<a href=www.financialexpress.com>The finantial Express, india EDITS & COLUMNS TODAY'S COLUMNIST

Bypass US supremacy on matters political. Condemn and attack it on economic issues   Bibek Debroy On the Iraq war, the internet is much more interesting than the electronic and print media. Given embedded journalism and non-transparency about channel ownership, can you trust CNN or NBC’s reporting of collateral damage? Why do we have no official figures yet on civilian casualties during the first Gulf War or Afghanistan? The Net will give you figures.

On the Net, I discovered the following. Ignoring collateral damage, the Gulf War cost $40 billion then. Of that, 25 per cent or $10 bn was paid by US, 75 per cent or $30 bn was paid by Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Oil prices rose from $15 a barrel before the war to $42. That’s extra revenue of $60 bn, of which 50 per cent went to Kuwaiti and Saudi governments and 50 per cent went to MNC oil companies. The governments in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia recouped their costs.

Of the $30 bn that went to oil companies, $21 bn accrued to the State and $9 bn to the private sector. The US, including the government, made a profit, even if $49 bn from armament sales is excluded. A trifle simplistic but there’s a grain of truth there. Afghanistan was also about building a 2,500 km US-owned oil pipeline through the country and Iraq is also about US desire to diversify oil sourcing away from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Why else has squabbling already begun about post-war reconstruction? The French will be excluded. So might the British. Is it true that Dick Cheney’s former firm, Halliburton, has already been awarded contracts?

Some propositions should be self-evident.

Proposition 1 — The Iraq war is not about terrorism or 9/11. No evidence about links between Iraq and terrorism has been able to shock or awe us. Had this war been about terrorism, the US should have picked on Saudi Arabia. Even Pakistan.

Proposition 2 — The war is not about possessing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Had possession been a crime, the UN Security Council should approve attacks on a large number of countries, including UK and US. If helping countries develop WMDs is a crime (as should be), smart bombs should be targeted at many countries other than Iraq. In the mid and late-1980s, many Iranians believed Saddam was an American agent.

Proposition 3 — The war is not about using WMDs against other countries. (The evidence is of use against Iraqis, not against Iran.) Hence, Article 42 of the UN Charter has doubtful applicability and Article 51 doesn’t in any case justify pre-emptive strikes. If Saddam gassed 60,000 Iraqis in 1986, isn’t this an internal affair? Or by failing to condemn US action, does the Indian government implicitly sanction such US intervention in Kashmir? The moral outrage at the loss of 60,000 Iraqi lives is justified, apart from the million Iraqi lives lost in Iran and Kuwait. However, other countries have also indulged in such misadventures. Why not pick on them? And why is moral outrage missing when Iraqi lives are lost because of sanctions?

Proposition 4 — The war is not about regime change on grounds of restoring democracy. Had that been the case, one could again have picked Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. There would have been no need for assassination attempts. And if democracy is important, one shouldn’t be so upset when a democratic Turkish Parliament refuses to offer required support.

Proposition 5 — Opposition to the Iraq war is less about supporting Saddam and more about opposing US unilateralism. As several people have argued, this opposition is not the dysfunctional Left-wing anti-American legacy of the Cold War. Fareed Zakaria argued in a recent issue of Newsweek, barring the US, opinion polls show little popular support for the war. As for US support, Hermann Goering’s quote (from Nuremberg trials) is floating around on the Net. “Why of course the people don’t want war. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.” That leaves support from governments that can be bought, bullied and cajoled. The State Department tells us 33 governments support the war. And another 15 want to offer anonymous support. If getting rid of a tyrant is so popular, why do these 15 countries wish to remain anonymous?

Proposition 6 — The US doesn’t care about multilateralism. Kyoto Protocol, International Criminal Court, Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty with Russia, World Trade Organisation — how many instances do you want? It’s not surprising the peace dividend from the end of the Cold War didn’t materialise. Hence the US spends $325 bn a year on defence expenditure and $15 bn a year on aid. And the US doesn’t even bother to pay what it owes the UN on time.

Proposition 7 — The US doesn’t need to care about multilateralism. How do you determine whether Don Bradman was superior to Tiger Woods? Across sports and across time-lines, there is an objective method. Map distance between No 1 and No 2. In global power structures, map distance between No 1 and No 2 as far back as you can go. Never has this gap been as wide as it is now. The issue is not mere uni-polarity, but its intensity.

We accept the validity of propositions 1 to 6, but proposition 7 over-rides the rest. So we can’t condemn. The Non Aligned Movement is dead. The UN, especially the Security Council, hasn’t done much for us. We shouldn’t shed tears if the Security Council disappears. There will be no axis of good with Russia, China, or even with Old Europe. Lump it until product life cycles spell the demise of present uni-polarity. Meanwhile, because distance between No 1 and No 2 is less for economic matters, condemn and attack the US on economic issues (such as protectionism), leaving aside the non-economic. The $75 bn direct costs of the Iraq War are significant, especially because this time, they are being borne alone. Bypassing the political is the best way to pass the foreign policy test.

<a href=usinfo.state.gov<Read complete article 31 March 2003

(Commission cites its pro-competitive policies as a reason) (4660)

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has issued an order eliminating its policies that ban U.S. carriers from providing certain international telephone services to countries considering those services illegal and allow a foreign entity to use FCC enforcement mechanisms against U.S carriers providing such services.

In the order released March 28, the commission said it is removing the policies on the most popular form of call-back services -- uncompleted call-signaling -- because these rules restrict global competition.

The commission said, however, that it will continue to remind U.S. carriers that "it is in their best interest to act in a manner consistent with foreign laws, and to refer [those carriers] to the public file and note which foreign governments have notified the Commission that call-back is illegal in their countries."

Call-back services allow a foreign caller in a country with relatively costly international connections to use a U.S. dial-tone at less expensive U.S. rates.

In 1995 FCC banned U.S. carriers form offering certain international call-back services to countries where those services had been expressly prohibited. It also established a mechanism for notifying the U.S. government about the illegality of the services in a foreign country and procedures for seeking U.S. assistance in enforcing a foreign government's prohibition on this type of services.

<a href=usinfo.state.gov<Read complete article

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Monday, March 31, 2003 By: Patrick J. O'Donoghue

In his weekly column Lt. Colonel Francisco Arias Cardenas, who has been a firm believer in the recall referendum from the start, calls on active service military officers to exercise the right to vote granted them by the Bolivarian Constitution. "Officers, NCOs and troops could dismiss their Commander-in-Chief, President Hugo Chavez Frias through the ballot box."

"The Armed Force (FAN), Arias Cardenas ponders, has plenty of reasons to vote NO.  The President has:

• made a laughing stock of the uniform
• done everything possible to prostitute discipline and order submitting the military to public scorn
• has promoted unworthy people to top positions demoralizing the organization and turning it into a praetorian guard
• has neglected maintenance and training of military apparatus, using public resources for personal and partisan use
• has weakened the FAN's operational readiness, placing it at a disadvantage when it comes to defending Venezuela against possible enemies
• has increased corruption inside and outside the FAN to blacken, divide and demoralize the institution.

The President and C-I-C has had a golden opportunity to push the country and the FAN towards modernity."

Concluding, Arias Cardenas states that the military must use their vote to discharge a commander that has neither moral stature nor capacity to lead the FAN.

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Monday, March 31, 2003 By: Patrick J. O'Donoghue

What started as a trickle of 190 persons feeing fighting between the Colombian paramilitaries and guerrilla groups and has now blossomed into 500 displaced persons reported crossing the Oro River for safety in Zulia State. 

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Office (UNHCR) and the International Red Cross have announced that they are offering humanitarian aid to the refugees and will inspect Bari indian settlements in La Vaquera, La Cooperative and La Escuelita on the Venezuelan banks of the Oro River. 

• The Venezuelan Ombudsman Office is also undertaking on-site visits with National Guard (GN) soldiers to draw up a complete list of displaced persons. 

Zulia State Ombudsman, Antonio Urribarri says the number of displaced persons could be as high as 1,000, given increased fighting over the last four days.  Army Operations Theater No. 2 (TO-2) has denied news reports that two Venezuelan soldiers were injured during a skirmish with Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) 33rd column.

<a href=www.autonews.com>Reuters / March 31, 2003 CARACAS, Venezuela -- General Motors' Venezuelan unit, the largest vehicle assembler in the South American country, has temporarily halted production because of tight foreign exchange controls that are squeezing the local car industry, a spokesman said on Monday. General Motors Venezolana, C.A. suspended work late last week at its plant in Valencia, west of Caracas, and the stoppage would last until April 21 while the company attempted to resolve the problems caused by the currency curbs. Since President Hugo Chavez's government halted foreign currency trading in January, foreign-owned vehicle assemblers have been unable to import essential parts due to the restrictions and a two-month delay in the allocation of dollars. "We have really been hurt by this delay," General Motors Venezolana's Marketing and Sales director Peter Friedrich told Reuters. As a result, the company had lost exports for March and April and had suspended investment plans for 2003 until the situation in the Venezuelan market became clearer. Another important local assembler, Ford Motor de Venezuela, S.A., a unit of Ford Motor Co., said it was also concerned about the restrictive currency control environment. "It's tight," said Ford Venezuela's Public Relations manager Ricardo Tinoco. Ford's assembly plant, which has scaled back operations to only three days a week, could continue to run through April. But if the government does not release dollars "very, very shortly," Tinoco said Ford might also have to consider alternative measures for the necessary auto parts imports. The shortage of hard currency only worsens an already bleak sales outlook for Venezuela's vehicle producers following more than a year of political turmoil and a two-month opposition strike that pushed the struggling economy even deeper into recession. Car sales in January and February totaled 8,212 units, a drop of 77.4 percent from the same period last year. The Venezuelan Automobile Chamber (CAVENEZ) is predicting a 30 percent decline in sales this year, which plummeted about 41 percent in 2002. Some Caracas car dealers are only selling a handful of cars a month compared to sales of 100-120 units a month in 2001, a year that saw an all-time sales record for the local market of 217,000 units. NO "LUXURY" IMPORTS But after 65 days during which not a single dollar was made available for business in Venezuela, the government currency control board Cadivi announced Friday it had started releasing foreign currency for essential imports like food and medicine. Companies in this oil-dependent economy that relies on imports for 60 percent of its goods and products have been forced to survive on their fast-dwindling inventories. But vehicle makers complain that the government, in its application of the currency controls, has only posted dollar import authorizations so far for a so-called family car program, covering cheaper vehicles sold at fixed prices. Dollars for the parts imports for high-priced vehicles have not been authorized, let alone released. Chavez, a left-wing populist first elected in 1998, has made clear he will use the currency controls to curb what he calls "luxury" consumption, concentrating instead on importing basic necessities for poorer sectors of the population. But Friedrich said the dollar import restrictions meant General Motors in Venezuela had been unable to export its Chevrolet Trail Blazer and Astra models to markets in Ecuador and Colombia, and this was bad news for the local economy. "The government hasn't done its homework," Friedrich said. His company had also experienced bureaucratic problems in formally registering on the list of importers and exporters requiring dollars to conduct business. Private sector business leaders have pilloried the currency controls as restrictive and unworkable, warning the dollar drought will put many companies out of business and swell Venezuela's jobless rate, which the government estimates at 16 percent. Private economists say the real figure is far higher. Product shortages could also arise in sensitive areas like food and pharmaceutical sectors, critics of the controls say. Businessmen and economists have severely questioned the technical ability of the currency board Cadivi, which is headed by retired army officer Edgar Hernandez, a political ally of former paratrooper Chavez who took part with him in a botched coup attempt in 1992. Opponents of Chavez, still bitter over the failure of the recent strike to dislodge him from office, accuse the president of using the curbs to starve his foes of dollars in a political vendetta. But in a television broadcast Sunday, Chavez brushed aside the heavy criticism of the currency controls and said the commission administering them was doing a "tremendous job." "These measures are here to stay," he said.