By James Cox, USA TODAY With oil prices near 12-week highs, OPEC ministers who were set to slash output after the war in Iraq instead left production levels unchanged at their meeting Wednesday.

OPEC President Abdullah bin Hamad al-Attiyah said the 11-nation cartel will meet July 31 to reassess the situation.

Crude prices were expected to tumble after the war on the belief that, with Iraq's oil facilities largely intact, Iraqi oil would flow quickly back to export markets. Instead, looting and sabotage have prevented Iraq from resuming exports, and global oil prices have remained stubbornly high.

In New York, the price for U.S. benchmark crude closed up 28 cents at $31.73 a barrel on Tuesday.

Economists say prices have not retreated because Iraq has been slow to revive production, and political turmoil has suppressed output in Venezuela and Nigeria.

"Two months ago, they thought, 'Oh my God, in another month we could see $15 (a barrel) oil if Iraq comes back.' It hasn't happened," says Fadel Gheit, oil analyst at Fahnestock & Co.

Monday, Iraqi oil officials appointed by the U.S. occupation authority said crude exports wouldn't resume until month's end and wouldn't reach prewar levels until the middle of 2004.

Al-Attiyah said that the July meeting would look at the impact of Iraq's return to the oil market and that OPEC would consider all options to maintain its interests.

Venezuelan oil officials insisted Tuesday that the country was pumping enough to meet its OPEC quota. But "somebody's lying," Gheit says, "because if that was the case, prices would be lower."

Prices soared near $40 to hit 12-year highs during the Iraq war. But lost supplies from Iraq, Venezuela and Nigeria have partly been offset by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, which have boosted output.

Commercial stockpiles worldwide are at five-year lows. U.S. inventories are near two-decade lows.

"We haven't been able to catch up and replenish," says Tom Kloza at Oil Price Information Service. "Part of that is due to some very brisk gasoline demand, part is a hangover from a godawful winter."

Gasoline prices have come down, falling 10 out of the most recent 11 weeks, says the U.S. Energy Department. Nationally, regular unleaded is expected to average $1.46 a gallon during the summer driving season, the department predicts.

Gheit says oil prices could plunge $4 to $5 a barrel once Iraq can resume its prewar export of 2 million barrels a day. In the meantime, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is walking a fine line.

On one hand, it doesn't want to choke off a global economic recovery by keeping prices too high. On the other, it's determined to stave off a crash in prices when Iraq, Venezuela and Nigeria begin boosting their exports.

OPEC has been lobbying big non-OPEC producers Russia, Mexico and Norway to support the cartel's anticipated production cuts by holding output firm or making their own cuts.

Contributing: The Associated Press

El problema no es criticar por criticar.  Nuestro ánimo es aportar la crítica constructiva donde entendemos se comete un importante error.  Por ejemplo, ante nuestras propias narices está naciendo una corriente tan absurda como aquella en la cual nos quiere encasillar – uniformemente -- la mayoría de nuestros políticos tradicionales.   Ante lo peligroso e inconveniente de empeñarse obstinadamente en la teoría que asegura que aquí va a haber referendo revocatorio (alegándose que “eso” no está en manos del Sr. Chávez y su régimen CASTRO-COMUNISTA), está floreciendo una corriente -- radicalmente opuesta -- la cual nos invita a convertirnos en soldados de infantería y con nuestras escopetas, chopos y machetes, salir a enfrentar a las Fuerzas Armadas entregadas al cartel extranjero que desde Cuba maneja Castro.  ¡Ojalá pudiéramos!

Por ahí me salió un lector comparándome a Jean-Francois Revel, quien hizo de la crítica universal su deporte.  Revel escribió “Italianos al Desnudo”, donde señalaba que los italianos jamás han ocupado un lugar prominente en sexualidad ni en cocina.  Su obra “En France” (“En Francia”), indignó a los franceses al demostrarles su chovinista desconocimiento del resto del mundo.  Para ponerle la tapa al pomo, en su libro “Ni Marx ni Jesús” provocó la irritación de los intelectuales izquierdistas de todo el mundo al proclamar que la única sociedad verdaderamente revolucionaria en la última parte del siglo XX no era la Unión Soviética, ni China, ni Cuba, ni Kampuchea… sino Estados Unidos.

Pero lejos de molestarme con la absurda comparación, el amigo lector lo que hizo fue elevarme el ego, pues Jean-Francois Revel fue un importante profesor de filosofía convertido en periodista, ex editorialista y director del prestigioso semanario L’Express, y además de hacer muchas travesuras literarias que le ayudaron a cosechar cualquier cantidad de enfurecidos críticos a lo largo y ancho del mundo intelectual (y no tan intelectual), escribió también un aleccionador y escalofriante libro titulado “Comment les Démocraties Finissent” (“Cómo Mueren Las Democracias”), una obra espectacular que si le cambiamos algunos eventos, países y protagonistas por otros, la pudiéramos reeditar para que encaje en la enajenada realidad de la Venezuela de hoy.

En una oportunidad el amigo Revel montó en cólera ante la apreciación generalizada de muchos “kremlinólogos” occidentales quienes aseguraban -- solemnemente -- que el entonces recién llegado al poder en la Unión Soviética, Yuri Andropov, era un hombre muy civilizado porque leía novelas norteamericanas y bebía güisqui escocés, por lo tanto estaba a punto de liberizar el sistema soviético.   Revel recordaba entonces que a la muerte de Lenin, en 1924, los analistas políticos del occidente felicitaban al mundo porque el poder soviético quedaba en manos de un “pragmatista moderado”: ¡José Stalin!

La obra de Revel, “Comment les Démocraties Finissent” está llena de impresionantes ALERTAS. Tal vez en eso nos parecemos un poco… digo yo, modestia muy aparte.  En su libro Revel decía que nada asegura que la democracia pudiera ser eterna, sobre todo si ella persiste en negarse a prestar atención a las lecciones de la historia y – sobre todo – si se continuaba confundiendo DESEOS con REALIDADES.   No pongo en duda hoy que todos nosotros DESEEMOS participar en un referendo revocatorio que saque del poder al Sr. Chávez para poder hacerlo preso, enviarlo a La Haya, condenarlo por crímenes de lesa humanidad y guardarlo para siempre al lado del Sr. Milosevic, su colega en desmanes.  Pero, ¿es una aspiración basada en la realidad?

Acepto absolutamente el sentimiento de rabia e impotencia de la gran mayoría de los venezolanos ante la agresión y humillación producida por una “potencia” extranjera de pacotilla que produce en nosotros el deseo de querer salir a las calles – hoy mismo – con un revolver en la mano a enfrentarnos a las tanquetas artilladas con cañones de 60mm.  Pero, ¿podría cristalizarse ese sueño en una aceptable y factible realidad?

Revel advertía que por una combinación de ceguera y timidez, las democracias habían dejado -- desde la Revolución rusa -- que las dictaduras comunistas dispusieran todas las jugadas y fijaran la mayoría de las reglas en los asuntos internacionales.  Vemos en Venezuela cómo el régimen CASTRO-COMUNISTA de los señores Chávez y Castro, dicta las pautas y fija las reglas en los asuntos políticos domésticos, al tiempo en que intenta y sueña con hacer lo propio más allá de las fronteras cubanas y venezolanas.

El Sr. Jimmy Carter se “cogió los dedos” con Leonid Brezhnev, a quien consideraba un pragmático amante de la paz y quedó dolorosamente sorprendido cuando ocupó Afganistán.  El Presidente Carter hubiera DESEADO otra cosa muy diferente en torno a los acontecimientos que cambiaron al mundo; confundió DESEOS con REALIDADES.  Tal vez no se hubiera llevado tal sorpresa, opinaba Revel, si hubiera recordado – por ejemplo – cómo en 1921 los soviéticos extinguieron la libertad de la joven república de Georgia en el Cáucaso, donde en una previa elección democrática los bolcheviques habían obtenido sólo 24,513 votos de un total de casi 900.000 emitidos.  El Ejército Rojo, respondiendo a lo que llamó “los deseos de los georgianos”, invadió el país, ahogó en sangre la resistencia y anexó el territorio a la Unión Soviética.  Algo muy similar sucedió en 1940 con las repúblicas bálticas… y todos estos desmanes se hicieron ante los ojos de la Liga de Las Naciones, representantes – entonces – de lo que hoy conocemos como la “comunidad internacional”.

Decía Revel que como las democracias habían desistido de desafiar a los soviéticos por haber invadido territorios, los comunistas de todas partes llegaron a considerar que cualquier cosa en el mundo no comunista era caza no vedada.  Entre las reglas que según Revel los países democráticos aceptaban en mayor o menor grado, estaba aquella en la que los comunistas escogían el lugar y el momento de la confrontación, lo que les daba inmensas ventajas tácticas.  Vemos en Venezuela cómo el Sr. Chávez nos prepara cada domingo – en su programa “Aló Presidente” – la agenda de la semana por venir, escogiendo el tema de discusión, entretenimiento y  “guaraleo”, mientras nos mete cubanos del Batallón II de Infantería y envía jóvenes venezolanos a Cuba para ser entrenados en las técnicas de las “Brigadas de Acción Rápidas”, inteligencia, contra-inteligencia, tácticas de confrontación y defensa urbana, etc.

Decía Revel que Lenin, en una discusión un tanto agria con su canciller Chicherin, en 1922, le recordó que el Partido empleaba el pacifismo para desintegrar al enemigo, a la burguesía.  Revel señalaba que nada era más grotesco que el repetido anhelo de los estadistas occidentales por creer a los dirigentes soviéticos cuando estos afirmaban estar ansiosos por lograr la paz, sin embargo, antes de comenzar cualquier negociación, se aseguraban siempre de pedirnos concesiones por delante -- sin mencionar en absoluto las del lado comunista – para convencerlos de nuestra buena fe.  Franklin Roosevelt cayó por inocente en las trampas de Stalin cuando en Yalta le dio al soviético lo que éste le pidió, con la infundada esperanza de que Stalin le daría algo a cambio.  Ya vimos el papelazo en el cual culminó la llamada y costosísima “Mesa de Negociaciones” presidida por el Sr. César Gaviria y vemos hoy al Diputado Maduro hablar de paz como si se hubiese convertido al evangelismo en la tarde de ayer.

No obstante todas estas advertencias, aseguraba Revel que no había una necesidad objetiva de que las democracias mueran, puesto que éstas ofrecen a sus ciudadanos más comida, comodidades y oportunidades de realización personal que cualquier otro sistema de gobierno en la historia.  Sentenció Revel – cual profecía – que aún con todos esos baches de ignorancia y errores, un sistema tan superior como la democracia prevalecería – al final -- sobre el comunista… y fue así, salvo en países tan cavernícolas como Cuba y Corea.

Pero concluyo al igual que Revel.  Si los venezolanos insistimos en malentenderal CASTRO-COMUNISMO y negarle sus apetencias de imperialismo rojo… y dejamos que el bando contrario fije las reglas; seguimos soñando con pajaritos preñados, creyendo que con utópicos métodos electorales vamos a sacudirnos de este monstruo de diez mil cabezas o lo podemos hacer – fuera de “LA GUARIMBA” -- con un chopo en la mano y cuatro perdigones calibre 16, nos estaremos colocando en la misma posición de los atenienses en el siglo IV a. de C.

Demóstenes, el gran orador, advertía constantemente a sus conciudadanos que el poderoso vecino de Atenas, Filipo II de Macedonia, no había creado un ejército formidable con fines netamente pacíficos.  Les decía Demóstenes que la vigilancia eterna era el precio de su libertad.

Los atenienses de entonces escuchaban con cortesía, pero al cabo de pocos años se aburrieron de Demóstenes y de sus insistentes advertencias de ALERTAS sobre Filipo II.  Era más cómodo creer en otros oradores – algunos de ellos pagados por el propio Filipo II y otros verdaderamente sinceros – que decían que el rey de Macedonia buscaba la paz universal… y lo siguieron creyendo hasta que Filipo II y su formidable ejército invadieron Atenas en el año 338 a. de C.  Los atenienses no recobrarían la libertad sino 2170 años después.

Caracas, 19 de junio de 2003

ROBERT ALONSO

Envíen sus comentarios – UNICAMENTE – a robertalonso2003@cantv.net pues los otros buzones colapsan con la cantidad de correo que reciben.  --

PORTAFOLIO VIRTUAL DE ARTÍCULOS Y ENSAYOS DEL MISMO AUTOR

Business Week

Foreign Minister Maria Soledad Alvear discusses the country's push for free trade agreements and relations with the U.S. Considered the most disciplined free-market economy in Latin America, Chile started opening to foreign competition in the early 1980s and today boasts an average 6% tariff on all imported goods. The country of just 15 million inhabitants has free trade agreements with the European Union, Canada, Mexico, and Korea, and special trade accords with most of Latin America.
When the North American Free Trade Agreement was approved back in 1993, Chile was promised it would be the next country to get a free trade deal with the U.S. Although President Bill Clinton was unable to win fast-track negotiating power, Chile went ahead with the talks anyway, two years ago. Then the Bush Administration won fast-track authority last August. The two countries finalized negotiations late last year, around the same time a similar U.S.-Singapore trade deal was wrapped up. Yet Bush signed the Singapore agreement in early May in a White House ceremony and made Chile wait for a June 6 signing -- in Miami. Why? Officials in Washington said they were "disappointed" with Chile's failure to support the Iraqi war from its seat at the U.N. Security Council. Political analysts in Washington and Santiago believe the delay was aimed at making the Chileans aware of how deep that disappointment was. On May 28, the day after the U.S. finally announced the June 6 signing date, Chilean Foreign Minister Maria Soledad Alvear talked with BusinessWeek's Latin America Correspondent Geri Smith about U.S.-Chile relations and the prospects for free trade. They met in the Foreign Relations palace in downtown Santiago. Alvear, 52, a lawyer, formerly served as Chile's Justice Minister and as the Minister for Women after Chile returned to democracy in 1990 after 17 years of military rule. Edited excerpts of their conversation follow: Q: What is the significance of the Chile-U.S. free trade agreement for the Chilean economy? A: I'm very happy about it. We've negotiated a free trade agreement that's very good for both countries. Chile has a clear export strategy aimed at developing the economy and in particular aimed at diversifying our exports. We couldn't do that without this agreement. It's a seal of quality for our country as a reliable place to make investments. We have signed agreements with the U.S., the European Union, South Korea, Latin America, and soon we'll sign with the non-EU nations. This gives us a very interesting horizon. Q: This is said to be a "third-generation" trade agreement because it covers intellectual property, electronic commerce, services, and government procurement. In that sense, it could be a template for other trade agreements around the world. But some Chileans say the government wanted the agreement so badly it caved in by not insisting on eliminating U.S. anti-dumping rules. Chile also agreed to loosen its restrictions on capital flows even though those restrictions have protected the country from financial volatility in recent years. A: We were very conscious that we weren't going to manage to eliminate U.S. anti-dumping rules, which are being looked at in multilateral forums like the World Trade Organization. Nevertheless, we agreed to mechanisms for dispute resolution that are quite modern. And with regard to capital controls, we're satisfied with what was achieved. Q: How would you describe U.S.-Chile relations now, after the Iraq flap? A: They're good. I was in Washington less than a month ago and had the opportunity to meet with Secretary of State Colin Powell, with U.S. businesspeople, and with members of Congress. I perceived that while the U.S. didn't like the fact that Chile was opposed at that time [to the Iraq U.N. Security Council resolution], that they view the free trade agreement positively. We have a very full agenda of economic issues. We have work to do together on issues of democracy and human rights. We're working together on the Free Trade Area of the Americas. We've worked together to help the Organization of American States find a solution for the [political] problems in Venezuela. We're working together in many arenas. Q: How long will it take to rebuild relations with Washington? A: I believe each side understands the other's position, that there was a specific difference [of opinion], with the best of intentions, at a certain point in time...and at this point we have to look toward the future. The Singapore agreement was finished first because Singapore didn't have an agriculture chapter, and they didn't require translation of the agreement into another language. So, if you look at it objectively, there was never a delay [in signing Chile's agreement]. Q: Some say the Chile-U.S. Free Trade Agreement is a template for the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas, the 34-nation accord currently under discussion for the hemisphere. A: This is a FTA negotiated between a small emerging-market country and the most developed economy of the world. If we're capable of reaching such an agreement, that improves the possibility of reaching a larger agreement among 34 countries with different levels of development around the region. Some countries in the region believe that it's perilous for small developing countries to sign commercial agreements with industrial countries, but we are proof that it's not. The negotiation between Chile and the U.S. and the negotiations now under way between the U.S. and Central America will be very interesting and important for the Free Trade Area of the Americas. Q: Chile already has agreements with all of Latin America except the Caribbean. Why is the Free Trade Area of the Americas important to you if you already have most of the region covered? A: Because Chile is a small economy, and we have placed a big emphasis on exports. Having clear rules for all of the countries in the region will be an important stimulus. Chile's decision to open up to the world allowed us to double our gross domestic product in the 1990s -- something that had previously taken us 50 years to do. At the same time, we were able to halve the number of Chileans living in poverty. We're very conscious of the fact that this process of market openings mean growth for countries. And if the countries carry out good social policies to lift people out of poverty, even better. That's why it's important that the region enjoy stable, solid democracies. Latin America has lived through very painful periods. Today we have recovered our democracies, but the problem now is maintaining governability. Many of the problems we see in Latin America today are caused by painful poverty and pent-up demands from society. We believe there's a way out of this situation, and it's important to work together to increase the possibility of development and reduction of poverty. Q: In just a few months, Chile will mark the 30th anniversary of the bloody military coup that ousted Socialist President Salvador Allende. The military ruled for 17 years, and Chile has been a functioning democracy only since 1990. You've been a Cabinet Minister in all three governments since then. How do you feel the country has changed? A: If a person had been asleep all these years and woke up today, he would not recognize the country. Of course, the most important thing was the restoration of democracy, freedom, and respect for human rights. Chile was an isolated country, and when it returned to democracy it had to reinsert itself in the world. Today, it's a key member of the most important political forums, including the U.N. Security Council. If you look at census figures, you'll find that 80% of the young people in college today had parents who didn't attend college. Among the poor, the number of households that own a washing machine has doubled [in these 13 years]. The role of women in public life has been remarkable. Chile has a woman serving as Defense Minister. When she and I go to Buenos Aires to meet with our Argentine [male] counterparts, they will see two women, and that reflects in many ways the changes Chile has gone through. Q: As one of Chile's most prominent politicians, a leader of the Christian Democratic party, you're often mentioned as a probable front-runner for the next presidential elections to be held in 2006. Is it your goal to be President of Chile? A: We are only halfway through the term of President Lagos. It's still too early to define [who the next candidate will be for the center-left coalition]. But if you ask me if a woman could be President of this country, I would say yes. With so many threats in the world of terrorism, people are looking for leaders who work well in teams, who exercise power in a more inclusive way, by sharing more than imposing. That's often described as a feminine style of leadership, although it can be exercised either by a man or by a woman. In any event, I believe that men and women are equally able to exercise that responsibility. If [being nominated for the presidency] were to happen, I would definitely have to consider it.

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic news Posted: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 By: Patrick J. O'Donoghue

While the government is busy at a Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ) hearing to revoke an Appeal Court decision lifting an arrest warrant against rebel Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) executives for their role in the December-January national stoppage that brought PDVSA to its knees, rebel leader Juan Fernandez, who has just returned to Venezuela, reports that his Gente de Petroleo organization is undergoing a re-launch to convert itself into an abuse-monitoring body. 

"The group will lodge complaints and call for action against any situation that goes against freedoms, rights and defense of democracy." 

Gente del Pueblo acted as a shadow PDVSA during and in the weeks following the strike's failure ... its role has gradually fizzled out as the new PDVSA managed to get production back to normal. The group's last stand is to defend the Intesa Company that had monopolized PDVSA's computer system. 

Fernandez confirms that the recall referendum has become one of the "new" group's priorities and boasts that it will be a resounding victory for the opposition.  Referring to the TSJ hearing, he says he and his colleagues are innocent until proved guilty, warning that if Venezuelan justice, then they will internationalize the conflict. "Citizens rights have been violated because the Attorney General's Office and the 50th Control judge established arrest procedures that were illegal." 

Rebel white collar "trade  union," Unapetrol leader, Horacio Medina denies charges that the executives plan to start a political party, indicating that they do not intend to get into politics and prefer to create a network of civil sector groups (Gente del Mar, Gente del Barrio etc.) that oppose President Chavez Frias.

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic news Posted: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 By: Patrick J. O'Donoghue

El Universal has published several reports about Venezuela's chaotic Passport & ID Office (Oni-Dex) and renewed the debate on modernization of the thoroughly corrupt system. In February, 2001 then Interior & Justice (MIJ) Minister Luis Miquilena suspended the signing of a modernization contract with South Korean  Hyundai Information Technology Company. 

In the meantime, a report from the Oni-Dex Legal Consultation Department issued on March 13 2003 was allegedly silenced. 

Other columnists claim that rival Spanish Indra Company has been trying to muster support for its tender and entered into contact with opposition deputies. 

Returning to August 2001, the National Assembly (AN) came out against Hyundai for 10 technical reasons, despite freebies for deputies to visit Korea to investigate Hyundai's ability to get the job done.

In 2001 it was Indra Systems subsidiary, IMA-2001 that set the cat among the pigeons providing Miquilena with technical arguments against Hyundai. At the time, columnists alleged that slush funds had been set up as part of the bidding process ... after all, the project itself was worth $227 million for the winner.

In March, 2003 then Oni-Dex president, Alfredo Gil Romero, computer chief, Ademir Carpio and fingerprint department director, Manuel Julian Hernandez traveled to Korea to check out the original 10 AN objections to Hyundai getting the contract and returned with the conclusion that there are no reasons why Hyundai shouldn't get the contract.