<a href=www.sfgate.com>SFGate.com Thursday, April 3, 2003
(04-03) 19:44 PST CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) --

The government fired 828 more employees from the state oil monopoly for participating in a two-month strike to oust President Hugo Chavez, the company said Thursday.

The latest dismissals bring the total number of fired employees to 17,871 -- almost half the 38,000-strong work force at Petroleos de Venezuela S.A., a company spokesman said.

Most workers, including management, joined the national strike to demand Chavez's resignation or early elections. The stoppage paralyzed the world's fifth-largest oil industry and cost Venezuela $6 billion but fizzled out last month without achieving its goal.

Despite the reduced personnel, the government says it has restored crude oil production to pre-strike levels of more than 3 million barrels a day. Fired executives say output is 2.4 million.

The government also says it is taking advantage of the strike to reorganize the monopoly, reduce its excess bureaucracy and increase government control over the company.

Chavez's opponents accuse him of riding roughshod over the country's democratic institutions in his self-described "revolution" to help Venezuela's poor.

Chavez in turn accuses the opposition of incessantly conspiring to overthrow his elected government.

<a href=news.ft.com>Financial Times By Carola Hoyos, Energy Correspondent Published: April 4 2003 5:00 | Last Updated: April 4 2003 5:00

As Baghdad looms larger in the sights of US and British soldiers, the nightmare of oil at $50 or even $100 a barrel is fading.

Although oil prices will remain vulnerable as the battle for Baghdad begins, they are a long way from their March high of $39.99 a barrel.

And as long as most of Iraq's oil wells remain intact, analysts say, there is little chance that prices will reach the $41.15 peak prices hit after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990.

Two main factors explain why this war with Iraq has had far less impact on oil prices than the last: timing and the fact that Saddam Hussein has not managed to wreak havoc in the oilfields as he did in 1991.

Then his troops damaged 700 Kuwaiti oil wells, leaving the emirate to spend two years rehabilitating its oil sector before it could return to full production.

Since the beginning of the current conflict, the world has lost 2.4m barrels a day of Iraqi production, which has been made up by Saudi Arabia and other Opec members, who increased their output quota to 24.5m barrels a day in January and then suspended restrictions altogether at the start of the conflict.

Spencer Abraham, US energy secretary, yesterday confirmed Opec's key role, saying: "We've seen a substantial increase in Opec-10 production, more than enough to compensate for losses in Iraq and Nigeria."

But perhaps the most important factor was the timing of President George W. Bush's decision to launch his campaign, atatime when Venezuela's exports were recovering from the interruption in December and January caused by the country's national strike.

March also brought the first signs of spring to the northern hemisphere and a reduction in the level of oil required for winter heating.

This helped offset the loss of Iraq's oil and some of Nigeria's production, which was halted by ethnic violence ahead of this month's elections.

Oil refiners have even begun to rebuild their stocks, which earlier this year had fallen to levels not seen since the mid-1970s.

Meanwhile, the governments of US, Japan, Germany and South Korea were able hold on to their strategic stockpiles of oil which they were ready to release in the event of a serious interruption in supplies.

However, the uncertainty over the conflict in Iraq and the loss of Venezuela's exports have left their mark.

UK benchmark Brent crude oil prices averaged $31.47 a barrel during the first quarter of this year, $5 more than the fourth quarter of 2002 and $10 more than a year ago, according to BP's latest trading statement.

The jump in the price of WTI, the US benchmark crude, was even more dramatic. It averaged $34 a barrel, from $28.31 at the end of 2002 and more than $12 above prices a year ago.

The Natal Witness DUNCAN DU BOIS Writing in the Sunday Times on March 30, Judge Richard Goldstone stated that there were only two lawful ways in which the U.S. could use military force against Iraq. One was if the UN Security Council sanctioned it; the other was in the case of "dire self-defence". The U.S. war against Iraq is in dire defence of dollar imperialism against the threat of the euro. Put another way, the war is about world economic dominance. That, according to Australian analyst Geoffrey Heard, is the reason for the Bush Administration's determination to oust Saddam Hussein's regime, because his policy of selling oil in euros is threatening U.S. global hegemony. The origin of Establishment America's problem with Iraq goes back to 1999 when Iraq broke ranks among the oil producers and began to trade its oil in euros instead of U.S. dollars. As Heard notes, under an Opec agreement all oil has been traded in greenbacks since 1971. America's monopoly of the oil business has premised the U.S. dollar's supremacy among world currencies. Initially the U.S. scoffed at Iraq's move to the euro but by 2001 disdain had turned to alarm. Iran indicated an interest in changing to euros while Russia has been seeking to increase its oil production aimed at European sales - in euros, of course. Venezuela, the world's fourth largest producer, has been cutting out the dollar in its dealings and bartering with various countries, including Cuba. The net result of these developments meant that the dollar's stranglehold on oil was slipping and with it America's dominance of world trade. With Iraq having the world's second largest oil reserves, the American Establishment, which is sodden in oil investments, simply had to act against Saddam - even if it meant going to war. The alternative was the meltdown of the U.S. economy. America was in serious trouble long before the Al-Qaeda attacks of September 11, 2001. Its real threat came not from the Middle East so much as from the EU with its new currency, the euro. Commanding 40% of world trade, the EU poses a major challenge to continued U.S. dominance. If only a few Opec members switched to euros, argues Heard, that would hurt the U.S. in two critical ways: it would result in a stronger euro and an increase in the "eurozone" and it would trigger dollar dumping and depress the greenback's value. With the dollar facing bleak times, the only thing left for the Bush administration as the proxy of Establishment America (Al Gore would have had to have done the same) was to come out fighting. In one respect, Bush has been very frank about the purpose of this war. He has said it is to protect the American way of life. Indeed. And that means ensuring the reign of dollar imperialism. The war against Iraq is, therefore, a war both to defend and to assert dollar dominance. Heard sees four objectives for the U.S. in this war:

• return Iraq's oil reserves to the dollar circle;
• send a clear message to other oil producers as to what will happen to them if they try to leave the dollar zone;
• deal a setback to the EU and its euro;
• use the war as a cover to get Venezuela's oil back into the dollar circle by means of covert CIA action. The cost of the war is not measured in terms of the images shown on our television screens. In fact, in Uncle Sam's view the cost of going to war is negligible compared to the cost of not going to war. The possible loss of U.S. power and the end of dollar imperialism, as far as Washington is concerned, far exceeds all other considerations. The final aspects of Heard's analysis provide insight as to the positions of Australia and the UK. Having significant U.S. dollar reserves and strong trade links with the U.S., it is in Australia's interests to support the U.S. and to see to it that the ascendancy of the euro is checked. Britain, which has yet to adopt the euro as its currency, stands to gain time and room to manoeuvre by siding with the U.S. A U.S. victory would also, in effect, give the EU principals, France and Germany, bloody noses and place the UK in a position either to demand a better deal from the EU for adopting the euro or to distance itself from Europe and to align with America. A weakened and divided EU is a U.S. policy strategy. Whose side should South Africa be on? It's really a case of Hobson's choice. When the U.S. economy went concave in 1929, the whole world was sucked in to its depression. Only the mad mullahs would want a repetition of that. Which is why the anti-U.S. rhetoric of the ANC government, compounded by Nelson Mandela's virulent anti-Bush remarks, is shortsighted. It would have been far better to have adopted a neutral stance, particularly since an election is due in a year's time. In 1999 the ANC's election expenses enjoyed considerable American and Middle Eastern funding. Given the physical and political costs of the war, the chances of a repeat of such funding in 2004 must range from uncertain to unlikely. Nonetheless, the aftershocks of the war on Iraq may cost the ANC dearly.
• Duncan du Bois is a DA Durban Metro ward councillor. He writes in his personal capacity.

Publish Date: 4 April 2003

<a href=usinfo.state.gov>Washington File 03 April 2003

(Says assassination of journalists remains serious problem in hemisphere) (620)

Washington -- The assassination of journalists continues to represent a serious problem for freedom of expression and information in the Americas, says a human rights officer for the Organization of American States (OAS).

Eduardo Bertoni, whose title is Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, said in a report released April 2 that assassinating journalists violates the right to life and "leaves all other social communicators in a state of extreme risk and vulnerability."

Bertoni said that "sadly," many of the crimes against journalists go unpunished. Freedom of expression, he continued, "is one of democracy's most cherished rights. Yet practices unfortunately exist in the hemisphere that seek to restrict it."

During 2002, Bertoni said 10 media workers were assassinated in OAS member states while they were exercising their professional duties. In addition, Bertoni said the "arbitrary use of criminal slander and libel charges to stifle criticism of civil servants continued and scant progress was noted regarding the promulgation of laws to protect the right of access to information, a matter vital to transparency in public affairs."

Bertoni's findings follow the March 31 release of the U.S. State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2002, which documented that freedom of expression and freedom of the press are being restricted in such countries as Cuba, Venezuela, and Haiti.

In Cuba, for example, the State Department said the regime of Fidel Castro continued to harass, threaten, arbitrarily arrest, detain, imprison, and defame journalists and other members of independent professional associations. It also said Cuba limited the distribution of foreign publications and news, and maintained strict censorship of news and information to the public.

In Venezuela, the Department said press freedom "deteriorated significantly" during 2002 and that violence and threats of violence against the media increased markedly, as did government intimidation. As a result, self-censorship by the Venezuelan media was thought to be widespread.

Intimidation of journalists also continued to be a problem in Haiti. The Department reported attacks on journalists by supporters of the Haitian government, and that the country's legal system provided limited protection or redress. Journalists were accused of destabilizing the government and often subjected to anonymous threats of kidnapping and murder, while police and government officials often failed to protect journalists during civil unrest. The Department pointed out that the OAS said the "murder of journalists in Haiti, along with a large number of complaints regarding harassment and threats against journalists, the media, and other social communicators, have created an unfavorable environment for freedom of expression."

Bertoni, the OAS special rapporteur, praised those countries which have provided financial backing and other support to strengthen his office's activities --a list which includes the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Peru, and Sweden. Such backing, he said, is "indispensable" to the office's "proper functioning and execution of mandated activities."

The official concluded in his report that freedom of expression remains restricted in many countries of the region. Democracy, he said, "demands a sweeping freedom of expression, which cannot take root under the shadow of state mechanisms still in place to curb its unfettered exercise."

To improve the situation, Bertoni recommended that assassinations, kidnappings, threats, and intimidation against social communicators be investigated. He also called for revoking laws concerning criminal contempt, defamation, libel, and slander, and the passing of legislation to allow for access to information.

Bertoni congratulated journalists, social spokesmen, and defenders of human rights, among others, who have "demonstrated courage and determination in their struggle not to be muzzled in the exercise of this most fundamental right" to freedom of expression.

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: usinfo.state.gov)

This site is produced and maintained by the U.S. Department of State's Office of International Information Programs (usinfo.state.gov). Links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.

Source

BOGOTA -(Dow Jones)- Colombian President Alvaro Uribe will travel to Venezuela April 23 to meet with that country's president, Hugo Chavez, the Uribe's office said in a statement Thursday.

The leaders will meet in San Cristobal, a town on the Venezuelan side of the two nations' border. They plan to discuss border security issues and trade as well as social and economic development, said the statement.

ADVERTISEMENT A general strike in Venezuela in December and January that sought, but failed, to oust Chavez from power, severely hurt bilateral trade between the two countries. Colombian exports to Venezuela plunged 72% in January to $35 million from $125 million in January 2002.

Also, Colombian exporters are owed more than $300 million by Venezuelan importers because foreign currency restrictions in Venezuela have made it difficult for those importers to get dollars.

-By Dan Molinski, Dow Jones Newswires; 571-600-1980; colombia@dowjones.com