Bhutto Assassinated in Attack on Rally

RAWALPINDI, Islamabad — An attack on a political rally killed the Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto near the capital, Islamabad, Thursday. Witnesses said Ms. Bhutto was fired upon at close range before the blast, and an official from her party said Ms. Bhutto was further injured by the explosion, which was apparently caused by a suicide attacker.

Ms. Bhutto was declared dead by doctors at a hospital in Rawalpindi at 6:16 p.m. after the doctors had tried to resuscitate her for thirty-five minutes. She had shrapnel injuries, the doctors said. At least a dozen more people were killed in the attack.

“At 6:16 p.m. she expired,” said Wasif Ali Khan, a member of Ms. Bhutto’s party who was at Rawalpindi General Hospital where she was taken after the attack, according to The Associated Press.Hundreds of supporters had gathered at the political rally, which was being held at Liaqut Bagh, a park that is a common venue for political rallies and speeches, in Rawalpindi, the garrison city adjacent to the capital.

Amid the confusion after the explosion, the site was littered with pools of blood. Shoes and caps of party workers were lying on the asphalt, and shards of glass were strewn about the ground. Pakistani television cameras captured images of ambulances pushing through crowds of dazed and injured people at the scene of the assassination.

CNN reported that witnesses at the scene described the assassin as opening fire on Ms. Bhutto and her entourage, hitting her at least once in the neck and once in the chest, before blowing himself up.

Farah Ispahani, a party official from Ms. Bhutto’s party, said: “It is too soon to confirm the number of dead from the party’s side. Private television channels are reporting twenty dead.” Television channels were also quoting police sources as saying that at least 14 people were dead.

At the hospital where Ms. Bhutto was taken, a large number of police began to cordon off the area as angry party workers smashed windows. Many protesters shouted “Musharraf Dog”. One man was crying hysterically, saying “O my sister has been killed.” Amid the crowd, dozens of people beat their chests, and chanted slogans against Mr. Musharraf.

The attack immediately raised questions about whether parliamentary elections scheduled for January will go ahead or be postponed.

Ms. Bhutto was the target of a suicide attack in October in Karachi when she returned from exile to Pakistan. That attack, caused by two bombs exploding just seconds apart, narrowly missed Ms. Bhutto but killed scores of people, including many of her party workers. Ms. Bhutto had been warned by the government before her return to Pakistan that she faced threats to her security. She did not blame the president, Pervez Musharraf, for the Karachi attack but said extremist Islamic groups who wanted to take over the country were behind the attacks, which killed 134 people.

The attack Thursday in Rawalpindi is the latest blow to Pakistan’s treacherous political situation. It comes just days after President Pervez Musharraf lifted a state of emergency, imposed in part because of terrorist threats.

Ms. Bhutto, 54, returned from self-imposed exile to Pakistan this year to present herself as the answer to the nation’s troubles: a tribune of democracy in a state that has been under military rule for eight years, and the leader of the country’s largest opposition political party, founded by her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, one of Pakistan’s most flamboyant and democratically inclined prime ministers.

But her record in power, and the dance of veils she has deftly performed since her return -- one moment standing up to the Pakistan president, General Musharraf, then next seeming to accommodate him, and never quite revealing her actual intentions -- has stirred as much distrust as hope among Pakistanis.

A graduate of Harvard and Oxford, she brought the backing of Washington and London, where she impresses with her political lineage, her considerable charm and her persona as a female Muslim leader.

But with these accomplishments, Ms. Bhutto also brought controversy, and a legacy among Pakistanis as a polarizing figure who during her two turbulent tenures as prime minister, first from 1988 to 1990 and again from 1993 to 1996, often acted imperiously and impulsively.

She faced deep questions about her personal probity in public office, which led to corruption cases against her in Switzerland, Spain and Britain, as well as in Pakistan.

Ms. Bhutto saw herself as the inheritor of her father’s mantle, often spoke of how he encouraged her to study the lives of legendary female leaders ranging from Indira Gandhi to Joan of Arc.

But with these accomplishments, Ms. Bhutto also brought controversy, and a legacy among Pakistanis as a polarizing figure who during her two turbulent tenures as prime minister, first from 1988 to 1990 and again from 1993 to 1996, often acted imperiously and impulsively.

She faced deep questions about her personal probity in public office, which led to corruption cases against her in Switzerland, Spain and Britain, as well as in Pakistan.

Ms. Bhutto saw herself as the inheritor of her father’s mantle, often spoke of how he encouraged her to study the lives of legendary female leaders ranging from Indira Gandhi to Joan of Arc.

Following the idea of big ambition, Ms. Bhutto called herself chairperson for life of the opposition Pakistan Peoples Party, a seemingly odd title in an organization based on democratic ideals and one she has acknowledged quarreling over with her mother, Nusrat Bhutto, in the early 1990s.

Saturday night at the diplomatic reception, Ms. Bhutto showed how she could aggrandize. Three million people came out to greet her in Karachi on her return last month, she said, calling it Pakistan’s ”most historic” rally. In fact, crowd estimates were closer to 200,000, many of them provincial party members who had received small amounts of money to make the trip.

Such flourishes led questioning in Pakistan about the strength of her democratic ideals in practice, and a certain distrust, particularly amid signs of back-room deal-making with General Musharraf, the military ruler she opposed.

“She believes she is the chosen one, that she is the daughter of Bhutto and everything else is secondary,” said Feisal Naqvi, a corporate lawyer in Lahore who knew Ms. Bhutto.

When Ms. Bhutto was re-elected to a second term as Prime Minister, her style of government combined both the traditional and the modern, said Zafar Rathore, a senior civil servant at the time.

But her view of the role of government differed little from the classic notion in Pakistan that the state was the preserve of the ruler who dished out favors to constituents and colleagues, he recalled.

As secretary of interior, responsible for the Pakistani police force, Mr. Rathore, who is now retired, said he tried to get an appointment with Ms. Bhutto to explain the need for accountability in the force. He was always rebuffed, he said.

Finally, when he was seated next to her in a small meeting, he said to her, “I’ve been waiting to see you,” he recounted. “Instantaneously, she said: ‘I am very busy, what do you want. I’ll order it right now.’ ”

She could not understand that a civil servant might want to talk about policies, he said. Instead, he said, ”she understood that when all civil servants have access to the sovereign, they want to ask for something.”

But until her death, Ms. Bhutto ruled the party with an iron hand, jealously guarding her position, even while leading the party in absentia for nearly a decade.

Members of her party saluted her return to Pakistan, saying she was the best choice against General Musharraf. Chief among her attributes, they said, was sheer determination.

Ms. Bhutto’s marriage to Asif Ali Zardari was arranged by her mother, a fact that Ms. Bhutto has often said was easily explained, even for a modern, highly educated Pakistani woman.

To be acceptable to the Pakistani public as a politician she could not be a single woman, and what was the difference, she would ask, between such a marriage and computer dating?

Mr. Zardari is known for his love of polo and other perquisites of the good life like fine clothes, expensive restaurants, homes in Dubai and London, and an apartment in New York.

He was minister of investment in Ms. Bhutto’s second government. And it was from that perch that he made many of the deals that haunted Ms. Bhutto, and himself, in the courts.

There were accusations that the couple had illegally taken $1.5 billion from the state. It is a figure that Ms. Bhutto has vigorously contested.

Indeed, one of Ms. Bhutto’s main objectives in seeking to return to power was to restore the reputation of her husband, who was jailed for eight years in Pakistan, said Abdullah Riar, a former senator in the Pakistani Parliament and a former colleague of Ms. Bhutto’s.

“She told me, ‘Time will prove he is the Nelson Mandela of Pakistan,’ ” Mr. Riar said.

New York Times


To subscribe (FREE) :
To view us logon at
http://worldtopnews.blogspot.com
To Read Business Articles visit
http://info-exchange.blogspot.com

Jamie Lynn Spears' Pregnancy: Is It Legal?

The announced pregnancy of Jamie Lynn Spears, the 16-year-old sister of Britney Spears and the star of Nickelodeon's "Zoey 101," opens up a wide range of complicated legal questions. Given Spears' status as a minor, what does that mean for longtime boyfriend Casey Aldridge, whom Spears reportedly met while attending church services? Depending on a number of factors, it could mean jail time for Aldridge — who, depending on the source, is either 17, 18, or 19 — but only if Spears' family decides to press charges, which, judging by the public statements made by press time, appears unlikely.

(At press time, MTV News was unable to confirm Aldridge's age definitively: Many reports — including that of OK! magazine, which broke the story — say he's 18, some say 19, his MySpace page says 17.)

Ultimately, the first question for investigators would be the "venue," or the state in which the baby was conceived. Without that information, no criminal proceedings can be initiated. According to the penal codes of the three states where Aldridge and Spears, who turned 16 in April, were most likely to have conceived the child — California, where "Zoey 101" is taped; Louisiana, where Spears lives when the show is between seasons, and where she has said she intends to raise her child; and Mississippi, where Aldridge resides — Aldridge's paternity could potentially give rise to criminal charges.

According to the FBI's definition, statutory rape is characterized as non-forcible sexual intercourse with a person who is younger than the statutory age of consent in each respective state. The actual ages for these laws vary greatly from state-to-state, as do the punishments for the alleged offenders. Many states do not use the term "statutory rape," simply calling it "rape" or "unlawful sexual penetration," among a variety of other titles. One such state is Mississippi, where the crime is called "having carnal knowledge of a child."

MTV News consulted three legal experts — Father Lawrence Moore, associate dean of academic affairs for Loyola University's College of Law in New Orleans; University of Mississippi School of Law professor Philip Broadhead; and Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County district attorney's office — who noted that these laws apply to any type of sexual contact. Dating someone without sexual contact cannot be considered a form of statutory rape, and is almost never illegal in any state. All states have an "age of consent," or the age at which a person can legally consent to sexual activity and can then no longer be a victim of statutory rape.

Some states will make exceptions when the older person is also young or of a similar age, or if they marry the minor before the act of sexual intercourse or before being charged with the offense. These laws presume coercion, because a minor is legally incapable of giving consent to a sexual act.

In some states, criminal proceedings against an offender cannot be initiated unless the offended person's family presses charges. Assuming the couple are in good standing, Aldridge is probably in the clear. However, several online reports have crept up in the wake of Spears' announcement Tuesday night, claiming the couple's relationship was over; they cite Aldridge's alleged MySpace page, the headline of which reads "Me and Jamie Are Over :(." If the couple have indeed split up and the parting was less than amicable, Spears and her parents could file a formal complaint, which would set the legal wheels in motion.

In Louisiana, the age of consensual sexual intercourse is 17. The state's statutory-rape law goes into effect if the offender is 19 or older and has had sexual relations with a minor between ages 12 and 17; such offenses are considered felony crimes.

There's also a misdemeanor version of the law, which states that if the offender is between ages 17 and 19, and has sexual relations with a person who is between ages 15 and 17 with the difference in both participants' ages being at least two years, the offender could be charged with misdemeanor carnal knowledge of a juvenile. Those convicted face up to 10 years behind bars, with or without hard labor.

The New York Post quoted Deputy Sheriff Jimmy Travis of Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana, where the Spears family lives as saying that the couple broke no state laws if the child was conceived in Louisiana.

"From my preliminary investigation, she is 16 and he is 18," he said. "If, in fact, it happened in the state of Louisiana, that does not violate any criminal statutes." However, if Aldridge was 19 at the time of conception, there could be a case.

In Mississippi, the age of consent is 16 and the sentence for carnal knowledge of a minor is up to five years in jail, in addition to a $5,000 fine. This offense is committed when a person who is 17 or older engages in sexual intercourse with a minor who is at least 14 but under age 16; however, if the victim is less than 36 months younger than the offender, then no crime has been committed.

According to University of Mississippi School of Law professor Philip Broadhead, the state amended the sexual battery and rape statutes six years ago, raising the age of consent from 14 to 16.

"There are exceptions to the law," he said. "For instance, a 17-year-old has sex with his 14-year-old girlfriend — they put age ranges into the statute to lessen the penalties and in some cases do away with the penalties altogether. The bottom line is, the Mississippi legislature raised the age of consent to 16. [However,] if a 16-year-old girl has a 19-year-old partner, that's statutory rape — absolutely.

"The venue would be important as to what specific law applies, of course, but proving that would be difficult, because [Spears may not] cooperate and he has a right to remain silent," he continued. "Jurisdiction and venue are the first things you need to answer. If you can't, there's no going forward."

California's penal code is comparatively simple. It puts the age of consent at 18, and defines unlawful sexual intercourse as "an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the perpetrator, if the person is a minor." The crime is a misdemeanor if the offender is less than three years older or three years older than the victim; someone more than three years older could be charged with a felony.

Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County district attorney's office, said a person is considered an adult in California when they turn 18. She wouldn't speculate as to Aldridge's criminal culpability, reiterating what Broadhead said about the site of the alleged offense.

"It doesn't make any difference if [Spears] works [in California], it's where the sex occurred," she said. "I don't know where the child was conceived and I'm not sure what the circumstances are. The law is clear."

Source : MTV

To subscribe (FREE) :
To view us logon at
http://worldtopnews.blogspot.com
To Read Business Articles visit
http://info-exchange.blogspot.com

Indian couple held guilty of 'slavery'

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A wealthy New York couple were found guilty on Monday of forced labor charges after being accused of keeping two Indonesian women as slaves in a dramatic verdict that resulted in the wife fainting.

Indian-born Varsha Mahender Sabhnani, 35, and Mahender Murlidhar Sabhnani, 51, were convicted of charges including forced labor, harboring illegal residents and conspiracy in what prosecutors dubbed a "case of modern-day slavery."

Varsha Sabhnani and one of the couple's daughters fainted after a jury in federal court in Central Islip, New York, found them guilty of 12 counts, a court official said. They each face up to 40 years in prison.

The judge ordered the jury to return Tuesday so each juror could be individually polled to confirm the verdict. Both Varsha Sabhnani and her daughter were taken to hospital for treatment.

Prosecutors said the couple, both U.S. citizens, brought two women, identified only as Samirah, 51, and Enung, 47, to the United States from Indonesia with promises to pay $200 a month for housekeeping duties.

But instead the women testified that their passports were confiscated and for years they were subjected to beatings with brooms, hot water scaldings and being forced to eat hot chili peppers in addition to carrying out household duties.

Defense lawyers had argued both women made up the story and were delusional.

Samirah was found by authorities in May wandering the streets dressed only in pants and a towel after escaping from the couple's home in Muttontown, New York, where they ran a multimillion dollar perfume business.

She was treated at a local hospital for injuries to her ears, face, arms, neck, chest and back that she told authorities were caused by torture inflicted by Varsha Sabhnani.
Enung was found by authorities in the home hiding in a closet. Both women were forced to sleep on mats and had to steal food to get enough to eat, prosecutors said.



To subscribe (FREE) :
To view us logon at
http://worldtopnews.blogspot.com
To Read Business Articles visit
http://info-exchange.blogspot.com

Eleven U.N. staff among dead in Algeria bombs: U.N.

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Eleven U.N. employees are believed to have been among those killed when car bombs hit U.N. and other buildings in Algiers on Tuesday and more U.N. staff were still unaccounted for, a U.N. spokeswoman said.

At least 26 people were killed when suspected al Qaeda militants detonated twin car bombs in Algeria's capital, in one of the bloodiest attacks since civil strife in the 1990s.

An official tally put the death toll at 26, while a Health Ministry source said 67 people were killed. Algeria's state radio, monitored by the BBC in London, said the dead included three Asian nationals, a Dane and one Senegalese.

"We are now putting the U.N. death toll at 11," U.N. spokeswoman Marie Okabe said. Earlier she said, "A number of staff still remain unaccounted for and the situation, as you know, remains fluid."

A U.N. statement said one of the two blasts destroyed the offices of the U.N. Development Program, or UNDP, and severely damaged the offices of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, or UNHCR, in the Algerian capital.

The Geneva-based commissioner, Antonio Guterres, said in a BBC television interview he had "no doubt that the U.N. was targeted". He said the blast occurred in a street separating the main U.N. office from UNHCR's compound.

The attack brought back memories of a bomb that destroyed the U.N. office in Baghdad in 2003 and killed 22 people, including mission chief Sergio Vieira deMello.

Jean Fabre, head of UNDP's Geneva office, earlier told Reuters that many of the U.N. missing were from the UNDP building, which also housed other U.N. agencies including the World Food Program and International Labor Organization.

A UNHCR spokesman said a driver employed by the agency had died.

"The situation on the ground is very confusing," Okabe said earlier. "They (U.N. staff) are trying to locate people in hospitals. They're digging through the rubble." One person had been pulled alive from the rubble, she said.

Okabe said the United Nations had 19 permanent and 21 temporary international staff and 115 local staff in Algeria.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, attending a climate change conference in Indonesia, said in a statement: "Words cannot express my sense of shock, outrage and anger at the terrorist attack on the United Nations mission in Algiers today.

"This was an abject cowardly strike against civilian officials serving humanity's highest ideals under the U.N. banner -- base, indecent and unjustifiable by even the most barbarous political standard."

A statement by the 15-nation Security Council also condemned "in the strongest terms ... this heinous act of terrorism" and called on all states to cooperate with Algeria to bring the perpetrators and their backers to justice.

Algeria blamed the bombs on the north African arm of Al Qaeda.

(Additional reporting by Stephanie Nebehay in Geneva, Mark Trevelyan in London and Claudia Parsons at the United Nations, editing by Cynthia Osterman)

To subscribe (FREE) :
To view us logon at
http://worldtopnews.blogspot.com
To Read Business Articles visit
http://info-exchange.blogspot.com

Romney Addresses Religious Beliefs During Key Speech

Standing before a crowd of several hundred and a television audience of millions, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said that in a nation with religious freedom, his Mormon faith should not be the sole reason keeping him from the presidency.

Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, addressed the public's concerns with his faith in what political observers labeled the most important speech of his political career on Thursday at the George Bush Presidential Library.

With many family members and former President George H.W. Bush present, Romney said the public should question the faith of its leaders in a religious nation, but it should not be the only factor when electing them.

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom," Romney said. "Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religious endure together, or perish alone."

As the first Mormon running for president, many in the public have expressed concerns with his faith, as some tenets of Mormon are considered to be outside the mainstream. An aide to Romney told reporters prior to the speech that the candidate understood the address was necessary, even before he started his campaign.

"Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions," Romney said. "Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin."

The basis of Mormonism, he said, is the same as other Christian faiths -- but, like every other Christian faith, differences exist. "There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked: What do I believe about Jesus Christ?" he said. "I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind."

Because of his beliefs, Romney said, he has an understanding about why religious freedom, while maintaining faith, is crucial.

"Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the almighty, has a friend and ally in me," he said. "And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion -- rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith."

The speech alluded to a similar speech made by the Democratic presidential nominee in the 1960 election. Sen. John F. Kennedy, D-Mass., was a Catholic and many voters thought that his faith would create an allegiance to the pope. On Sept. 12, 1960, he spoke to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, where he attempted to dispel the notion that the Vatican would steward his administration.

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the president [should he be Catholic] how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference -- and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who elect him," Kennedy said.

In this election, Romney said, he is in the position Kennedy was in; trying to explain that he's running as an American, not as a member of a specific faith.

"Almost 50 years ago, another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president," he said. "Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion."

Romney's speech came less than a month before the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3, where he was a longtime front-runner. He has lost his lead however, to Mike Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor and Southern Baptist preacher. In Iowa, Huckabee has 26 percent support to Romney's 25 percent, according to the latest Zogby polls.

In addition, a study conducted by Vanderbilt University showed that bias against Mormons in the U.S. is higher than blacks and women. Researchers found the bias was even stronger among evangelical Christians.

"Depending upon how the speech is designed, it could stir latent bias by activating certain interests of the voting public," said John Greer, distinguished professor of political science at Vanderbilt, who led the survey. "However, those who are biased against Mormons are not necessary hardened in their positions."

Responding to the criticisms of his faith, Romney said his faith is important to him -- not to his political leadership -- and voters should not cast their ballot for or against him just because of that.

"A person should not be elected because of his faith nor rejected because of his faith," he said.

© 2007 The Battalion via U-WIRE

To subscribe (FREE) :
To view us logon at
http://worldtopnews.blogspot.com
To Read Business Articles visit
http://info-exchange.blogspot.com

Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries

OPEC said today that it was leaving its production levels unchanged for the moment, signaling that it was more concerned with slowing economic growth than with high oil prices.

The oil cartel rejected calls from oil consumers, including the United States, to increase output to drive down prices. Saudi Arabia had initially said the group would consider increasing production by 500,000 barrels a day but backed down in the face of opposition from other OPEC members after oil prices fell last week.

With oil prices still around $90 a barrel, today’s decision suggests that producers have significantly increased their minimal target price for oil. Analysts now believe that OPEC’s new floor to be around $70 to $80 a barrel.

Given the volatility in oil markets, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries said it would meet again in February to review its decision and fine-tune its supply levels.

OPEC repeated its long-held view that there was no shortage of oil on the market and that global crude inventories, which are held by oil companies and refineries around the world, were at a comfortable level. OPEC said the reason prices have risen to nearly $100 a barrel in recent weeks had nothing to do with supply and demand but was instead the result of trading activities by commodity investors and hedge funds, and geopolitical instability.

“We have enough stocks in the market,” Abdalla Salem el-Badri, OPEC’s secretary-general, told reporters in Abu Dhabi, where the organization was meeting. “There is no reason for the price of oil to go to $100 a barrel.”

Still, oil prices rose after the meeting as some traders had anticipated an increase in production. Crude oil for January delivery gained as much as $2.07, or 2.3 percent, to $90.39 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Prices have risen 44 percent in the past year. Last month, they reached a high of $99.29 a barrel.

Today’s decision means OPEC remains concerned about a potential slowdown in economic activity that could pare the demand for oil and push prices down. It also signals that the oil cartel does not want to see oil prices fall back to $50 a barrel, as they did in January, nor does it want prices at $100 a barrel.

Since 2000, OPEC’s policy has been to fine-tune its supplies to track closely with oil demand but without allowing oil companies and refiners to build too many oil inventories. That policy of careful management has helped the cartel raise prices since the oil collapse of the late 1990s.

Over the last year, OPEC has pared down its production in a bid to push down the level of commercial oil stocks held in developed nations. Saudi Arabia, OPEC’s top producer, in particular was concerned about higher-than-average oil stock levels and helped engineer a pair of production cuts totaling 1.7 million barrels a day.

While OPEC’s real production only dropped by about 1 million barrels a day after the cuts, the strategy succeeded in forcing refiners to draw on their inventories. Between October 2006 and October 2007, the total oil and product stocks in the United States, Europe and Japan fell by 138 million barrels, according to Lawrence Goldstein, an economist at the Energy Policy Research Foundation.

But the strategy also contributed to a sharp spike in oil prices, which went from $50 a barrel in January to nearly $100 a barrel last month. OPEC tried to correct its aim in September by increasing supplies by 500,000 barrels a day, but the new supplies had only a limited effect on prices.

“They have fully achieved their objective,” Mr. Goldstein said. “In fact they have more than succeeded. The current levels are making them uncomfortable.”

The jump in prices seemed to frustrate oil producers, who have been trying to toe a delicate line in recent months.

OPEC is not insensitive to higher oil prices, which can lead to lower demand for oil. But the group was facing a difficult decision today given fears that the American economy might be slowing down. In that context, adding more oil in the market might have pushed down prices far below the group’s comfort level.

Last week, oil prices had dropped more than 10 percent, their steepest weekly decline in more than two years.

As a group, OPEC’s 13 members account for 40 percent of the world’s daily oil exports, making them the only producers capable of raising their output in a meaningful manner. Together, they now have about 2.5 million barrels a day of spare capacity, according to analyst estimates, mostly in Saudi Arabia.

The group’s final statement expressed OPEC’s concerns with market speculation that has driven up prices. Specifically, it blamed “a heavy influx of financial funds into commodities and speculative activity in the markets” for contributing to higher volatility.

The effect of speculation on commodity prices is also becoming a concern in the United States. A powerful Congressional committee said today that it would be holding hearings on that topic next week in Washington.

The group said that given the need for “extreme vigilance” in managing the oil market in coming months, it would meet again on Feb. 1, ahead of a scheduled meeting in early March.

In addition to the discussion about winter supplies, today’s OPEC meeting also tended to some housekeeping matters. The group’s two newest members — Angola and Ecuador — were each assigned a production quota to regulate their production in the future. The quotas are 1.9 million barrels and 520,000 barrels a day, respectively.

Angola currently pumps around 1.8 million barrels a day and plans to lift its output to 2 million barrels a day next year 2008. Ecuador produces about 500,000 barrels a day.

To subscribe (FREE) :
To view us logon at
http://worldtopnews.blogspot.com
To Read Business Articles visit
http://info-exchange.blogspot.com