Humberto Márquez* The spectre of international military intervention has cropped up again in Latin America, in the context of the debate between the region's leaders on alternative proposals for helping Colombia put an end to an armed conflict that has raged for over four decades.

CARACAS, Jun 12 (<a href=ipsnews.net>IPS) - The spectre of international military intervention has cropped up again in Latin America, in the context of the debate between the region's leaders on alternative proposals for helping Colombia put an end to an armed conflict that has raged for over four decades. Colombian President Alvaro Uribe himself has raised the possibility of a multinational intervention in his country, as a last resort. The Rio Group, made up of 18 Latin American nations and a rotating representative of the Caribbean Community, opened the door to possible collective action in Colombia during its May 24 meeting in the city of Cusco in southeastern Peru, on the suggestion of Ecuadorian President Lucio Gutiérrez. On that occasion, the Rio Group -- Latin America's highest- level forum for political consultation and coordination -- agreed by consensus to ask United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan to urge Colombia's guerrillas to declare a ceasefire, in order to restart peace talks. The Rio Group initiative, known as the Cusco Consensus, earned the backing of the Organisation of American States (OAS) general assembly on Jun. 10, which brought together all of the countries of the Americas with the exception of Cuba. But the leaders meeting in Cusco also stated that if Annan's efforts failed, ''the Rio Group, along with the U.N. secretary- general, and in coordination with the Colombian government, will seek alternative solutions.'' ''What are we talking about here? A military intervention in Colombia?'' Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez asked at the time, according to his own account. ''I was told yes, and I told them 'Don't even bother inviting Venezuela to take part in something so horrifying'. If we are going to unite, it is to wage peace, not war,'' he added. According to the Peruvian weekly Caretas, Chilean President Ricardo Lagos commented to Chávez, when everyone was getting up to go to a dinner in Lima: ''The only Latin American who organised a multilateral for.MDBO/ce .MDNM/was [independence hero Símon] Bolívar,'' whose ideas and values are frequently cited by Chávez. Lagos, a moderate socialist, said that if Latin America is incapable of resolving its regional problems -- such as the Colombian conflict -- on its own, it runs the risk of U.S. intervention. But, he added, that did not mean that a regional military force should be set up, reported Caretas. Chávez signed the Cusco Consensus, but did so reluctantly, he said on his weekly Aló Presidente radio programme, because ''never before on this continent has a proposal been advanced like the one set forth by the Ecuadorian president.'' Venezuela's populist left-leaning president said that ''inconceivable international military interventionism, which is sheer madness, is being spoken of very lightly, in a dangerous manner.'' Venezuelan Foreign Minister Roy Chaderton told IPS that ''if it is formally or informally brought up again, our position will be the same -- rejection of any military intervention in another country.'' ''As a sister nation and as a neighbour, we do not believe that is the solution. We want to be actors in peace processes, not wars,'' said the minister. Gutiérrez did not respond to Chávez's criticism, and Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Nina Pacari said Quito ''does not believe in any kind of interventionism,'' and that ''there will be no intervention by any country in the Colombian conflict.'' But the right-wing Uribe said that if the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the main rebel group, ''does not accept Ecuador's initiative, there could be another way forward, in which all of the countries could help the Colombian government defeat terrorism, militarily and with authority. ''We need support from the international community, because terrorism in Colombia is mainly financed by the international drug trafficking trade, and threatens to destabilise the entire region,'' he argued. However, when they reported the results of the meeting in Cusco, presidents Alejandro Toledo of Peru and Luiz Inácio ''Lula'' da Silva of Brazil insisted that the request for mediation by Annan ''does not imply intervention by foreign military forces'' in Colombia. Sources at Brazil's Foreign Ministry said the Lula administration, which took office on Jan. 1, continues to follow the country's traditional policy of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other countries, such as the Colombian conflict. They also said that Brazil will only support Annan's efforts, if they are requested and accepted by the Colombian government, and will neither propose nor support any other international plan of action. Plan Colombia, which was launched by Bogota and Washington to increase U.S. military aid to Colombia for combatting the drug trade, was expanded last year to the counterinsurgency struggle. Nearly 400 U.S. military advisers are already working in Colombia, the U.S. Defence Department told Congress. The increasing U.S. military aid, the growing number of advisers, and Washington's decision to include the leftist FARC on its list of international terrorist organisations has fed fears of a direct U.S. military intervention in Colombia. Uribe ''has realised that foreign military involvement is heavily criticised both within and outside of his country, and for that reason he is going back to the avenue of U.N. participation, which could perhaps lead to a peace-keeping operation, as occurred in the past decade in Central America,'' Venezuelan expert in international affairs Carlos Romero said in an interview. He pointed out that the Argentine government of Carlos Menem (1989-1999) had discussed the possibility of taking part in a multilateral force for peace-keeping missions within the framework of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, of which the United States is a signatory. ''What worries neighbouring countries, and Brazil in particular, is that the relationship between the United States and Colombia in the fight against terrorism could turn into direct U.S. participation in the conflict,'' said Romero, a professor of international studies at Venezuela's Central University. Carlos Pérez Llana, a professor of international relations at the University of San Andrés in Argentina, told IPS that ''the aim is to 'multilateralise' a national conflict.'' ''The guerrilla movements in Colombia existed prior to the phenomenon of narcotrafficking,'' said Pérez Llana, who described Uribe as ''a young man who oversimplifies things.'' Referring to the new regional proposals, Romero underlined ''Brazil's concern for stability and governance in the region, as requisites for economic development, and in particular stability in the Andean area and Colombia. ''Making projections based on the current variables, it is very unlikely that a multilateral force would be set up to intervene in the region,'' he predicted. Pérez Llana, meanwhile, said the possibility that the United States would commit troops to the conflict in Colombia ''is very remote...especially given the country's geographic characteristics. ''In recent years, Washington has deployed its forces in wide- open spaces, not jungles,'' he noted. But Víctor Poleo, an economy professor at Venezuela's Central University who specialises in the petroleum industry, said ''the United States aims to control the Andean region for its wealth in hydrocarbons, and, pointing farther to the future, for its water resources and biodiversity. ''In that sense, Colombia is playing the role of a wedge in the region, like Israel in the Middle East.''

• Viviana Alonso in Argentina, Gustavo González in Chile, Kintto Lucas in Ecuador, and Mario Osava in Brazil contributed to this report. (END)

BBC News Venezuela's parliament failed to debate new legislation making it easier for the government to pass security and media laws when members loyal to President Hugo Chavez stayed away.

The pro-government MPs accused the opposition of planning to use violence against them in the chamber while the opposition said Mr Chavez's supporters merely feared they would not win a majority.

Parliamentary business has been in turmoil since last Friday when pro-government MPs held a bizarre open-air, alternative "session" in the capital, Caracas, after scuffles a few days earlier in the chamber.

The dispute is threatening to disrupt opposition efforts to have a mid-term referendum held on the maverick president's rule and the boycott comes on the eve of the latest planned mass protest against him.

Chavez recently survived a coup, then a crippling strike

"We won't present ourselves in the chamber while this climate of violence against us persists," said Nicolas Maduro, an MP from Mr Chavez's Fifth Republic Movement.

The opposition has threatened to prevent pro-government members from physically taking their seats in the chamber in protest at their insistence that Friday's open-air session be declared valid.

The opposition narrowly won a vote on the issue on Tuesday - a rare defeat for President Chavez's supporters - but the pro-government members said they would press for a new one. The opposition promptly declared this illegal.

One opposition MP, Rafael Octavio Rivero, said the government boycott was proof that it was "not capable of facing defeat because they simply are not democrats".

Street protest

The dispute comes a day before an anti-Chavez demonstration which the opposition plans to hold in the city's eastern Petare district, considered a government stronghold.

Chavez supporters say they face violent attack in the chamber

A similar protest in May in another pro-Chavez district of the city, Caricuao, led to violent clashes in which one person was killed.

The opposition has long been pushing to oust President Chavez whose radical, leftist policies and populist style of leadership have alienated the Venezuelan establishment as well as many liberals.

Following the defeat of a general strike which damaged the vital oil industry earlier this year, the opposition has focussed on having a referendum held on the elected president's rule: a move which the government appeared to accept in a deal brokered by the Organisation of American States in May.

But the referendum has to be organised by a new National Electoral Council, which cannot be appointed without a parliamentary vote.

The government has a wafer-thin majority in the unicameral 165-seat National Assembly but on Tuesday it fell one vote short of the 83 votes needed to pass its motion after three MPs abstained and a fourth failed to turn up.

Stanley A. Weiss IHT Friday, June 13, 2003 A blessing and a curse   LONDON Like a neighborhood drug pusher, Washington dangles the promise of billions in untapped petrodollars before the eyes of desperate Iraqis. Vice President Dick Cheney calls Iraq's oil reserves, the world's second largest, one of its "significant advantages." Secretary of State Colin Powell calls it a "marvelous treasure." Iraqis may see their black gold as a gift from God. But history shows why others have called oil "the devil's excrement." Around the world, oil states that should be economic powerhouses are basket cases. How can the blessing of oil become a curse? Like any narcotic, oil lets you forget about tomorrow. The immediate gratification of huge oil revenues may feel good at first, but after the high comes the crash. The irresistible lure of oil profits sucks capital and labor from other sectors like agriculture and manufacturing, afflicting countries with "Dutch Disease," as when the Netherlands' discovery of oil and natural gas in the 1950s wreaked havoc on the rest of the economy. Indeed, a truism of economic development is that the more a country relies on natural resources, the lower its growth rate. Bad economics also makes for bad politics. Easy oil money means petro-states can avoid hard choices, like painful economic reforms. And little or no economic progress outside the oil sector means no growing and prosperous middle class to clamor for more political freedom. It's no surprise that nine of the world's top ten oil exporters - countries like Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and Nigeria - are ranked as having little or no political rights and liberties by the nonprofit Freedom House. The one exception? Norway, a democracy long before it discovered oil in the 1960s. In Iraq's case, however, just saying no to oil won't work. Just as oil profits fueled Saddam Hussein's brutal regime, oil will be indispensable to Iraq's economic recovery. So how to keep Baghdad from getting hooked and becoming another oil junkie? First, separate the new rulers from the natural resources. Getting a future Iraqi government out of the oil business will help end the corruption that plagues most state-controlled oil economies. Only when open books and rule of law are in place should a new Iraqi government exercise a limited role in the oil industry. Second, ensure the petroleum benefits the people. From Venezuela to Angola to Indonesia, citizens of resource-rich countries tend to be worse off by every measure - income, jobs, education, health - than people in resource-poor countries. No wonder a former Saudi oil minister once lamented, "I wish we had discovered water." The new American-run, internationally monitored Development Fund for Iraq is a good start to rebuilding Iraq's devastated infrastructure with oil funds. Washington should also learn from other models. Norway's petroleum fund, now worth more than $100 billion, helps cushion hard economic times. From its oil revenues, Alaska cuts a check to every citizen every year. Revenues from a new pipeline in Chad are designated for health care, electricity and roads. Iraq's universities, hospitals, farms and entrepreneurial middle class were once the envy of the Arab world. They can be again. Iraq should follow the lead of Japan and the "four little dragons" (South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore), countries that achieved high growth by investing in the education and health of its people. Third, diversify. According to the World Bank, the entire Arab world, with its 300 million people, exports fewer non-oil goods than does Finland, with just five million people. In contrast, countries like Malaysia and Ireland have enjoyed economic growth through robust manufacturing exports. Mexico deliberately reduced its dependence on oil, spurring other industries and non-oil exports. Industrial parks in Iraq could be the seeds of a future Middle East manufacturing sector and help lay the foundation for regional peace and stability. That's the vision of Israeli entrepreneur Stef Wertheimer, who imagines a "New Marshall Plan" for the region, beginning with industrial parks in oil-free Jordan, Turkey and a future Palestinian state, modeled after his similar ventures in Israel. "When Arabs and Israelis have to meet delivery times for their orders from Japan" he tells me, "they will have neither the will nor the time to fight each other." Finally, deploy Iraq's secret weapon of mass construction - the world-wide diaspora of 4 million Iraqis, many of whom are highly-skilled and successful entrepreneurs. With Washington's help, some have already returned to Baghdad to play political roles. But Iraqi exiles I met with here seemed aware of their latent economic potential. These expatriates could serve as the bridge for vital foreign investment in their homeland. Can Iraq defy history as the only oil state to become a prosperous democracy? It won't be easy. But if used wisely over the long-term, revenues from Iraq's "marvelous treasure" can foster a more developed and economically diversified economy able to kick the dangerous habit of oil dependence. The future of the neighborhood will depend on it. The writer is founder and chairman of Business Executives for National Security and former chairman of American Premier, a mining and chemicals company. This is a personal comment.

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Thursday, June 12, 2003 By: Jose Gregorio Pineda & Jose Gabriel Angarita

VenAmCham's Jose Gregorio Pineda (chief economist) and Jose Gabriel Angarita (economist) write: Venezuela's chief executive made a statement, as reported by the El Nacional newspaper of June 12, reflecting a perhaps exaggerated position on the benefits of belonging to the Community of Andean Nations (CAN). These were his words: "The Andean Community is also stuck in gridlock. It is good for nothing; Andean integration is a lie, every country takes its own path."

This whole situation has been building since Colombia and Peru (member countries of the CAN) expressed interest in speeding up bilateral talks with the United States, inspired by Chile's experience with that country but especially motivated by the fact that the negotiations for the creation of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) are subject to divergent perceptions that could slow down their progress.

Venezuela's Oresident said he was worried about the CAN's proposal, because it could lead to the loss of the strong negotiating power all the southern countries would have if they were united.

But this is happening just when the bloc of Western Hemisphere countries is on the verge of multiple international trade negotiations, the most visible of which are those for the FTAA. At the same time, a South American bloc is coming together, which will play a key role in the hemispheric trade negotiations.

The CAN and the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) will create a single free-trade area the negotiations for which are expected to conclude prior to December 31, 2003.

This is a new signal of the posture that our authorities take toward trade with other countries, alongside their refusal to spur the talks on entering the FTAA and their strong criticism of movement toward an CAN-United States bilateral trade treaty.

The most prudent thing to do would be to unify positions in the framework of the negotiations under way, with a view to taking advantage of the benefits that a potential CAN-MERCOSUR integration could bring.

• It needs to be recalled that this is a game that several can play; there is no one solution that will be entirely beneficial to all the participants.

The task is to make use of the economic benefits to compensate the sectors that will be hurt, and it is up to the negotiators to identify those sectors and obtain the best possible terms for their countries, while establishment internal compensation and adjustment arrangements to ensure the political viability of the agreements' implementation.

AllAfrica.com Visit The Publisher's Site This Day (Lagos) June 12, 2003 Posted to the web June 12, 2003

Mike Oduniyi, With Agency Report Lagos

The Federal Government said yesterday it would relaunch negotiations with the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in a bid to get a higher oil production quota for Nigeria.

But OPEC. at an extra-ordinary meeting held in Qatar yesterday, decided to maintain its current production ceiling of 25.4 million barrels per day (bpd). This leaves Nigeria's production quota at 2.094 million bpd compared to her capacity of 2.6 million bpd.

The Director, Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR), Mr. Macaulay Ofurhie said in an address delivered at a seminar on offshore oil and gas technology in Lagos, that the need to renew the bid for a higher OPEC quota was based on {he challenges posed by successes Nigeria had recorded in deep offshore exploration.

"As production commences from the deepwaters, Nigeria as a strong member of OPEC and the only one with large deepwater discoveries certainly will need to renegotiate her quota allocation level with OPEC," said Ofurhie, who was represented at the event by a-. Deputy Director in DPR, Mr. Kayode Oloketuyi. According to the DPR chief, the Federal Government needed to get an increased OPEC quota so as to continually convince the deepwater operators that "Nigeria is an investment friendly country and to guarantee sustainable development of the nation's deepwater assets."

Ofurhie said that the discovery of giant oil and gas fields in the Nigerian deepwaters and the unfolding potentials in its offshore basins are indications that with right planning and sustained growth, Nigeria will emerge as the main center of deepwater activities in the Gulf of Guinea, as Brazil currently is for the Gulf of Mexico.

Oil workers last weekend had expressed concern that oil companies under the present OPEC quota regime, will not be able to maximise output from these new fields, mostly located in the deep offshore, on which several billions of dollars have been invested. They also alerted the Government on the danger posed by the quota restriction to its revenue earning power.

Oil fields soon to go into production include Shell's Forcados Yokri and Bonga fields. Total's Amenam/Kpono field and ExxonMobil's Erha field.

Oloketuyi later told THISDAY on the sideline of the seminar that the Federal Government was approaching the demand for higher quota using political and technical means.

"We have submitted the technical details of what we have been doing in the deep offshore where we are. The political approach, which include demonstrating our economic needs as well as the need to sustain our democracy will be handled by government," he said.

The seminar was organised under framework of institutional co-operation programme between Nigerian government and its Norwegian counterpart.

According to Charge d'Affaires of the Norwegian Embassy in Nigeria. Kristin Teigland. the seminar aimed at sharing experiences enhance transfer of technology, assist in capacity and competence building.

Meanwhile, OPEC ministers ended a meeting in the Qatari capital of Doha yesterday, ieaving the group's production levels unchanged.

OPEC President Abdullah bin Hamad al-Attiyah, said the 11-nation group would meet on July 31, this year to reassess the situation.

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.

Contrary to the widely held belief that the group would cut down on production to accommodate the entry of Iraqi oil into the market, OPEC's decision was said to be hinged on the fact that Iraq oil would not be reaching dhe market fast enough.

Analysts said prices had not retreated because Iraq has been slow to revive production, and political unrest in Venezuela and communal crises in Nigeria, had suppressed in the two influential OPEC member-nations.

Iraqi oil officials appointed by the US. occupation authority said on Monday that crude exports would not resume until month's end and that it would not reach pre-war levels until the middle of 2004.

Crude oil prices were at between $27 and $29 a barrel yesterday.