www.vheadline.com Posted: Sunday, March 16, 2003 By: Patrick J. O'Donoghue

CTV general secretary and fellow AD member, Manuel Cova says he's traveling to Geneva to visit the International Labor Organization (ILO) to discuss Ortega’s case and has given his full support to Carlos Ortega’s "diplomatic asylum" claim.

“Ortega’s decision is completely justified because of threats against his life from some sectors of the government and the closing dragnet of security forces … legal insecurity and the total bias of the public powers, combined with the action of paramilitary groups are sufficient reasons to prevent a crime being committed against our leader.”

The CTV general secretary confirms that he has received calls from trade union leaders throughout the world expressing solidarity with Carlos Ortega. Some political observers forecast that Cova will take over from Ortega as CTV president.

The government had questioned Ortega’s legitimacy as top CTV leader accusing him of vote-rigging ... whereas in Cova’s case, the CNE had ratified the construction workers’ union leader as a legitimately-elected trade union official.

It would seem that Ortega’s removal has given the CTV more legitimacy to confront the challenge of a new trade union central from the left and it is expected that Cova will advise in Geneva not to press the issue of Ortega’s alleged political persecution too far, since European trade union members had expressed concern after April 11 about Ortega’s blatant monopoly of the CTV for unclear political and personal objectives.

www.vheadline.com Posted: Sunday, March 16, 2003 By: Patrick J. O'Donoghue

Accion Democratica (AD) leader, Henry Ramos Allup has slammed other opposition parties for their silence over rogue CTV leader Carlos Ortega's "diplomatic asylum" in Costa Rica ... commenting that they've never experienced what it is like to live under a dictatorship.

AD is the only political party to have thrown in its lot with Venezuelan Confederation of Trade Unions (CTV) president, Carlos Ortega with both the CTV and AD staging a token protest supporting the self-exiled Ortega ... who forced AD and the disloyal opposition to play to his and rogue Fedecamaras president Carlos Fernandez’ tune.

• Ramos Allup has also hit out against CTV leaders ... especially Pablo Castro ... who, he claims, are fighting for the spoils in Ortega’s absence.

“The CTV presidency is not the inheritance of a dead man … it’s tragic and pathetic that they're thinking of substituting Ortega ... who came up from the grassroots … they're envious of his leadership.”

AD leader, Timoteo Zambrano ... who has already made two gaffes in two days calling on the International Red Cross to find an allegedly “disappeared” First Lady and making Carlos Ortega honorary AD president to cock a snoot at former AD kingpin, Rafael Marin ... has thanked Costa Rican Ambassador Ricardo Lizano for holding out "diplomatic asylum" to Ortega, following the tradition of receiving such distinguished exiles as AD founder Romulo Betancourt.

www.msnbc.com By Jorge G. Castaneda NEWSWEEK INTERNATIONAL

Mexico and Chile are now key swing votes in the U.N. Their actions could change the shape of Latin American diplomacy

March 24 issue — In Chile and Mexico a vigorous debate is taking place. Many in Santiago and Mexico City are questioning whether these two countries should have joined the U.N. Security Council, only to find themselves between a rock and a hard place: support the United States on Iraq and betray their principles, or oppose the United States and pay the consequences.         BEHIND THIS DEBATE lies a broader, more complex dilemma: whether Latin America should actively participate in the construction of the new post-cold-war world order, characterized both by U.S. hegemony and by the rest of the world’s effort to limit and control it, knowing that this participation involves the acceptance of new responsibilities, the modification of basic principles and the ceding of important segments of sovereignty. Or whether the subcontinent should remain faithful to its traditions and convictions, knowing that this implies its “absence at the creation” of an order it will have to submit to in the end.         Most arguments used in Mexico and Chile against participation in the highest body of multilateral legitimacy are contradictory. A country cannot support multilateralism, the United Nations and international law on the one hand, and refuse to participate in the Council on the other; a nation cannot denounce U.S. unilateralism and then refuse to belong to the only mechanism that can, very rarely, place limits on that unilateralism. The arguments used against Chile’s or Mexico’s belonging to the Council (“We’re very vulnerable because of the border or the imminent approval of a free-trade agreement”; “We’re more committed than others to the principles of the U.N. Charter, in view of our nationalist and/or foreign-policy traditions”) can be applied to almost every country in the region.         Three countries—and, until recently, four (El Salvador, Panama, Ecuador and Argentina)—still use American currency; there is a strong and growing U.S. military presence in Colombia; Venezuela sells a considerable proportion of its oil to the United States; Costa Rica largely lives off U.S. retirees. And there is no shortage of countries in the region imbued with a strong nationalist tradition in foreign policy: from Peron’s Argentina to Vargas’s Brazil and, of course, Mexico, Chile and Cuba. If every Latin American country that is to some degree vulnerable to the United States and/or maintains a traditional foreign policy abstained from joining the Security Council, it would be left without Latin American membership.         Beyond this unpersuasive reasoning, a contradiction of even greater dimensions stands out. Latin America is one of the regions of the world whose interests would best be served by the existence of a new international order that is at once rigorous, broad and precise. When it comes to environmental law, indigenous people’s or migrants’ rights, human rights or international trade, the defense of democracy or workers’ rights, Latin American nations have more to gain and less to lose than almost any other region in the world from the creation of a regime of universal values.         But, at the same time, few parts of the world today demonstrate such commitment to a series of traditions and principles contrary to this universalist project. Nonintervention, the unrestricted defense of sovereignty, the reluctance to accept any explicit ceding of sovereignty, an emphatic rhetorical and ideological nationalism, are all constants in the stances and sentiments of most Latin American governments. Partly for historic reasons, occasionally due to internal political considerations, in other cases for geographic motives, the majority maintain a great deal of skepticism about the type of new order that can be constructed.         Identifying the opportunities offered by today’s situation and taking advantage of them is now up to two Latin American governments in particular. Not because either, Mexico or Chile, has the capacity to alone determine the direction of the new international system. Nor because both coincidentally hold a nonpermanent seat on the United Nations Security Council during 2003. But because these two nations—due to their economic and political clout, their geographic location, their diplomatic vocation and tradition and their vision of the world—are perhaps the only ones capable of championing forward-looking stances in the region. Nonetheless, they still face an uphill battle against the ideological resistance and baggage, which constantly undermine their ability to provide diplomatic leadership in Latin America. Part of the problem is that their national identities were forged by 19th and 20th centuries’ nationalism, which forms the backbone of their creation as nation-states. And this nationalism, instead of basing itself on the search to preserve and pursue national interests in an international context necessarily in flux, is anchored to Westphalian concepts of sovereignty that are by definition timeless.         Latin American elites have demonstrated a stubborn reluctance to engage in their countries’ separation from the past. Mexico and Chile, the countries and governments that, fortunately, represent Latin America in the Security Council, are without a doubt the most capable of breaking this inertia and assuming leadership: it’s not an easy task, but it has become increasingly indispensable and unavoidable.        

Castaneda stepped down as Mexican foreign minister in January 2003; he teaches International Relations at the National Autonomous Mexican University and at New York University.

washingtontimes.com

     CARACAS — Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez threw a magnificent wedding for his daughter yesterday, with a cake big enough to serve 1,000, including Cuban leader Fidel Castro, who is reported to have declined his invitation.      Venezuela's press has dubbed it the "revolutionary wedding," after the president's leftist politics.      Rosa Virginia Chavez, who appears at her father's side more often than the first lady, was married to the defense minister's nephew Pedro Manuel Prieto in a 19th-century chapel on the grounds of the Miraflores presidential palace in Caracas.      Rosa Virginia is the second of Mr. Chavez's four children from two marriages.

www.news-star.com Story last updated at 12:21 a.m. Sunday, March 16, 2003 By APRIL WILKERSON SNS Staff Writer

Logical thinking and education are the best tools investors can use in the face of a potential war, investment representatives say.

The Shawnee Edward Jones office offered a program Tuesday titled "War, Terrorism and Your Investments." Retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey was interviewed during a remote broadcast, followed by Alan Skrainka, chief market strategist for Edward Jones.

People worry about their investments when there is a crisis or threat of war, Skrainka said. But if history is a guide, confidence in the market will be restored if there is a war with Iraq, he said.

"Fear and uncertainty pushes the market down," he said. "The lesson is that it's almost always a mistake to panic sell."

Rather, people should stay focused on the things they can control: quality of investments, diversity of portfolio and their emotions. The market has endured war before, and it will bounce back again, he said. People should not make major changes in their portfolios.

Skrainka gave several recommendations for wise investing. Stocks that pay dividends are quality choices, he said. When the market fell 22 percent in recent years, stocks with dividends fell 11 percent, compared to a 30 percent drop for others, he said.

Investing in defense contractors and other companies in the business of war is not a good idea, Skrainka said.

"I don't think it's time to load up on defense stocks," he said. "Don't try to profit from short-term events."

Oil prices are at a 12-year high, but the cost can go down as quickly as it's gone up, Skrainka said. The strike in Venezuela, a cold winter and the threat of war have pushed up prices, he said, but the world is not running out of oil.

"People hear scenarios of what can go wrong, but it's a mistake to assume the worst-case scenario," he said. "We will get through it, and confidence will be restored."

McCaffrey was interviewed on the broadcast by Connie Silverstein, a member of the Edward Jones management committee. McCaffrey talked about the possible war, other countries' feelings about it, as well as security in America. McCaffrey commanded the 24th Infantry Division during the Gulf War, has served as the U.S. Drug Czar and teaches national security studies at West Point.

Iraq will be disarmed in the next 30 days, one way or another, McCaffrey said. A military effort would be quick, he said, and changes in weapon technology, such as night vision, will make a difference.

McCaffrey said troops are aware that support for a war is not universal. They will do their job regardless, he said, but it is the leadership who is more concerned about lack of support.

McCaffrey cited several countries, like Saudi Arabia and Turkey, who are providing "quiet support."

McCaffrey responded to questions about Homeland Security, saying progress has been made since Sept. 11, 2001.

"Five years from now, we will be immensely better off than a year ago," he said. "In the meantime, we have a big job. But we're starting to make serious inroads."

Increased border control, global cooperation for the war on terrorism, and public education are positive steps, McCaffrey said.

The nation's color-coded alert system gives the public more information on being prepared, which is good, he said, although he cited calls for duct tape and plastic as "alarmist nonsense."

McCaffrey said he doesn't believe a war with Iraq would trigger terrorism in the United States. Al-Quaida groups are on the run, he said, and strategies are being devised for each type of foreign threat.

Tuesday's program was part of the Edward Jones investor education series. Local investment representatives are Jim Smith, Jody Smith and Pam Richardson.

April Wilkerson may be reached at awlkrson@news-star.com or 214-3926.