<a href=www.indymedia.org>Jens Klinker and Peter Nowak 7:04am Wed Apr 9 '03 (Modified on 5:16pm Thu Apr 10 '03) jens.berlin@gmx.net article#310096

24 hours in the country of unlimited opportunities 2 German journalists were held and kidnapped by US-authorities.

You can also read this article in german by clicking the following link. Der Artikel ist auch in deutsch verfügbar: de.indymedia.org

To visit and to report about information meetings about the put down overthrow against the left-reformistic Chavez-government in Caracas/Venezuela one year ago, we (two journalists from Berlin/Germany) wanted to fly to Caracas on Monday, April 7th 2003. Because the flight Berlin-Milano was canceled, the airline provided another route Berlin-London-Miami-Caracas. Until the arrival in Miami there hadn´t been any problems. In Miami all passengers had to show their passports some meters after leaving the plane. When we were controlled, the policeman saw that there was an Iraq-Visa marked in one of our passports.

Because of this we were brought to the immigrant-office. We informed the police about our activities as journalists and about the fact that we didn´t want to travel to the USA but to transit via Miami to Caracas. Nevertheless the police took photos and stored fingerprints from us like from criminals. And we have been interrogated for 8 hours (about the Iraq; the Red Army Fraction, a "marxist-leninist" city-guerilla of the german past and about political things like the relationship to the USA or activities). Additional the police created extensive files. The police claimed that they have information about left activities about one of us. There is the question how the exchange between german and US-american offices had been.

The police refused to contact a lawyer and a translator and to get a law-help. To phone with the german consulate was first consciously allowed when the consulate was closed, so that no contact was possible. The interrogation was made without directly torture, but the police threated with further consequences like prison if there would be a lack of coorperation.

Because the immigration-area is on neutral territority, it is a law-free room (for immigrants), and the US-autorities took skillfully advantage of this. The last 16 hours we were prisoned together with refugees of Latinoamerica in a strong lighted, windowless prison without beds. The food was highcalory und unhealthy plastic food.

In a phone call with the german consulate, the consulate told us that the US-authorities do what they want and that they have "another law-understanding than we in germany". Afterwards we were deported back to London.

Not till London we got some of our documents back and one of us got a paper which said that he would be "prohibited from entering, attempting to enter or being in the United States for a period of 5 years..." We got handwritten entries into our passports without signatures or stamps. Some tickets to fly to Caracas and to fly back from Caracas to Berlin had been stolen by the US-police. Also one of us got not his interrogation-protocoll.

Fazit: This incident shows clearly that the US-ruling-system is the enemy of all free humen of the world inclusive the progressive humen in the USA. During US-soldiers attacked the Iraq with tanks and rockets, a legal Iraq-delegation-travel is treated in Miami like a crime. When we were arrested in the immigration prison, we watched in the tv that two independent journalists were killed in the Iraq by the US-army and numerous other were injured. The war outside against the Iraq and the repression inside like the attack against the freedom of press and information are two sides of the same medal. Opinions which are critical to the policy of the USA or other countries are not desinable.

No border, no nation - fight deportation!

You can contact us via email: jens.berlin@gmx.net and peter_nowak@web.de add your own comments

I have a question! (english) john lenon 1:23pm Wed Apr 9 '03 comment#310336

I have a question! Is this liberty and democraty? Are you kidding me? (english) Head_in_the_sand 5:32am Thu Apr 10 '03 (Modified on 7:58am Thu Apr 10 '03) comment#310645

What an amazing story. This is much more news worthy on April 9 than the overthrow of the Iraqi regime. The editors of this news site are truly dishonest intellectual creatures. The only reason this pathetic site did not report on the tremendous events in Baghdad yesterday is because it did not fit the picture all the deluded radicals were sure existed.

It is quite interesting when reality smacks you in the face. Interestingly, why don't we see pictures of "Thank you Bush" on your site. That's right, we want to serve our own agenda. We really aren't interested in the truth. We report "passionately" as the main page states when it suits our own ideological purposes. Then, when we watch the corporate news station we have the OBLIGATION to point out how they are just governmental puppets pushing their agenda. We, however, are so far more intelligent because we can never be "brainwashed" so easily. Instead, only we see the truth. Those 80% who don't fit in with our ideology are just idiots who can't think for themselves. Thank God they have us. Thank the Lord ... oops I may have offended some atheists ... thank Gaia that we are gifted with such superior insight into the way the world works. All those dolts in the military and government are clearly incapable of any rational thought. In fact, our whole government is a sham. Those founding fathers, authors of the "Federalist Papers" and Constitution, they were sell outs -- what did they know?

I have an idea. Why don't we all get on a plane, go to Baghdad, and protest the war. The Iraqi people will thank us. All the civilians will hoist us on their shoulders and thank us for being so pure of heart and mind. We will warn them of the evil our country is intending. Afterward, we should get rid of our military, our administration. After all, history tells us ... well, never mind history, we are too special, too smart. We are the "chosen" generation that knows much better than all the previous -- historical precendences doesn't really apply to us anyway.

Most importantly, we must ensure that we are NEVER open to accepting any idea which does not fit into our world view. The last thing we need is critical analysis. Reply to Head in the Sand (english) Inquisitive Citizen 7:53am Thu Apr 10 '03 comment#310677

Mr. Head-In-The-Sand,

I suggest you read The Pentagon Papers, by Daniel Ellsberg. Just do it. It sounds like you're an intelligent person who just hasn't done enough investigative research about the culture of lies and deception in our government. This book is a good starter. Hopefully it will lead you to other books, articles and tapes (and I have read many). Then go and read things like "Rebuilding America's Defenses" put out by the Project for a New American Century (www.newamericancentury.org. )I have no doubt that you'll see things in a different light, maybe radically so.

No one ever said that this news organization does not have a particular mission and mandate: to seek out and expose the dark side of our purported "free" democracy, so that we can keep comprehensively informed, and hopefully have the guts to take action to keep abuses of power in check. You are blind if you believe that our political system was constucted so perfectly, so pure that we, the citizenry, can just sit back and our system of checks and balances will prevent those in power from abusing it. It works well, but not well enough, as this article attests. Lest we forget that there are human beings at the helm of our government, and human beings are prone to greed, power and meglomania. Do you think that if Bush and Cheney rose to power in Iraq they would install democracy?

We are constantly bombarded with pretty much the same theme, with little variation, from the mainstream media: it ranges from condoning the war to outright, guns ablazin', flags a wavin', support for the war. News sites like this one are a breath of fresh air, a different perspective that, yes, have their own idealogical bent, but also just happen to uncover many of the anti-democratic, anti-humanitarian acts that, if I may be so bold to speak the truth, are too often committed by those in power (to which I principally refer to decision makers in our government and large corporations). You can EASILY find the latest watered-down newscast about our invasion of Iraq through any number of media outlets. What's so wrong about reporting about other newsworthy events like this one?

What's the use of feeling so proud that you are living in "the world's greatest nation" if you allow internal and external abuses to accrue incognito until our cherished democracy begins to lose legitimacy and fall to pieces?

I could go on about the specious reasoning publicly espoused by the Administration and the Pentagon for our "need" to invade Iraq (like fooling the American people into thinking there is a link between Al-Queda and Saddam or it is to "liberate" the Iraqi people while we continue to support and give aid to other just-as-horrendous regimes like Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Nigeria), but I will not. Just read "Rebuilding America's Defenses" to know EXACTLY why we are doing this-- Pax Americana, modern day imperialism. Ashamed and outraged (english) Jordan 9:36am Thu Apr 10 '03 jazsmutt@hotmail.com comment#310709

that is, i am ashamed and outraged at the treatment Jens Klinker and Peter Nowak received at the hands of my government. my tax dollars, earned in the teaching profession, seem to be hard at work infringing on the rights of others. gentlemen, the U.S. is apparently not safe for those, such as yourselves, trying do important work. nor as, recent events in the U.S. Oakland show, is it safe for our own citizens engaged in peaceful demonstrations. i commend you and encourage your investigative reporting on Venezuela. please bear in mind that the people of the U.S. are far from united in its support of these clumsy, unethical, and illegal actions.

in response to "head in the sand:" the reason i check indymedia sites is specifically so that i can read news like the story i comment upon above. if i want to see made-for-tv footage in Iraq i can, and do, check corporate sites. any educated person in this country is well advised to come to one's own conclusions by getting as much information as possible. for an indy site to report what the corporate media is already bombarding me with would be REDUNDANT and a waste of precious independent resources.

your insinuation that all of us opposing the war share the same analysis and arrogant views is baseless. at demonstrations against this war one can encounter fellow citizens of all ages, creeds, and walks of life. many of them stand with their children at their sides. some are against the war for spiritual reasons (strong in their conviction that we can resolve conflicts without bombs), some base their actions on historical analysis of the destructive affects of U.S. policy, and others point out the folly of these conflicts for economic reasons (having realized that empires, sooner or later, spend more trying to creat situation wherein they can expatriate capital from other countries than these powers actually get out of it). all of these approaches to situation are valid, based on ethics and reason rather than arrogance, and are not reflected in your commentary.

yes many Iraqis are glad to be free of saddam. world-wide, there is little dissent over the repressive nature of his regime! when we watch images of Iraqis today we must bear in mind that anyone who has been starved by the western world for over a decade and then bombed into submission is likely to greet occupying soldiers promising food and water with open arms. one must also ask, if a free and SELF-DETERMINED Iraqi state were truly desired by the U.S. powere elites, why didn't we support the massive popular uprisings against him, called for by Bush Sr., that occured shortly after the first gulf war? why did we let them get slaughtered at that time? why didn't the U.S. want the people of Iraq to win their freedom themselves?

the best answer seems to be that, in such a situation, the U.S. and the U.K. would not be able to install western corporate personel into interim government positions that will guarantee a brokering of Iraqi oil interests that favor our corporations and, through them, our short-sighted and hysterically militaristic "strategic interests." though we are likely to depend of Venezuela for most of our oil here in the U.S, we wish to be in control of these reserves so that other nations like China will have to deal with us, not the people of Iraq, to tap into them. And of course, we wish to free Israel from the need to secure its oil from countries like Russia.

when we look the images such as those being paraded across the spectacle of the corporate media today, we must be aware that there is more to consider than meets the eye. surely we can agree, at least, on this? Point taken (english) Head_in_the_sand 10:06am Thu Apr 10 '03 comment#310721

To the poster of the previous message: you made some cogent points with which I agree. Do not take me for some simpleton who believes governments are morally sound playgrounds of the national polity. I will look into your references in order to understand your "radical" perspective (if it is indeed such).

In fact, I am the first to say that governments are INTRINSICALLY corrupt -- unless measures are taken within itself to prevent its degradation. That, by the way, is one reason this country IS so wonderful -- the founders expected and counted on the failure of human nature to properly execute the task of governing. Does that mean the government is never at fault because there are safeguards? Of course not. And when the administration or elements of the polity deceive us or abuse power, I agree it is the people's responsibility to voice their concerns and frustrations -- lest the abuse augments to dangerous levels. Vietnam, naturally, is the classic example.

Further, I am not one to get agitated with anti-war citizens (or non-citizens) so long as they are peaceful. I do not agree with them, but dissenting voices do not intimidate nor frighten me. What does frighten me is the lack of rationale used in these articles. I do not pretend to have the greatest sources of information. One of your points was correct in questioning what information the government gives us -- and I offer that questioning the information and articles that pass through this site is just as important. Additionally, almost all the articles are more interested in heresy and "opinion" based reporting than the major media outlets. Examples of this are the recent police brutality claims (where only testimonial information was given -- quite possibly correct, but I would like a more thorough investigation by government AND media agencies), civilian casualties during the war (news crews were shown what Iraqi regime personnel would allow -- further, not trusting our government and trusting theirs to get accurate reporting is simply to absurd to even comment), public sentiment claims concerning the war (always I am reading how the number is increasing yet all polls show support constant if not increasing support). Some of these articles are just plain lies -- as much as they purport to be correcting the big media's lies. There is a very specific phenomenon of which the big news media is guilty -- selective reporting. There are certainly instances where something is ommitted or ignored or not even further investigated. However, overall accuracy at what is reported is much higher than these radical sites. Here, both accuracy and information are at times sacrificed.

There should be a standard of journalism. If you want to just push an agenda, don't call it a media site. I would claim that the people so convinced that the major media sources are governmental propaganda agencies are as brainwashed as the populace they accuse.

It is equally naive to think that the radicals or liberals on this site have pure motives. Ultimately, it is about power. Right now, this country has become more conservative since 9/11 and as a result the loss of power to the left has caused a backlash.

I have known many radical thinkers (many brilliant people) and they all possess this unfortunate quality of self-pity. Many feel as if the government or people have dissapointed and harmed them depending on whether they are liberal or conservative, respectively. Instead of employing any pragmatism in their approach, they form opinions and views which become so rigid that it becomes impossible to penetrate their mind at all. I am certainly willing to listen to a claim -- but I want hard evidence to support it, not just one radical reporter making claims that support his/her's preconceived notions on the matter.

At the end of the day, I realize that radicals will always exist. They are essential to our society, and I do not wish them to be gone or shut up. I do strive for a critical society -- one which is skeptical yet flexible in thought. The religion of logic is the only one that should matter, and it would make for a well informed, reasonable, and rational public. Errata to my previous message (english) Head_in_the_sand 10:08am Thu Apr 10 '03 comment#310722

My last message is to Inquisitive_citizen, sorry for any confusion. Critical reporting and Indymedia (english) dubravko 11:59am Thu Apr 10 '03 dubravko@kakarigi.net comment#310775

I understand the frustration of the head_in_the_sand poster with apparent one-sided reporting on this (and other) Indymedia web site(s). Indymedia web sites are based on the principle and mechanism of open publishing and follow minimal editorial standards. Consequently, nothing prevents "the other side" to also post news which, due to very minimal editorial control, have a very good chance to remain published. I would therefore suggest to either start reporting yourself (I read your comments with great interest, although, I must admit, that negative, at times very sarcastic slant repulsed me) or recruit someone else to write. It is good and almost imperative to receive news from multiple sources in order to make an informed judgement of what the reality out there really is. It is only reponsible to do so.

INFORMATION + KNOWLEDGE = DECISION MAKING

tallyimc.org/ I HAVE AN IDEA. (english) BC 12:54pm Thu Apr 10 '03 comment#310802

I HAVE AN IDEA. IF YOU DONT LIKE INDYMEDIA.ORG OR THE STORIES THAT GET POSTED HERE, DONT VISIT THE WEBSITE. ITS THAT SIMPLE. I Have An Idea also (english) jjy_ucf 1:43pm Thu Apr 10 '03 jjy_ucf comment#310822

I have an idea also: If he doesn't like this site and should stay off, then the same rationale applies to you goofballs about the news channels; don't watch.

I HAVE AN IDEA TOO (english) johnway 1:50pm Thu Apr 10 '03 comment#310828

Hey, ive got an idea, if you dont like the US or what it does, boycott all its shit or leave the US if you live in it.

This is in response to the post that states if you dont like Indymedia dont come.

I think that it is good to have a little debate here and there. If everyone at Indymedia agreed than this site would be little more than a pulpit for its views. One thing that I love about this site is that anyone can say anything, and its usually respected if deserving. to US customs/immigration: STOP THE MADNESS!! (english) J Black 5:16pm Thu Apr 10 '03 pleasestaycalm@hotmail.com comment#310904

Wow, there are a whole lot of postings chastising the indymedia movement and site(s) for being biased and unbalanced lately... I see your point, but - indymedia is not meant to be all things to all people - indymedia serves very effectively as a counterpoint to the very obviously biased and unbalanced mainstream reporting. If you want to see pictures of 'liberated' Iraqis, then hit CNN. It's all there.

If you want to be well informed, you've got to refer to a variety of sources and consider a range of viewpoints. You're never going to get a 'real' picture - a view-point is all you can reasonably expect. Indymedia lets pretty much anyone publish their viewpoint (including flame-war-inciting little trolls), and allows anyone who wants to take the time a chance to comment on those viewpoints. As a whole, indymedia presents a collective point of view that is desperately needed in our current corporate mediatainment-dominated environment. Most of all, indymedia creates the POSSIBILITY for a real all-things-considered offering-up of the truth... it's not there yet, but unlike the corporate-whores and pentagon/DoD-briefing-regurgitators, it has at least the POTENTIAL to get there.

Some seem to think that indymedia is organized to represent some specific viewpoint or range of tactics, and that it is supposed to be representative of a certain group or groups and that it does, or should, censure and regulate itself as-such.... but indymedia doesn't 'represent' anyone, and there is NO editorial control to enforce the service of any exclusive agenda. It's a clearing-house for independently written journalism and viewpoint, period. It doesn't advocate anything in particular - it provides a FORUM for independent people to publish news and express their own viewpoints (which may range from 'nuke Iraq', to 'let's pie-plaster Dan Rather's rented-out face', to 'bring me G.W.'s head on a platter!').

In the case of most (indymedia) sites, the editorial control is basically deciding which articles get 'front-page' (main column) posting, and which get left to the side column. There aren't (or certainly shouldn't be) any mechanisms or contols in place to enforce a 'left-wing' or any other kind of bias. If you want to post some George-the-liberator/support-the-troops/I-love-cops stuff then that's your deal - just don't expect much praise for it.

Moreover, if you want to post some genuine critical analysis of indymedia, PLEASE DO!!! I think it would be very well received by the vast majority of those who rely on this site to help them maintain some shreds of hope, dignity, and sanity.

<a href=news.ft.com>Financial times By Toby Shelley

Published: April 10 2003 8:53 | Last Updated: April 10 2003 8:53 The oil market has weathered the storms of conflict in Iraq, communal violence in Nigeria, and the winter strikes against the government in Venezuela, according to the International Energy Agency.

Reinforcing a tone of cautious confidence first expressed by the OECD's energy watchdog as fighting commenced in Iraq, the IEA's widely-watched monthly market report said, "the system is working - producers are increasing production, oil is arriving in consuming regions and prices are easing".

After speaking with Ali Naimi, the Saudi oil minister, and Abdullah al-Attiyah, president of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, at the start of the war in Iraq, Claude Mandel, executive director of the IEA, said he had been given assurances that large volumes of crude were "on the water". This, combined with the faster than expected recovery of Venezuelan output and imminent seasonal demand falls, led the IEA away from earlier dire warnings.

Indeed, the IEA pays its respects to its sparring partner, saying, "There is little doubt that Opec has done much to calm an otherwise jittery market".

The April market report confirms that Opec producers have been as good as their word in making up for shortfalls. "Clearly, producers have been pre-positioning crude in key consuming regions to mitigate the potential impact of a prolonged supply disruption, thereby assuming the financial risk and burden of transforming long haul into short haul supply", it says.

Of the additional world oil production in March of 740,000 barrels a day, 500,000 came from Opec members despite the war in Iraq and despite almost 40 per cent of Nigerian production being lost at times. The so-called Opec-10 - that is, excluding Iraq - produced 25.86m b/d in March, 1.4m above their target as circumstances made quotas notional. Opec is to meet later this month to decide whether to try to cut production to prevent a feared further collapse in prices. The IEA acknowledges the force of the argument for cuts - its own estimate for 2003 call on Opec crude is only 24.8m b/d. Nonetheless, it says the "real question mark remains over the timing, extent, distribution and duration of any cut".

The IEA's forecast for world oil demand remains roughly unchanged at 78m b/d for 2003.

Asis Times On line By Humberto Marquez

CARACAS - United States-based oil companies will get the lion's share of the petroleum business in Iraq once the war there is over, undermining the interests of OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries), say oil industry experts, who also warn that an end to the war will not immediately translate into abundant supplies of inexpensive crude. "There is no doubt that the military occupation of such an important oil exporting country, with a nationalist government, is creating cracks in OPEC and affecting the mid- and long-term interests of its other members, like Venezuela," says Víctor Poleo, a professor of graduate studies in oil economics at the Central University (UCV), in Caracas. After the war "there will be a substantial increase in Iraqi oil production, and I wouldn't be surprised if schemes emerged to weaken, if not destroy, OPEC", said Humberto Calderon, a former Venezuelan minister of energy and of foreign relations, in a conversation with Inter Press Service. The US has been trying for some time to reduce its dependence on oil supplies from the Persian Gulf region, home to the dominant members of OPEC, an 11-country cartel comprising Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela. That was the aim of the controversial energy plan that George W Bush brought with him to the US government, in which he has sought to expand oil exploration and exploitation within his country's own territory, even in the protected natural areas of Alaska. But control of Iraqi oil wealth could turn into alleviation for US oil worries and a key to reducing prices - and to wielding influence over OPEC. However, not all experts believe that after the war it will be easy for petroleum investments in Iraq to flourish. "It would be a mistake to assume that immediately after the US occupation there would come a prolonged period of political stability in Iraq and surrounding areas," warns another graduate professor at UCV, Mahzar al-Shereidah, an Iraqi-Venezuelan. The "stability factor", al-Shereidah told IPS, "is fundamental for the materialization of oil industry projects". "The big oil companies are very aware of the rich subsoil in Iraq, but an occupying regime creates additional risks to dealing with political, ideological, cultural and religious factors. And the corporations are going to take that into account," he added. Iraqi territory holds 112 billion barrels of petroleum in proven reserves, the second largest volume within OPEC, after Saudi Arabia's 260 billion barrels. And Iraq's crude is relatively easy to extract from the ground. Each oil well represents major output because production costs are just US$2 per 159-liter barrel. Because it is light, sweet crude it is easily refined and has little sulfur or metal residue. But "the extreme cruelty of this invasion, which has affected entire peoples, awakens deep sensitivities in a nation that is proud of resisting the conquerors. We are going to witness the allotment of war booty and the United States will take the lion's share - but it will not be effortless," al-Shereidah commented. According to former oil minister Calderon, Iraq could double its output of 2.4 million barrels daily within a short time. Prior to the war, total production was limited through the "oil for food" program, overseen by the United Nations in the context of the embargo imposed against Baghdad for invading neighboring Kuwait in 1990. As Iraq's role as a supplier increases, "the OPEC countries will be elbowing each other out of the way" to win markets, pushing prices down, Calderon predicts. Fadhil Chalabi, an Iraqi national and former OPEC secretary general, goes even further. He believes his country could even double its proven reserves through intense oil exploration, becoming a "super-giant producer", like Saudi Arabia, putting as much as 10 million barrels on the international market each day. In addition to its oil output potential, Iraq has geographic advantages that reduce the cost of reaching global markets. Its petroleum can be shipped via its port on the Persian Gulf and, to bypass the vulnerability of the Straits of Hormuz between the Gulf and the Arabian Sea, through the pipelines connecting Iraqi oil fields to the Mediterranean and Red seas. Iraq as a super-giant producer of crude oil managed by US-based companies would crown the dearest dream of the leaders of the governing Republican Party: "to bring OPEC to its knees," forcing the cartel - through competition from Iraq - to sell its oil at lower prices, says Chalabi. In the opinion of the former OPEC official, the depression of prices and the abundance of oil in Iraq will prompt investors to shift their focus away from higher-cost areas, like the North Sea, where Britain and Norway extract oil. They will turn to areas with lower production costs, precisely those of OPEC and the Persian Gulf region, he says. UCV professor Poleo believes the "US empire will want to hold the keys to all major oil sources, and that will ultimately include the Andean-Amazon oil reserves, which extend from Trinidad-Tobago, through Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia." Venezuela is the fifth leading OPEC member in terms of conventional crude reserves, at 77 billion barrels, but it also holds 270 billion barrels of unconventional, extra-heavy and bituminous crudes. The 11 OPEC countries have managed their output during the past two decades to maintain stability in the average price of the cartel's "basket" of seven crudes. They consider the optimal price range for consumer and producer nations alike to be $22 to $28 a barrel. OPEC "rejects the notion of using petroleum as a political weapon", stressed a former secretary general of the organization, Ali Rodriguez, current president of Venezuela's state-run oil firm PDVSA. As such, OPEC has made an effort prior to and during the war in Iraq to ensure a consistent supply of oil to its clients in the industrialized world. The markets have seen petroleum prices decline from a mean of $32 per barrel before the war to fluctuating around $26 a barrel two weeks after the invasion of Iraq began. The situation kept in step with the advances of the US-British forces in Iraq, though OPEC suggested on Tuesday that its members might cut back production in order to buoy up prices. Another major factor influencing the oil markets is the potential for fat profits for the companies winning contracts for the reconstruction of a country emerging from years of war and economic embargo. The Bush administration - which Poleo describes as "an oil directorate" because of the links between US officials and energy and aerospace firms - has already made clear that it will control the reconstruction contracts, which are estimated to be worth $30 billion to $100 billion. US Secretary of State Colin Powell said Iraqi revenues, particularly those from the oil industry, would serve as resources for rebuilding the country. The first companies to win some of these contracts were International Resources Group, to coordinate humanitarian aid efforts, Stevedoring Services of America, to run the Um Qasar petroleum shipping terminal, and Kellogg Brown & Root, to control oil wells that have been set on fire. The latter is a subsidiary of Halliburton, a major petroleum industry construction firm, which until 2000 was headed by US Vice President Dick Cheney. For the exploitation of the Iraqi oil fields, "It is certain that US and British firms will have priority, and will try to make up for their absence in Iraq during the 12 years of the embargo, and Baghdad to back down from partnership contracts with oil companies from China, France and Russia," said al-Shereidah. Firms from the three countries signed letters of intent for oil development that would require investments of more than $40 billion. The big question now is to what extent those contracts will be respected in the allocations of post-war Iraq. As far as the Iraq National Oil Company, the government enterprise that managed the petroleum industry until now, "it is very possible that it will remain, though it might be partially privatized to facilitate the distribution of percentages the United States will collect for the costs of the war and those earmarked for expenses and investment in Iraq," said al-Shereidah. (Inter Press Service)

</a href=www.washingtonpost.com>Washington Post Thursday, April 10, 2003; Page A24

LA GABARRA, Colombia -- Maria, a wizened 57-year-old farmer's wife, lives in a plank-board shack in Santa Isabel, a village on the River of Gold that serves as Colombia's muddy border with Venezuela.

Shortly after breakfast one day last month, she and several dozen families watched grimly as Colombia's long war arrived swiftly along Santa Isabel's single dirt street. Violence has washed over the village for years, but never in the way she witnessed that sweltering March 21.

Maria and a dozen frightened neighbors said hundreds of guerrillas from the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) attacked their town from Venezuela, crossing the river to engage an anti-guerrilla paramilitary force occupying several riverside villages. Within an hour, Maria saw Venezuelan military aircraft swoop over her village to bomb paramilitary positions inside Colombia supporting the rebel advance.

If corroborated by the Colombian government, the bombings would be Venezuela's first military foray into Colombia's civil war. Now Maria and hundreds of others from Santa Isabel and neighboring villages along the border have fled south to this town, terrified that what they saw could get them killed. Colombian officials said they are investigating their account.

"Only the people who live there can serve as witnesses to this, and I am afraid," said Maria, who declined to give her last name for fear of reprisals. "Everybody where I live knows the guerrillas are on the other side of the river, that they maintain their camp there. Everybody knows this. Everybody."

Neglected by the government, too dangerous for Colombia's military, this wild frontier is emerging as a flashpoint that could complicate cooperative efforts to contain Colombia's war within its borders.

The 18,000-member FARC, engaged in a nearly four-decade war with the state, began an offensive late last month to retake this region rich in coca fields and strategic importance from the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC). The paramilitary force fights the FARC alongside the Colombian army in much of the country. But here, say refugees and paramilitary commanders who do much of the fighting, they face a new adversary: the Venezuelan military.

According to accounts from a dozen refugees who have arrived here over the last two weeks to escape a fresh surge of fighting, Venezuelan military aircraft bombed paramilitary positions inside Colombia on March 21 and again a week later to the south in a way that helped a rebel scorched-earth campaign gain momentum across the northeastern frontier.

The result has been sharp recriminations between the two governments over who is responsible for keeping a widening civil war inside Colombia's 1,370-mile frontier with Venezuela.

President Alvaro Uribe has called on Venezuela to work harder to rid its side of a lightly governed frontier of the guerrillas, warning that "countries that allow terrorists inside their territory will end up as their victims."

On Wednesday, Venezuela rejected the allegations by border residents that its aircraft bombed the village. Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel dismissed the charges as "a grotesque lie" aimed at trying to discredit Venezuela's president, Hugo Chavez.

Chavez has acknowledged bombing targets last month but said the attacks occurred on his side of the border after a paramilitary "invasion" of Venezuelan territory. Once featured prominently in FARC propaganda posters as a kindred spirit, Chavez has blamed Colombia for the rise in selective killings and kidnappings on the Venezuelan side of the border.

In late March, Rangel accused the Colombian government of allowing paramilitary groups to operate "with absolute impunity" along a frontier that is frequently hard to identify on the ground. But Chavez has refused requests to allow Colombian troops to pursue guerrillas into Venezuela, prompting Colombian officials to wonder why Venezuelan military strikes seem to fall hardest on guerrilla enemies.

While Colombian guerrillas have operated along the Ecuadoran and Peruvian borders, nowhere has Colombia's war tested national boundaries more than in this battered region 310 miles northeast of the capital, Bogota. This frontier of rolling red-clay hills, thick jungle, coca farms and bloody history is known as Catatumbo for one of the slow, muddy rivers that weaves through it. The FARC made the region a key military objective after losing its 16,000-square-mile government-sanctioned haven in southern Colombia just over a year ago.

Colombian military officers here say the FARC, numbering roughly 800 troops in the region, is using Venezuela as it did its former sanctuary -- to stage attacks from a protected refuge -- in seeking to retake the region from paramilitary forces.

Between 1999 and 2000, the AUC carried out a series of massacres here that nearly wiped out civilian support in the former guerrilla stronghold. Hundreds of civilians were killed over several months and some of the bodies were tossed in the river to frighten those downstream. La Gabarra, a warren of abandoned homes and shuttered stores, shrank from 10,000 residents to 2,000 today.

The paramilitary group has since settled into a business partnership with residents, replacing the guerrillas as sole buyers of coca paste that they then sell to others who process it into cocaine. Now the FARC, eager to regain the coca proceeds and an important foothold along the northeastern border, is employing the same harsh tactics the AUC once used against them.

More than 500 people have fled at least a dozen villages in recent weeks, many of them gathering here on a wretched sports field where they are living on food donated from local supermarkets. No government relief has arrived. Nor has the army.

Many of their villages have been reduced to ash by the FARC, which set them on fire after giving residents five minutes to leave or face execution. Along the River of Gold, Maria and her neighbors chose a 12-hour walk to La Gabarra instead of a five-minute canoe ride into Venezuela because, she said, "the guerrillas there will kill us after years of living with the paramilitaries." Hundreds of others made the same choice.

On March 28, according to several refugees who fled the border hamlet of Monte Adentro, Venezuelan F-16s and OV-10s bombed paramilitary positions inside Venezuela and Colombia in what they believe was a response to a series of paramilitary forays into Venezuela in the preceding days. A day later, witnesses said, roughly 300 FARC troops arrived in Monte Adentro to burn it down.

"It is impossible that Venezuelan planes crossed the frontier," said Carlos Rodolfo Santiago, Venezuela's ambassador to Colombia, who acknowledged that the bombings targeted Colombian paramilitaries who he claimed attacked a Venezuelan National Guard post. "We observe international laws on the matter."

At one Venezuelan National Guard post across the River Catatumbo from the Colombian town of Tres Bocas, the mood was relaxed during a visit late last month despite reports of the recent attack upriver. Several soldiers, including the post commander, played dominos at a wooden table as bouncy Colombian music blared from a radio. Two M-60 machines guns sat unmanned in pillbox bunkers. A 60mm mortar tube, pointing toward Colombia, was covered with a dirty rag.

The Colombian army is also a scarce, static presence along these dirt roads. Soldiers guard bridges that span numerous rivers, an important oil pipeline, and the primary highways.

Col. Jose Alfonso Bautista, head of the military's Catatumbo Task Force, based in the municipal seat of Tibu 28 miles south of here, said his 800 men amount to one soldier for every 2.5 square miles of rugged territory. A military map sits on his desk, covered in red arrows that converge at points inside Venezuela that represent guerrilla camps and staging areas.

"Without passing judgment, it is a huge limit for us because just one foot inside and we can do nothing," Bautista said. "Right now this [offensive] is about the FARC retaking this territory. And they have a lot of terrorists trying to do so. The numbers are too big for us at the moment."

As a result, the defense of the region has been left largely to paramilitary forces. Emerging from thick dawn mists, several hundred paramilitary troops marched last month in a long, loose file on the road from Tibu to La Gabarra. Some appeared to be no more than 15 years old. The regional commanders occupy a row of wooden houses in El Mirador on the rise of a hill 10 miles south of La Gabarra. A commander wearing a Colombian Special Forces T-shirt, who is now responsible for repelling the FARC offensive, said Venezuela has become "a shield" to his enemy in a way that fellow AUC commanders have not seen in other border areas.

"The only government that has this position is President Chavez's -- not in Peru, not in Ecuador," said the commander, who called the recent bombing "clear support" for the FARC. One afternoon late last month, on the highway south from Tibu, a small FARC patrol appeared out of a narrow creek to stop traffic. They torched four trucks before shrinking back into the jungle, leaving the asphalt a singed, sticky mess. Now, an army patrol was here, standing in the shadows of the burned trucks. Asked how the guerrillas carried out the attack and escaped in broad daylight, a corporal waved his hand.

"They went that way," he said. "Toward Venezuela."

• Post correspondent Scott Wilson discussed Alvaro Uribe's victory in Colombia's recent presidential election and the future of U.S. involvement there. _Special Report • The evolution of the U.S. role in Colombia's Civil War _ Desde Washington • Colombia Gets Bush's Embrace: Once kept at arms length by Washington, the Colombian armed forces will get direct military assistance under the president's 2004 budget proposal.    • While war rages in Iraq, a huge manhunt for three Americans captured by leftist rebels in Colombia has gone virtually uncovered in the U.S. press.   

April 9, 2003, 3:53PM Reuters News Service

NEW YORK -- Oil prices gained today as Saddam Hussein's rule over Iraq collapsed and OPEC considered cutting back extra supplies, pumped mainly by Saudi Arabia to head off a war spike in energy costs.

U.S. light crude oil on the New York Mercantile Exchange jumped 85 cents, or 3 percent, to $28.85 a barrel. London Brent blend was up 65 cents at $25.25 a barrel.

Trade was slow as dealers watched events unfold in Baghdad.

"Since the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, Iraq has been a perennial feature of the world oil market, so it wasn't surprising people sat back today just to watch," said Peter Gignoux, head of the London energy desk at Citigroup.

Amid wild scenes, jubilant Iraqis welcomed advancing U.S. forces in the Iraqi capital and rampaging looters attacked symbols of Saddam's power. Thousands of U.S. troops moved into the center of the Iraqi capital, meeting little resistance.

There was no word on the fate of Saddam or his sons, targeted on Tuesday by U.S. planes that bombed a residential area in Baghdad thought to be housing the Iraqi leader.

U.S. forces said there were still battles to fight in northern Iraq and in Saddam's hometown of Tikrit, north of Baghdad.

Dealers said expectations were that an OPEC emergency meeting later this month will rein in galloping production to avert a potential price collapse in the second quarter, when demand tails off after winter.

Oil prices have fallen heavily from prewar peaks but prices are still near the middle of OPEC's $22-$28 target range for an index of cartel crudes.

OPEC at the April 24 gathering is expected at least to erase excess supplies of some 2 million barrels a day now being pumped above formal output limits of 24.5 million bpd.

It may also consider reducing those quota limits.

Two oil ministers -- those from the UAE and Algeria -- say a renewed commitment to existing quotas would probably be sufficient to balance supply and demand.

"It is possible that just by abiding by quotas we could reestablish a good balance in the market because we have to be concerned about it beyond this quarter," said Algerian Oil Minister Chakib Khelil.

"We have to be concerned about summer when demand for gasoline increases so we can't just make a decision now and see prices taking off in the summer," he told reporters in Paris.

Leading OPEC producer Saudi Arabia pushed output 1.5 million barrels a day above its official quota to help cushion the impact of the loss of Baghdad's 1.7 million bpd of exports during the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

"I expect OPEC to announce a more prudent production policy to accommodate rising production from Venezuela and Nigeria and Iraq in the next three to four months," said energy analyst Gordon Kwan at HSBC in Hong Kong.

"They will probably tighten up compliance to production quotas because it will be difficult for them to cut until there is clear visibility to the market that Iraq will restore exports," said Kwan.

Extra OPEC oil has helped lift low U.S. crude inventories in recent weeks, but the latest data released today recorded a surprise fall. The U.S. government's Energy Information Administration said inventories fell 3.6 million barrels to 277 million last week.

The prospect of Iraqi crude staying out of the market for some time yet hardened when a U.N. official confirmed on Tuesday that exports were unlikely to resume in the near future.

The United Nations oversees the oil-for-food program that allows Iraq to sell crude in exchange for humanitarian aid under U.N. sanctions imposed after it invaded Kuwait.

Benon Sevan, undersecretary-general in charge of oil-for-food for Iraq, said oil under contract and not yet lifted or oil stored in the Turkish Mediterranean port of Ceyhan would stay there until a competent authority was available.

The U.S. military has said it will take about three months to resume exports from the big southern Iraqi Rumaila oilfields. The military has still to take control of Iraq's northern oilfields around Kirkuk.