<a href=ipsnews.net>Inter Press news Service Agency Mario Osava

The hard times that have befallen Latin American trade unions, dating to the early 1990s, have been aggravated in recent years by political factors in the region, but Brazil has proved a notable exception.

RIO DE JANEIRO, Apr 30 (IPS) - The hard times that have befallen Latin American trade unions, dating to the early 1990s, have been aggravated in recent years by political factors in the region, but Brazil has proved a notable exception.

The long-lived labour unions of Argentina, Mexico and Venezuela entered into existential crises when their links to the ruling political parties that had backed them for decades began to disintegrate, in contrast to the situation of Brazilian unionists today.

But the close ties to the still new Brazilian government of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva for now has divided the country's largest union federation, CUT (Central Unica dos Trabalhadores).

The leftist wing of the CUT opposes what it considers the Lula administration's orthodox neoliberal economic policy. Lula, a former metalworker and a CUT founder, was inaugurated to the presidency Jan 1.

But the arrival of a leftist to power is precisely an indication of the importance the Brazilian union movement has gained in the past two decades.

In addition to Lula, nine ministers and another 56 high-level officials in the executive branch also come from the union ranks, nearly all from CUT, according to 'O Estado de Sao Paulo' newspaper.

But this presence does not translate into increased union influence over the government nor a strengthening of the labour movement, which has been undermined for more than a decade by the application of neoliberal policies that affect the work environment, say experts.

High unemployment, a growing informal sector, new technologies "that replace workers and introduced without negotiations with the workers" and the lack of labour law reform weakened the union movement, says Joao Carlos Juruna Gonçalves, secretary general of Força Sindical, Brazil's second largest union federation.

The government's fiscal austerity also cuts into social investments, which in turn hurt union programmes to provide training and assistance to the unemployed, Juruna pointed out in a conversation with IPS.

Nevertheless, unions in Brazil are generally in a better situation than their counterparts in the rest of Latin America because "their structure withstood years of neoliberalism without deteriorating" and now their prospects are good, says Anselmo Luis dos Santos, a union and labour researcher at the University of Campinas, near Sao Paulo.

The "clear failure" of past neoliberal economic policies and the reforms the Lula government is now proposing -- which cover tax, social security and labour -- in addition to his controversial economic policy, demand a debate and a mobilisation that reactivates the union movement, Dos Santos told IPS.

Furthermore, the global situation, "with the imperialism and unilateralism" of the United States, has generated protests and social movements that expand the role and take up the historic banners of unionism, he said.

All of this compensates in part for the "erosion suffered in the material foundations" of unionism, in other words, the loss of jobs in the formal sector and the expansion of informal work, which took its toll on the movement in the 1990s, says Dos Santos.

Força Sindical, which is not linked to the Lula administration, hopes to give itself a boost Thursday, May 1, by promoting what it has dubbed "the biggest global commemoration" of International Labour Day.

The union confederation aims to draw 1.7 million people to a central Sao Paulo plaza, where there will be concerts and a lottery to give away five apartments and 10 cars -- in addition to the speeches by Força Sindical leaders.

"It is something we learned from other countries, like Italy and France," which have seen similar crowds for May Day events in recent years, said Juruna.

The mainstream CUT, meanwhile, decided to decentralise the events planned for May 1, so there will be nine rallies in different districts and cities of the Greater Sao Paulo area.

CUT's leftist sector, which rejects Lula's economic platform, is organising a separate event in Sao Paulo.

Despite these divisions, the upward dynamic of Brazilian unionism stands in contrast to the struggles of other major Latin American unions, historically allied with parties that held power in their respective countries for extended periods.

Such is the case of the Workers' Confederation of Venezuela (CTV), which last year challenged President Hugo Chávez with labour strikes and supported Fedecámaras, the largest business association, in efforts to oust him after his administration sponsored a referendum to impose direct elections within the unions for the first time.

"There was not a renunciation of the class struggle in the CTV's alliance with Fedecámaras but there was agreement for strictly political ends," explains León Arismendi, professor of labour law at the Central University of Caracas.

"It was a question of survival. If the labour movement had not stood up to Chávez, he would have destroyed it," Arismendi said in comments to IPS.

The CTV, the main trade union and controlled by the social-democrat Democratic Action that ruled Venezuela in several government and is now in the opposition, is suffering the stress of continued confrontation with Chávez, who is encouraging the creation of the National Union of Workers.

"The new union will be short-lived, it will die at birth" like all organisations "that emerge under the protection of the main boss and are subsidised," commented Alfredo Ramos, a CTV leader.

In Argentina, the General Confederation of Labour (CGT), a long-time ally of the Justicialista (Peronist) Party, divided into two parts with similar scope of influence. Both fell into disgrace, alongside the country's political leaders, during the profound crisis that hit its worst point in late 2001.

One reaction to that rupture was the creation of the Argentine Workers' Central (CTA), made up primarily of teachers unions and other state employee s.

The CTA is working to integrate actions with several associations of "unemployed workers" that emerged during Argentina's economic debacle in the last 1990s with the aim of building an equivalent to the Brazilian Workers Party (PT), which carried Lula to the presidency.

The Confederation of Mexican Workers (CTM), meanwhile, is experiencing an upheaval following a much longer history. It was married 65 years to the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), which governed the country for 71 years until Vicente Fox won the 2000 presidential elections.

Fox, who in his electoral campaign had promised to fight the corruption and privileges associated with the unions linked to the PRI, has opted not to rock the boat in an effort to maintain political stability.

The CTM, in turn, did not follow through with its threat to stage a general strike, which ironically would have been the first in its long history.

Beyond these specific crises, trade unions in Latin America face unfavourable structural conditions, with an informal economy that absorbs around half of the labour force region-wide.

In Brazil, with a population of 170 million, there were just 27.2 million formal salaried workers -- a third of the economically active population -- in late 2001, according to figures from the Labour Ministry.

Of the 11.8 million-strong labour force in Venezuela, 52.3 percent were employed in the informal market in 2002.

Unemployment is a persistent problem, reaching 17.5 percent in Argentina, 12.1 percent in Brazil and 15.7 percent in Venezuela, according to official figures. (END)

Wed April 30, 2003 08:20 PM ET

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay (<a href=reuters.com>Reuters) - Uruguay granted diplomatic asylum on Wednesday to two Venezuelan army officers, the latest in a string of military dissidents to seek refuge abroad since Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez survived a brief coup a year ago.

Army captains Otto Gebauer and Carlos Jose Blondell, who helped guard a detained Chavez during the April 2002 rebellion, requested asylum at the Uruguayan Embassy in Caracas on Tuesday, said Foreign Relations Minister Didier Opertti.

"Uruguay's government has decided to grant asylum ... in accordance with the 1954 Inter-American Convention on diplomatic asylum," a ministry press release stated.

The two officers are staying in the Uruguayan ambassador's residence in Venezuela until Venezuelan authorities permit them to travel to Uruguay, the release said.

Chavez, elected in 1998 on promises to ease poverty, has sought to bring to trial dissident military officers and some opposition leaders on rebellion and treason charges.

The Venezuelan leader has been locked in a bitter political struggle for more than a year with his opponents, who accuse him of ruling the world's No. 5 oil exporter like a dictator.

More than 100 dissident army officers, some of whom participated directly in the April coup, have staged a campaign of disobedience based in a Caracas square since October 2002.

Peru's Foreign Ministry said last week it had granted refuge to two other army officers. The Dominican Republic is reviewing an asylum request from two army captains who also guarded Chavez while he was held during the April 2002 coup.

The recent spate of applications by military officers came a month after Costa Rica granted asylum to the Venezuelan union chief who spearheaded an opposition strike in December and January to try to force Chavez to resign.

The businessman who briefly replaced Chavez in the coup fled to the Colombian Embassy in 2002, while a navy rear admiral under investigation for his coup role sought refuge in El Salvador.

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 By: Elio Cequea

Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:44:44 -0500 From: Elio Cequea feico57@aol.com To: Editor@VHeadline.com Subject: Mr. Rivero, first of all I apologize

Dear Editor: to Mr. Rivero, first of all I apologize for bringing up his father on this...

Anyway, does this sound contradictory to him "...right on the surging of urban slums and shanty towns ... wrong to disprove robust economic growth."

It does to me ... I thought economic growth reduces the other one.

About the "excellent" UN reports he refers to, he should read them again and remember the surging of urban slums and shanty towns he agreed with.

With regard to the future of a humble (I know he meant poor...) Venezuelan couple in the early 60s, does surging slums and shanty towns in the 70s, 80s and 90s rings a bell?

At this moment, the future remains to be seen...

About taking stoke to my theory, none of the economic reports available to the general public consider how the wealth of a nation is distributed among its population. This fact makes these reports irrelevant when it comes to developing countries ... they do not indicate the advancement and improvement of the entire country.

Venezuela's GNP mostly grew from the 50s to the 70s ... but, the benefit of it was seen only by a few.

That explains the growth of "slums and shanty towns" in the same period ... the few that benefit from it became fewer and fewer as time went by, thanks to cultural abominations like "meritocracy."

Amazing how similar is the sound of this word to democracy ... the truth is that they imply very different things. The first one EXcludes and the other one INcludes.

In Venezuela we have both "world class wealth and world class poverty" ... one is getting wealthier and wealthier the other one, poorer and poorer.

That is what we need to stop.

Elio Cequea feico57@aol.com

PS: Gustavo Coronel also called 'Gente de Petroleo' heroes in his article "Why rebels rebel." We cannot call hero the one that rebels because he thinks victory is a sure and easy thing. They thought they had nothing to lose. Heroes go to war with the risks in mind. They don't find that out later. A hero lives with the consequences. A hero chooses to be hung or shot after being defeated. A hero doesn't cry out for mercy pleading for his job back, for example. It is not a hero who goes on a strike and still gets paid his salary ... a hero sacrifices himself. What was their sacrifice while they were being  "heroes"?  The people Gustavo Coronel calls heroes are a mockery of what a real hero is...

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 By: Manuel Rueda

Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) analyst Manuel Rueda writes: Venezuela’s Bolivarian government is once again performing a balancing act ... and this time free speech hangs perilously on the line. In an effort to make media coverage more representative of a wider section of Venezuelan society, if not explicitly fair to both the government and the country’s middle class opposition, government legislators and cabinet officers are pushing for a series of laws to regulate TV and radio programming. But critics of the proposed reforms argue that attempts to regulate media content will only discourage any prospect of quality reporting and ultimately will do little to enable Venezuela’s poor to better voice their views.

Venezuela’s print & broadcast media has certainly not conducted itself in the most democratic of ways. Its news columns ... which heavily favor the opposition ... often turn unprofessional.

Government officials have solid evidence to charge that the media’s current behavior jeopardizes democratic institutions.

Venezuela’s four major private television networks control at least 85% of the market and their producers have lashed out at President Chavez with punishing, though not always merited, political low blows.

For two months, they helped fuel an economically devastating and socially destabilizing general strike aimed at ousting Chavez from office, in which they heavily promoted opposition leaders while systematically slandering the President and ignoring events favorable to his side.

Government functionaries are quick to argue that such media organizations have degraded democratic dialogue by indulging in political haranguing, while turning their back on their responsibility to provide truthful information. Many international journalists from some of the world’s most prestigious news organizations concur that Venezuela’s media has become a heavily biased advocacy group in favor of the opposition.

In a media climate that disregards the concerns of Venezuela’s poor and often provokes strife, government officials are faced with the challenge of encouraging participative and democratic public debate. In response, they have proposed laws mandating that radio and TV stations spend more time educating society with balanced material. One provision demands strict quotas for daily programming reserving at least three hours for education and another three for national music shows daily.

The Dangers of Supervising the Press

But will attempts to forcefully mandate more balanced programming schedules encourage the media to better educate society?

In fact, they are being met with resistance by Venezuela’s media leaders, who see these proposals as a cynical plot to stifle criticism of the Chavez administration. Critics argue that, if passed, these laws will be ineffective at changing the media’s combative role. Looking back on their creativity exhibited during the opposition’s anti-Chavez ad campaign, it is not hard to imagine children TV shows with a political edge and folk music programs that scream out against the revolution’s politics.

What will be the government’s likely reaction?

Federal prosecutors will certainly be willing and able to take TV and radio stations to court and dispute a series of nebulous definitions of what is “cultural” and “educational.” This would then leave Venezuela’s at times corrupt judicial system to determine the proper definition of “socially responsible” programming.

Rulings aimed at regulating media content will keep courts busy, but are not likely to encourage high grade investigative journalism nor prompt alternative points of view.

Another proposed law would penalize producers and journalists for coverage that incites “disrespect” against public officials. This may lead to regrettable abuses on free speech in a country where an alarming number of intimidation incidents against journalists have been reported by international observers over the past year. The law may keep critical journalists investigating dubious government activities tied up in court disputes, thus hampering informed dialogue on the country’s social and economic grievances.

A Modest Proposal

Rather than controlling media content, the government would do more for the democratization of public opinion by focusing on reforms that modestly diffuse and pluralize media ownership.

Social, economic and political concerns affecting Venezuela’s shanty towns and rural areas, for example, are often overlooked by mainstream media outlets that cater to middle class interests. The government-owned TV network does scarcely better at addressing these concerns as it routinely dumbs down political dialogue in its efforts to praise the ruling party’s agenda.

Media ownership can be extended to Venezuela’s poor through the creation of community-run radio stations. While hardly rivaling the audience of Venezuela’s well-established networks, these outlets could begin to empower the poor by voicing their daily concerns and present a whole range of political views.

To the government’s credit, some provisions in the “laws of social responsibility” do make an attempt to promote grassroots media. One of these calls for the establishment of a national institute for radio and television that would provide training and technical support to independent producers.

But reforms to encourage the proliferation of grassroots media must be taken further, as this is not only necessary, but politically feasible. By providing the populace with alternate sources of information, community media outlets could help neutralize concerns over media monopolization, which in part motivate government efforts to police media content.

A government that feels less pressured to closely monitor airwaves would certainly benefit Venezuela’s private TV stations, which in many cases have incited hostilities through their inflammatory coverage of the facts. It would be wise for them to help fund independent media in a show of reconciliation and commitment to the authentic development of free speech.

Most importantly, participatory democracy will benefit from concrete initiatives to financially assist independent media, which will likely encourage local political feedback by voicing the daily grievances of humble citizens, promoting participation in town meetings and sparking dialogue between local political rivals.

But how to fund grassroots media?

These outlets must remain free from financial manipulation by government sectors or corporate elites anxious to convert them into political franchises. It is a task that government, private sector, civil society and international organizations must jointly undertake as an opportunity not to be missed. The benefits of empowering the poor to actively participate in democratic debate will by far outlast any reforms that simply put reins on freedom of speech.

This analysis was prepared by Manuel Rueda, a research associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA), founded in 1975, as an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization. You may email Manuel Rueda at coha@coha.org  or phone +1 (202) 216-9261, fax (202) 223-6035 -- www.coha.org

<a href=www.arabnews.com>ArabNews.com

Question: The Emir of Qatar announced recently in a formal speech that political democracy and economic democracy are inseparable. To what extent does such a position support your view of a new economics in the Middle East?

A: In answer to the first question about political and economic democracy being important, our country strongly supports democracy in the Middle East — both political and economic democracy.

On Dec 12th 2002, Secretary of State Colin Powell gave a speech in which he referred to the Middle East partnership initiative. He stated that the United States is going to seek to support the economic and social participation in the Arab countries by the people of these countries.

Really what led to that speech was, as you know, the United Nations Arab Human Development Report by about thirty Arab scholars under the United Nations.... That report found that Arab countries seem to lag behind other areas of the world, and their income levels also, and education and civic institutions as well.

This Middle East Partnership Initiative recognizes that the Arab World is very diverse and that the way in which public participation in Arab society will occur is going to be different for each country. So what we are simply trying to do is say that we are interested in these principles.

As Secretary Powell put it: “There is a job gap, an education gap and an opportunity gap.” We want to find ways to empower the people in those countries to empower women and to revive economic opportunity, but it has to be done in the way that each country wants it done.

We are saying that we support these goals, we are here to help you, tell us and we will support it.

Q: Are you asking the governments or the people?

A: The government is the representative of the people in a theoretical sense. We make the request but we don’t stay simply with that, so we will be writing some pieces in some of your newspapers here in the Kingdom expressing our support of these goals, of these objectives, and asking the people to come to us.

Q: From what I hear the budget you appropriated for the project has been criticized for being so meager.

A: No, that was only for the first year, and I think there has been some misunderstanding about that — in the first year it was $29 million — but for the next year we are asking for several hundred million, and because the speech came in the middle of our budget cycle, that was all the money there was available that had already been appropriated by congress.

Now we are going back to Congress, the representatives of the people in our democracy, to approve several hundred million for the coming year; we’re optimistic that we’ll have that kind of money.

Q: That’s for the Arab World?

A: That’s correct. The Arab world is the only area we are directing this money to.

Q: Many expect the US to use Iraq to dismantle OPEC. From your perspective, are these concerns founded?

A: There is no plan to dismantle OPEC. What we’re trying to do is to remove the UN sanctions from Iraq and quickly phase out the oil for food program, which right now is the only real way Iraq can sell its own oil. As the Iraqis establish their own government, it’s going to be up to them to decide what international institutions, if any, they want to participate in.

Q: Will you put pressure on them or try to influence or persuade them to participate?

A: I don’t think there are any specific plans in that regard — it is something that the Iraqi people are really going to have to come to terms with, and I am sure they are going to want to explore participation — but they are going to want to explore other options as well, and we support the result that is consistent with the wishes of the Iraqi people.

Q: Gulf oil producing states have huge financial and real estate investments abroad, especially in the US and Europe, estimated to exceed $2.75 trillion. Do you expect a reorientation of these investments toward Europe as a result of local worries?

A: We are not concerned about the loss of investment from this part of the world in the US. Wealth investors invested billions of dollars all around the world. They are very sophisticated and the decisions they make on their investments are based on risk and return. They are going to put money where it is safest and where there is the best chance of making the smartest investment.

The US is the largest and the fastest and most transparent of the three major financial markets in the world, the US, the EU and Japan. I am completely confident that the US will continue to attract a very large percentage of the investment dollars from abroad.

Q: But don’t you agree that some lawsuits do frighten investors, such as the one filed on behalf of the victims’ families against the alleged Arab supporters of Sept. 11 terrorist?

A: I don’t want to comment directly on the lawsuit, but I think it is safe to say that we have a very transparent legal market and system — your money cannot be seized in the US without what we call “due process of law.”

We have to have a proper court procedure, so any individual investor would not be subject to losing their investment merely because someone has filed a lawsuit against someone else in the US. We want to make it very clear that investment opportunities will exist under a very clear rule of law.

This is something that distinguishes the United States from many other countries.

Q: The US started a PR campaign to win Arab and Muslim hearts and minds before the war. Now the war is over and in the light of Arab and Muslim reaction to it, what changes do you envisage to the original plans?

A: I’m not sure I would say we have a PR campaign as such. We obviously want to get information out to the public about what we are trying to do, and I don’t think we need to change those efforts. The reaction to the liberation of Iraq so far has been mixed.

Q: We are talking about the campaign directed toward the Arab world — do you still have plans to put out “useful information” to Arabs?

A: Yes, and this goes back to the Middle East partnership initiative and what Sec. Powell announced on Dec. 12th. We want to explain ourselves to the Arabs in a way that shows we are partners — that’s why we call it a partnership initiative.

Q: Disarming Iraq of WMDs was a US main objective in this war. Still, the US seems reluctant to allow the UN to send back inspectors to do a neutral, credible search. From a legal point of view, how can the world verify any US claim in this case?

A: First of all, I think that sometimes we get caught up in labels. There is nothing about the UN that says that the finding of WMD by a UN inspector is more legal than finding WMDs by someone else. In fact, the US has hired former UN inspectors to help us in this search. The question that should be asked is not whether there is some label attached to the people conducting the search but: Have they found those weapons, and how persuasive is it that they have made that discovery?

Q: Why not the UN inspectors?

A: We’re putting a thousand people in the field — that’s many times more than the UN had — they did not succeed during the efforts they made previously.

We are on the ground now, we’re building the organization, we are already there, we can move more quickly and we have the expertise of the former UN inspectors available to us, so it makes much more sense to us to proceed along this basis as we are moving into areas that have, in some cases, been subject to heavy fighting, and a destabilized environment. We have our ability to provide security, and at the same time we engage in the search for the weapons.

It’s also important for us to be able to interrogate some of the former regime members who may be able to lead us to those WMDs — that is something that the UN is not currently organized to do. There are individuals we are pursuing, detaining and interrogating.

Q: When you find something, what do you do? Do you bring the UN to verify or the journalists to see what you have found?

A: I can’t predict the exact mode or method in which it will be done, but we will do it in a way that ensures the maximum credibility and reliability so that the people of the world will know for certain that these are actual weapons that have been discovered.

Q: How does the US justify deciding alone who gets what of the contracts to rebuild Iraq? How do you explain giving certain companies huge contracts worth tens of billions without due competitive process? How could other non-US/British companies participate? Would Saudi companies be allowed to take part?

A: It’s important to understand that these first contracts are essential emergency contracts. The people have many urgent needs right now. These are contracts that are going to be paid for out of the US treasury, this is not Iraq’s money that is being used at this point. If it’s the US treasury that is involved, then it’s fair to look at US contractors to lead the effort.

Q: You are not going to take that from Iraq’s oil?

A: These contracts that have been awarded to US general contractors have not been taken out of Iraqi oil money. It’s from the US Treasury.

Q: And it never will be?

A: No, not on these contracts. At the same time, these contracts are awarded to general contractors who are going to hire sub-contractors — and this could well involve Iraqi contractors, Saudi or other contractors from other parts of the world.

Q: Are you including France and Germany?

A: I don’t know specifically what contractors are being considered for which projects right now, but I am sure we will see the best people selected for the task at hand; this is US money that’s being used.

Q: Syria received prior assurances that it won’t be next on the US list and was thanked for its help during the previous Gulf War and the War on Terror. How do you explain the sudden change of attitude?

A: First of all, there’s no list. Our government’s made it very clear, there is no list. For many years, Syria has been identified as a state sponsor of terrorism by the United States. We have expressed a lot of concern that Iraqi war criminals were making their way into Syria, and in fact several have been captured as they were making their way toward the Syrian border. But we are very pleased that Syria has stated that it’s not going to let the Baathist regime leaders into Syria.

There is no great change in our position at all. We have had some successes in the war on terror with Syria, but we have also had a great concern that we have expressed very consistently for a number of years over their sponsorship of terrorism and more recently their inviting their country to these war criminals.

Q: Would you expect more assurances about their support of Hezbollah and Al-Jihad and others?

A: We are extremely concerned about Hezbollah and their role in arms shipments and other means of support for terrorists, and so I am sure we will continue to have a dialogue with them on this very serious and important topic.

Q: How does the US view the recent meeting of Iraq’s neighbors? Does the US appreciate these countries’ concern regarding the religious and racial re-mapping of the geopolitical map?

A: Regional stability is extremely important to the US — we believe that all countries in the region ought to be interested and involved in the reconstruction of Iraq. We applaud that interest. We don’t think that the US should determine what role these countries should play in the reconstruction of Iraq.

Q: Were you consulted about the meeting?

A: We were advised that the meeting was taking place, but they certainly didn’t need our permission to conduct the meeting and they would not seek that permission.

Q: Did you give them a message — for example not to interfere in Iraq’s politics?

A: The group that met in Riyadh didn’t need any instruction from us and they were very capable about making their own determination about not interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq. And I think they made a statement after that meeting that was their intent. We support their interest in maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq and that the will of the Iraqi people can be accomplished, and so we were very much in tune with their interests in that regard.

Q: Has there been interference or meddling from concerned countries — e.g. Iran?

A: We have expressed our interest and so did the meeting of the neighboring states in Riyadh, that no individual state should attempt [to interfere] in the internal affairs of Iraq as they move through this critical period of establishing a new government. This ought to be something decided by the Iraqi people.

Q: How does the US value the Saudi Government’s stand in this war and the war on terrorism in general? What is expected of Saudi Arabia in the near future?

A: First of all, we deeply appreciate the role that Saudi Arabia has played in the War on Terrorism. We both have interests in this region — they are not identical interests, but I think the length and depth of our relationship with Saudi Arabia has allowed us to have differences yet at the same time to respect each other’s position. I have personally worked with many Saudi officials on the war on terrorism, and it’s important — not simply because the US expects this help, but because it’s important to Saudi Arabia as well. This is an area where our interests are very similar. We both hate terrorism, we both hate the idea of the threat of terrorism to any of our people. Terrorism threatens the people of Saudi Arabia and it threatens the security of the region. What we expect is Saudi Arabia to continue its efforts to confront extremists wherever they are found — and this is very much a common interest that we both share.

Q: We hear media reports about US demands for changes to the educational system, and watching some preachers. Is it true?

A: We have made no demands of any kind on the Saudi government in that regard. If the education system is to be changed or if the government is going to deal with religious extremists, then that’s because the Saudi government believes that’s in their best interests, not doing it to do us a favor of any kind. It’s simply a matter of internal decisions by the Saudi government itself.

Q: Also we hear that there is some kind of pressure on the government about women and human rights.

A: We have made no secret of the fact that we support human rights and religious freedom. Each year we publish our statement of religious freedom and we provide this information to the Saudi government. And we continue to express our support for ways in which women can participate more fully in any society and have rights consistent with their status.

Q: Many here suspect that what you have in mind is liberal freedom equal to what you have in the West, which means that women can go in bikinis or go without hijab — things like that. I don’t know if that’s true or whether this represents your official attitudes, but at least that is what many of the US-based women’s organizations say. What is your government’s stand on this?

A: We are very respectful of the traditions of the Arab world and the traditions of the religion of Islam. The men and women of Saudi Arabia will ultimately have to decide for themselves on how they want to adjust to the evolution of women’s rights. But what we are really talking about is ways in which women can participate in the economy, the society, so that they have the ability to decide for themselves what environment they want. At least have the ability to participate in those decisions. I think it trivializes the importance of this issue to suggest that any manner of dress or any way in which they present themselves defines this participation. This is not about wearing abayas, it’s about having a role in their own future.

Q: Do you have any details on this?

A: The US has always stood for religious tolerance; you can come to America and it’s one of the few countries in the world where you can worship any God you wish. No one will tell you how to worship or whether to worship. That’s something that really just needs to be accommodated and dealt with by each country. We’re just saying that we don’t think it’s appropriate to discriminate against individuals because they are Shia, any more than it’s appropriate to discriminate because they worship in some other creed. If the Shia don’t have the right to participate in the government, then we view that as a problem, quite frankly. I am pleased to see that in Saudi there is a Shia ambassador to Iran for example, there is some Shia representation on the Shoura Council, there is some representation, of course, Shia in business and other endeavors...

Q: In the future in Iraq, if they choose anti-American parties, will you respect the result?

A: Democracy doesn’t simply mean being pro US. Democracy means respecting the will of the people. This means having a system in place that means you can realize the will of the people. We certainly would hope that the two countries would have good relations, and we believe that if a democracy is instituted in Iraq, it does respect the will of the people, then we hope that the people of both countries would work hard to have good relations, and I would expect us to have good relations.

Q: Arafat was also elected by a democratic mechanism. America didn’t like him and objected to his election — will this happen again in Iraq, if the same mechanism produces someone like Arafat?

A: I hesitate to speculate — certainly not that far down the road. Our concerns about Mr. Arafat had a great deal to do with his support for terrorism and his refusal to use the power at his disposal to stop terrorist activity at a time when the Palestinian people were crying out for leadership and an opportunity to move forward.

Q: But for example a leader who is very much influenced by neighbors like Iran and who is really Anti-American but is produced democratically — like what happened in Algeria, for example, when some Muslim parties won the election. As a matter of principle, if you don’t like them, will you object to them or accept them?

A: I think that saying that we don’t like someone is a little bit of an oversimplification. There are certainly democratically elected leaders in the world with whom we have had disagreements from time to time. I don’t want to name names, but recent history can give you a few suggestions. It doesn’t mean that we don’t have a great deal in common and common interests, either with the leadership or the people of those countries. So, I would expect in any democratic environment, you are going to have issues on which you agree and issues on which you disagree.

Q: In the case of Venezuela, for example, which has no support for terrorism or anything, you just didn’t like the leader and you objected to him — and there was some kind of support for the revolution against him, at least in the beginning — how do you explain that?

A: I don’t think we have ever agreed that we support a revolution against the leader of Venezuela — we may have disagreements from time to time, but we are very much committed to the determination by the people of any particular country of who their leadership to be. That doesn’t mean that we won’t have vigorous disagreements from time to time, and that when we do, we try and diplomatically work them out as we are trying to do in so many areas of the world right now.

Q: Will the US publish the original peace map, and if Israel continues to object and demand modification, what will be your stance? How much investment and involvement will the US continue to make in this process?

A: First of all, we will publish the road map, we are simply awaiting the approval of the final Palestinian Cabinet by the Palestinian Legislative Council. We’re encouraged that that can be done soon, and we are vigorously committed to moving forward on the road map. President Bush and National Security Council Advisor Condoleezza Rice have both said that the road map is not negotiable. This is a plan that is a guideline on which we expect the two parties to sit down and develop.

Q: There are some speculations that since the US administration is going into elections soon that they might be reluctant to make pro-Israel groups angry. And that is why they might agree to some modification to the plan as Sharon wanted.

A: The president is very much known as a man of his word and he has made it very clear that the principles set forward in the road map are critically important. At the same time, at some point in the process, the parties involved, the Palestinians and the Israelis, are going to have to sit down and they are going to have to negotiate.

Q: But if the Palestinians agree to the map “as is,” and demand that is what we want, would they be forced to negotiate on this if the Israelis objected?

A: I think the president has been as clear as he can possibly be. The road map is the road map.

• Arab News Features 1 May 2003