PDVSA Event Builds Confidence in Venezuelan Outlook

Posted by click at 3:14 AM

HOUSTON, May 6 /CNW/ -- After participating in a

conference hosted by Petroleos de Venezuela, executives in the energy industry expressed a high degree of confidence in the recovery and future growth of Venezuela's energy business. More than 400 business executives and leaders in the financial, governmental and academic sectors participated in the conference, "PDVSA, a Competitive and Sustainable Player in the International Energy Business," yesterday in Houston.

"PDVSA offered a very compelling case in three areas -- the speed with which they are reviving their operations, the opportunity for foreign investment -- clearly the country is open to investment -- and a particularly strong case for the country as a whole," said Vahan Zanoyan, president and CEO of PFC Energy, based in Washington, D.C.  "They made the point that social justice and economic development in Venezuela are not contradictory."

The conference focusing on the political, legal and financial situation of Venezuela and its oil industry was led by a high level Venezuelan delegation headed by Mr. Bernardo Alvarez, Ambassador from Venezuela to the United States; Mr. Luis Vierma, Deputy Minister of Hydrocarbons; Dr. Ali Rodriguez Araque, President of PDVSA; and Mr. Luis Marin, Director of PDVSA.

In his remarks to the group, Alvarez stressed the country's commitment to both internal and external stakeholders.  "Venezuela stands today proud of its role as a reliable supplier of energy to all nations, proud of its commitment to remain an open and market economy in which private capital can be invested with assurance, proud of its commitment to social justice, and proud of its understanding that social justice and private sector gains are compatible goals."

Dr. Rodriguez Araque, noting the country's abundant resources and newly competitive business portfolio, asserted, "Jointly with our partners, we are committed to satisfying the world's increasing demand for oil and gas."

Jim Ellington, U.S Representative from Mississippi and chairman of The Energy Council, commented that the mood of the event "exuded confidence."

"The enthusiasm came through not just for a return to normalcy in Venezuela, but for continuing improvement," Ellington added.

"The event gave those attending a good understanding of what's happening in Venezuela, and the sense that it may be the place to invest right now," said Joseph Carraro, a state senator from New Mexico.

Even those already involved in Venezuela came away with a renewed confidence.  Diana Szilard, manager of external affairs for ConocoPhillips Venezuela, Ltd., pointed out that ConocoPhillips is one of the largest current investors in the oil industry in Venezuela.  "It is very interesting and encouraging to hear about the plans and business that PDVSA has for the future," she said.  "We encourage this kind of initiative because it keeps the oil community informed."

 CONTACT:
 Karen Allen (karenAvollmerpr.com)
 Alice Brink (alicevollmerpr.com)
 713-970-2100

/Web site:  http://www.pdvsa.com.ve /

A Democracy of Convenience

Posted by click at 3:10 AM in anti-US

liberalslant.com By: Matthew Riemer - 05/06/03

The Bush administration's 2003 invasion of Iraq marks the fiftieth anniversary of U.S. interventionism in the Middle East, which began with the CIA's overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953. These two events, both noteworthy in their own right, form the perfect pair of bookends for a large shelf of Washington's Middle East exploits -- from the bombing of Libya in 1986 to the first Gulf War in 1991 to involvement in Lebanon in the early '80s.

The '53 coup is significant because it was the first successful overthrow of a foreign government by the CIA. Its success showed just how much influence Washington could have in Eurasia, especially in regions on the doorstep of the Soviet Union. In short, it was a remarkable projection of power.

The most recent military action in the Middle East, "Operation Iraqi Freedom" as it's been dubbed by the U.S., represents a fundamental shift in how Washington chooses to achieve its policy goals -- now with increased unilateralism and nationalism. The policy of preemptive warfare has been both articulated and executed by the Bush administration in Iraq.

One of the most interesting observations regarding these two events though reveals a strange inverse relationship they seem to have, which possibly comments on broader policy intentions.

In both cases, the United States is carrying out "regime change." And in both cases, policy makers are concerned with how the oil industry is going to be run (nationalization/privatization). However, in the former case, the CIA removed an appointed leader and replaced him with a dictator who would then rule for 26 (1953-1979) more years. In the latter case, the opposite occurred as the U.S. removed a dictator who ruled for 26 (1976-2003) years and has replaced him with a U.S. civil administration, which will presumably attempt to foster some kind of democratic institutions.

This illustrates that the chief U.S. interest in both cases was resource security and regional hegemony/strategic positioning and not the freeing of people from the yoke of dictatorship. In Iran, the nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Company by the Majlis threatened British and American oil interests by shutting foreign investors out of Iran's lucrative industry, which at the time, the BBC writes, "[was] the UK's largest single investment overseas." It also further distanced the U.S. and weakened its influence in a crucial Cold War state. So in this situation, it's dictatorship over democracy.

In 2003, the United States could no longer let Saddam Hussein -- a man who threatened U.S. interests and complicated Washington's plans just by his presence -- rule Iraq, which had become the epicenter of the world's most vital region and home to the second largest proven oil reserves. In this example, it's democracy over dictatorship.

When "democracy" (or, at least, non-dictatorship) happens to be Washington's goal (even rhetorically), it can make for a great sell, as was surely seen over the past several weeks. On the other hand, just because "dictatorship" can't be as readily sold to the public doesn't mean interventions that empower despotic regimes are off-limits. Forays like the CIA's in Iran aren't only for days gone by. In fact, the current situation in Venezuela resembles Iran fifty years ago quite uncannily: upstart leader connected to nationalization of the oil industry from a country with regional strategic importance is overthrown by a plutocratic/military class in the interests of corporations and foreign capital. And even though President Hugo Chavez was able to return to power, the pattern of regime change aimed at governments who resist globalization and the infiltration of their countries by foreign capital continued. So, in Venezuela, like Iran, it's dictatorship over democracy.

So democracy is only Washington's preferred political system when it happens to be one of convenience (coincides with policy). Such is the case with Iraq in 2003 because Washington's goals, to a degree, overlap with a democratic Iraq. But if Iraqi democracy produces the world's next Hugo Chavez, policy makers will very quickly have little use for such a system.

Matthew Riemer has written for years about a myriad of topics, such as: philosophy, religion, psychology, culture, and politics. He studied Russian language and culture for five years and traveled in the former Soviet Union in 1990. In addition to his work with Liberal Slant, he is also the Director of Operations at: www.YellowTimes.org as well as being in the midst of a larger autobiographical/cultural work. Matthew lives in the United States.

Find more articles by Matthew Riemer in the Liberal Slant Archives

Back to: Liberal Slant

The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not necessarily reflect those of Liberal Slant www.liberalslant.com

Syria And The Overwhelming American Power

Posted by click at 3:05 AM

daralhayat.com Marzuq Al Halabi Al-Hayat 2003/05/06

The American threats against Syria aim, in their first phase, to put that country on the defensive, which is hardly a comfortable situation. Such situation becomes suffocating when the American administration monopolizes not only economic activities, but also the right to direct accusations and define the issues, as well as put individuals and governments on trial.

Still, I don’t think that the motives for attacking Iraq exist in the Middle East. They exist in the logic of ruling elites in America. Mainly economic and intellectual elites. They are now driven by the joy of military and political victory in Iraq and haunted by new convictions that they are capable of implementing all their schemes.

The surplus in American power is based at three levels: military, economic and political standing throughout the world. Such surplus has placed the Americans above international legitimacy and its institutions illustrated by the UN and the Security Council. Yet most analysts in the Arab world continue to base their hopes on false dreams. They still expect the Red Army to come and liberate them. Still we cannot, even in Syria, rely on a united Arab position. The notions of Arabism and Arab world have changed and we must review their premises. If we assume that we are not a “united world with an eternal message,” then we must deal with Egypt the same way we deal with any other country in the world, and we must appeal to public opinion in the UAE, for example, the way we appeal to public opinion in the U.S. Only then will we be able to achieve gains in dealing with the assault on Syria.

The theory of excess of power demands changing it into an act that is not possible its temptation. That was translated in the case of Afghanistan and later in Iraq. But there are other concealed illustrations, such as dominating Arab oil and bribing the Bulgarians or blackmailing President Hosni Mubarak. Moreover, like any other absolute theory that of excess of power tries to justify its crimes. And just like outrages were committed in the name of socialism or fascism as two absolute theories, we can witness similar outrages committed in the name of defending democracy in the wake of 9/11.

For a long period of time, combating communism was a pretext for supporting tyrannies around the world. And in the case of Iraq, the invasion that caused destruction and killing was justified as aimed at “liberating” the people of Iraq. But the drive of the American toward Iraq will not be the last push. In one way, it resembles the end of absolute capitalism just as it was the end of absolute socialism. Moreover, democracy as we knew us so far is certainly heading toward its end. The excess of American power came to declare the conclusion of democracy in the sense that it pushes the notion of national security of the state above the concept of the American state itself, as well as above other countries. The Iraqi oil and that of Venezuela are two resources that the American hegemony was unable to subdue by diplomatic means. And if the journey began with occupying Iraq, Syria is the next target of the American power surplus. But the issue is further than oil. It is one that demands obtaining the submission of the smaller powers to the bigger ones.

The war on Iraq maybe the preamble for a world war in which the small powers pay for the struggles among the larger ones. And no matter how strange it might seem, it all depends on the abilities of the Iraqis to resist the Anglo-American occupation. No one knows how the new world order is going to look like.

Mr. Al Halabi is a Palestinian academic from Al Karmal.

April 2026
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30
August

PDVSA Event Builds Confidence in Venezuelan Outlook

A Democracy of Convenience

Syria And The Overwhelming American Power

Total Fina 1st-Quarter Profit Rises 49% on Oil Prices (Update3)