By Bernardo Alvarez Ambassador of Venezuela to the US

     One of the most important responsibilities of the media in a free and open society is getting (and reporting) both sides of a story. However, "A Venezuelan police state?" (Editorial, Thursday) suggests that The Washington Times lost perspective and returned to the safety of its traditional view of how things should be. In so doing, I believe the editors have deprived readers of a balanced view of what is actually occurring in my country.

The editorial's second paragraph began with all the drama of a bad reality-TV script: "At midnight last Wednesday, business leader Carlos Fernandez, one of the leading organizers of a two-month strike that ended Feb. 4, was arrested by armed police agents while at a restaurant and charged with rebellion and incitement, among other things." To begin, it was not a "strike." Even the perpetrators of the paralyzing lockout referred to their action as "a civic stoppage." As they know, true strikes are protected under Venezuelan law.

The problem was that they were acting illegally. The workers never voted to strike, nor was there the mandatory 120-hour cooling-off period, officially referred to as the "conciliation period." It also is important to note that in the case of essential industries - such as oil production - the law not only requires that a number of workers stay on the job, but also says that the failure of essential workers to be at work for three consecutive days requires their automatic dismissal. In this regard, such essential workers are no different in Venezuela from air-traffic controllers or police officers and firefighters in the United States.

The fact is that a warrant for Mr. Fernandez's arrest was issued by a judge in accordance with our laws, and he was duly arrested. I believe you have the same procedures - and laws against inciting riots - here in the United States.

The editorial continued: "These grave charges seem inconsistent with involvement in a strike, however injurious it may have been to the economy." Again, the facts are not nearly so dramatic. Based on facts presented to a judge by a local prosecutor in Caracas, Mr. Fernandez was charged with violating several laws. This is a procedure similar to that used by U.S. prosecutors.       Does The Times wish to imply that our laws in Venezuela are irrelevant and should not have been enacted by our legislative branch? Or that Mr. Fernandez, because of his high stature in the business community, somehow should be exempt from their enforcement? Or maybe that locking out hundreds of thousands of people from exercising their right to work and feed their families does not meet The Times' threshold of illegal activity? Is not arresting people who may have broken the law - when they have been so charged in order that they may be tried in court - the way democracies are supposed to work? What would The Times say about Venezuela if people who were believed to have violated the law were allowed to walk free?       In fairness, allow me to change the perspective for a moment. What if executives at a major defense contractor or a major airline decided to lock out their employees simply because the owners did not like the outcome of an election? Can you imagine that?       In an effort that seems to justify the splashy headline, the editorial went on to state as facts that President Hugo Chavez "began threatening extra-judicial retaliation against those involved," and that "Mr. Chavez had 'sentenced' strikers from the bully pulpit."       What The Times fails to note is that Venezuela has a constitution that separates the powers of the executive branch from those of the judicial branch. While the president has asked that the court do its duty, Mr. Chavez does not have the power to order an arrest, nor has he threatened "extra-judicial" retaliation against anyone. In following the Venezuelan Constitution, both the Venezuelan courts and Mr. Chavez have adhered to the law.       The editorial closed with perhaps its most unfortunate and inaccurate accusations, implying that Mr. Chavez knew about, supported or somehow was involved in recent bombings at the Spanish and Colombian embassies in Caracas. In a country of 25 million people trying to deal with the loss of economic opportunities, food and hope caused by whoever orchestrated the lockout of hundreds of thousands of workers - and the concomitant reduction of the country's tax revenue base by more than 30 percent - there no doubt are many frustrated people. Yet, Mr. Chavez had nothing to do with the violence and publicly condemned the cowardly acts in a statement earlier in the week.       Further, is it not fair to raise the question so eloquently asked in French - cherchez la femme - when looking at the so-called evidence left behind? Who left such evidence? What is to be gained by the government's doing such a thing, then leaving a finger pointing at itself?       We remind The Times of the historic agreement signed with leaders of the opposition calling for the end of violence and hostilities. The president and the government are committed to bringing all Venezuelans together, not driving them further apart. We welcome both internal and external comments, but we simply ask other governments to leave to us the internal administration of our laws without interference, which is all the president was saying when he askedthat Spain, Colombia and the United States cease involving themselves in our internal affairs.       Mr. Chavez and the people of Venezuela should and will continue to work toward peaceful, democratic solutions to the social and economic problems facing our country; The Times should expand its narrow focus and adjust its perspective to more accurately convey the real story in Venezuela. Certainly, fairness requires no less.       In conclusion, we have been open with The Times. We shared with your reporters the two public documents issued this week: the first from the attorney general regarding the arrests and the second from the foreign ministry concerning our official regrets and our country's intent to find the perpetrators of the bombings. In keeping with that spirit of openness, I wish to invite your editorial writers to be our guests to visit Venezuela to see the reality there firsthand.       The Washington Times LETTERS TO THE EDITOR March 4, 2003

news.bbc.co.uk Last Updated:  Tuesday, 4 March, 2003, 23:24 GMT

A prospective new oil find in Colombia could reignite a battle over land that indigenous campaigners thought they had won.

The president of Colombia's state-owned oil company, Ecopetrol, announced that exploratory drilling close to the country's north-eastern border with Venezuela has located reserves of approximately 200 million barrels of light crude oil.

The well was abandoned in May 2002 by a US oil company Occidental Petroleum, after almost a decade of legal wrangling and international campaigning to halt the drilling.

The area is the ancestral territory of 5,000 U'wa Indians. They believe oil is the blood of the earth and have previously threatened mass suicide if drilling went ahead.

After Occidental left, Ecopetrol took over exploration.

'High quality'

Colombia produces about 590,000 barrels of oil a day.

But last year Isaac Yanovich, Ecopetrol's president, warned last year that reserves would begin to run out within five years.

But on Monday he said he was hopeful.

US special force have been deployed in the oil rich area

"There's a good chance that this is of very high quality," he told reporters, according to news agency Associated Press.

And while Colombia stood to take 85% of any profits realised through Occidental exploration, "Gibraltar I is a 100% Ecopetrol project, which means the reserves and the production belong exclusively to the nation," he said.

But there remain manifold problems in extracting oil from the region.

In addition to the U'wa Indians' objections to drilling, left-wing guerrillas often bomb oil pipelines and installations as part of their 38-year war against the state.

The US Government recently agreed to provide $98m - including US special forces - to help protect a lucrative oil pipeline in Colombia which has been attacked 200 times in the last two years alone.

www.csmonitor.com from the March 05, 2003 edition By David Buchbinder | Special to The Christian Science Monitor

CARACAS, VENEZUELA – When bombs blasted the Spanish Embassy and the Colombian Consulate in Caracas last week, Venezuelan officials denounced the attacks. They issued a flurry of statements insisting that affairs between Venezuela and the two nations hadn't been damaged.

But that wasn't saying much. Venezuela's foreign relations weren't very good to begin with. The powerful explosive devices dramatically punctuated the discord that exists between Venezuela and other countries, both in South America and overseas.

Because of his autocratic leanings, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez fell out of favor with the international community long ago. More recently, the international community appears to have fallen out of favor with Mr. Chávez.

"Chávez is willing to sever ties to the international community," says Miguel Diaz, a senior analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

In recent weeks, diplomatic noises coming from foreign capitals rose a notch with the detention of Carlos Fernandez, head of Venezuela's largest business-owners organization and a key leader of the 2-1/2-month general strike aimed at ousting Chávez that fizzled in early February. Cesar Gaviria, secretary-general of the Organization of American States (OAS); Spain's Foreign Minister Ana Palacios; and US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher all protested the arrest.

Chávez, in turn, blasted the governments of Spain and the US for "meddling" in Venezuela's affairs. He was so incensed that he threatened to break off diplomatic ties with Colombia, whose foreign minister the week before accused Chávez of meeting with Colombian rebels.

Two days later, both Colombia and Spain saw their diplomatic compounds in Caracas shattered by bombs; five people were injured. The US Embassy, citing a credible threat of an attack, closed down for a day. Leaflets found at the crime scenes warned American Ambassador Charles Shapiro, the OAS, the CIA, and anyone else who would listen that "the revolution doesn't need your selfish intervention." The Venezuelan government denies that its sympathizers were behind the blasts, but the fliers echoed Chávez's position: other countries involved are not to interfere in Venezuela's internal affairs.

"The only pressure he really feels and responds to is that coming from Venezuelans themselves to remove him from power," says Mr. Diaz. "Once that disappeared, there was really little that could move him."

From the beginning of his administration in 1998, Chávez raised eyebrows in foreign capitals by paying official visits to Muammar Qaddafi in Libya and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. While Venezuela's president has remained formally within the law, his opponents see his rewriting of the Constitution, his reshuffling of the supreme court, his crackdown on the media and, most recently, his jailing of political enemies as antidemocratic measures. His opponents worry that Chávez's demonization of them is leading to greater violence. On Sunday, a car bomb went off in the western oil city of Maracaibo, where many who were involved in the strike work and live. No one has claimed responsibility for the blast.

According to Michael Shifter, senior analyst with InterAmerican Dialogue in Washington, Chávez's strong-arm style has unnerved a region that saw more than its share of authoritarian regimes in the '80s and '90s. "You talk about rule of law and institutions, and you have this guy who comes on the scene and shows disdain for that, and says, 'I was elected by the people, and that's enough,' " Mr. Shifter says. "It's a nightmare for people in the region, because they've seen this movie before, and it doesn't have a happy ending."

Venezuela's status as one of the world's largest petroleum producers has allowed Chávez to be recalcitrant when foreign diplomats call for concessions. The US, long accustomed to being the dominant player in the hemisphere, has had to tread lightly in Venezuela ever since it welcomed a coup that temporarily ousted Chávez last April.

But some analysts note that the thrust of collective mediation efforts, such as those sponsored by the OAS, are remarkably in line with the diplomatic will of the United States.

"The 'international community' is often a euphemism for the 'United States,' and it's not that much different in this case," says Mark Weisbrot, codirector of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington. "Given the United States's hostility to Chávez, I think the [Venezuelan] government has been actually quite friendly and willing to work with everyone."

The government had been meeting with the opposition at talks mediated by the OAS, but last Wednesday government representatives presented a declaration rejecting international interference in Venezuela's crisis.

The statement read in part: "No foreign government or institution ... may pretend to guide the Venezuelan people, nor influence the functioning of national public power."

Citing security concerns, the government side was a no-show at meetings scheduled for the rest of the week. The messages coming from the Chávez administration are clear: Other countries may not like what they see in Venezuela, but there isn't much that they can do about it.

"There's really no arm-twisting going on behind the scenes," says a Western diplomat in Caracas. "The international community has no leverage - there's no foreign aid to cut, and people need the oil."

www.catholicnews.com

MIAMI (CNS) -- The people of Venezuela are suffering under the government of President Hugo Chavez, and the Catholic Church is suffering along with them, according to Archbishop Diego Padron Sanchez of Cumana. The Venezuelan archbishop, in Miami for a continental congress on catechesis, commented on the political unrest in his homeland during an interview with The Florida Catholic, Miami archdiocesan newspaper. "We do not even have the freedom to express ourselves," Archbishop Padron said, referring to the curtailing of civil liberties. The church has been the object of "rejection, of strong criticism. Offenses have been committed. Right now, it tends to be marginalized. We do not matter," the archbishop said. Government funding for Catholic schools and charitable agencies arrives late and often is less than what had been agreed upon, he said. But it is the people who are truly suffering, the archbishop said. Violence and corruption have increased and jobs have disappeared, to the point that fewer than 20 percent of the people currently support Chavez.

www.upi.com By Owain Johnson UPI Business Correspondent From the Business & Economics Desk Published 3/4/2003 1:55 PM

CARACAS, Venezuela, March 4 (UPI) -- Colombia's state-owned oil producer Ecopetrol has announced a record discovery of crude oil deposits, which amounts to up to 200 million barrels of light crude in the north of the country near the Venezuelan border.

The Minister of Mines and Energy, Luis Ernesto Mejia, hailed the find and said Tuesday that it would be "extremely positive" for the economy.

U.S.-based multinational Occidental Petroleum, or Oxy, had done several joint surveys with Ecopetrol in the region, known as the Samore Exploration Block, in recent years, but recently abandoned the project after failing to locate any oil.

Ecopetrol later decided to proceed on its own and was rewarded with the large find.

Ecopetrol President Isaac Yanovich did warn that "it is still impossible to determine the size of the deposit" but confirmed the company expected reserves of about 200 million barrels.

It will take about two weeks to confirm the size of the deposit and the quality of the crude.

"The most important aspect of this discovery is that this is 100 percent an Ecofuel project," Yanovich said. "That means that the reserves and the production based on those reserves will belong entirely and exclusively to the nation."

The government gave Ecopetrol and Oxy joint rights to exploit the Samore Exploration Block in 1991, when analysts estimated the region could hold up to 1.4 billion barrels of crude.

The project proved a costly failure for the U.S. company, which faced enormous hostility from the local U'wa indigenous community and constant security threats from leftist rebels in the area.

These factors prevented Oxy from beginning drilling in the area for close to a decade. By May 2002, the company had invested $100 million and drilled a 12,000-foot well known as Gibraltar 1, but had only discovered gas deposits.

At that point, Oxy, which had faced repeated guerrilla attacks on its crucial Cano Limon pipeline, cut its losses and handed the prospecting rights back to the Colombian authorities.

Ecopetrol restarted exploration in the area in November with an additional investment of about $10 million. The company hit crude at Gibraltar 1 at 12,050 feet, just 50 feet further down than Oxy had drilled.

Mejia said that it would cost about $150 million to begin production at the site.

The discovery couldn't have come at a better time for Colombia. Experts had warned recently that the country would be forced to import hydrocarbons within 14 months, as falling productivity and exploration meant Ecopetrol's output wasn't keeping pace.

Colombia was a net importer of hydrocarbons between 1975 and 1986 -- when it became self-sufficient. By reducing the need for imports, the find will help the trade balance and the profits its generates for the state-owned firm will help the fiscal balance.

Although oil is Colombia's top export commodity, the industry has often been overlooked internationally, partly because of its vulnerability to rebel groups.

Colombia's leftist guerrillas consider oil companies legitimate targets. Foreign oil workers run the risk of kidnap and companies frequently pay "taxes" to prevent damage or destruction of their installations and pipelines.

But as Ecopetrol's find demonstrates, there's great potential for major discoveries in Colombia. Unlike its neighbor Venezuela, about 70 percent of Colombia's sedimentary areas have yet to be properly explored. Only seven of its 18 sedimentary basins are being commercially exploited.

If the authorities can improve security, the country would be well-placed to benefit from the U.S. government's desire to diversify oil imports, particularly as Colombia isn't an OPEC member and faces no output ceiling.