for the European peoples but cannot allow their governments, trailing along behind the Spanish government’s commitment to the groups of Cuban born terrorists operating in Miami and to Bush’s government, to be a part of setting up mercenary groups in Cuba whose purpose is to help Yankee attempts to destroy the Cuban Revolution and annex our country to the Unites States.

The European Union’s decision to join in with the aggressive U.S. policy against Cuba has been welcomed with great joy and loud applause not only by the U.S. government, whose secretary of state said: “The United States will be able to join with the European Union in a common strategy against Cuba”, but also by the mercenaries who are still working for the U.S.  government inside our country and by the spokespeople for the Miami terrorist groups.

The so-called Council for Cuba’s Freedom, a Miami group of Batista supporters which has recently been demanding that President Bush decrees a naval blockade of Cuba, said: “We are glad that Europe is joining in with the pressure…” and the terrorist Cuban-American National Foundation was extremely happy and emphasised that “it was time that the European countries realized…”

The DPA news agency gave this title to its report: “ Rejoicing in the exile community over the European Union’s decision on Cuba” and said that extremist Cuban groups reacted enthusiastically and that the top story on Miami Spanish language TV stations’ evening news broadcasts was the European Union’s decision. The news bulletins focused their coverage on the measures that the EU will take.

It’s obvious whose needs are met by the European Union’s statement and why the Miami terrorist groups are so happy, groups that are responsible for bomb attacks on European interests in Cuba and even for the death of young Italian Fabio di Celmo. It is quite clear why those who are today demanding that the U.S. government tighten the blockade and step up military aggression against our country are clapping their hands.

Cuba, for its part, will defend its right to be a free and independent nation with or without European support and will even stand up to the connivance between certain governments and the fascist clique that today rules the United States.

Cuba does not look upon all European governments equally and is well aware which ones are the chief instigators of this unwonted provocation.

Moreover, it must be said that the conduct of the Italian government headed by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is giving a helping hand to the Spanish government’s conspiratorial activities.

Italy took a unilateral decision to suspend its development cooperation with Cuba, which this year might have been worth almost 40 million Euros. This included cancelling: 1. An aid credit for 17.5 million Euros, which would have helped to improve irrigation systems and increase food production in Granma and Havana provinces. 2. An aid credit of 7.4 million Euros for the Plaza del Cristo in Old Havana. This money would have made it possible to repair the homes of some 500 families, two schools and drinking water, electricity and sewage services for those living in the neighbourhood. 3. A donation of 400, 000 Euros to set up a Senior Citizens Care Centre in the old Belén Convent. This would have provided services to some two hundred older people and would have been managed by the Office of the Historian, local Public Health authorities and the Sisters of Charity order. 4. A donation of 6.8 million Euros though the United Nations Development Programme which would have been used to support local basic social services such as education, health, care for the physically challenged and senior citizens. 5. A donation of 6.8 million Euros, through UNDP, which was to have been used for buying equipment for the eastern provinces, basically for the health and food production sectors. 6. A donation of 534, 000 Euros which would have financed a cooperation and exchange programme between the Italian University of Tor Vergata and the University of Havana.

This is the highly strange way in which the Italian government is preparing to defend the human rights of the Cuban people.

This ridiculous role the Europeans are playing would make one laugh were it not for the serious problems this escalation entails.

And we must state very clearly:

Cuba does not recognize the European Union’s moral authority to condemn it and much less to issue it with a threatening ultimatum about relations and cooperation. Cuba has taken decisions that only the Cuban people and the Cuban government are competent to judge, these decisions are absolutely legitimate and rest solidly on our country’s laws and Constitution.

The European Union, which unlike Cuba is not blockaded nor militarily threatened by the United States, should look with respect on the Cuban people’s struggle for its right to independence; it should keep discreetly silent when it knows that it has often kept quiet when it is looking after its own interests; when it knows that it has never adopted a common position on the repressive Israeli regime; when it knows that it opposed the Human Rights Commission even looking at the threat that war posed to Iraqi children’s right to life.

Finally, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs reminds the European Union that Cuba is a sovereign country that won its full independence as the result of a long and painful process which included more than half a century’s struggle against a corrupt neo-colonial society which was established in our country after the shameful Paris Agreements in which Spain ceded Cuba to the United States behind the backs of Cuban patriots.

Cuba has won the legal right, recognised by international law, to decide for itself, exercising its full sovereignty and with no foreign interference, the economic, political and social system which best suits its people.

Cuba does not accept the interfering and disrespectful language of the latest European Union Statement and asks it to refrain from offering solutions that the Cuban people did not ask for. Cuba, however, reiterates its respect and admiration for the European peoples with whom it hopes to strengthen honorably and in a dignified manner the most fraternal and sincere relations as soon as History sweeps away all this hypocrisy, rottenness and cowardice,

Ministry of Foreign Affairs Havana June 11, 2003

Washington, DC, June 11, 2003 (PAHO)—Participants in a Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) meeting today presented alarming statistics on the impact of violence in the Americas: 120,000 people are victims of homicide each year in the Region, and 180,000 more die from suicide and traffic accidents. In countries for which data are available, 20–60 percent of women have been victims of intrafamilial violence. Among the fastest growing sources of violence are youth gangs; in El Salvador and Honduras alone, some 30,000 youths are gang members.

Dr. Alberto Concha-Eastman (left), Dr. Etienne Krug, and Dr. Marijke Velzeboer-Salcedo (clik on the photo to enlarge). [©Armando Waak/PAHO]During the conference, "Alliances for the Prevention of Violence," two recent books on these issues were presented: the World Health Organization's World Report on Violence and Health (published in October 2002) and the new PAHO publication Violence Against Women: The Health Sector Responds.

Experts emphasized that violence is preventable and that rates can be reduced through political decision-making along with measures that strengthen surveillance systems and campaigns that focus on the concrete problems faced by individual countries.

"We know the statistics on deaths by violence, but we lack data on violence that is not fatal," said Dr. Etienne Krug, head of WHO’s Injuries and Violence Prevention Department. Krug presented the World Report on Violence and Health and noted that it was the product of three years' work by 160 experts from 70 countries. It is the first report to describe in detail the global toll of violence.

Dr. Alberto Concha-Eastman, PAHO regional advisor on violence and injury prevention, presented data on homicides in the Americas. The highest annual rates are found in Colombia, with 65 homicides per 100,000 people; Honduras, with 55 per 100,000; El Salvador, with 45; Jamaica, with 44; and Venezuela, with 35 per 100,000. The lowest rates are found in Canada, which reports only 2 homicides per 100,000 people; Costa Rica, with 4 per 100,000; and in the United States, with 6.5 per 100,000.

"One high-risk social problem is youth gangs," said Concha-Eastman. "Of the thousands of kids who belong to these gangs, especially in Jamaica, Costa Rica, Peru, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and Nicaragua, El Salvador, the United States and Brazil, 55 percent are under 15 and only 25 percent have completed elementary school." He added that many of these youths become adults involved in organized crime.

Other participants presented successful experiences with violence prevention. Dr. Rodrigo Guerrero, of the Inter-America Coalition for Violence Prevention and former mayor of Cali, Colombia, described successful initiatives in that city and in the capital of Bogotá. "In the early 1990s, the increase in violence was alarming. For this reason, we decided to map out the violence, and we found that most homicides occurred on weekends and that 40 percent of the victims were intoxicated. Seeing that alcohol was a risk factor, we decided to restrict consumption."

This measure, combined with restrictions on discotheques’ hours, helped lower crime rates from 80 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 1992 to 28 per 100,000 in 2000. Guerrero explained that political awareness of the problem had been critical to addressing it, along with an approach that was not only penal but also cultural. "It was important that people understood that life was sacred and that you have to respect it," he said.

Dr. Marijke Velzeboer-Salcedo, head of PAHO’s Gender and Health Unit, presented the new PAHO book Violence Against Women: The Health Sector Responds, noting that it was the result of 10 years of work in 10 countries, involving more than 150 communities. "Gender violence is one of the most common forms of abuse and it is devastating. And in many cases, women are victims of their own partners," she said.

Researchers found that most women did not know their rights and that they encountered obstacles and misunderstanding when they approached the health system. For this reason, Velzeboer-Salcedo said it is important to work with health professionals and train them to detect cases of violence and begin to break the cycle of violence, "a cycle that causes physical and mental problems and even murder and suicide."

Dr. David Brandling-Bennett, deputy director of PAHO, noted that the Organization has been focusing on the problem of violence since 1993, when its Directing Council— which consists of the ministries of health of the Americas—defined violence as a public health problem and encouraged governments to develop national plans to prevent it.

PAHO was established in 1902 and is the world’s oldest ongoing health organization. PAHO works with all the countries of the Americas to improve health and improve the quality of life of its inhabitants. It serves as the Regional Office for the Americas of the World Health Organization.