Paraninfo <a href=www.el-carabobeno.com>El Carabobeño Iván Olaizola D’Alessandro iolaizol@etheron.net

Señor comandante, no sé si su revolución es bonita, ni siquiera si es revolución. No me consta que usted sea un comunista o fascista. No me atrevo a decir con propiedad que sea de derecha o de izquierda. Tampoco puedo aseverar que usted apoye la guerrilla y el terrorismo. No sé si los Círculos Bolivarianos son los mismos círculos del terror, ni si a éstos últimos usted los comanda. Cuando veo y oigo sus cadenas, y en especial Aló Presidente, me surgen dudas sobre su capacidad de gobernar. No sé si creerle cuando saca el crucifijo, lo besa y, en nombre de Él, dice cosas hermosas; igual cuando habla de paz. Me sazono el cerebro tratando de entender si las medidas que usted toma desde el gobierno son debidas a falta de capacidad suya y de sus colaboradores o es que son tomadas con el propósito expreso de que la cosa salga mal. No sé qué pensar cuando viaja por los sitios más recónditos del mundo contando anécdotas familiares y hablando de la revolución bolivariana mundial en los escenarios más disímiles. Quedo confundido al recordar sus acusaciones a los gobernantes de la que usted llama IV República y ver que repite con creces esos y muchos otros disparates. Río al oírle decir cosas propias de un Cantinflas o de un Joselo (que me disculpe el primero por la comparación). No me consta que maltrate a las mujeres. No sé si encubre y apaña tanto robo y corrupción que muchos dicen existen en su gobierno; tampoco si usted y su familia se están volviendo ricos con los dineros de los venezolanos. Comandante, he hecho muchos ejercicios de credibilidad con relación a su forma de ser y actuar, a su gobierno y a sus colaboradores y a las causas y consecuencias de sus actos, y no llego a conclusión racional alguna. En fin, comandante, no sé si usted tiene o no razón con lo que le está haciendo a Venezuela.

Lo que sí sé, comandante, es que lo que veo y palpo a mi derredor no tiene nada de bonito. Que sus acciones un día se enmarcan dentro de una estrategia comunista, al otro día parecen más bien fascistas y otras liberosalvajistas. Unas veces lanza su “rabo e’ cochino” con la zurda y en otras con la diestra. Lo que sí veo y oigo son sus continuos mensajes de solidaridad para con la guerrilla colombiana y para con los gobiernos llamados terroristas y su pública amistad con los más connotados jefes de esos gobiernos. También sé que, inmediatamente después de uno de sus frecuentes discursos incendiarios, los llamados círculos del terror salen a convertir en realidad exactamente lo por usted ha dicho. Lo que sí palpo es que todas las decisiones que toma el gobierno son un total fiasco y que las cosas que dice son un total disparate y una contradicción permanente. Pienso en lo del beso y recuerdo a Judas, y pongo en duda una paz con la espada desenvainada. Cuando analizo sus medidas creo que no son tomadas por incapacidad, sino que lo fueron con total intención. También sé, comandante, que siento pena ajena cuando las cámaras enfocan los rostros de quienes lo oyen en los foros mundiales al oír sus discursos. Su credibilidad se pierde cuando dice cosas y hace otras y cuando critica unas y las hace peores. Después de reír sus cantinfladas o joseladas, caigo en cuenta que no es Rolando Salazar quien las ha dicho, sino nada más y nada menos que el señor Presidente. Igual me he enterado, comandante, de las declaraciones de sus ex cónyuges. También oigo por todas partes que militares, ministros, directores y dirigentes y diputados del MVR han adquirido tremendas mansiones, andan en carros de lujo último modelo, viajan por doquier, comen y beben cinco estrellas. Que ya casi toda Barinas se ha convertido en un gran latifundio familiar. En resumen, que lo que dice hacer y ver no concuerda con lo que en realidad vemos y sentimos el resto de sus compatriotas.

De lo que sí estoy seguro, comandante, es de lo que veo y palpo todos los días. Las escuelas bolivarianas sólo existen en la mente de su ministro pepetista. Ya no hay programas de alimentación escolar, ni vaso de leche, ni uniformes escolares. Tampoco Hogares de Cuidado Diario. Los niños de la patria se fueron a la calle. Los mendigos, indigentes e indígenas deambulan por las ciudades. Los dignificados de Vargas andan damnificados. En el campo no se siembra ni se come, sólo se invade y destruye. Las universidades no tienen cómo funcionar, ni siquiera pagan a sus trabajadores. Los jubilados mueren más de viejos que de hambre. Los presos comen gatos y se matan entre ellos. Sí veo, comandante, cómo se dilapidan los dineros del pueblo en propaganda para difundir una revolución que nadie entiende ni ve. Veo cómo inmuebles de las zonas caras de las ciudades son comprados en efectivo por personeros de su entorno. Veo cómo se reparten créditos que sólo alcanzan para el brindis inicial y no serán devueltos jamás. También noto que no hay dólares, pero tampoco bolívares; la inflación nos acogota; no hay medicinas, los alimentos escasean, las empresas cierran sus puertas y los inversionistas no invierten, se van o no vienen. Veo cómo se violan la Constitución y las leyes, no hay Estado de Derecho, se atropella a personas e instituciones. Comandante, veo que mi país se destruye; no hay familia que no tenga un desempleado, un atracado, un preso, un herido y hasta un muerto. Vemos a familiares, amigos, vecinos y conocidos haciendo maletas para abandonar el país. Veo el fantasma de Cuba rondando la mente de todos. Quién lo diría, comandante, que los alegres viajeros de antaño ahora son emigrantes menesterosos. Recapacite, comandante. Es posible que lo esté haciendo de buena fe. No sé si engaña o lo engañan. Pero sí sé que su tal revolución es un disparate, no existe; la inmensa mayoría no la quiere, no la acepta. Que está acabando con Venezuela, la está llevando al caos y a la ruina total. Que Bolívar está “arrebravo”. Renuncie, Presidente, váyase. Déjenos en paz para reconstruir y recomponer al país. Aproveche la retirada para someterse a un tratamiento profundo, hágale caso a nuestro común amigo, el Dr. Edmundo Chirinos.

<a href=www.abs-cbnnews.com>Reuters/abs-cbnNEWS.com HONG KONG - Hong Kong reported a sharp rise in pneumonia virus cases on Sunday, more than half of them in a single apartment building, as Thailand and Singapore stepped up curbs on air travelers.

Singapore's health ministry said from Monday, nurses will be mobilized to meet all incoming flights from affected areas, to check ill passengers.

"Based on the latest information, this disease is more infectious than we thought," Singapore's Health Minister Lim Hng Kiang told reporters.

Hong Kong Health Secretary Yeoh Eng-kiong told local television on Sunday that infections leapt by 60 to 530 in the crowded city and that one more person had died of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), taking the toll to 13.

"The numbers will go up for one or two weeks," the minister added, a prediction that will fuel the fears of the city's seven million residents as officials try to rein in a disease that has killed 58 people across the world and infected 1,612.

Scores of cases from one Hong Kong apartment block have raised fears the virus could be airborne rather than spread by droplets from sneezing or coughing as previously thought.

At Amoy Gardens in urban Kowloon, the number of residents infected has soared from seven mid-week to 121 on Sunday, baffling health officials.

Panic-stricken residents, wearing face masks and gloves, moved out of the estate, and shops and restaurants were deserted or shut.

"I'm scared. I'm taking my temperature every day," said one woman resident. "I stayed at home for several days. It's terrifying. I think I'll get it sooner or later."

The government urged the territory's families to clean their homes on Sunday in a bid to contain the spread of SARS. Authorities were disinfecting public parks. Taxi drivers were cleaning their vehicles. Schools were already closed.

Health officials say the virus, identified by Hong Kong scientists as belonging to a family of viruses that cause colds, first surfaced in southern China in November and has since been spread by air travelers around the world.

Worst hit have been China, with 34 dead and more than 800 infected, and Singapore, Vietnam, Canada, Taiwan and Thailand. North America and Europe have also reported infections.

Singapore has closed all schools and placed more than 1,500 people under house quarantine.

Hong Kong authorities said they were urgently tracing 222 passengers and 15 crew members on last Wednesday's Dragonair flight KA 901 from Beijing after one passenger was found to have caught the disease and was now in hospital.

Thailand said on Sunday it would quarantine for at least 24 hours any incoming travelers suspected to be infected, and issued another travel warning urging Thais to avoid visiting China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and Vietnam.

Singapore's Civil Aviation Authority ordered all airlines operating at Changi international airport to ask passengers questions recommended by the World Health Organization before allowing them to board flights to the city state.

Source

Analysis Even with Saddam Hussein's demise, "oil nationalism" could spark terrorism and sabotage if an occupying US does not strike the right notes, writes Valerie Marcel

Oil is important to America's foreign policy in the Middle East and if the outcome of this war is a stable Iraq, friendly to the US, it could benefit American energy security. But the present US-led military campaign against Iraq is not a war for Iraq's oil.

The previous Gulf War had a clear oil incentive. Protecting Middle East oil from Saddam Hussein's control was an important US objective of the Gulf War of 1990-91. By invading Kuwait, Iraq controlled the production of five million barrels of oil a day, doubling its reserves.

Iraq's own oil is much less important. With sustained investment over several years, Iraqi production could be raised to around 6 per cent of the world total, compared with Saudi potential of nearly three times that and Russian potential of nearly double that.

Oil is important, but if energy security - understood as ensuring a steady flow of cheap oil to the market - was the prime driver for current American foreign policy and war, the US would have intervened in Venezuela to bring an end to the strikes against Chavez's regime. Venezuela accounts for 14 per cent of US imports against Iraq's 7 per cent.

Another public concern is that if the US overthrows the Iraqi regime it will open Iraq's oil to exploitation by US oil companies. So far, American foreign policy has not done very much for the oil majors. US sanctions against Iran and Libya have barred access by American companies to those markets, while European and other companies have had a freer hand to invest in these oil rich countries.

More generally, widespread public resentment against American policy in the Middle East (vis-à-vis both Palestine and Iraq) has made it more difficult for US companies to do business in the region. Some are arguing that by invading Iraq and opening up that market to foreign investment, the Bush administration is finally attending to its friends in Houston, making up for past neglect. American companies will clearly have interesting, new opportunities in Iraq, but that's not the end of the story.

There will be a long wait before long-term investment takes off in Iraq. First, oil companies will not make long-term investments until a legitimate government is fully established. Second, oil nationalism could restrict investment.

During the occupation phase, which could last from six months to two years, many foreign companies will not engage in long-term investments because of the risk that their investments would not survive the US occupation. It would also be politically very risky for the US administration or Iraqi political representatives to propose terms that "give away" future oil. As an occupying force, the US and its allies will face intense scrutiny in their management of the oil sector.

For instance, the US may expect to use Iraq's oil revenues to finance its occupation costs. In this case, the domestic political benefits of minimising American expenses in the Iraq venture must be set against the risks of popular resentment of US neo-colonialism in the region.

The dominant view in the region is that oil is a national resource that belongs to the Arab people. Such oil nationalism could lead to terrorism and sabotage.

To minimise resistance from the Middle East, US-led forces may want to involve the UN in their efforts. They will have to secure a UN mandate to access the oil funds or for UN bodies to participate in the humanitarian and reconstruction effort. The recalcitrant Security Council members could make their support conditional on a truly multilateral involvement in Iraq (thus tying America's hands in the management of the oil sector) and a role for their companies in the reconstruction effort.

Following the disarmament and stabilisation of the country, the US and its allies will want to transfer powers to a transition Iraqi government. This transition phase could last between three and five years. During this slow process of political consolidation, the new Iraqi government will be sensitive to domestic and international pressures.

It will face a difficult dilemma: it will be torn between the need for capital to rebuild the country and its need to safeguard its nationalist credentials by protecting its oil from foreign interests. It is likely Iraqis would rather delay their oil boom than open the door too wide to foreign companies.

They will probably find an intermediate solution, where service companies do contracting work on the existing oil fields and oil companies get short-term Iranian-type contracts. There may be sufficient takers of contracts on these terms to achieve production levels up to around 4 million barrels a day, with the development of one or two new fields of intermediate size or the phased development of large fields.

However, it seems important to question any assumption that a legitimate independent regime would maintain the generous contract terms that Saddam Hussein's regime offered under the pressure of international isolation and embargo.

Although the new regime will be desperate to increase its oil revenues to fund reconstruction, this consideration must be set against its need to safeguard its nationalist credentials by protecting its oil from foreign interests.

Dr Valerie Marcel is a senior energy research fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London

<a href=www.lahora.com.ec>El Mercurio.

Cuba y Venezuela constituyen dos casos preocupantes para la democracia en el Continente. La libertad de prensa, por una parte, y los derechos civiles, por otra, se encuentran evidentemente disminuidos allí y especialmente en el caso cubano es innegable que la libertad de opinión y expresión desapareció hace muchos años bajo el pretexto de la revolución. Siguiendo la vieja línea del marxismo soviético los líderes cubanos consideran que solamente la opinión de quienes defienden la revolución puede ser divulgada, mientras que todo pensamiento disidente es ubicado automáticamente como contra revolucionario y anulada cualquier posibilidad de que se publique . Los medios de comunicación dependen de una rígida censura y los órganos oficiales del partido único y del régimen solamente publican lo que les conviene. Los llamados de atención de organismos internacionales que velan por esos derechos, no son escuchados y basta con tildarlos como imperialistas para ser descalificados. Durante la semana pasada, el régimen cubano a través de su temida policía política volvió a cargar contra ciudadanos disidentes de la línea única que allí se permite y cerca de un centenar de intelectuales, periodistas, líderes de los proscritos movimientos por los derechos humanos y algunos políticos que luchan por una evolución razonable de su país, fueron apresados y serán sometidos a los famosos juicios sumarios. Las elecciones de hace pocas semanas que dieron un nuevo mandato a Fidel Castro – con más de cuarenta años en el poder- pusieron nuevamente sobre el tapete el debate de la necesidad de ir a un sistema electoral libre y realmente democrático. Nadie que mire con realismo lo que allí ocurre puede decir que las elecciones son libres o que se permite tesis y candidatos distintos al del régimen de partido único que impera allí como en otras naciones totalitaristas. Hablar de elecciones en esas circunstancias es una aberración. Preocupa, igualmente, el caso de Venezuela en donde su mandatario ha arremetido también contra la libertad de expresión. La campaña –como es frecuente en los aprendices de dictador- se inició acusando a la prensa de distorsionar la realidad y de dar una visión equivocada de lo que acontecía. Vinieron luego atentados contra algunos medios y persecución a periodistas. La última huelga general obligó a Chávez a una retirada estratégica y a un aflojamiento de su línea dura, pero todo hace pensar que se trata solamente de un paréntesis hasta que recupere fuerzas Los medios de comunicación son siempre un estorbo para quienes no aprendieron a vivir en democracia. Disentir y obrar de distinta manera al del líder único de los países totalitaristas es un crimen político. No se tolera otra verdad que no sea la oficial que surge desde los voceros del régimen. Son los casos en los que la libertad de prensa ha sido secuestrada.

<a href=www.brazzil.com<Brazzil

Brazil has not completely finished the process of becoming a Republic. Nor has it completely abolished slavery. In 21st-century Brazil the elite feel as distant from the people as they did in the 19th century. The Brazilian elite do not feel like citizens who pertain to the same people.

Cristovam Buarque

One hundred fifteen years after the Proclamation of the Republic, the Brazilian members of Congress still call each other "Noble Colleague." It is as if the Empire still existed but under the name of Republic. It is not a matter of congressional etiquette, nor is it true only of members of Congress.

In 21st-century Brazil the elite feel as distant from the people as they did in the 19th century. The Brazilian elite are not citizens. The inequality between the rich and the poor—be it in income, education, housing, transportation, leisure, food, or customs—is so large that they do not sit at the same table, do not discuss the same affairs, do not feel like citizens who pertain to the same people.

The members of Congress do not call each other "Citizen Deputy" or "Citizen Senator" because Brazil has not completely finished the process of becoming a Republic. Nor has it completely abolished slavery. After Independence, Brazil remained a slave-ocratic empire for 70 years; then, in only 18 months it abolished slavery in 1888 and proclaimed the Republic in 1889; yet everything continued much the same as before. Almost 200 years after Independence, the members of Congress continue to be nobles, forced labor has been replaced by unemployment, the slaves have been transformed into famished poor people, and education continues to be available only to the few.

The regime became republican but Brazil continued divided between a noble elite and a plebeian mass. Just as slavery was abolished, little by little, the Republic expanded the right to vote, permitting liberty of expression and of political party organizing, but it concentrated land in a few hands and education in a few heads. The legacy of Lula's government, therefore, will be to complete the process of the Republic and of abolition.

To do this, we must not repeat 1888 and 1889 by postponing that which everyone hopes for—a complete Republic, without exclusion, one in which everyone would be equal citizens. We were elected not only to administer well, but rather, administering well, to undertake the republican revolution for which Brazil has waited more than a century.

Since the republicans did not connect with the people, the Republic was never completed. As "neo-nobles" they lost their capacity to become indignant about the poverty surrounding them; they enjoyed the privileges of aristocrats; they became used to the customs of power and the demands of the bureaucracy. We in Lula's government cannot run this risk: disconnecting from the poor; losing our capacity for indignation; becoming addicted to the glitter of power; and falling into the clutches of the bureaucracy. We must not become accustomed to the same incomplete Republic while forgetting that our task is to complete it.

The principal way to avoid accommodation is to move forward from the present difficulties, never forgetting the legacy that our government must leave to future generations: Administer the present difficulties without losing sight of the obligations of the dreams for the future; have one foot in arithmetic and the other in utopia. Lula was not elected to establish or change the central structure of the economy; nor was he elected to create equality of income or of consumption. He was elected to make everyone equal as citizens, thus completing the Republic and abolition. This will be Lula's legacy for the future of Brazil.

To complete abolition we must undertake the intensive, total, radical agrarian reform that Brazil desires, using 21st-century technology with no disruption of production. Job creation is another measure necessary to finish off slavery and interrupt the century-old Brazilian tragedy of transforming the shackled and fed slaves into the free, starving unemployed.

To complete the Republic we must guarantee an egalitarian education to all citizens, which is possible only through free, quality public schools for everyone. A society is not a republic when it invests practically 80 times more upon the private education of middle-class children—R$ 240 thousand (US$ 71 thousand) —than upon the public education of poor children—R$ 3,200 (US$ 949). Middle-class students spend R$ 1,000 (US$ 297) per month and receive educational investments for up to twenty years. The others receive R$ 800 (US$ 237) per year and remain in school an average of four years. This is not merely inequality: It is difference. And as long as this sort of difference exists, the country will not be a Republic.

Lula's legacy is the completion of the Republic and abolition. His role is leading Brazil so that we take the measures necessary to change reality in the four years before the elections of 2006, creating a dynamic in which the republican revolution will continue in the following years. So that, before the end of his administration, all Brazilians will be literate, all children will be attending schools of increasing quality and, before the bicentennial of Independence, all Brazilians will have the equivalent of at least a high-school education.

This is possible. Poor countries with more difficulties than ours have already done this. We have the resources and the know-how. It is possible if the administration has zeal, determination, and the support of society, especially that of the members of Congress when they vote on the next budget. This is the greatest obstacle: convincing the noble heirs of the Proclamation of the Republic in 1889 that the time has come to make a decent investment of the national resources in a republican revolution, one that can be achieved only by providing free, quality public education for all.

But action by the administration and the Congress will not be enough. What are you doing so that we can complete the Republic and abolition?

Cristovam Buarque - cristovambuarque@uol.com.br, 59, Ph.D. in economics, is Brazil's Minister of Education. He was the rector of the University of Brasília (1985-89) and the governor of the Federal District (1995-98).

Translated by Linda Jerome LinJerome@cs.com