<a href=www.vheadline.com>venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 By: David Coleman

The UK daily broadsheet, The Guardian's investigative reporter Duncan Campbell ... reporting from Los Angeles ... says that the United States of America had been considering a coup d'etat to overthrow the elected Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez Frias since June 2001, according to former US intelligence officer Wayne Madsen.

Campbell's report, originally published a year ago but given very little play in the opposition-controlled Venezuelan print & broadcast media, also highlights allegations that that the US Navy aided the abortive Venezuelan coup on April 11 with intelligence from its vessels in the Caribbean ... Campbell says "evidence is also emerging of US financial backing for key participants in the coup."

Madsen, an intelligence analyst, told The Guardian that American military attaches had been in touch with members of the Venezuelan military to examine the possibility of a coup. "I first heard of Lieutenant Colonel James Rogers (the assistant military attache based at the US embassy in Caracas) going down there in June 2001 to set the ground ... some of our counter-narcotics agents were also involved."

The US navy was in the area for operations unconnected to the coup d'etat, but that  Madsen understood that "they had assisted with signals intelligence as the coup was played out ... the US Navy helped with communications jamming support to the Venezuelan military, focusing on communications to and from the Cuba, Libya, Iran and Iraq diplomatic missions in Caracas ... four countries which had expressed support for Mr. Chavez."

Navy vessels on a training exercise in the area were supposedly put on stand-by in case evacuation of US citizens in Venezuela was required. In Caracas, a congressman has accused the US Ambassador to Venezuela, Charles Shapiro, and two US embassy military attaches of involvement in the coup. Roger Rondon claimed that the military officers, whom he named as (James) Rogers and (Ronald) MacCammon, had been at the Fuerte Tiuna military headquarters with the coup leaders during the night of April 11-12.

Referring to Ambassador Shapiro, Rondon said: "We saw him leaving Miraflores Palace, all smiles and embraces, with the Dictator Pedro Carmona Estanga (who was installed by the military for a day) ... (his) satisfaction was obvious ... Shapiro's participation in the coup d'etat in Venezuela is evident."

The US embassy has dismissed the allegations as "ridiculous" but Shapiro admitted meeting Carmona the day immediately after the coup ... but said he urged him to restore the national assembly, which had been dissolved.  Nevertheless, Carmona himself told The Guardian that no such advice was given ... although he agreed that a meeting took place.

A US embassy spokesman said there were no US military personnel from the embassy at Fuerte Tiuna during the crucial periods April 11-13 ... although two members of the embassy defense attache's office (one of them Lt. Col. Rogers), drove around the base on the afternoon of April 11 to check reports that it was closed.

US Congressman Rondon has also claimed that two foreign gunmen ... one American and the other Salvadorian ... were detained by security police during the anti-Chavez protest on April 11 in which around 19 people were killed, many by unidentified snipers firing from rooftops. "They haven't appeared anywhere ... we presume these two gentlemen were given some kind of safe-conduct and could have left the country."

Members of the military who coordinated the coup have claimed that they did so because they feared that Chavez was intending to attack the civilian protesters who opposed him.  Both sides have blamed the other for the violence surrounding the coup ... Chavez' opponents claim pro-Chavez gunmen shot protesters while his supporters say the shots were fired by agents provocateurs .

In the preceding year, the United States channeled hundreds of thousands of US dollars in grants to US and Venezuelan groups opposed to Chavez ... including the labor group whose protests sparked off the coup d'etat. The funds were provided by the National Endowment for Democracy, a nonprofit agency created and financed by the US Congress. A year ago the US State Department's Human Rights Bureau was reportedly examining whether one or more recipients of the money might have actively plotted against Chavez ... but any reports resulting from their "examination" have been sadly lacking to date.

examiner.ie 30/04/03

THE US claimed that their war on Iraq was done to bring democracy to the people of Iraq. Now they say that they do not want (read ‘will not allow’) a fundamentalist Shi’ite regime in Iraq. So much for their promise of a free democratic Iraq, as the US rejects and arrests various representatives of the Iraqi people.

The US has a history of meddling in other states’ affairs for their own self-interest, and of setting up puppet regimes headed by infamous dictators: Pinochet in Chile, Suharto in Indonesia, Maurice Bishop in Grenada and Saddam himself. When these dictators get fed up with US interference and revolt, the US then turns on them and puts them down. Their latest effort in 2001 at doing the same in Venezuela (another oil rich state) was thankfully thwarted by the people of Venezuela, but only just.

US foreign policy and warmongering is based solely on economic self-interest. As they seek to dominate world markets and as they boycott French goods, so should we, fellow EU members, play the US at their own game and boycott US goods.

Kevin T Finn, King’s Square, Mitchelstown,

<a href=english.aljazeera.net>aljazeera.net

Dr. Abdul Hay Zallom is the author of “The New Empire of Evil” and “Forewarnings of Globalization”. He was a key player in the formation of three major oil companies in 1959, two of them owned by two OPEC member states. He is also a founder and board chairman of “Zallom and Associates”, an oil industry consultation company.

Though US Secretary of State Collin Powell has repeatedly stressed that oil is not the goal of the US war on Iraq, many observers reiterate that oil remains the major motivation. They point to Iraq’s huge oil reserves and US oil needs as being behind the US decision. A destroyed Iraqi tank lies gutted as a wellhead burns on the Rumaila oilfield in southern Iraq: Though the US has repeatedly stressed that oil is not the goal of the war on Iraq, many observers reiterate that oil remains the major motivation

Iraq owns 11 per cent of international oil reserves, which accounts for more than 112 billion barrels of oil. Studies by the US Energy Information Administration put the reserves in excess of 200 billion barrels. An added attraction is that the cost of pumping Iraqi crude is the cheapest worldwide.

The studies show that the world’s demand for oil will reach 112 million barrels per day in the year 2020 and that only six countries namely Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela, will be able to meet that demand. The US is the world’s largest oil consumer. While an US citizen consumes 28 barrels per year, his Chinese counterpart burns only two barrels per year.

Q: Why did the United States decide to disarm Iraq and  democratise it while the world is full of similar regimes?

A: The declared reason is to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. International observers and United Nations inspectors have so far indicated that Iraq is clear of such weapons…even the United States knows that Iraq possesses no such weapons…As for the excuse of replacing the current regime with a democratic one, it is not democratic at all to impose a democratic regime with tanks...Besides, the United States is not the world’s most qualified to defend democracy.

Q: What then are US objectives in Iraq?

A: The United States’ real objectives were revealed by Powell to Congress…when he said that Washington would carry out structural change after occupying Iraq…for us, this structural change, which would primarily depend on oil, would be the establishment of a new empire…Empires do not come into being by coincidence…The Sykes-Picot agreement designed the Arab world according to the interests of the British and the French empires…currently our Arab world is subject to a Bush-Sharon intended empire.

Q: What is the importance of Iraqi oil for the United States?

A:  Let me just read to you what “Orbs” Magazine wrote in 1957. Its editor-in-chief was William Eliot, and after him his student Henry Kissinger…The magazine wrote that the mission of the United States was to unify the whole world under its leadership…that is to say a worldwide Empire led by the United States and stamped by the American spirit and culture

Q: Was that just speculation or a kind of strategy…?

A: The plan always existed, but the implementation is divided  into phases, in accordance with the circumstances.

Q: What is the role of oil in all this?

A: This means that oil is the pillar and the soul of such future empires…

Q: But why Iraqi oil in particular?

A: Because Iraq’s reserves are huge…According to declared figures, Iraq’s reserves are estimated at around 115 billion barrels…which equals the total reserves of the United States, Canada, Mexico, Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, China and the whole non-Middle Eastern Asia…The reserves of all these countries altogether are 116 billion barrels, while Iraq’s alone, as mentioned before are 115 billion barrels…It is worth mentioning here that these quantities of oil are pumped from only 15 out of 74 oilwells.

Q: Does this mean that more than 60 oil wells are not operative or productive in Iraq?

A: Exactly…the West has repeatedly declined to declare the real reserves of oil in the Arab region because of political reasons…Iraq’s reserves of oil can equal that of  Saudi Arabia…As declared in 1996, Saudi oil reserves stood at 115 billion barrels…

Q: Some studies indicate that Iraq may have a reserve of 200 billion barrels.?

A: Iraqi oil reserves may even exceed 200 billion barrels…

Q: Since it is a fact that Iraq’s oil reserves equal those of the United States, Canada, Australia and most of the Asian and European countries put together, does this really consolidate the objectives of war on Iraq?

A: Iraq is a prey and the opportunity should be seized, especially since the United States’ oil reserves stand at just 22 billion barrels.

Q: Some studies point out that by 2007 Washington will stop using its own oil, reserving all production for strategic purposes and that every litre of oil will be imported. Is that true?

A: US oil reserves will be kept only for strategic purposes…

Q: Will these strategic reserves help the United States to maintain its industrial superiority and to enable it to remain the number one industrial power of the world?

A: Strategic reserves mean that the United States will not use its own oil except in cases of emergency.

Q: How do you assess the United States’ future need of oil, if it wants to maintain its industrial growth and to form the empire through which it seeks to dominate the world?

A: Oil for the United States is a matter of life or death…Not only Iraqi oil…Iraq will only be the first step and will be followed by other countries…the Middle East and Iran possess 65 per cent of the world’s oil reserves…that may be one of the reasons for picking off Iraq…The US divides oil producing countries into two categories…they call the first category absorber countries, while the second, non-absorber countries…According to the US absorber countries are dangerous because they possess the capability to build modern and powerful states…They include Iraq and Algeria and may now include Saudi Arabia…

Q: These are the most indebted countries in the Arab world. The debt of Algeria, which is categorized as one of the richest oil countries in the Arab world, exceeds 52 billion dollars. Iraq’s debts are far more than that, while Saudi Arabia’s debts, according to its finance minister are 600 billion riyals (US$170 billion). How did this happen?

A: It is not a coincidence that these three major Arab oil producing countries have joined the club of debtors…there was a fear that these absorber countries might become powerful states…It is worth mentioning here that when the current US administration came to power, it brought an agenda to establish a new US empire to dominate the world.

In October 2001 and after the September 11th attacks, Robert Cooper, an advisor to Blair was transferred to the Foreign Ministry to accomplish a specific mission, polishing the final touches on the project of the future empire …The former British empire is the imperial advisor to the future American empire…In “Prospect” magazine, Cooper explicitly said that “Nation States” had proved their failure after independence…and that all conditions are set for the beginning of a new imperialism with an Anglo-Saxon culture…This is what really happens and Iraq is only a part of a series of  plots

Q: America did not import a single barrel of oil before 1970, but now 60 percent of its oil need is imported. How did US oil imports jump from zero to 60 percent in a period of 32 years?

A: The first US trade deficit was caused by its oil imports…before the 1991 Gulf War, the United States used to import 45 per cent of its oil demand. Studies at that time predicted that US oil imports would increase to 60 percent by the end of the 90s and to 100 percent in the years to follow…

Q: Do you mean by the year 2007?

A: Exactly…if a projection was made about the United States’ complete reliance on imported oil, how would then the US trade deficit look?

Q: British Petroleum and the US Energy Information Administration have recently said in a study that the world’s oil production will soar to 112 million barrels per day by 2020, compared to 77 million barrels per day in 1997. What does that mean for the United States?

A: It means that if oil was very important for the United States in the past, it will be a matter of life or death for it in the future…Oil is the Arabs’ real weapon of mass destruction…We do not practically benefit from oil…the price of our oil is very low…and does not reflect the real price…

Q: Oil prices in the late 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s stood at $ 40 per barrel, the prices have deteriorated ever since and have sometimes stood at seven or eight dollars per barrel…

A: If the price of oil remained at $ 40 per barrel as you mentioned, Arab wealth would have exceeded 1.5 trillion dollars…Bottling water actually cost between 50 to 60 dollars per barrel…The issue of the price is a matter of national security for the United States…in other words, if a state decides to increase or decrease the price in contradiction to the US interests, Washington would consider that a violation of its national security…

Q: Do you think that the current anti-war positions of France and Germany are linked to the issue of oil?

A: Yes…this is a conflict for profit and not for ideology…the French ELF-Total has a contract for exploiting 25 per cent of Iraqi oil…

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 By: VHeadline.com Reporters

London's Observer newspaper says the April 11 coup d'etat against the democratically-elected government of President Hugo Chavez Frias has been linked to US President George W. Bush's team: "Specialists in the 'dirty wars' of the 80s encouraged the plotters who tried to topple President Chavez, writes Observer WorldView correspondent Ed Vulliamy from New York.

"The Observer has established that the failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior officials in the US government ... they have long histories in the 'dirty wars' of the 1980s, and links to death squads working in Central America at that time."

Washington's involvement in the turbulent events that briefly removed left-wing leader Hugo Chavez from power resurrects fears about US ambitions in the hemisphere ... it also deepens doubts about policy in the region being made by appointees to the Bush administration, all of whom owe their careers to serving in the dirty wars under President Reagan.

The Observer: One of them, Elliot Abrams, who gave a nod to the attempted Venezuelan coup, has a conviction for misleading Congress over the infamous Iran-Contra affair.

The Bush administration has tried to distance itself from the coup ... it immediately endorsed the new government under businessman Pedro Carmona ... but the coup was sent dramatically into reverse after 48 hours.

Now officials at the Organization of American States (OAS) and other diplomatic sources assert that the US administration was not only aware the coup was about to take place, but had sanctioned it ... presuming it to be destined for success.

The visits by Venezuelans plotting a coup, including Carmona himself, began several months before the coup and continued until weeks before the putsch ... the visitors were received at the White House by the man President George W. Bush tasked to be his key policy-maker for Latin America, Otto Reich.

Reich is a right-wing Cuban-American who, under Reagan, ran the Office for Public Diplomacy. It reported, in theory, to the State Department, but Reich was shown by congressional investigations to report directly to Reagan's National Security Aide, Colonel Oliver North, in the White House.

North was convicted and shamed for his role in Iran-Contra, whereby arms bought by busting US sanctions on Iran were sold to the Contra guerrillas and death squads, in revolt against the Marxist government in Nicaragua.

Reich also has close ties to Venezuela, having been made Ambassador to Caracas in 1986. His appointment was contested both by Democrats in Washington and political leaders in the Latin American country ... the objections were overridden as Venezuela sought access to the US oil market.

Reich is said by OAS sources to have had "a number of meetings with Carmona and other leaders of the coup" over several months ... the coup was discussed in some detail, right down to its timing and chances of success, which were deemed to be excellent.

On the day Carmona claimed power, Reich summoned ambassadors from Latin America and the Caribbean to his office ... he said the removal of Chavez was not a rupture of democratic rule, as he had resigned, and was "responsible for his fate." He said the US would support the Carmona government.

But the crucial figure around the coup was Abrams, who operates in the White House as senior director of the National Security Council for "democracy, human rights and international operations" ... he was a leading theoretician of the school known as "Hemispherism," which put a priority on combating Marxism in the Americas.

It led to the coup in Chile in 1973, and the sponsorship of regimes and death squads that followed it in Argentina, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and elsewhere. During the Contras' rampage in Nicaragua, he worked directly to North.

Congressional investigations found Abrams had harvested illegal funding for the rebellion. Convicted for withholding information from the inquiry, he was pardoned by George Bush senior.

A third member of the Latin American triangle in US policy-making is John Negroponte, now Ambassador to the United Nations ... he was Reagan's Ambassador to Honduras 1981-1985 when a US-trained death squad, Battalion 3-16, tortured and murdered scores of activists. A diplomatic source said Negroponte had been "informed that there might be some movement in Venezuela on Chavez' at the beginning of the year (2002)."

More than 100 people died in events before and after the coup. Chavez's chief ideologue -- Guillermo Garcia Ponce, director of the Revolutionary Political Command -- says dissident generals, local media and anti-Chavez groups in the US had plotted the President's removal: "The most reactionary sectors in the United States were also implicated

<a href=www.sunspot.net>SunSpot.net

Brazil's leftist president pushed his idea of regional economic integration in talks with his Bolivian counterpart in Brasilia yesterday - the latest in a string of summit meetings reflecting Brazil's growing influence.

"Latin American integration will no longer be a sentimental" notion, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said after he and Bolivian leader Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada agreed to a plan to improve roads and bridges to boost trade.

The leaders of Colombia, Peru and Venezuela have visited in the past month, and the presidents of Uruguay and Ecuador will come to the Brazilian capital this month. Experts say the flurry of activity represents a message to the United States: A united South America will negotiate hard over terms of a proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas trade zone.