<a href=www.alternet.org>Alertnet.org By Amy Hamilton-Thibert, yomamasays.orgApril 14, 2003

At many of the anti-war events I have been to in the last short while, the overwhelming sentiment is that something called "peace" should happen as soon as possible. Many of the events themselves are billed as being "for peace" and many of the participants carry signs and banner that speak about peace. Logical, right? Antiwar=peace, you dimwit! It's as simple as that, many people would say. Well . . . I'm gonna come clean. I'm wary of this "peace" idea. What's not to understand about the desire for peace? I can't quite put my finger on it – but when I try to, I come up with more questions than answers.

For one thing, when I see people of color at marches and rallies, I rarely see them holding signs or banners that talk about peace. I notice that their signs, instead, often talk about "justice." Why?

Aren't justice and peace the same thing? Are they? Is justice peaceful? Is peace just? What is peace? Is it just peace and no fighting? Is it no bombs? For example, if peace happens, is the U.S. still allowed to engage in covert activities in Colombia? Can the CIA topple Chavez in Venezuela? Is that peaceful or not? What about other army projects – can our forces still occupy Afghanistan or parts of the Philippines and have troops just about everywhere else under peace? Can there be a military under peace?

Does it mean that if the U.S. stops dropping bombs on Somalia . . . I mean, the Sudan . . . er, no, I forgot, Afghanistan . . . oops, what I meant to say was Iraq . . . then there is peace? Or does it mean that if we stop the sanctions, then there is peace? Does it mean if we pay the Iraqi people $5 for every child lost since we first dropped bombs on them however many years ago, that there would be peace? Do we pay taxes that go toward building stealth bombers and not our own health under peace? Will some of our children still be hungry in peaceful times? Is peace ours? Or does it belong to everybody else on earth, too? And does it belong to the earth itself?

All these questions and no answers. Meanwhile, I'm still hearing this thunderous white cry for Peace! Peace! Peace!

I think I've got it figured out, after all. In peacetime, we don't have marches and rallies for the young women that work in maquiladoras for worse than shitty pay making all the shit we use to clothe our own well-fed young women. In peacetime, we don’t have much of a problem ignoring the plight of sweatshop workers in our own cities. In peacetime, we don't need to discuss the fact that our most favored nation is China.

In peacetime, we don't have to listen to what our best trade buddy China does to Tibet, or to its own people. In peacetime, it seems to be easier to ignore that our good friend Israel is the recipient of the hugest percentage of U.S. foreign aid, and to be unaware of the fact that Israel is not so quietly or covertly going about their own campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians.

I wonder if the Palestinians thought the U.S. was at "peace" a few years ago when they began the latest intifada. In times of peace we don't hear the ground we walk over every day screaming up at us, "What have you done!?" Most of the time, I'd venture that us white folks feel peaceful enough not to be bothered to look at the blood of the slaughtered indigenous peoples on our ancestors' hands.

Maybe "peace" means that white people don't have to hear about what our government does to other countries or what we've done inside our own borders. Maybe peace should otherwise be known as "free to go about our business without guilt nipping at our heels." Maybe white people want peace because they hope it will keep death and danger at bay. When I see signs that say "Peace Now," I often think to myself that it should read underneath, "(I am scared; I am guilty. I don't want bad things to happen to me and my family.)"

My movement is the anti-imperialism, anti-oppression movement. I refuse to fight "for peace." Does that sound angry? Does that sound uppity? Is that upsetting? I'm sorry if sounds that way, and let me be straight: I do not want war or killing, certainly not. But to ask another question, don't we need justice more than we need a comfortable, air-conditioned, sound-tracked, airbrushed, leather-upholstered SUV-driving, sweatshop-clothes buying, racial profiling, meat-eating, bourgeois, mother-fucking peace?

If peace means that we go right back to the nightmare that we were living before we started dropping bombs this past week, then I don't want peace, I want a revolution.

Amy Hamilton-Thibert lives in New York City with a revolutionary 2-year old and a French man who has removed the word "freedom" from his lexicon.

Posted on Mon, Apr. 14, 2003 BY JUAN FORERO Miami Herald.com- New York Times News Service

LA PAZ, Bolivia - Ed Miller had high hopes in the late 1990s when, as manager for British Gas in this landlocked country, he and a fellow geologist came up with a surefire plan to develop and market Bolivia's immense reserves of natural gas.

With an eye on California and its insatiable appetite for energy, three multinationals, including British Gas, soon formed a consortium to build a 400-mile pipeline to the Pacific Coast.

The idea was to liquefy the gas and ship it to California. The projected sales were $21 billion over 20 years.

Now, with $350 million already invested, the project -- once heralded as Latin America's largest infrastructure development -- is close to collapse, a casualty of roiling nationalism and political turbulence.

WINDOW CLOSING

''The project is coming to the end of its opportunity window,'' said Miller, 47, an American who left the consortium and now runs a pipeline that transports gas to Brazil.

Indeed, President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada's government, buffeted by protests that killed 30 people in February, has delayed plans to announce a decision on the project's next phase: whether to build a fuel pipeline through Peru or through Bolivia's old enemy, Chile.

The government now talks about consulting with Bolivians, to let them make the decision.

But Repsol-YPF of Spain, British Gas and the BP subsidiary Pan American Energy, the three companies of the Pacific LNG project, as the consortium is called, insist that Chile is the only viable option.

That's because building through Peru, they say, would cost $600 million more. An American consulting firm working for the Bolivian government recently reached the same conclusion.

Aides to Sanchez de Lozada say the government is still carefully studying both options, but people close to the project say the president is paralyzed -- because deciding on Chile would more than likely lead to huge, destabilizing protests.

''The government does not have the political oxygen to decide,'' said Gonzalo Chavez, an economic analyst and former vice minister of energy.

Opposition to the project, fueled by left-leaning indigenous leaders who strongly reject the Chilean option, is intense and spreading.

Most Bolivians have yet to forgive Chile for snatching Bolivia's coastal province in a 19th-century war. Included was the region around the present-day port of Patillos, where a liquefaction plant would be built.

Among the opposition are senior military officers who have pronounced themselves against the project for reasons of what they call ``national dignity.''

Even the president's partner in the government coalition, former President Jaime Paz Zamora, has questioned natural-gas sales.

''Bolivia,'' he has said, ``must come first.''

In one of Latin America's most nationalistic countries, some critics also oppose the very idea of selling gas to the United States, which many consider an imperialist aggressor.

''The gas stays here. We can consume it here,'' said Choque Huanca, a new member of congress who represents a left-leaning indigenous political party.

Such talk, though, ignores the fact that Bolivia, with a gross domestic product of just $8 billion, could make use of only a tiny fraction of its gas reserves, estimated at 52 trillion cubic feet, second in Latin America behind Venezuela's. Even supplying California for 20 years would consume only 13 percent of the gas.

Analysts also point out that this desperately poor country could vastly improve its economic outlook by positioning itself as an important gas supplier to California before other countries do. Taxes and royalties on exported gas could bring in up to $7.7 billion in a generation.

But to become a great gas power, Bolivia needs foreign capital to finance the Pacific LNG project, whose total cost is estimated at $5 billion or more.

And changing minds there will not be easy. Companies of all kinds have faced stiffening opposition to their investment plans, as Bolivians have turned against the market-reform model once championed by their president.

''There is a repudiation,'' said Jose Guillermo Justiniano, minister of the presidency, the executive's administrative arm. ``That is why there is a conviction against the model. They see the model as the devil. Market economies are the devil.''

The government of Sanchez de Lozada has been so battered by opponents that it lacks the political capital to undertake austerity measures or to make unpopular economic decisions.

GRIM VISION

Bolivia's future will remain grim unless it opens up to foreign investment, political analysts say.

''The fact of the matter is that you cannot go back on globalization and that no country can afford to isolate itself from the international currents,'' said Eduardo Gamarra, a Bolivian-born professor of polical science and director of the Latin American and Caribbean Center at Florida International University.

Miller, a Californian who first came to Bolivia in 1978, ran an Argentine company that in the late 1990s was among the first to find major gas deposits.

After mapping out the pipeline plan on a barroom napkin, he assumed Bolivians would welcome a project that promised to inject billions into the economy.

Now, the dream is all but dead -- prompting Miller to abandon Pacific LNG.

''I essentially became frustrated and burned out,'' he said.

<a href=economictimes.indiatimes.com>REUTERS-Economic Times India MONDAY, APRIL 14, 2003 07:34:35 AM ]

CARACAS: Venezuela is ready to back any decision by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) to reduce output in order to keep prices within the cartel's preferred $22-28 a barrel price band, said President Hugo Chavez.

If it is necessary to cut, we would be ready to back that Opec policy, Mr Chavez told reporters during a press conference. If we have to cut production by one million barrels per day (bpd), or 1.5m bpd, or 1.8m bpd, we would be ready to cut, Mr Chavez said.

The Opec, which increased output ahead of a US-led attack on Iraq, has become concerned that world oil markets are oversupplied and is planning an emergency meeting to discuss cuts to keep prices in its preferred range. Concerns about an Iraqi supply disruption before the war helped to bolster oil prices. Prices have fallen since the war started despite the interruption of Iraqi shipments, settling at just over $28 a barrel for US crude on Friday after flirting with $40 a barrel earlier in the year.

The cartel could decide just to rein in extra supplies it pumped before the war began, or go further and cut official production quotas. Venezuelan oil minister Rafael Ramirez on Thursday called on the cartel to reduce output to comply with quotas, and said Opec would work with other large producers to support prices.

Mr Ramirez agreed with comments from Opec president Abdullah al-Attiyah last week that oil markets are oversupplied by around two million bpd.

Mr Attiyah also said the oversupply could grow to over four million bpd with the restoration of full Nigerian output and the resumption of Iraqi oil exports. About 40% of Nigeria's 2.2m bpd of output was shut-in by ethnic unrest in the western Niger Delta last month. The cartel is considering a range of dates for its emergency meeting, between April 24 and May 7.

Venezuela, the world's No 5 oil exporter, is recovering from a two-month national strike started December 2 by foes of Mr Chavez that cut output from more than 3.1m bpd to 40,000 bpd at its low point.

Government officials say output has been restored close to pre-strike levels despite Venezuela's official Opec quota of 2.8m bpd. They say Opec has allowed the South American member-state to raise production above agreed limits in order to make up for production lost during the strike.

<a href=www.wavy.com<wavy.com

(Boston-AP) -- Experts have been hoping that once the Iraq war was over companies would start spending money on previously postponed projects. Now they aren't so sure.

For one thing, the war may not have a clearly defined end. For another, the economy is weak, and lots of companies are still working through debt and excess inventory.

A telecommunication equipment supplier near Boston says he doesn't see that the war is what's holding customers back. And another executive at a software company in Virginia says the war just gave people a good reason to do what they were already doing -- and that businesses weren't spending money.

Economists say their big-picture analysis paints the same picture. A Merrill Lynch survey of executives at 75 U-S and 25 European companies found that 17 percent planned to slow spending if war broke out, and that 90 percent said a quick end to the war wouldn't cause their information technology spending to accelerate.

(Los Angeles-AP) -- "Anger Management" bullied its way to the top spot at the box office in its debut weekend. That's according to Sunday's studio estimates.

The Adam Sandler and Jack Nicholson comedy revived the box office after four straight slumping weekends as the top 12 movies took in nearly 87 (m) million dollars, up 6 percent from the same weekend last year.

"Anger Management" had the highest gross ever for a movie opening in April, beating the previous record of just over 36 (m) million set by last year's "The Scorpion King."

"Anger Management" grossed more than the rest of the top 12 combined. Last weekend's number one, "Phone Booth," fell to second place with 7-point-5 (m) million. "What a Girl Wants" came in third with 6-point-7 (m) million.

BY MIKE LEBOWITZ - greenleft.org.au

There was a lot of confusion outside Venezuela during the last year about what has been happening there. Some people have asked, “How could progressives and trade unionists support the Venezuelan government of President Hugo Chavez given the dedicated opposition of the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CTV)? How, when there was a general strike, could we side with the government rather than workers?”.

Today, there should be no confusion. The CTV has been exposed as an arm of the Fedecamaras, the employers' association, with which it has been allied in the April 2002 coup and in the so-called general strike early this year.

It was a strange general strike, indeed. One in which workers in the oil industry, electricity, transport, public sector and other basic industries kept working and management walked out. A strike in which workers were laid off by the big local and multinational conglomerates, but were promised that they would receive full pay for the period of the lock-out (only now to discover that this promissory note was dependent on the companies defeating the Chavez government).

Make no mistake about it, this “general strike” was a capitalist offensive, supported by the US and its clients, to bring down the pro-poor Chavez government. Its immediate effect was an enormous blow to Venezuela's economy because of the loss of oil revenues for several months following the shut-down of PDVSA, the national oil company, by its managers. There were also losses in tax revenues that resulted from the lockouts and a tax strike by the companies. The resulting “opposition deficit” will make this year a difficult one under any circumstances but particularly so as the government attempts to meet the enormous needs of the Venezuelan people.

However, a longer term effect of this offensive by Venezuela's capitalist oligarchy has been a development of the political consciousness of the poor (most of them in the informal sector) and organised workers. There is a mood among workers of self-confidence — one which emerged when the workers in PDVSA ran the company by themselves after management and technicians abandoned it.

In workplace after workplace, workers are talking about taking over and running their enterprises as cooperatives. PDVSA itself now has two representatives of its workers on its management board, and an associated petrochemicals firm is being run as a cooperative. This process is just beginning, but it looks like capital has lost one of its major weapons, its ability to threaten a capital strike — rather than giving in, Venezuelan workers are moving in!

On March 29, a new labour federation was formed. The National Union of Workers (UNT). The new federation emerged out of a long process of discussion which began last July among the Bolivarian Workers' Force, the workers' movement that is aligned with the Chavez government, the Bolivarian Circles, grassroots organisations among the poor, and independent trade unions (both in and outside the CTV) that are not “Chavist” but which support the general direction of the government.

At the core of these discussions was the question of how autonomous the new federation would be in relation to the government. After the last capitalist offensive, the matter has been resolved — the UNT will be independent, class-oriented, democratic and revolutionary.

At its formation, the UNT already represents more workers than are nominally represented by the CTV, which will lose any credibility it has had outside Venezuela as its member unions leave. (Indeed, the petroleum workers' union, from which the current head of CTV Carlos Ortega came, is itself a key union in the UNT.)

Of course, capital does not give up so easily. Through the CIA and its various fronts, such as the National Endowment for Democracy (which financed the American Center for International Labor Solidarity's support for the CTV), Venezuelan opponents of Chavez's “Bolivarian Revolution” will attempt to maintain the support of international labour federations such as the US AFL-CIO, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions and the International Labour Organisation.

This is why it is especially important now for progressives and trade unionists to inform themselves of what is happening in Venezuela and in the Venezuelan workers' movement.

[Abridged from ZNet, visit www.zmag.org.]

From Green Left Weekly, April 16, 2003. Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.