<a href=www.vheadline.com>venezuela's Electronic News
Posted: Wednesday, April 30, 2003
By: David Coleman
The UK daily broadsheet, The Guardian's investigative reporter Duncan Campbell ... reporting from Los Angeles ... says that the United States of America had been considering a coup d'etat to overthrow the elected Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez Frias since June 2001, according to former US intelligence officer Wayne Madsen.
Campbell's report, originally published a year ago but given very little play in the opposition-controlled Venezuelan print & broadcast media, also highlights allegations that that the US Navy aided the abortive Venezuelan coup on April 11 with intelligence from its vessels in the Caribbean ... Campbell says "evidence is also emerging of US financial backing for key participants in the coup."
Madsen, an intelligence analyst, told The Guardian that American military attaches had been in touch with members of the Venezuelan military to examine the possibility of a coup. "I first heard of Lieutenant Colonel James Rogers (the assistant military attache based at the US embassy in Caracas) going down there in June 2001 to set the ground ... some of our counter-narcotics agents were also involved."
The US navy was in the area for operations unconnected to the coup d'etat, but that Madsen understood that "they had assisted with signals intelligence as the coup was played out ... the US Navy helped with communications jamming support to the Venezuelan military, focusing on communications to and from the Cuba, Libya, Iran and Iraq diplomatic missions in Caracas ... four countries which had expressed support for Mr. Chavez."
Navy vessels on a training exercise in the area were supposedly put on stand-by in case evacuation of US citizens in Venezuela was required. In Caracas, a congressman has accused the US Ambassador to Venezuela, Charles Shapiro, and two US embassy military attaches of involvement in the coup. Roger Rondon claimed that the military officers, whom he named as (James) Rogers and (Ronald) MacCammon, had been at the Fuerte Tiuna military headquarters with the coup leaders during the night of April 11-12.
Referring to Ambassador Shapiro, Rondon said: "We saw him leaving Miraflores Palace, all smiles and embraces, with the Dictator Pedro Carmona Estanga (who was installed by the military for a day) ... (his) satisfaction was obvious ... Shapiro's participation in the coup d'etat in Venezuela is evident."
The US embassy has dismissed the allegations as "ridiculous" but Shapiro admitted meeting Carmona the day immediately after the coup ... but said he urged him to restore the national assembly, which had been dissolved. Nevertheless, Carmona himself told The Guardian that no such advice was given ... although he agreed that a meeting took place.
A US embassy spokesman said there were no US military personnel from the embassy at Fuerte Tiuna during the crucial periods April 11-13 ... although two members of the embassy defense attache's office (one of them Lt. Col. Rogers), drove around the base on the afternoon of April 11 to check reports that it was closed.
US Congressman Rondon has also claimed that two foreign gunmen ... one American and the other Salvadorian ... were detained by security police during the anti-Chavez protest on April 11 in which around 19 people were killed, many by unidentified snipers firing from rooftops. "They haven't appeared anywhere ... we presume these two gentlemen were given some kind of safe-conduct and could have left the country."
Members of the military who coordinated the coup have claimed that they did so because they feared that Chavez was intending to attack the civilian protesters who opposed him. Both sides have blamed the other for the violence surrounding the coup ... Chavez' opponents claim pro-Chavez gunmen shot protesters while his supporters say the shots were fired by agents provocateurs .
In the preceding year, the United States channeled hundreds of thousands of US dollars in grants to US and Venezuelan groups opposed to Chavez ... including the labor group whose protests sparked off the coup d'etat. The funds were provided by the National Endowment for Democracy, a nonprofit agency created and financed by the US Congress. A year ago the US State Department's Human Rights Bureau was reportedly examining whether one or more recipients of the money might have actively plotted against Chavez ... but any reports resulting from their "examination" have been sadly lacking to date.
<a href=www.vheadline.com>venezuela's Electronic News
Posted: Wednesday, April 30, 2003
By: Kira Marquez Perez
VHeadline.com commentarist Kira Marquez Perez writes: Before Mr. Coronel published his open letter to me, we had exchanged a couple of e-mails in which we had discussed my comments on his editorial from April 28.
Since Mr. Coronel has decided now to share the subject with all of you, I would also like to do the same. Here are some of my answers to him:
As I have mentioned in many of my commentaries in VHeadline.com before, I believe that every democracy needs a good opposition to keep it working. Actually, I think it is very good that Mr. Coronel expresses his opinions against Mr. Chavez' government (which he does quite often) and I respect his position, too. I know he believes in what he writes.
I particularly support the existence of a sane opposition in Venezuela (and I would like to emphasize the word SANE) … this opposition should be only against the government and not against the whole country; and here I come to my point: Mr. Coronel's editorial (contrary to most of his commentaries, with which I sometimes do not agree, but which I always find interesting) was clearly against Venezuela.
Mr. Coronel knows very well that PDVSA is the main source of income for our country. It is absolutely all right that Mr. Coronel criticizes PDVSA if he wants (I've done it myself several times). It is also all right that he criticizes Mr. Ali Rodriguez if he doesn't like him. It is ok if he says that Mr. Rodriguez used to be a terrorist. And . if there is evidence of that (and Mr. Coronel says there is), then, of course, he can say it ... and he even has my support for his criticism, since I support clean and authentic journalism (which is quite hard to find).
However, I believe Mr. Coronel is damaging our country when he asks foreign companies not to invest or work in Venezuela ... and that's what I mean when I talk about “being fanatic” with his comments. It is absolutely all right if Mr. Coronel doesn't like Chavez … but is that a good reason enough to push away potential investors and to wish that nobody even thinks of coming to Venezuela to invest his money as long as Chavez is here?
As Mr. Coronel pointed out himself in his editorial, Mr. Chavez will someday leave the Presidency (it may be in a couple of months but it may also be in several years. Nobody knows). That fact is that even after Mr. Chavez is gone, Venezuela will remain. Venezuela ú- and not Chavez -- is going to suffer the consequences of all this. That's why I believe that when Mr. Coronel tells potential investors to not come to our country, he's attacking Venezuela and not Chavez.
You can't be prepared and willing to destroy the whole country just to get rid of one person … and he knows that Venezuela's economic isolation will only contribute to destroy the country and definitely not improve it.
As I mentioned in my e-mail to Mr. Coronel, I didn't like our corrupt ex-President Carlos Andres Perez at all (and I'm sure you've realized that already if you read any of my other commentaries). However, I certainly would have never even thought of asking foreign investors at that time not to come to Venezuela or not to do business with Mr. Perez just because I didn't like him. That would have done nothing against him ... it would have affected only me and the rest of the Venezuelans!
I had never thought of asking the USA to invade our country to get rid of Mr. Perez … Actually, although I didn't like Mr. Perez (who was so corrupt that he totally ruined our country), I never agreed with the 1992 coups against him, because I respect democracy above all. So … I just believe we should know the limits and consequences of our words.
Now I would like to comment on some remarks made by Mr. Coronel in his open letter:
First of all, Mr. Coronel made a very good point. He stated that the world is also made of decent and idealistic persons. I agree with him and I have never doubted about his decency or his idealism. Probably Mr. Coronel didn't see the following sentence in my writing: “In this particular, I must say that I was shocked to read Mr. Coronel's latest editorial” … which means:
First: that I was not connecting Mr. Coronel to the previous paragraphs but only to one particular point of my editorial i.e. to the fact that he was attacking Venezuela as a means of attacking Chavez; and
Second: that I was shocked to read such a commentary coming from a person like him (who knows very well what the effects of his words can be). However, it seems that Mr. Coronel felt the need to magnify and interpret my words in another way to make the story sound more interesting.
-Mr. Coronel says that millions of Venezuelans oppose Chavez at the expense of their tranquility and financial stability. To this I can only say that he's right in the issue that many people have been used by some others (like Cisneros or Poleo) who are definitely only protecting their own interests. For people like Cisneros, getting rid of Chavez at any cost is really an investment, and that's why they still haven't given up in spite of so many defeats. The fact that the amount of people that attend the opposition rallies has diminished dramatically in the last months ... and that in spite of the shows, music, bailoterapias-aerobic dancing), TV-starts, camping and all other activities the organizers have invented to attract attendants ... is a very clear evidence that the people are tired of being used. They believe they have been fooled by their pseudo-leaders and they're tired of it.
Mr. Coronel talks about facts. I have always included facts in my critics against our “radical opposition”. Mr. Coronel did the same in his criticism of Mr. Ali Rodriguez (which is fair). However, it seems to me that Mr. Coronel wants to minimize the terrorist and sabotage attacks of the “radical opposition” in PDVSA and in many other areas of Venezuela's economical and social life. I hope I am wrong about that. I wouldn't dare to say that all accidents and oil spills are exclusively a result of sabotage, but many of them certainly were ... and it was not a coincidence that valves and pipe-lines in the Maracaibo Lake had been purposely damaged and that a helicopter from Globovision was there exactly at the right time and that right moment to film it all.
Mr. Coronel also claims in his letter that the opposition is not damaging the image and the economical stability of our country abroad. Once again we seem to disagree in this point. I ask:
Who organized a coup d'etat against Venezuela's constitutional government and additionally exported edited, manipulated and twisted videos of the events of April 11 to other countries?
Who tried to stop and block all economic and social activities in the country for two months (including PDVSA, as well as schools, universities, banks, etc) and drove us to the price and exchange controls that Mr. Coronel so strongly criticizes?
Who went almost every week to Washington to ventilate internal affairs (telling only their twisted version of the events)?
At this point I must say that before and during the war in Iraq there were peace demonstrations all over the world. The radical opposition in Venezuela demonstrated in front of the US Embassy as well … but ... there was one big difference: they were not demonstrating against the war in Iraq but because the USA had still not intervened in Venezuela. Can you believe that?
Is that sane? Does that show love for their country? Definitely not.
And … do you know who organized this demonstration? Gente del Petroleo (the “brilliant” managers of PDVSA).
Who invented that we are living in a dictatorship with no freedom of expression, while the opposition owns all the private media and presents a 24-hour anti-Chavez programming? That is a barefaced lie… and you know it, too, Mr. Coronel.
Who is responsible for the 80% poverty in Venezuela? Are you going to tell us now that this is new?
I could also go on and on…but I think it is not necessary.
Mr. Coronel asks for a rapid return of PDVSA to a non-political management. What does he mean? Who is he talking about? Is he talking about Guaicaipuro Lameda? Is he talking about Juan Fernandez? Has Mr. Coronel forgotten that these “non-political” managers that he's talking about went to a very political strike just a few months ago?. They were not asking for improved salaries or for better working conditions. They were asking for the resignation of the President and they didn't care to take the country to such a chaotic situation.
Their political strike affected not only Chavez but also me and you, Mr. Coronel.
To conclude, I would like to say that I love Venezuela, too, and that I therefore oppose any attacks against her. Your points of view concerning Chavez or Rodriguez are valid and I respect them, but I will always respond when I feel the attacks are directed to us (Venezuelans) and that was the case in your editorial from April 28.
With my very best wishes,
Kira Marquez Perez.
Kira Marquez Perez was born in Merida where she studied chemistry at the Universidad de los Andes (ULA) with a scholarship from PDVSA as a reward for outstanding participation in the Chemistry Olympics. She obtained her Diploma (Licenciatura) in 1997 and entered the oil industry the same year, working in process engineering and quality improvement. Kira has participated in many seminars and congresses all over the world and has won several national and international prizes. She currently lives in Germany, where she is doing a PhD in Electrochemistry at the Heinrich-Heine-Universitat Dusseldorf ... before that, she lived and studied in England and the USA and speaks several languages fluently.
By Deborah Adamson, <a href=cbs.marketwatch.com>CBS.MarketWatch.com
Last Update: 5:32 PM ET April 30, 2003
HOUSTON (CBS.MW) -- ConocoPhillips reported a first-quarter profit and a dramatic jump in revenue on Wednesday, reversing last year's loss as higher energy prices and improved refining margins boosted results.
The integrated oil company (COP: news, chart, profile) said net income totaled of $1.4 billion, or $2.10 a share, compared with a loss of $102 million, or 27 cents, in the year-ago period.
Income from continuing operations came to $1.27 billion, or $1.86 a share; analysts polled by Thomson First Call had been expecting $1.72 a share in profit. The figure excludes discontinued operations and the impact of an accounting change. Last year, ConocoPhillips posted a loss of $98 million, or 26 cents a share.
Revenue was $27.1 billion, more than triple last year's $8.5 billion.
Average worldwide crude oil sales price topped $30.72 compared with $25.31 in the fourth quarter.
U.S. mainland natural gas prices averaged $5.47 per thousand cubic feet while worldwide prices topped $4.49. They compare with $3.43 and $3.27 in the prior period, respectively.
The company also decreased debt by $1.5 billion to $18.2 billion.
Upstream production came to $1.6 million barrels of oil equivalent per day. A decline in upstream activity -- which encompasses exploration, development and production -- in Venezuela was offset by higher output in Alaska, China and Indonesia.
Exploration and production income from continuing operations came to $1.14 billion, up from last year's $142 million. Higher crude oil and natural gas prices, increased production and its synergies from the Conoco and Phillips merger boosted performance.
Midstream income, which pertains to storage and transportation of energy, was $31 million, up from $12 million. Higher equity earnings from its stake in Duke Energy Field Services LLC plus an increase in Conoco's midstream operations enhanced the business.
In downstream operations, which encompass the refining and marketing of oil, capacity was at 92 percent in the quarter, up from 89 percent a year ago. Income from continued operations rose to $371 million vs. $87 million.
Higher refining margins and full quarter of operations at a U.K. refinery more than offset higher energy and turnaround expenses.
"Consistent with the integrated oil group, ConocoPhillips outpaced our (estimates) on a strong downstream quarter," said Tyler Dann, an analyst at Banc of America Securities, in a note to clients.
In the chemicals segment, ConocoPhillips lost $23 million from its 50 percent stake in Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LLC due to higher fuel and feed stock costs. Last year, it lost $11 million.
Dann maintained his "buy" rating on the company and views the stock as a "top pick" within integrated oils. The analyst's 12-month price target is $56.40.
Shares of ConocoPhillips rose 25 cents to finish the trading day at $50.30.
Deborah Adamson is a reporter for CBS.MarketWatch.com in Los Angeles.
By Eva Cahen
<a href=www.cnsnews.com>CNSNews.com Correspondent
April 30, 2003
Paris (CNSNews.com) - While some people express anti-U.S. sentiment through terrorist attacks or noisy demonstrations, a Tunisian-born French businessman has created a soft-drink company whose aim is to protest America's foreign policy.
Tawfiq Mathlouti launched his company, the Mecca Cola Beverage Company, last November in Paris. He touts his soft drink as an alternative to Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola and says it's primarily a "political product."
To date, Mathlouti has sold 14 million 1.5-liter bottles in supermarkets and grocery stores in Europe, the Middle East and even some African nations, and he said he has orders for 600 million liters through the end of December.
"It is a political product, which is using a commercial support platform," Mathlouti said. "It is an act of political protest against American-Zionist crimes. We are very angry at American policy."
A new Mecca Cola factory in the Moroccan city of Casablanca is due to go into full production in June. Each bottle of the soft drink says, in the local language: "No more drinking stupid, drink with commitment" and "Don't shake me, shake your conscience."
Mathlouti gives 20 percent of his net profits to charities, including 10 percent to organizations helping Palestinian children and 10 percent to local charities in the countries where the sales originate.
Nicholas O'Shaughnessy, professor of communications and marketing at the University of Keele in Britain and an expert on propaganda, said Mecca Cola's marketing techniques are a completely new kind of protest that could be more than just a passing trend.
"It is taking over the system of consumer signification and giving it a political meaning. Nobody has exploited the politics of the consumer before," O'Shaughnessy said.
"The special feature is the particular message which is being conveyed: that we're not anti-West. This is a political protest against America, not a rejection of Western culture. It's saying, 'we like your culture but we don't like your politics.'"
Mathlouti confirmed that view.
"We are taking what's best in American culture and we are fighting them with that. We don't have hatred or a rejection of the West," he said. "We have an immeasurable hatred for American policy."
Mathlouti described American policy as "based on crime, segregation and the exploitation of others, and of plundering, and theft."
He was equally vocal in his criticism of Israel's government.
"Zionism is a criminal and racist ideology close to Nazism, which I will fight without stopping," he said.
"But that has nothing to do with being Jewish or not being Jewish because that's an old accusation, saying that if we are against Israel we are against the Jews. We are not against the Jews. There are many Jews who are against Israel, against Zionism, against crimes," he said.
Mathlouti has even sold a container of Mecca Cola to a distributor in Detroit and said that discussions are currently underway for expanded distribution in various U.S. states.
Since Mecca Cola's introduction last year, start-ups have launched other political sodas including Qibla Cola in Britain and Muslim Up in France.
As to the future, while some have contemplated the possibilities of other "Mecca"-branded products, Mathlouti said it is too early to discuss that.
However, he said would like to expand Mecca Cola to Latin America, specifically to Venezuela and Argentina, where he believes his product will appeal to wide anti-American sentiment.
"We will dethrone Pepsi and Coca Cola from all the other countries that are fed up with American hegemony, and not only Muslim countries," he said.
Despite being flush with cash from high oil and natural gas prices, large petroleum companies are still hesitant to spend on new ventures because of economic uncertainty, an investment banker says.
The unknown future of oil from Iraq, Nigeria and Venezuela is compounding the uncertainty, Matthew LeCorgne, president of LeCorgne Loewenbaum and Co. of New Orleans, told the Lafayette Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday.
"This market does not like unpredictable situations," he said.
LeCorgne said service companies are suffering because oil company profits are being banked instead of being spent on new drilling projects.
Lewis Gale, chosen as dean of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette's College of Business Administration, said new opportunities exist for partnerships between U.S. and foreign companies.
Gale said the influence of OPEC may be diminished as the flow of Iraqi oil increases. The market is more sensitive to disruptions in supply, and consumption has increased while capacity has declined, Gale said.
Many oil companies reported quarterly profits that exceeded profits from the previous year, but they aren't willing to invest in new drilling ventures until they know petroleum prices have stabilized at a profitable level, LeCorgne said.
The nation's rig count is at 986 this week, a 30 percent increase from the same time last year, according to LeCorgne. Still, a third of available offshore rigs are not being used, he said.
Information from: The Advocate