Bolivia’s gas nationalization and other issues

WTO

Bolivia’s gas nationalization and other issues

The month of May started with the Evo Morales administration announcing the nationalization of Bolivia’s gas, stirring outrage among entrepreneurs and right wing politicians abroad, while in Brazil, the same sectors, reinforced by retired diplomats, called for “drastic measures” and made opportunistic criticisms against Lula’s foreign policy, which of course were amplified by the conservative Brazilian press. Much as if Brazil’s foreign policy today could not claim a positive record of achievements, some are trying to use the Bolivian gas issue to criticize it.

Those are biased positions, for those same critics shy away from questioning developed countries when these adopt similar measures, as was the recent case in France and Spain, whose governments directly interfered to ensure that the natural gas distribution remained under the control of French and Spanish companies. (Read more in Periscope # 1). Besides, no one explained what drastic measures those would be.

The Brazilian government publicly acknowledged Bolivia’s sovereign decision, even more so because it was supported by a referendum held before Evo Morales’s electoral victory, in which the proposal for nationalizing hydrocarbons was approved by 92% of the Bolivians. Obviously, that does not mean an understanding regarding the new relations is unnecessary.

There are three basic and straightforward questions involved in the gas issue: property, extraction and distribution, and the price. What is set forth in the measure adopted by Bolivia concerns the three and can be summed up as follows: the property, as well as the full control of gas, is Bolivian, and prices are to be renegotiated within a six months’ deadline. Gas extraction can be done by foreign companies, but these must surrender it to Yacimientos Petrolíferos y Fiscales Bolivianos (YPFB), who will control sales. Should an agreement on new prices fail, YPFB will also take over gas production, in which case a negotiation involving foreign companies’ facilities and equipment will be called for.

From a practical point of view this entails an immediate increase in royalties from 18% to 50%, in addition to the 32% tax rate already approved in last year’s hydrocarbons bill, totaling 82%. Petrobras has two oil refineries in Bolivia, with 50% of its stake being retaken by the State. The price to be paid for the gas is to go up, for what companies are paying today is below the international average of US$ 5.00 per unit. However, a reassessment of costs involved in the production and transmission of gas is expected in order to define the new price.

In principle, it should not be so difficult to strike a deal given the good will manifested by the Lula administration and the importance the Brazilian gas market represents for Bolivia in terms of revenues.

Yet given the way Bolivian authorities refer to the case, even after the meeting held in Puerto Iguazu attended by Lula, Kirchner, Morales, and Chavez to define an agenda for negotiations for South America’s future energy integration project, all this may change. The latest development was the unfortunate statement made by Morales in Vienna about Petrobras, which forced him to have a personal talk with Lula, as well as with Zapatero, Spain’s prime minister, who is concerned about the involvement of Spanish company Repsol in the process.

Bolivia has just adhered to the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) and signed a trade agreement with Venezuela and Cuba in connection with the People’s Trade Agreement proposed by the Bolivian government, which in addition to the exchange of goods and services, as with the service of Cuban doctors and teachers in Venezuela in exchange for oil and other products, will enable the Chaves administration to purchase Bolivian soy beans. This is an agreement that seeks to differentiate itself from other processes from the political and ideological point of view in that it also enables social organizations from different countries to promote trade relations, which seems to be the preferred option of the Evo Morales administration’s foreign relations.

It is understandable that Evo Morales should adopt a strong nationalist speech, considering how crucial it is for his party, the Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS), to elect more than two thirds of constituent deputies next July to advance the politically-sensitive reforms he promised, especially those concerning administrative decentralization and regional autonomy.

In this debate and in the discussion concerning the economic policy, the new Bolivian government not only has to face the opposition of the country’s elite and right wing parties, but also the discontent of leftist Bolivian Workers Confederation (COB) and the Pachakuti Indigenous Movement (MIP), led by Felipe Quispe. Neither is there a shortage of statements by foreign intellectuals like James Petras that Evo Morales is “one more leftist neoliberal government” due to the moderate way he is tackling the nationalization of oil and gas.

It is of crucial importance that Evo and the MAS win this debate, but it is equally important for them to understand that this is an electoral year in Brazil, too, and that the political future of the region’s current leaders is intertwined.

This is the first time in history that we have this significant number of progressive governments in South America and it would be very unfortunate if this time around we failed to further continental integration from the political, energy, structural, economic, and social points of view. Equally unfortunate would it be if in the gas episode we found out that the intention was merely to swap Petrobras for PDVSA.

Venezuela joined the Mercosul last year and has just announced its withdrawal from the Andean Community of Nations (CAN) at the same time the presidents of Colombia and Peru were signing free trade bilateral agreements with the United States.

These three events have sealed the political fate of the CAN as a sub-regional integration bloc and, while the effects this will have on the region’s trade is anyone’s guess, judging from the past years’ falling import-export flows, especially between Venezuela and Colombia, the situation is somewhat critical (Read more at “Adios a la CAN”).

This backdrop underscores the importance of the Mercosul and of evolving towards a potential South-American Community of Nations (CASA), with Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela as members and Bolivia, Chile, and Peru as associated states. This forum has become the participatory space for all the progressive governments elected since the late 1990s.

Yet if each one decides to defend one’s own country’s interests exclusively, this project will not move forward. The conflict involving Argentina and Uruguay proceeds with the former demonstrating on its side of the border in Gualeguaychu and filing a complaint with the International Court of Justice in The Hague, while sectors of the Uruguayan government cogitate signing a bilateral treaty with the USA, albeit unfavorable internal political conditions should such an agreement resemble those just signed by Colombia and Peru. (Read more at “Uruguay negocia tratado comercial com EEUU”, "Clarín.com" and "Púlsar").

Therefore the current picture is not very encouraging with regard to the accomplishment of South-American or sub-regional integration, but maybe we will see some progress after this year’s governmental elections are held in many countries of the continent.

Presidential elections on the continent

As we had announced, Peru’s run-off presidential elections due on June 4 will confront candidates Ollanta Humala for the Union for Peru coalition and Alan Garcia for the APRA, with the latter in the lead boosted by a majority of votes from defeated right wing candidate Lourdes Flores.

The composition of the Peruvian congress is already defined. The Unión por el Peru won 36% of the seats and the APRA, around 30%. The remaining seats went to the coalition led by Lourdes Flores and other smaller parties who broke the 4%-of-votes barrier.

For the traditional left, the Peruvian Communist Party, Pátria Roja, and the Socialist Party, the result was disastrous. All added they had 1.5% of votes. The Communist Party coalition got only 0.3%, a result that might still be reflecting the effect of the 1990s, when the party was squeezed between the Fujimori administration on the right and guerrilla groups Shining Path and Tupac Amaru on the left, compounded by their inability to build an alternative.

The likely winner is Alan Garcia, which represents a step ahead in relation to the present government, for despite all the crises Garcia faced during his first presidential term in office no one can accuse him of having been a neoliberal or a conservative then. (Read more at “Peru: Segunda vuelta electoral com prognostico reservado”).

The conservative Mexican and international press published with great fanfare the result of electoral polls showing that the official party’s presidential candidate, PAN’s Felipe Calderón, took the lead from the PRD candidate, Manoel Lopez Obrador, while the PRI candidate, Rodrigo Madrazo, remains a distant third place.

According to other sources, the polls are unreliable. Nevertheless, it is true that Lopez Obrador’s campaign lost its initial momentum, when he led with a comfortable majority over the other contestants. Several reasons would account for that.

First, a virulent and foul campaign by PAN supporters through the media which, as in Brazil, also campaigns openly for the right. Though now having accepted beforehand to participate in the second televised presidential candidates debate, the PRD candidate refused to attend the first one, just recently held, and Obrador’s absence was qualified by the media as “fear” of jeopardizing his favoritism and used by the other candidates, who constantly brought the subject up by making reference to his empty chair. Besides, on the following days the media was quick to spread the news that Calderon had won the debate.

Another factor is the nationwide mobilization organized by the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) and subcommander Marcos, who is now in the capital, heading a national march called La otra campaña (The other campaign). The movement’s intention is to take advantage of the electoral moment to shift the focus onto Mexico’s economic and social problems, and to criticize the three main candidates, but more particularly Lopez Obrador.

The third problem to be solved by the PRD candidate is how to neutralize a scare tactics campaign launched by Vicente Fox’s federal government exploiting the role played by the EZLN. A while ago there was a victorious mobilization in the rural community of San Salvador Artenco, in the outskirts of Mexico City, which halted the expropriation of their lands for the construction of a new international airport.

These peasants are strongly identified with the EZLN and while supporting the struggle of a group of street flower vendors who work near the community, they were all violently repressed, with 190 arrests and two seriously injured demonstrators admitted to an ICU. A similar incident occurred in the state of Michoacan, where police repression against a strike by steel workers with the use of firearms left two workers dead. The PRD accuses the EZLN of having willfully provoked the conflicts, while the zapatistas accuse the PRD of having “washed their hands” in the repression.

Meanwhile, the objective of the Fox administration to favor the government’s party candidate is to create an atmosphere of fear whereby the population would perceive a connection between the EZLN mobilizations and Lopez Obrador, and that demonstrations and violence will grow if the latter wins the election. Elections are still a month away, though, and much can still happen. (Read more).

Triple border and US report

We had already underscored the importance of this issue in Periscope no. 2 by commenting the testimony of a US State Department aide before American congressmen on his country’s initiatives in Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay towards controlling potential fundraising activities in support of the Palestinian Hamas and Lebanese Hezbollah at the Triple Border, despite the US acknowledgement of no evidence of the presence of those groups’ representatives in the region.

Just recently the State Department released its annual assessment report on terrorist activities around the world, which states that the Brazilian government “vigorously condemns terrorism, yet does not provide for the material and political support necessary to strengthen anti-terror institutions”, while simultaneously praising the enhancement of the COAF database “with American aid” as an important instrument to combat money laundering and criticizing the fact that Brazil recognizes the Hamas and the Hezbollah as political parties.

What the American government wishes is that every government of the world changed legislations in order to adapt them to the national security rules the US adopted after 9/11, as done by many of its more or less unconditional allies, like England.

During the cold war, “the national security doctrine” as conceived in the US, was a justification for the country’s political and military presence in Latin America, as well as for supporting and fostering closer ties with the governments of that time, mostly military regimes. Today it is the US’s new “national security” policy against terror and drug dealing which is being used to justify a greater military and law enforcement presence on the continent, which includes recent negotiations with Paraguay that will enable the installation of a military base in Mariscal Estigarribia, where last year 500 American troops disembarked to conduct joint military exercises with the Paraguayan army.

III European Union-Latin America Summit

Held in Vienna, the capital of Austria, on May 11-12, its resolutions were generic, dealt with a wide array of issues, from drugs to emigration, and basically endorsed already existent agreements.

Evo Morales concentrated the attention of the media due to Bolivia’s gas nationalization which, apart from affecting Petrobras, also affects some European companies, and is raising concerns over the future of bilateral relations between that country and Europe.

Despite Venezuela’s withdrawal from the Andean Community of Nations (CAN), President Alejandro Toledo of Peru managed to include in the resolution a motion in support of the CAN, while Mexico’s president Fox delivered a speech criticizing the nationalization and praising market economics. (Read the complete resolution).

Italy’s new government debuts

After a dramatic electoral contest against Prime Minister Berlusconi, won by Romano Prodi for coaliton L’Unione in Italy, the time came to elect the presidents of the two legislative houses, the Chamber and the Senate, as well as the President of the Republic. To preside the Chamber was elected the president of the Rifundazione Comunista party, Fausto Bertinotti, and for the Senate, former secretary-general of the CISL trade union central, Franco Marini, representing a party stemming from the old Christian Democracy, which collapsed as Italy’s largest party in the late 1980s after the “Clean Hands Operation” proved that several of its leaders were involved with corruption.

The new president of Italy is Giorgio Napolitano, aged 81 and an old Communist Party leader who later joined the Democratici de Sinistra (Leftist Democracy), who is a senator for life. Massimo D’Alema, one of the leaders of the “Democratici”, who had competed with Prodi in the primary their party held to nominate the prime minister candidate, was appointed to be the vice-president and foreign relations minister.

To achieve the majority of votes required to elect Marini, several voting rounds were necessary, which demonstrates the delicate correlation of forces that came out from the ballot boxes. With all votes coming from abroad (for the first time) finally counted, Edoardo Pollastri, an Italian-Brazilian who is the president of the Italian-Brazilian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, was confirmed as senator.

As one of the first measures, the new government announced the withdrawal of 2,600 Italian troops from Iraq. Also, the government has just obtained the votes necessary in congress to approve the cabinet.

Blair loses district elections

Tony Blair’s Labour Party suffered a humiliating defeat in last May 5th municipal elections. The conservative Tories obtained 40% of votes against 26% of Labour and around 30% of the liberal Whigs.

Except for the capital London, England has no directly elected mayors. The country is divided into districts, which elect their representatives, who in turn choose municipal administrators.

If the result is repeated in the next parliamentarian elections due next year, the conservatives will go back to power. After the last elections for Parliament, won by Labour by a narrow margin, Blair announced this would be his last term. If he keeps his word, his successor at the head of the party might be his current Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown.

After the result, several ministers were replaced, but Jack Straw’s resignation was met with surprise. Some analysts explain his return to Parliament on account of his emphatic statement that a military action against Iran was unthinkable, an opinion not shared by Tony Blair, who would be willing to align himself with the American position, as he did in Iraq. (For more read the Financial Times and the BBC).

Geopolitics of gas

Not only in South America has the debate over the exploration of natural gas been heated. With ever increasing oil prices due to speculation, gas has become the most feasible energy alternative in the medium term. The problem is that 43.4% of known reserves are in Russia (27.8%) and in Iran (15.6%).

One fourth of Western Europe’s gas consumption comes from Russia and 80% of the gas is supplied by pipelines that run across Ukraine. As these two countries’ relations have been marked by conflict since the last Ukrainian presidential elections, Russia has recently raised the price of the commodity to damage the Ukrainian economy and announced a new gas pipeline to Europe that will not run through that country. Ukraine, in turn, has decided to suspend its purchases. Both initiatives are detrimental to Europe. (For more read the El Pais edition of 16 May 2006).

The Putin administration has recurrently resorted to interruptions in the supply of gas in order to contain neighbors who, like Georgia, question Moscow’s policies, and has invested heavily in the construction of gas pipelines to countries where Russia seeks to hold some influence, as in the case of Turkey.

There is an offensive by the US and the European Union to try to reduce Russia’s current power now that the country has become less dependent on western support as a result of a flourishing economy over the last years, owing to its natural resources.

The EU, for example, has established that Serbia’s entrance into the bloc is contingent upon the detention and surrender of general Mladik, who is accused of genocide in Bosnia during the war in the Balkans. Russia and China were two of Serbia’s few allies at the time, which is why, despite the conditionality, the EU is striving to attract countries of former Yugoslavia into the bloc.

US vice-president, Dick Cheney, in a speech made at an event in Lithuania, accused Russia of backsliding on democracy, of threatening the territorial integrity of its neighbors, and of using oil and gas as instruments of intimidation and blackmailing, words which were later classified as adequate and correct by the State Department.

Meanwhile the US began to pressure India into not building a gas pipeline that would allow that country to tap Iran’s gas. This helps to explain the contradictory agreement in which India is allowed to build more nuclear plants. (See Periscope #1).

Putin as yet has not responded to the American provocation, but analysts believe his reaction will be the signing of a deal to supply gas to China. Indeed, the tendency of the five countries with veto power at the UN Security Council with regard to the main global issues will be of bipolarity in the short term, with the US, England, and France on one side and Russia and China on the other. We might see this soon when Iran’s enriched uranium issue is discussed (Read more).

Security Council’s decision on Iran

A resolution concerning Iran’s nuclear program is still being discussed by the members of the UN Security Council, with the great powers interested in deterring Iranians from mastering the technology to enrich uranium.

Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and, therefore, subject to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The EU-US reason for opposing the Iranian program is the discovery by the IAEA a few years ago of a secret parallel nuclear program, which was interrupted at the time. Yet some months ago that program was resumed under the argument that it was for peaceful purposes.

The EU has just offered a package of economic investments plus a “light water” reactor that would allow the enrichment of uranium at low levels, but enough for the generation of energy which is the justification given by Iran to develop its program. The proposal was rejected by the Iranian government, which is using the issue to mobilize the population’s nationalistic sentiment, both in support of the country’s atomic energy program and against foreign interference.

Iranian concerns regarding the country’s security are well founded, since many of its neighbors, like India, Russia, Pakistan, and Israel, all have nuclear arsenals.

However, it seems that keeping the technology for the enrichment of uranium in the hands of a few is still the main reason for the pressure for, with high oil prices, nuclear energy becomes once again one of Europe’s alternative sources of energy, regardless of its high cost and the risks for the environment. Prime-Minister Tony Blair has just announced in England a program to modernize the country’s nuclear reactors until 2025, when they should be responsible for up to 20% of the country’s generation of energy.

The great powers cannot reach a consensus as to whether Iran, in addition to holding huge oil and natural gas reserves, should also have access to nuclear energy and, who knows, eventually to weapons as well. This is Russia’s view too, but neither Russia nor China agree to the use of economic or military pressure advocated by the US and the EU to change Iran’s policy (Read more).

New government is composed in Israel

The leader of the majority party in the Israeli parliament, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, has just concluded his cabinet with members from four parties. The coalition includes, besides his own Kadima party with 29 seats, the Labour Party with its 20 seats, the religious Shas party with 12, and the Party of the Retirees, which elected 7 MPs, giving Olmert the support of 68 parliamentarians out of 120.

The surprising note in the cabinet’s composition was the fact that Amir Peretz, the leader of the Labour Party, took over the post of defense minister, after a campaign which had mostly revolved around the economic and social problems afflicting Israel today rather than safety and defense issues. Some analysts evaluate that by taking this step Peretz thought more about his own political fortune than about strengthening the party. Others evaluate that given the aggressive tone of the Kadima plan to redefine the country’s borders, it would be important to have Peretz in this post to ease negotiations.

Kadima’s main campaign proposal was the unilateral establishment of Israel’s borders with Palestine, which would likely imply the definitive incorporation to the Israeli territory of a significant part of the West Bank, where Israel’s most populous colonies and the totality of Jerusalem are located. Olmert defined a six-month calendar before moving the proposal ahead to allow there to be negotiations with the Palestinians, and also because some smaller colonies would have to be removed from the territory he plans to leave for Palestine. (Read more).

Despite President Bush’s support, the plan is in flagrant violation of UN resolutions, which call for a return to the 1967 borders, and is certainly going to be rejected by Palestinians in such terms.

Meanwhile, known Fattah and Hamas personalities who are in an Israeli prison launched a joint proposal calling for the constitution of the Palestinian state along the 1967 borders and that Palestinians should concentrate resistance on that point.

Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, agrees with the initiative, but a spokesperson for the Hamas rejected it claiming that one of the group’s principles is not to recognize the state of Israel.

Olmert, in turn, said that he would not negotiate with the Hamas for as long as the group maintains its position, while the Israeli company selling fuel to the Gaza Strip interrupted the supply in order to pressure him even more. This measure adds to the withholding of taxes collected by Israel and owed to Palestine, for two months now, plus the suspension of the aid by the US and the European Union. A shortage of resources is starting to cause an enormous social problem (Read more in The New York Times).

Peace accord in Darfur

Darfur is a region of western Sudan bordering Chad, where there is an armed conflict involving different political and ethnic groups which has caused the death of more than 200,000 people and transformed two million Sudanese into refugees over the past years. This situation has touched the world and prompted many artists and personalities to engage in a humanitarian campaign to aid the refugees and call for peace negotiations.

The reasons for the conflict are a blend of the region’s struggle for autonomy with ethnic and religious differences, amidst Sudan and Chad’s disagreements. There are four groups operating in Darfur, three composed by rebels of the Fur, Zagauas, and Masalit ethnicities and one by governmental militias, called Yanauid. By the agreement, the main rebel group, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) is to be incorporated into the Sudanese army, the Yanauid militias are to be dissolved, a sum of US$ 300 million is to be invested in the region, and refugees are to receive some compensation for their losses. The other two other smaller groups, however, do not recognize the agreement and have announced their decision to continue fighting until they achieve the region’s total autonomy. (Read more).

This is not the country’s first conflict. Sudan was dominated by England and Egypt as back as 1899, and became independent in 1956. Since 1969 it has been governed by successive military dictatorships. In 1970 guerrilla warfare broke out in southern Sudan based on the region’s ethnic groups, which later became the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) and claimed for the region’s autonomy and a socialist program.

The war lasted until the signing of a peace agreement between the central government and the main guerrilla groups in January 2005. Thousands of people died and, in the year of 1998 alone, there were more than 4 million refugees for a total population of 28 million in the country.

There are many reasons for the two conflicts, but it seems that centralization of power, blurred lines separating State and religion (Islam), poor relations between neighbors, and the absence of democracy in a vast and poor country with many religions and ethnicities suffice to explain the events occurred and perhaps to point to possible solutions further beyond the peace accord.

Mobilization reopens parliament in Nepal

Several weeks of demonstrations throughout the country and a five-day general strike forced King Gyanendra to go back on his decision and reopen the parliament of Nepal, besides authorizing political parties to resume their activities. These measures appeased the situation although the Communist Party of Nepal, a Maoist guerrilla, continues with the armed struggle. Police repression against mobilizations caused 14 deaths. (Read more at CBC and NY Times).

Provincial elections in India

Two years ago the Congress Party returned to power in India through the hands of a coalition called the United Progressive Alliance which included 23 other parties, the most important of which was the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI-(M)). At the election held on May 10 in five Indian provinces -Assam, West Bengal, Kerala, Pondicherry, and Tamil Nadu-, the CPI(M) was reelected for the seventh consecutive term in West Bengal, since 1977, and conquered the government of Kerala, dislodging the Congress Party.

The latter fared poorly in the elections, but the Alliance did well and, with the results, the CPI(M) strengthened its position inside the coalition allowing it to demand more from the Congress Party in order to help it to keep control of the federal government.

May Day around the world

May Day mass demonstrations by Latin-American immigrants to the United States was a huge success, with thousands of demonstrators skipping work and joining the march in many American cities, regardless of the fact that in the US, which originated the date after an incident in Chicago in the 19th century, Labor Day is not celebrated on May 1st.

May Day celebrations in Mexico were dubbed “A day without gringos” in support of the immigrants in the US, and gathered more than 200,000 people, according to the president of the National Workers Union (UNT) and the Telephone Workers Union of Mexico, Francisco Hernández Juarez. There were also important May Day celebrations in Indonesia, Brazil, and Cuba (Read more at “Labor’s May Day call from both sides on the border”).

The second week of May marked the end of the American Senate’s recess and negotiations over an alternative to the Sensenbrenner-King Bill were resumed (See Periscope #2) to legalize the situation of a majority of immigrants. The alternative bill has Bush’s support, but it remains to be seen whether the House of Representatives will be willing to change the bill it voted.

However, should there be a compromise in the House, this will certainly maintain the construction of the 1,200-kilometer fence along the border with Mexico, which is 3,200 kilometers long. Bush has already announced the incorporation of 8,000 agents to the patrols guarding the border today, as well as the deployment of new surveillance technology and equipment designed to detect attempts to cross it at less controlled points.

Social movement

The European Social Forum took place in its 4th edition in the city of Athens, Greece, on May 5 and 6, while in Vienna, Austria, took place the Linking Alternatives 2, parallel to the European Union Summit.

During the alternative event there were workshops and seminars on several globalization-related themes, as well as a session of the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal to judge abuses committed by multinational companies in Latin America regarding natural resources, labor rights, water, energy and others.

Ozone hole shrinks

Scientists announced that the earth’s ozone layer is slowly recovering thanks to the 1987 Montreal Protocol which banned the use of CFC (chlorofluorocarbons) present in refrigerator and old spray gases, plus the pesticide methyl bromide, and halons, used in fire extinguishers.

The Protocol has already been ratified by 180 countries and demonstrates that when there is political will, a world problem of such magnitude can be solved, as the greenhouse effect may be solved too by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, something the Bush administration still refuses to do (Read more in newspaper O Estado de S.Paulo of 4 May 2006).

Suharto is discharged from trial

Indonesia’s attorney-general has decided to drop corruption charges against the country’s former president Suharto, justifying the decision on his old age, 84, and a debilitated health.

A general, Suharto seized power in 1965 after a bloody military coup that overthrew the nationalist government of Ahmed Sukarno, who was supported by the Communist Party of Indonesia, Asia’s largest at the time after China’s. The coup left a balance of 700,000 dead and 200,000 political prisoners, apart from more than 300,000 dead Timorese after 1975, when Suharto decided to occupy their island after the Portuguese colonizers left.

On top of being responsible for these murders, Suharto and his relatives gained notoriety for being the largest kleptocracy in the world, having received bribes and public funds kickbacks estimated in US$ 35 billion.

WTO

As anticipated, WTO negotiations scheduled to be finished in April as provided by the resolutions adopted by the V Conference in Hong Kong, produced no results and a new informal deadline was set for late June. Current estimations, however, are that the likelihood of a set of proposals being achieved in order to reach some agreement is almost non existent.

Should that happen, a new deadline may be defined for the end of the year or the beginning of 2007 at the most. If by then nothing substantive arises, the Doha Round will be definitively shelved because of the electoral process beginning in France and the end of the mandate of the American Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), which is very unlikely to be renewed in order to favor a reduction of the US’s domestic farm subsidies, one of the problems obstructing an agreement today.