Iraakse volk wordt bestolen door westerse oliebedijven zoals Shell, BP en Exxon

[Qaiys]

Shell en BP pikken olie Irak in

Geschreven door Kees

zaterdag 31 maart 2007

Een nieuwe wet op fossiele brandstoffen is afgelopen februari door de Irakese regering afgekondigd. De wet is min of meer door de VS en Groot-Brittannië opgesteld, in nauw overleg met de grote oliemultinationals en het IMF. Het betekent dan ook dat BP en Shell bijna ongecontroleerd de olievoorraden kunnen plunderen, zonder dat Irak daar veel voor terugkrijgt. Andere oliemultinationals liggen nu op de loer om eenzelfde slag te slaan. Tijd dus om wat te doen.

http://www.globalinfo.nl/images/stories/hands%20off%20iraqie.jpg

De internationale campagne "Hands Off Iraqi Oil" Probeert lokaal campagnes op te zetten in landen waar toonaangevende brandstofbedrijven zitten. Tot nu toe zijn campagnes opgestart in GB, de VS en Italië en er is een samenwerkingsverband met de Federatie van Olie Vakbonden in Irak. Nederland, thuishaven van Shell, zou niet achter mogen blijven.

De Irakese olievoorraad beslaat ongeveer 10 procent van de totale bekende voorraad in de wereld. Maar bovenal betekent die de hoofdmoot van het staatsinkomen van Irak.

Onderzoek van oa. carbonweb heeft onthuld dat de Britse en Amerikaanse regering hun positie als bezettingsmacht ten volle heeft uitgebuit om de belangen van hun oliemultinationals te behartigen bij het opstellen van de nieuwe wet. Deze werd in februari door de Irakese regering voorgesteld en houdt in feite in dat de nationale soevereiniteit over de olievelden opgegeven wordt (aangezien artikel 41 stelt dat in geval van conflict tussen de staat en de buitenlandse bedrijven, een internationaal tribunaal recht zal spreken en niet de binnenlandse juridische macht) en het parlement (artikel 11) niets meer te zeggen heeft over de contracten. Voor een analyse van de gevolgen van de nieuwe wet zie oa. dit stuk van Munir Chalabi.

De wet is de afgelopen 8 maanden in het geheim opgesteld, sinds juli 2006, waarbij uitvoerige raadplegingen plaatsvonden met negen buitenlandse oliemultinationals, de regering van de VS en GB en het IMF. Irakese parlementsleden zagen de tekst pas in februari, toen die al af was. De Irakese civiele maatschappij heeft, ondanks eisen daartoe, al helemaal niets te zeggen gehad.

Volgens de campagnegroep "Hands Off Iraqi Oil" werd er de afgelopen 4 jaar door oliebedrijven en door de bezettingsmachten aangestelde olieministers en -adviseurs, aangedrongen op contractuele modellen die sterk in het voordeel van de bedrijven zijn, zoals Production Sharing Agreements, (PSA's) en Exploration Risk Contracts. "Eenmaal getekend, zijn ze feitelijk niet meer aan te passen en zullen ze de ontwikkeling van Iraks olie tientallen jaren bepalen. Ze zullen de Irakese staat miljarden in verloren inkomsten kosten."

"Deze wet levert Iraks soevereiniteit en economische toekomst uit aan buitenlandse belangen. Ze is in het geheim opgesteld en met behulp van oorlog en bezetting opgedrongen. Geen enkele wet zou zo aangenomen mogen worden, laat staan dat er contracten getekend zouden mogen worden, zo lang zich Irak onder militaire bezetting en buitenlandse inmenging bevindt."

De campagne Hands Off Iraqi Oil is deel van een internationale coalitie van organisaties op het gebied van ontwikkeling, milieu, mensenrechten en anti-oorlog, en probeert te mobiliseren tegen de 'jatpartij' van Iraks natuurlijke hulpbronnen door buitenlandse bedrijven. Lokale campagnes zijn inmiddels gaande in de VS, GB en Italië. De campagne roept op om vergelijkbare initiatieven te starten in landen met oliebedrijven die op de loer liggen voor vergelijkbare overeenkomsten. Genoemd worden: Total in Frankrijk, Lukoil in Rusland en de Chinese Petroleum Corporation in China.

Als doelen heeft de campagne:

*) Blootleggen van de rol die de westerse regeringen, internationale financiële instellingen en oliebedrijven spelen bij het vormgeven van de toekomst van de olie-industrie in Irak

*) Ondersteunen van de civiele maatschappij in Irak, waaronder Irakese vakbonden, om zich te verzetten tegen privatisering van olie en het zoeken naar alternatieven daarvoor

*) Het stoppen van het tekenen van contracten onder deze wet, die pure diefstal van de Irakese bewoners betekent.

Meer informatie kan oa. gevonden worden op de website van Hands Off Iraqi Oil

In Londen ligt inmiddels een motie in het parlement om de rol van de Britse regering bij het opstellen van de wet aan te klagen

De grote oliemultinationals hebben ondertussen alweer een onderhoud met de Irakese regering geregeld (via hun lobbyfront ITIC ). Dat zal van 9-11 mei zijn. Eerder hadden ze een vergelijkbaar onderonsje geregeld in januari 2005 in Beiroet.


http://www.globalinfo.nl/content/view/1197/30/


De coalitie van landen die samenwerkte waren eigenlijk een stelletje aasgieren die het iraakse volk willen uitbuiten.

[Qaiys]

Political comments on the draft of the Iraqi oil law

by Munir Chalabi

March 15, 2007

Is Iraq in need of such an Oil Law?

The International Oil Companies (IOCs), the US and UK administrations, and the IMF have to recognize that they will not be able to enforce an oil law which seems to be no less than the old concessionary model in a new guise.

The experience of the past four years has proved that their policies could not be imposed even with the help of over 180,000 occupying forces and whilst the Iraqi state is on its knees. Such policies have instead resulted in the death of over two hundred thousand Iraqi civilians, more destruction to the country's infrastructure, more suffering to millions of Iraqis and complete failure in achieving any of their objectives.

So even if the IOCs and the US/UK administrations succeed in getting the elected Iraqi parliament to approve this law by using all manner of pressure and threats, by now they should be aware that their chances of implementing a law which does not reflect the interests of Iraqis in any shape or form, in the near and long term future, is diminishing.

It is international law which states that the occupying forces have no rights to impose laws which do not reflect the interests of the occupied people and such laws are null and void if any future elected Iraqi parliament declares them to be so.

What has been released in the past few weeks is no more then a component of the best-kept secret -- the final draft of the "Iraqi Oil and Gas (Hydrocarbon) Law" dated 15 January 2007. The preliminary outline of the first draft started circulating in late 2003 during the Governing council period, to be followed by the concept of another draft oil law during Iyad Allawi's regime and then to be followed by a third draft in 2005 and then the July 2006 draft which was circulating in the second part of 2006.

Finally the Iraqi Government allowed the leak of this latest draft, but it was surprising to find out that some key parts of the draft were still not available up to this date.

The key parts of the draft which have not yet been released are:

· The three appendices, which will specify which parts of the already discovered giant oil fields will be counted as "existing producing fields" and which will be counted as "not yet developed fields" that are partially or not yet producing oil. This judgment will decide which oil fields will be allocated to the Iraqi National Oil Company (INOC) and which of the existing fields will be allocated to the IOCs. The appendices will determine if 10% or possibly up to 80% of these major oil fields will be given to the IOCs.

· The law does not give any indication of the conditions and roles acceptable under the "Exploration Risk contracts (ERC)" or "Exploration and Production contracts (EPC)" it refers to. It is very likely that this is an attempt to exclude these key elements from this law.

Several Iraqi and international oil experts and analysts have in the past few weeks written a number of articles and studies on this draft of the oil law, emphasizing the major shortfall of the new draft which can be short-listed in general as follows:

1. The main templates for models of contracts which will be granted to the IOCs under article 9/5 of the draft -- specifically the "Exploration Risk Contract" (ERC) and the "Exploration and Production Contract" (EPC) -- are not dissimilar in practice from the famous contract model known as the "Production Sharing Contract" (PSC), which is the favored model for the IOCs.

2. The law provides the IOCs exclusive control of what may be the major discovered giant oil fields for up to 35 years and guarantees them billions of dollars of profits for between 20 and 25 years -- profits that should go to the Iraqi people.

3. The Iraqi parliament should be the authority which approves and signs all long term contracts with the IOCs including ERC or EPC contracts, and not the "Federal Oil and Gas Council" (FOGC) as stated in article 12 of the draft.

4. Article 41, sections B and D, states that all unresolved disputes between the State of Iraq and any foreign investors will be submitted for arbitration to an international court and will not be decided upon by an Iraqi court. This is no doubt a surrender of Iraqi sovereignty.

5. This is the wrong timing for introducing such a strategic oil law. As several articles of the Iraqi constitution, including articles 112,113, and 115, are under review and there is the possibility that some of these articles will be changed within the coming months, it would be unwise to base such an important law on unknown constitutional articles. It is likely that the new oil law will contradict the new articles of the constitution. On the other hand, if articles 112 and 115 are altered as expected, it will possibly remove the fears of some experts regarding the tendency within the law to lead to sectarian and regional agendas.

6. The law favors the interests of the IOCs over the long term interests and future security of the Iraqi people.

7. There are other shortfalls within the law, such as article 35 which allows the IOCs to transfer all profits outside Iraq without calling for part of the profit to be reinvested on Iraq projects. The lack of transparency within the law is another deficit.

Conclusions

1. Whilst Iraq is still under occupation and the political situation is wholly unstable, it is in the interests of the Iraqi people under these circumstances not to rush into any new strategic oil law that will decide the future of the country's oil and gas wealth within the lifetime of this parliament.

2. It will be in the Iraqi people's interest to have a "provisional oil law" which re-establishes INOC and gives it full decision-making powers similar to what was stated within Iraqi laws 123 and 130 of 1967, until such time comes when Iraq is no longer under occupation.

Furthermore the provisional oil law should permit only a short-term contract between INOC and the international oil companies so as to provide technical help to develop the existing oil fields, which can on the whole produce up to 3.5 million barrels/day -- the same level of oil production as in 1979.

This level of Iraqi oil production will take at least three years to achieve, but only if the country has normal political stability -- which cannot exist as long as the occupying powers are controlling the country. This is also the level of production which OPEC has agreed to. Such a level will not undermine the international oil market prices and will provide Iraq with over 75 billion dollars of oil revenue per year (calculated on the existing average price of 60 dollars/barrel).

3. The draft oil law is no doubt "re-privatizing" Iraqi oil wealth and will return Iraq to the era prior to Law 80 of 1961. Law 80 nationalized 99.5% of the Iraqi land from the IOCs and returned it to the Iraqi nation.

4. The draft law will also dispose of all Iraqi laws which nationalize the interests of the IOCs. This will include law 69 of 1972 which nationalized the Iraqi Petroleum Co., law 200 of 1975 which nationalized the Basrah Petroleum Co., and laws 70, 90, and 101 of 1973 which nationalized the interests of the other operating in Iraq.

5. It is the opinion of many Iraqis and international oil experts that "EPC" and "ERC" contracts are no less than re-privatization methods which technically keep the legal ownership of the oil reserves in the hands of the Iraqi state whilst actually giving full control to the IOCs.

6. All Middle Eastern countries including Iraq nationalized their oil and gas wealth back in the 1970s. This law will make Iraq the first country in the Middle East which re-privatizes its oil and gas wealth for the interests of the IOCs.

7. The draft of the oil law therefore contradicts article 111 of the Iraqi constitution which states that "oil and gas are owned by all the people of Iraq in all the regions and governorates." It virtually offers the ownership of the oil wealth to the IOCs and not the Iraqi people.

8. The draft law almost marginalizes the role of INOC, since it treats INOC as an equivalent to any IOC when it comes to its strategic role in determining the future of the nation.

9. The draft law favors the welfare of the IOCs more than the economic development and security of the nation, and if approved in this form will harm the future national security, territorial integrity, financial independence, and democratic process of Iraq.

10. This is not the first attempt to privatize Iraqi national oil wealth. The Baathist regime started moving in this direction back in the late 1980s and 1990s. The first step which was taken by the Baathist government was in 1987 when they dissolved INOC. This was followed by negotiations with several international oil companies, including western ones such as French companies, as well as eastern oil companies such as the Russian and Chinese.

However, due to the sanctions that were imposed on Iraq, the Baathist regime succeeded only in three such attempts to re-privatize the oil industry between 1997 and 2000. Two PSA agreements were signed with the Russians. This includes the 1997 twenty three year agreement with the Russian oil company, Lukoil, for the development of the West Qurna-2 giant oil field. The third PSA agreement was signed in 2000 with the Chinese National Oil Company.

Munir Chalabi is an Iraqi political analyst living in UK.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=12342

[Qaiys]

Laatst gewijzigd: 30-03-2007 15:33

'Shell overlegt in geheim over gas- en olie Irak'

Shell heeft vorige week geheim overleg gevoerd met Irak over de voorwaarden om te investeren in de olie- en gasindustrie.

Lobby
Dat meldt Dow Jones op basis van goed ingevoerde bronnen. Het Nederlands-Britse olie- en gasconcern zou lobbyen om een belangrijke rol te spelen bij de ontwikkeling van de gasindustrie in Irak. Eerder zou al in Nederland overleg zijn gevoerd.

Gas
Shell zou tijdens een aantal geheim bijeenkomsten in golfstaat Oman hebben overlegd over het opzetten van gezamenlijke ondernemingen in olie en gas. De laatste jaren is er weinig geïnvesteerd in de Iraakse olieindustrie. Shell en Irak zouden ook hebben overlegd om deze weer op de been te krijgen. De plannen richten zich echter in eerste instantie op de gasindustrie en dan vooral de productie voor binnenlands verbruik.

Wetsvoorstel
Shell heeft drie voorwaarden om geld te steken in Irak. Naast vrije verkiezingen zijn dat de invoering van nieuwe olie- en gaswetgeving en een grotere veiligheid. Het Iraakse parlement moet zich nog buigen over de nieuwe oliewet . In het wetsvoorstel is niet opgenomen in hoeverre buitenlandse partijen een belang mogen nemen.

http://www.rtl.nl/(/financien/rtlz/nieuws/)/components/financien/rtlz/2007/weken_2007/13/0330_1300_geheim_overleg_shell_irak.xml

[Qaiys]

’Iraakse olieproductie kan verdubbelen’

Van onze verslaggever Henk Müller

Amsterdam - De Iraakse oliereserves zijn mogelijk twee keer zo groot als tot nu toe gedacht. Dat blijkt uit een studie van het technisch adviesbureau IHS, het eerste gedetailleerde onderzoek naar de reserves sinds de oorlog in Irak dat plaatsvond voor en na de Amerikaanse inval. Geostrategisch kan het land daardoor nog belangrijker worden.

Tot nu toe werden de reserves geschat op 116 miljard vaten. Aan de hand van geologische onderzoek in de westelijke woestijn schat IHS dat daar nog ongeveer 100 miljard vaten bij kunnen komen. Hiermee zou Irak na Saoedi-Arabië de grootste oliebronnen ter wereld bevatten.

Irak produceert nu twee miljoen vaten per dag. Als de politieke situatie zich stabiliseert en er in het land wordt geïnvesteerd dan kan de produktie in vijf jaar verdubbelen van twee naar vier miljoen vaten worden, en op termijn nog hoger worden. Volgens Ron Mobed van IHS is Irak geologisch gezien 'een goudmijn'. Het betreft goede kwaliteit olie die gemakkelijk te winnen is. "Zoiets vind je nergens anders ter wereld, aldus Mobed. Mocht de veiligheidssituatie het toelaten en de infrastructuur worden verbeterd, dan zullen de productiekosten slechts 2 dollar per vat te bedragen schat hij.

Irak telt zeker 78 olievelden waarvan er nu 27 in produktie zijn. Omdat de reserves zich volgens IHS in westelijk woestijngebied bevinden dat in handen is van soennieten, zouden ze een bijdrage kunnen zijn om de conflicten op termijn te helpen oplossen. Soennieten zijn tegen een federatie in Irak zoals sjiieten en Koerden die wensen omdat de meeste olieinkomsten zich dan in Koerdisch en sjiitisch gebied zouden bevinden. De voormalige politieke soennitische elite van het Irak van Saddam zou dan met lege handen staan.


http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/article417408.ece/Iraakse_olieproductie_kan_verdubbelen

Het bizarre aan dit nieuwsartikel is dat er eerst wat stond over de oliewet en hoe voordeliger dat was in vergelijking met toen Saddam aan de macht was en hoveel procent van het aandeel van de inkomsten naar de nieuwe Iraakse regering zouden gaan. (vele malen minder dan toen Saddam aan de macht was.)

Maar nu een paar dagen later is dat kritische stukje uit dit artikel verdwenen

[Qaiys]

Verzekeraars weer bereid tot dekking

Iraakse anarchie houdt Shell niet bij olie weg

21 Apr 07, 09:08

door Theo Besteman

AMSTERDAM (DFT) - Bomaanslagen en moordpartijen hebben bijna vier miljoen Irakezen op de vlucht gedreven en het land in permanente chaos gestort. Toch onderzoekt Shell als eerste oliemaatschappij een terugkeer. Vooral de olievelden rond Kirkoek, in noordelijk Irak, blijven met wereldwijd krimpende voorraden interessant, zo bevestigt het bedrijf de interesse. Verzekeraars zien in Shell een voorbode: voor het eerst is in Irak– zij het tegen torenhoge tarieven – weer afdoende dekking tegen schade en faillissementen mogelijk.
„Verzekeraars en herverzekeraars staan er weer voor open om het risico te nemen”, bevestigt een woordvoerder van verzekeringsmakelaar Aon de trend. Aon koppelt per klus lokaal gespecialiseerde assuradeurs aan bedrijven. Vanuit Bagdad zijn acht verzekeraars, met instemming van de staatspartij Iraq Re, actief, meldt Aon. Ook Arabische herverzekeraars hebben zich al gemeld.

Shell zou als eerste buitenlandse oliemaatschappij actief willen worden. Kredietverzekeraar Atradius houdt de boot voor Shell in Irak nog af. „Er is geen dekking mogelijk, op korte en lange termijn”, aldus de woordvoerster. „Maar we zullen zo’n aanvraag telkens individueel beoordelen.”

„We bekijken de mogelijkheden om terug te gaan, voor olie en gas”, reageert de Shellwoordvoerder. „We zijn zeer geïnteresseerd, al is het nog vroeg. Vooral de onveiligheid voor personeel was tot nu toe de reden om er van af te zien”, zegt hij, doelend op de executies en ontvoeringen van buitenlandse werknemers. „We bekijken nu de mogelijkheden in het Koerdische gedeelte, dat relatief veiliger is.”

Shell werd met de nationalisatie van de olie-industrie in 1972 geweerd uit Irak. In 2005 had het nog een intentieverklaring ondertekend om een gasnetwerk aan te leggen. verzekeraars kunnen een partij als Shell ondanks de grote gevaren binnenhalen door de risico’s onderling te spreiden en af te dekken, zegt een woordvoerder van de kredietverzekeraar Euler Hermes.

Lokker

Olie is in het door geweld verwoeste Irak nog altijd de allergrootste lokker, zegt een Nederlandse verzekeraar op basis van anonimiteit, net terug uit Bagdad. Hij zag daar dat Amerikaanse oliereuzen Shell op de hielen zitten. „Zij hebben via de Amerikaanse overheid en hun leger dé entree.” Chevron zou vooroplopen, maar dat bedrijf wil hier niet op reageren.

Als Shell terugkeert, gaat het om een „aanzienlijke” investering, zegt de woordvoerder. Irak bezit een van de grootste olievelden ter wereld. De oliereus tekende volgens The Times een overeenkomst met de Turkse staatsoliemaatschappij voor aanleg van een enorme oliepijpleiding vanuit Kirkoek naar Ceyhan, aan de Middellandse Zee.

Het onderzoeksbureau IHS maakte dinsdag bekend dat Irak meer olie bezit dan gedacht. IHS schat de voorraad op 100 miljard vaten ruwe olie extra, bijna een verdubbeling. De huidige productie ligt op twee miljoen vaten per dag.

Bovendien maakt nieuwe wetgeving het voor bedrijven interessant om de oliemarkt te betreden, hoewel uitsluitend met een Iraakse partner. Shell zou daarover vorige maand in Bagdad overeenstemming hebben bereikt. Van de 78 officiële olievelden in het land zijn er 27 in bedrijf. Ondanks aanslagen worden er 25 operationeel gemaakt. Oliewinning in Irak is, ondanks de risico’s, relatief goedkoop ten opzichte van offshorewinning.

De verzekeraars willen voor de terugkeer van Shell alleen met losse kortetermijncontracten werken. De premies per dag zijn extreem hoog, aldus Aon. „Bij ons valt Shell vanwege de premies buiten dekking”, reageert de kredietverzekeraar Euler Hermes, dat bedrijven tegen faillissementen van toeleveranciers indekt. „Maar dat kan morgen weer veranderen. Irak is buitengewoon instabiel.”


http://www.dft.nl/bedrijven/royal_dutch_shell_a/1510235/Iraakse_anarchie_houdt_Shell_niet_bij_olie_weg.htm l

[mark61]

Het is inderdaad gewoonweg schunnig.

[Qaiys]

Geplaatst: 25-04-2007 | 21:36

Olieprojecten Venezuela genationaliseerd

CARACAS (AP) – Internationale oliebedrijven hebben woensdag de Venezolaanse regering een meerderheidsbelang verleend in vier lucratieve olieprojecten in de Orinoco-delta. Vertegenwoordigers van onder meer Chevron, BP PLC, Total en ASA ondertekenden de overeenkomst, maar het Amerikaanse ConocoPhilips weigert vooralsnog.

Als het bedrijf uit Houston niet voor 1 mei tekent, zal Venezuela de betreffende olievelden innemen, zei minister van energie Rafael Ramirez. De onderhandelingen over de compensatie die de bedrijven krijgen lopen nog. De overname van de oliewinning in de Orinoco-delta is een belangrijk onderdeel van de nationalisatie van de Venezolaanse olie-industrie.

http://www.refdag.nl/artikel/1300194/Olieprojecten+Venezuela%26nbsp%3Bgenationaliseerd. html

In Venezuela gaat het de goede kant op.

[contradictio]

teveel text.. heb het dus niet gelezen..
wat ik me wel afvraag... daar in Irak he... daar hebben ze toch een regering he... enne toch ook democratische verkiezingen he... dus het volk mag zeggen wie hun leiders worden toch... dus als de leiders de olie voor een prikkie verkopen he... dan zou het volk kunnen beslissen dat die leiders niet deugen... enne dan komen er weer andere leiders toch... wie weet zelfs wel leiders die inmiddels schijt hebben aan die 'rechtvaardige' democratie. of leiders die die olie gewoon in de fik steken.of heel misschien leiders die gaan onderhandelen.. dat was toch democratie niewa?

[Qaiys]

Geplaatst door contradictio
teveel text.. heb het dus niet gelezen..
wat ik me wel afvraag... daar in Irak he... daar hebben ze toch een regering he... enne toch ook democratische verkiezingen he... dus het volk mag zeggen wie hun leiders worden toch... dus als de leiders de olie voor een prikkie verkopen he... dan zou het volk kunnen beslissen dat die leiders niet deugen... enne dan komen er weer andere leiders toch... wie weet zelfs wel leiders die inmiddels schijt hebben aan die 'rechtvaardige' democratie. of leiders die die olie gewoon in de fik steken.of heel misschien leiders die gaan onderhandelen.. dat was toch democratie niewa?

Daarom is het handig als je de teksten doorleest, dan zou je zien dat:

Onderzoek van oa. carbonweb heeft onthuld dat de Britse en Amerikaanse regering hun positie als bezettingsmacht ten volle heeft uitgebuit om de belangen van hun oliemultinationals te behartigen bij het opstellen van de nieuwe wet. Deze werd in februari door de Irakese regering voorgesteld en houdt in feite in dat de nationale soevereiniteit over de olievelden opgegeven wordt (aangezien artikel 41 stelt dat in geval van conflict tussen de staat en de buitenlandse bedrijven, een internationaal tribunaal recht zal spreken en niet de binnenlandse juridische macht ) en het parlement (artikel 11) niets meer te zeggen heeft over de contracten. Voor een analyse van de gevolgen van de nieuwe wet zie oa. dit stuk van Munir Chalabi.

De wet is de afgelopen 8 maanden in het geheim opgesteld, sinds juli 2006, waarbij uitvoerige raadplegingen plaatsvonden met negen buitenlandse oliemultinationals, de regering van de VS en GB en het IMF. Irakese parlementsleden zagen de tekst pas in februari, toen die al af was. De Irakese civiele maatschappij heeft, ondanks eisen daartoe, al helemaal niets te zeggen gehad .

Volgens de campagnegroep "Hands Off Iraqi Oil" werd er de afgelopen 4 jaar door oliebedrijven en door de bezettingsmachten aangestelde olieministers en -adviseurs, aangedrongen op contractuele modellen die sterk in het voordeel van de bedrijven zijn, zoals Production Sharing Agreements, (PSA's) en Exploration Risk Contracts. "Eenmaal getekend, zijn ze feitelijk niet meer aan te passen en zullen ze de ontwikkeling van Iraks olie tientallen jaren bepalen. Ze zullen de Irakese staat miljarden in verloren inkomsten kosten."

"Deze wet levert Iraks soevereiniteit en economische toekomst uit aan buitenlandse belangen. Ze is in het geheim opgesteld en met behulp van oorlog en bezetting opgedrongen. Geen enkele wet zou zo aangenomen mogen worden, laat staan dat er contracten getekend zouden mogen worden, zo lang zich Irak onder militaire bezetting en buitenlandse inmenging bevindt."

Dit is geen democratische wet maar een wet die opgedrongen is door de bezetter. Je gelooft toch niet dat de Iraakse regering een democratische regering is? Het is een facade waarachter gewoon de plundering wordt gelegimiteerd als zijnde een democratische regeringsbesluit.

[contradictio]

ut was een beetje een retorische vraag maar toch bedankt voor het higlighten van de belangrijkste passages. :)

[Olive Yao]

Pardon Contradictio, hier komen nog wat langere posts


THE ZARQAWI INVITATION

9 juni 2006, Gregory Palast

They got him - the big, bad, beheading berserker in Iraq. But, something's gone unreported in all the glee over getting Zarqawi … who invited him into Iraq in the first place?

If you prefer your fairy tales unsoiled by facts, read no further. If you want the uncomfortable truth, begin with this: A phone call to Baghdad to Saddam's Palace on the night of April 21, 2003. It was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on a secure line from Washington to General Jay Garner.

The General had arrives in Baghdad just hours before to take charge of the newly occupied nation. The message from Rumsfeld was not a heartwarming welcome. Rummy told Garner, Don't unpack, Jack - you're fired.

What had Garner done? The many-starred general had been sent by the President himself to take charge of a deeply dangerous mission. Iraq was tense but relatively peaceful. Garner's job was to keep the peace and bring democracy.

Unfortunately for the general, he took the President at his word. But the general was wrong. "Peace" and "Democracy" were the slogans.

"My preference," Garner told me in his understated manner, "was to put the Iraqis in charge as soon as we can and do it in some form of elections."

But elections were not in The Plan.

The Plan was a 101-page document to guide the long-term future of the land we'd just conquered. There was nothing in it about democracy or elections or safety. There was, rather, a detailed schedule for selling off "all [Iraq's] state assets" - and Iraq, that's just about everything - "especially," said The Plan, "the oil and supporting industries." Especially the oil.

There was more than oil to sell off. The Plan included the sale of Iraq's banks, and weirdly, changing it's copyright laws and other odd items that made the plan look less like a program for Iraq to get on its feet than a program for corporate looting of the nation's assets. (And indeed, we discovered at BBC, behind many of the odder elements - copyright and tax code changes - was the hand of lobbyist Jack Abramoff's associate Grover Norquist.)

But Garner didn't think much of The Plan, he told me when we met a year later in Washington. He had other things on his mind. "You prevent epidemics, you start the food distribution program to prevent famine."

Seizing title and ownership of Iraq's oil fields was not on Garner's must-do list. He let that be known to Washington. "I don't think [Iraqis] need to go by the U.S. plan, I think that what we need to do is set an Iraqi government that represents the freely elected will of the people." He added, "It's their country … their oil."

Apparently, the Secretary of Defense disagreed. So did lobbyist Norquist. And Garner incurred their fury by getting carried away with the "democracy" idea: he called for quick elections - within 90 days of the taking of Baghdad.

But Garner's 90-days-to-elections commitment ran straight into the oil sell-off program. Annex D of the plan indicated that would take at least 270 days - at least 9 months.

Worse, Garner was brokering a truce between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds. They were about to begin what Garner called a "Big Tent" meeting to hammer out the details and set the election date. He figured he had 90 days to get it done before the factions started slitting each other's throats.

But a quick election would mean the end of the state-asset sell-off plan: An Iraqi-controlled government would never go along with what would certainly amount to foreign corporations swallowing their entire economy. Especially the oil. Garner had spent years in Iraq, in charge of the Northern Kurdish zone and knew Iraqis well. He was certain that an asset-and-oil grab, "privatizations," would cause a sensitive population to take up the gun. "That's just one fight you don't want to take on right now."

But that's just the fight the neo-cons at Defense wanted. And in Rumsfeld's replacement for Garner, they had a man itching for the fight. Paul Bremer III had no experience on the ground in Iraq, but he had one unbeatable credential that Garner lacked: Bremer had served as Managing Director of Kissinger and Associates.

In April 2003, Bremer instituted democracy Bush style: he canceled elections and appointed the entire government himself. Two months later, Bremer ordered a halt to all municipal elections including the crucial vote to Shia seeking to select a mayor in the city of Najaf. The front-runner, moderate Shia Asad Sultan Abu Gilal warned, "If they don't give us freedom, what will we do? We have patience, but not for long." Local Shias formed the "Mahdi Army," and within a year, provoked by Bremer's shutting their paper, attacked and killed 21 U.S. soldiers.

The insurgency had begun. But Bremer's job was hardly over. There were Sunnis to go after. He issued "Order Number One: De-Ba'athification." In effect, this became "De-Sunni-fication."

Saddam's generals, mostly Sunnis, who had, we learned, secretly collaborated with the US invasion and now expected their reward found themselves hunted and arrested. Falah Aljibury, an Iraqi-born US resident who helped with the pre-invasion brokering, told me, "U.S. forces imprisoned all those we named as political leaders," who stopped Iraq's army from firing on U.S. troops.

Aljibury's main concern was that busting Iraqi collaborators and Ba'athist big shots was a gift "to the Wahabis," by which he meant the foreign insurgents, who now gained experienced military commanders, Sunnis, who now had no choice but to fight the US-installed regime or face arrest, ruin or death. They would soon link up with the Sunni-defending Wahabi, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was committed to destroying "Shia snakes."

And the oil fields? It was, Aljibury noted, when word got out about the plans to sell off the oil fields (thanks to loose lips of the US-appointed oil minister) that pipelines began to blow. Although he had been at the center of planning for invasion, Aljibury now saw the greed-crazed grab for the oil fields as the fuel for a civil war that would rip his country to pieces:

"Insurgents," he said, "and those who wanted to destabilize a new Iraq have used this as means of saying, 'Look, you're losing your country. You’re losing your leadership. You're losing all of your resources to a bunch of wealthy people. A bunch of billionaires in the world want to take you over and make your life miserable.' And we saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities, pipelines, of course, built on - built on the premise that privatization [of oil] is coming."

General Garner, watching the insurgency unfold from the occupation authority's provocations, told me, in his understated manner, "I'm a believer that you don't want to end the day with more enemies than you started with."

But you can't have a war president without a war. And you can't have a war without enemies. "Bring 'em on," our Commander-in-Chief said. And Zarqawi answered the call.

[Olive Yao]

IT'S STILL THE OIL: SECRET CONDI MEETING ON OIL BEFORE INVASION

by Greg Palast, Sunday, March 18, 2007

Four years ago this week, the tanks rolled for what President Bush originally called, "Operation Iraqi Liberation" - O.I.L.
I kid you not.

And it was four years ago that, from the White House, George Bush, declaring war, said, "I want to talk to the Iraqi people." That Dick Cheney didn't tell Bush that Iraqis speak Arabic … well, never mind. I expected the President to say something like, "Our troops are coming to liberate you, so don't shoot them." Instead, Mr. Bush told the Iraqis,

"Do not destroy oil wells."

Nevertheless, the Bush Administration said the war had nothing to do with Iraq's oil. Indeed, in 2002, the State Department stated, and its official newsletter, the Washington Post, repeated, that State's Iraq study group, "does not have oil on its list of issues."

But now, we've learned that, despite protestations to the contrary, Condoleezza Rice held a secret meeting with the former Secretary-General of OPEC, Fadhil Chalabi, an Iraqi, and offered Chalabi the job of Oil Minister for Iraq. (It is well established that the President of the United States may appoint the cabinet ministers of another nation if that appointment is confirmed by the 101st Airborne.)

In all the chest-beating about how the war did badly, no one seems to remember how the war did very, very well - for Big Oil.

The war has kept Iraq's oil production to 2.1 million barrels a day from pre-war, pre-embargo production of over 4 million barrels. In the oil game, that's a lot to lose. In fact, the loss of Iraq's 2 million barrels a day is equal to the entire planet's reserve production capacity.

In other words, the war has caused a hell of a supply squeeze - and Big Oil just loves it. Oil today is $57 a barrel versus the $18 a barrel price under Bill "Love-Not-War" Clinton.

Since the launch of Operation Iraqi Liberation, Halliburton stock has tripled to $64 a share - not, as some believe, because of those Iraq reconstruction contracts - peanuts for Halliburton. Cheney's former company's main business is "oil services." And, as one oilman complained to me, Cheney's former company has captured a big hunk of the rise in oil prices by jacking up the charges for Halliburton drilling and piping equipment.

But before we shed tears for Big Oil's having to hand Halliburton its slice, let me note that the value of the reserves of the five biggest oil companies more than doubled during the war to $2.36 trillion.

And that was the plan: putting a new floor under the price of oil. I have that in writing. In 2005, after a two-year battle with the State and Defense Departments, they released to my team at BBC Newsnight the "Options for a Sustainable Iraqi Oil Industry." Now, you might think our government shouldn't be writing a plan for another nation's oil. Well, our government didn't write it, despite the State Department seal on the cover. In fact, we discovered that the 323-page plan was drafted in Houston by oil industry executives and consultants.

The suspicion is that Bush went to war to get Iraq's oil. That's not true. The document, and secret recordings of those in on the scheme, made it clear that the Administration wanted to make certain America did not get the oil. In other words, keep the lid on Iraq's oil production - and thereby keep the price of oil high.

Of course, the language was far more subtle than, "Let's cut Iraq's oil production and jack up prices." Rather, the report uses industry jargon and euphemisms which require Iraq to remain an obedient member of the OPEC cartel and stick to the oil-production limits - "quotas" - which keep up oil prices.

The Houston plan, enforced by an army of occupation, would, "enhance [Iraq's] relationship with OPEC," the oil cartel.

And that's undoubtedly why Condoleezza Rice asked Fadhil Chalabi to take charge of Iraq's Oil Ministry. As former chief operating officer of OPEC, the oil cartel, Fadhil was a Big Oil favorite, certain to ensure that Iraq would never again allow the world to slip back to the Clinton era of low prices and low profits. (In investigating for BBC, I was told by the former chief of the CIA's oil unit that he'd met with Fadhil regarding oil at Bush's request. Fadhil recently complained to the BBC. He denied the meeting with the Bush emissary in London because, he noted, he was secretly meeting that week in Washington with Condi!)

Fadhil, by the way, turned down Condi's offer to run Iraq's Oil Ministry. Ultimately, Iraq's Oil Ministry was given to Fadhil's fellow tribesman, Ahmad Chalabi, a convicted bank swindler and neo-con idol. But whichever Chalabi is nominal head of Iraq's oil industry in Baghdad, the orders come from Houston. Indeed, the oil law adopted by Iraq's shaky government this month is virtually a photocopy of the "Options" plan first conceived in Texas long before Iraq was "liberated."

In other words, the war has gone exactly to plan - the Houston plan. So forget the naïve cloth-rending about a conflict gone haywire. Exxon-Mobil reported a record $10 billion profit last quarter, the largest of any corporation in history. Mission Accomplished.

[mark61]

Bron? :hihi:

Die Garner, dat ze zulke naïeve kleuters nog maken. En dan nog generaal ook :haha:

[Qaiys]

Geplaatst door Olive Yao
IT'S STILL THE OIL: SECRET CONDI MEETING ON OIL BEFORE INVASION

by Greg Palast, Sunday, March 18, 2007


But now, we've learned that, despite protestations to the contrary, Condoleezza Rice held a secret meeting with the former Secretary-General of OPEC, Fadhil Chalabi, an Iraqi, and offered Chalabi the job of Oil Minister for Iraq. (It is well established that the President of the United States may appoint the cabinet ministers of another nation if that appointment is confirmed by the 101st Airborne.)



Zomaar een weetje.

Chevron named oil tanker the "Condoleezza Rice"

Below is a picture of the oil tanker before Chevron quietly renamed it the "Altair Voyager" and before President George Bush appointed Ms. Rice as National Security Advisor.

http://www.aztlan.net/oiltank.jpg

Do you get the picture?

* * * * *
Condoleezza Rice was a Chevron Director from 1991 until January 15, 2001 when she was transferred by President George Bush Jr. to National Security Adviser. Previously she was Senior Director, Soviet Affairs, National Security Council, and Special Assistant to President George Bush Sr. from 1989 to 1991.

Another Chevron Corporation giant in the Bush administration is Vice President Dick Cheney. Vice President Cheney was Chairman and Chief Executive of Dallas based Halliburton Corporation, the world’s largest oil field services company with multi-billion dollar contracts with oil corporations including Chevron. Lawrence Eagleburger, a seasoned Bush counselor who held top State Department posts under George Bush Sr., is a director of Halliburton Corporation.

Halliburton's global network of investments includes projects in politically volatile areas including the Caspian Sea region. Dick Cheney was instrumental in negotiating a Caspian Sea pipeline for Chevron. The crude oil pipeline is a 900-mile project stretching from western Kazakhstan to the Black Sea that will primarily benefit Chevron by connecting the Tengiz oil field to the Black Sea port of Novorossiysk in Russia. Chevron, the largest oil company member of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, holds a 55 percent ownership interest with the Republic of Kazakhstan in Tengizchevroil. The 40-year, $20 billion joint-venture company was formed in 1993 to develop the Tengiz field. Tengiz is one of the world’s largest oil fields with 6 to 9 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

Also, there are allegations that the Bush Administration declared war in Afghanistan, not necessarily to combat terrorism, but to make it possible for U.S. oil interests to construct gas and oil pipelines from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan to Pakistani harbors on the Indian Ocean. The first phase, now accomplish, was to install a friendly "puppet" regime in Kabul. La Voz de Aztlan has a report on this subject at:


It's all about the "O" word!

http://www.aztlan.net/oiltanker.htm

[Tomas]

Geplaatst door Qaiys

http://www.aztlan.net/oiltank.jpg



Amateurs: Het perspectief in de tekst vergeten.

[Qaiys]

Afghanistan, The Taliban, And The Bush Oil Team

Wayne Madsen in Washington, DC [email protected]

According to Afghan, Iranian, and Turkish government sources, Hamid Karzai, the interim Prime Minister of Afghanistan, was a top adviser to the El Segundo, California-based UNOCAL Corporation which was negotiating with the Taliban to construct a Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline from Turkmenistan through western Afghanistan to Pakistan .

Karzai, the leader of the southern Afghan Pashtun Durrani tribe, was a member of the mujaheddin that fought the Soviets during the 1980s. He was a top contact for the CIA and maintained close relations with CIA Director William Casey, Vice President George Bush, and their Pakistani Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) Service interlocutors. Later, Karzai and a number of his brothers moved to the United States under the auspices of the CIA. Karzai continued to serve the agency's interests, as well as those of the Bush Family and their oil friends in negotiating the CentGas deal, according to Middle East and South Asian sources.

When one peers beyond all of the rhetoric of the White House and Pentagon concerning the Taliban, a clear pattern emerges showing that construction of the trans-Afghan pipeline was a top priority of the Bush administration from the outset. Although UNOCAL claims it abandoned the pipeline project in December 1998, the series of meetings held between U.S., Pakistani, and Taliban officials after 1998, indicates the project was never off the table.

Quite to the contrary, recent meetings between U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Wendy Chamberlain and that country's oil minister Usman Aminuddin indicate the pipeline project is international Project Number One for the Bush administration. Chamberlain, who maintains close ties to the Saudi ambassador to Pakistan (a one-time chief money conduit for the Taliban), has been pushing Pakistan to begin work on its Arabian Sea oil terminus for the pipeline.

Meanwhile, President Bush says that U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan for the long haul. Far from being engaged in Afghan peacekeeping -- the Europeans are doing much of that -- our troops will effectively be guarding pipeline construction personnel that will soon be flooding into the country.

Karzai's ties with UNOCAL and the Bush administration are the main reason why the CIA pushed him for Afghan leader over rival Abdul Haq, the assassinated former mujaheddin leader from Jalalabad, and the leadership of the Northern Alliance, seen by Langley as being too close to the Russians and Iranians. Haq had no apparent close ties to the U.S. oil industry and, as both a Pushtun and a northern Afghani, was popular with a wide cross-section of the Afghan people, including the Northern Alliance. Those credentials likely sealed his fate.

When Haq entered Afghanistan from Pakistan last October, his position was immediately known to Taliban forces, which subsequently pinned him and his small party down, captured, and executed them. Former Reagan National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, who worked with Haq, vainly attempted to get the CIA to help rescue Haq. The agency claimed it sent a remotely-piloted armed drone to attack the Taliban but its actions were too little and too late. Some observers in Pakistan claim the CIA tipped off the ISI about Haq's journey and the Pakistanis, in turn, informed the Taliban. McFarlane, who runs a K Street oil consulting firm, did not comment on further questions about the circumstances leading to the death of Haq.

While Haq was not part of the Bush administration's GOP (Grand Oil Plan) for South Asia, Karzai was a key player on the Bush Oil team. During the late 1990s, Karzai worked with an Afghani-American, Zalmay Khalilzad, on the CentGas project. Khalilzad is President Bush's Special National Security Assistant and recently named presidential Special Envoy for Afghanistan. Interestingly, in the White House press release naming Khalilzad special envoy, no mention was made of his past work for UNOCAL. Khalilzad has worked on Afghan issues under National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, a former member of the board of Chevron, itself no innocent bystander in the future CentGas deal. Rice made an impression on her old colleagues at Chevron. The company has named one of their supertankers the SS Condoleezza Rice.

Khalilzad, a fellow Pashtun and the son of a former government official under King Mohammed Zahir Shah, was, in addition to being a consultant to the RAND Corporation, a special liaison between UNOCAL and the Taliban government. Khalilzad also worked on various risk analyses for the project.

Khalilzad's efforts complemented those of the Enron Corporation, a major political contributor to the Bush campaign. Enron, which recently filed for bankruptcy in the single biggest corporate collapse in the nation's history, conducted the feasibility study for the CentGas deal. Vice President Cheney held several secret meetings with top Enron officials, including its Chairman Kenneth Lay, earlier in 2001. These meetings were presumably part of Cheney's non-public Energy Task Force sessions. A number of Enron stockholders, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, became officials in the Bush administration. In addition, Thomas White, a former Vice Chairman of Enron and a multimillionaire in Enron stock, currently serves as the Secretary of the Army.

A chief benefactor in the CentGas deal would have been Halliburton, the huge oil pipeline construction firm that also had its eye on the Central Asian oil reserves. At the time, Halliburton was headed by Dick Cheney. After Cheney's selection as Bush's Vice Presidential candidate, Halliburton also pumped a huge amount of cash into the Bush-Cheney campaign coffers. And like oil cash cow Enron, there were Wall Street rumors in late December that Halliburton, which suffered a forty per cent drop in share value, might follow Enron into bankruptcy court.

Assisting with the CentGas negotiations with the Taliban was Laili Helms, the niece-in-law of former CIA Director Richard Helms. Laili Helms, also a relative of King Zahir Shah, was the Taliban's unofficial envoy to the United States and arranged for various Taliban officials to visit the United States. Laili Helms' base of operations was in her home in Jersey City on the Hudson River. Ironically, most of her work on behalf of the Taliban was practically conducted in the shadows of the World Trade Center, just across the river.

Laili Helms' liaison work for the Taliban paid off for Big Oil. In December 1997, the Taliban visited UNOCAL's Houston refinery operations. Interestingly, the chief Taliban leader based in Kandahar, Mullah Mohammed Omar, now on America's international Most Wanted List, was firmly in the UNOCAL camp. His rival Taliban leader in Kabul, Mullah Mohammed Rabbani (not to be confused with the head of the Northern Alliance Burhanuddin Rabbani), favored Bridas, an Argentine oil company, for the pipeline project. But Mullah Omar knew UNOCAL had pumped large sums of money to the Taliban hierarchy in Kandahar and its expatriate Afghan supporters in the United States. Some of those supporters were also close to the Bush campaign and administration. And Kandahar was the city near which the CentGas pipeline was to pass, a lucrative deal for the otherwise desert outpost.

While Clinton's State Department omitted Afghanistan from the top foreign policy priority list, the Bush administration, beholden to the oil interests that pumped millions of dollars into the 2000 campaign, restored Afghanistan to the top of the list, but for all the wrong reasons. After Bush's accession to the presidency, various Taliban envoys were received at the State Department, CIA, and National Security Council. The CIA, which appears, more than ever, to be a virtual extended family of the Bush oil interests, facilitated a renewed approach to the Taliban. The CIA agent who helped set up the Afghan mujaheddin, Milt Bearden, continued to defend the interests of the Taliban. He bemoaned the fact that the United States never really bothered to understand the Taliban when he told the Washington Post last October, "We never heard what they were trying to say... We had no common language. Ours was, 'Give up bin Laden.' They were saying, 'Do something to help us give him up.' "

There were even reports that the CIA met with their old mujaheddin operative bin Laden in the months before September 11 attacks. The French newspaper Le Figaro quoted an Arab specialist named Antoine Sfeir who postulated that the CIA met with bin Laden in July in a failed attempt to bring him back under its fold. Sfeir said the CIA maintained links with bin Laden before the U.S. attacked his terrorist training camps in Afghanistan in 1998 and, more astonishingly, kept them going even after the attacks. Sfeir told the paper, "Until the last minute, CIA agents hoped bin Laden would return to U.S. command, as was the case before 1998." Bin Laden actually officially broke with the US in 1991 when US troops began arriving in Saudi Arabia during Operation Desert Storm. Bin Laden felt this was a violation of the Saudi regime’s responsibility to protect the Islamic Holy Shrines of Mecca and Medina from the infidels. Bin Laden’s anti-American and anti-House of Saud rhetoric soon reached a fever pitch.

The Clinton administration made numerous attempts to kill Bin Laden. In August 1998, Al Qaeda operatives blew up several U.S. embassies in Africa. In response, Bill Clinton ordered cruise missiles to be launched from US ships in the Persian Gulf into Afghanistan, which missed Bin Laden by a few hours. The Clinton administration also devised a plan with Pakistan's ISI to send a team of assassins into Afghanistan to kill Bin Laden. But Pakistan's government was overthrown by General Musharraf, who was viewed as particularly close to the Taliban. The CIA cancelled its plans, fearing Musharraf's ISI would tip off the Taliban and Bin Laden. . The CIA's connections to the ISI in the months before September 11 and the weeks after are also worthy of a full-blown investigation. The CIA continues to maintain an unhealthy alliance with the ISI, the organization that groomed bin Laden and the Taliban. Last September, the head of the ISI, General Mahmud Ahmed, was fired by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf for his pro-Taliban leanings and reportedly after the U.S. government presented Musharraf with disturbing intelligence linking the general to the terrorist hijackers.

General Ahmed was in Washington, DC on the morning of September 11 meeting with CIA and State Department officials as the hijacked planes slammed into the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Later, both the Northern Alliance spokesman in Washington, Haron Amin, and Indian intelligence, in an apparent leak to The Times of India, confirmed that General Ahmed ordered a Pakistani-born British citizen and known terrorist named Ahmed Umar Sheik to wire $100,000 from Pakistan to the U.S. bank account of Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker.

When the FBI traced calls made between General Ahmed and Sheik's cellular phone - the number having been supplied by Indian intelligence to the FBI - a pattern linking the general with Sheik clearly emerged. According to The Times of India, the revelation that General Ahmed was involved in the Sheik-Atta money transfer was more than enough for a nervous and embarrassed Bush administration. It pressed Musharraf to dump General Ahmed. Musharraf mealy-mouthed the announcement of his general's dismissal by stating Ahmed "requested" early retirement.

Sheik was well known to the Indian police. He was arrested in New Delhi in 1994 for plotting to kidnap four foreigners, including an American citizen. Sheik was released by the Indians in 1999 in a swap for passengers on board New Delhi-bound Indian Airlines flight 814, hijacked by Islamic militants from Kathmandu, Nepal to Kandahar, Afghanistan. India continues to believe the ISI played a part in the hijacking since the hijackers were affiliated with the pro-bin Laden Kashmiri terrorist group, Harkat-ul-Mujaheddin, a group only recently and quite belatedly placed on the State Department's terrorist list. The ISI and bin Laden's Al Qaeda reportedly assists the group in its operations against Indian government targets in Kashmir.

The FBI, which assisted its Indian counterpart in the investigation of the Indian Airlines hijacking, says it wants information leading to the arrest of those involved in the terrorist attacks. Yet, no move has been made to question General Ahmed or those U.S. government officials, including Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who met with him in September. Clearly, General Ahmed was a major player in terrorist activities across South Asia, yet still had very close ties to the U.S. government. General Ahmed's terrorist-supporting activities - and the U.S. government officials who tolerated those activities - need to be investigated.

The Taliban visits to Washington continued up to a few months prior to the September 11 attacks. The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research's South Asian Division maintained constant satellite telephone contact with the Taliban in Kandahar and Kabul. Washington permitted the Taliban to maintain a diplomatic office in Queens, New York headed by Taliban diplomat Abdul Hakim Mojahed. In addition, U.S. officials, including Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs Christina Rocca, who is also a former CIA officer, visited Taliban diplomatic officials in Islamabad. In the meantime, the Bush administration took a hostile attitude towards the Islamic State of Afghanistan, otherwise known as the Northern Alliance. Even though the United Nations recognized the alliance as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, the Bush administration, with oil at the forefront of its goals, decided to follow the lead of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and curry favor with the Taliban mullahs of Afghanistan. The visits of Islamist radicals did not end with the Taliban. In July 2001, the head of Pakistan's pro-bin Laden Jamiaat-i-Islami Party, Qazi Hussein Ahmed, also reportedly was received at the George Bush Center for Intelligence (aka, CIA headquarters) in Langley, Virginia.

According to the Washington Post, the Special Envoy of Mullah Omar, Rahmatullah Hashami, even came to Washington bearing a gift carpet for President Bush from the one-eyed Taliban leader. The Village Voice reported that Hashami, on behalf of the Taliban, offered the Bush administration to hold on to bin Laden long enough for the United States to capture or kill him but, inexplicably, the administration refused. Meanwhile, Spozhmai Maiwandi, the director of the Voice of America's Pashtun service, jokingly nicknamed "Kandahar Rose" by her colleagues, aired favorable reports on the Taliban, including a controversial interview with Mullah Omar.

The Bush administration's dalliances with the Taliban may have even continued after the start of the bombing campaign against their country. According to European intelligence sources, a number of European governments were concerned that the CIA and Big Oil were pressuring the Bush administration not to engage in an initial serious ground war on behalf of the Northern Alliance in order to placate Pakistan and its Taliban compatriots. The early-on decision to stick with an incessant air bombardment, they reasoned, was causing too many civilian deaths and increasing the shakiness of the international coalition.

The obvious, and woefully underreported, interfaces between the Bush administration, UNOCAL, the CIA, the Taliban, Enron, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, the groundwork for which was laid when the Bush Oil team was on the sidelines during the Clinton administration, is making the Republicans worried. Vanquished vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman is in the ironic position of being the senator who will chair the Senate Government Affairs Committee hearings on the collapse of Enron. The roads from Enron also lead to Afghanistan and murky Bush oil politics.

UNOCAL was also clearly concerned about its past ties to the Taliban. On September 14, just three days after terrorists of the Afghan-base al Qaeda movement crashed their planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, UNOCAL issued the following statement: "The company is not supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan in any way whatsoever. Nor do we have any project or involvement in Afghanistan. Beginning in late 1997, Unocal was a member of a multinational consortium that was evaluating construction of a Central Asia Gas pipeline between Turkmenistan and Pakistan [via western Afghanistan]. Our company has had no further role in developing or funding that project or any other project that might involve the Taliban."

The Bush Oil Team, which can now rely on the support of the interim Prime Minister of Afghanistan, may think that war and oil profits mix. But there is simply too much evidence that the War in Afghanistan was primarily about building UNOCAL's pipeline, not about fighting terrorism. The Democrats, who control the Senate and its investigation agenda, should investigate the secretive deals between Big Oil, Bush, and the Taliban.

http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=5496

[Qaiys]

Geplaatst door Tomas
Amateurs: Het perspectief in de tekst vergeten.



Chevron redubs ship named for Bush aide
Condoleezza Rice drew too much attention

Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer

Saturday, May 5, 2001

Leaving a wave of controversy in its wake, one of the most visible reminders of the Bush administration's ties to big oil - the 129,000-ton Chevron tanker Condoleezza Rice - has quietly been renamed, Chevron officials acknowledged yesterday.

"We made the change to eliminate the unnecessary attention caused by the vessel's original name," said Chevron spokesman Fred Gorell.

The double-hulled, Bahamian-registered oil tanker carrying the moniker of Bush's national security adviser was renamed the Altair Voyager, after a star, Gorell said.

The unannounced decision to rechristen the tanker was made by Chevron officials in late April, after "we had been in discussions with (Rice's) office," said Gorell. Asked if Rice or the White House had specifically requested the name change, Gorell said, "that's not for me to discuss."

Rice's spokeswoman, Maryellen Countryman, did not return calls on the matter yesterday.

The Chronicle reported a month ago that the White House had faced questions over the appropriateness of the tanker's name -- particularly as California struggled with the effects of an energy crisis.

The giant vessel was part of the international fleet of the San Francisco- based multinational oil firm, christened several years ago in honor of Rice, a longtime Chevron board member. Rice, a former Stanford University provost, served on Chevron's board from 1991 until Jan. 15, when she resigned after Bush named her his top national security aide.

But critics said the ship served as a giant floating symbol of the Bush administration's cozy ties to the oil industry.

"It does underscore that there's never been an administration in power in this country that has been so close to a single industry -- in this instance, the oil-and-gas industry," Chuck Lewis of the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity said last month when the watchdog organization first raised the issue.

The tanker's name also raised more serious questions of possible conflict of interest for Rice because Chevron does business on six continents and 25 countries and has been sued for alleged human rights abuses in Nigeria.

Last month, White House spokesman Scott McClellan insisted that the issue of the tanker had "already been addressed" by Rice, and he added, "she will uphold the highest ethical standards in office."

Chevron officials argued last month that the ship's name was entirely appropriate because it was a special honor for Rice -- part of a longstanding tradition of naming ships after members of the Chevron board. They noted that George Shultz, David Packard and Kenneth T. Derr were all afforded similar honors, and that those names did not change even when honorees went into government service.

"We would not be renaming the Condi Rice tanker," said Bonnie Schiken, spokeswoman for Chevron, in early April. "If you remember, Carla Hills was on our board, and went off the board to take a role in the administration . . . we did not rename the tanker."

Pat Moloney, executive director of the Pilot Commission and master of the historic liberty ship Jeremiah O'Brien, said yesterday, "In the old sailing ship days, they'd say it was bad luck to change the name of a ship."

But in modern times, it's not only common but prudent, he said, noting that the infamous Exxon Valdez was changed to the Sea River Mediterranean after its environmental disaster.

Chevron's move "makes good sense . . . because the ship has potential for high profile," said Moloney of the Condoleezza Rice. "The companies don't want an asset like that with an obvious political liability.

"As soon as I heard she was named (to the administration)," he said, "I figured they'd get out the paintbrush."

E-mail Carla Marinucci at [email protected].

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/05/05/MN223743.DTL

[Tomas]

Geplaatst door Qaiys
Bla


Whatever. De foto is gefotoshopt. Voor iedereen te zien. Of er ooit een tanker genoemd is zou ik niet weten en boeit me niet. Vermeldt alleen maar even de betrouwbaarheid van je site. Doe er je voordeel mee.

[Qaiys]

Geplaatst door Tomas
Amateurs: Het perspectief in de tekst vergeten.

Vind ik ook, deze foto van de televie genomen is beter

http://blogs.southflorida.com/citylink_dansweeney/tanker.jpg

[Qaiys]

Geplaatst door Tomas
Whatever. De foto is gefotoshopt. Voor iedereen te zien. Of er ooit een tanker genoemd is zou ik niet weten en boeit me niet. Vermeldt alleen maar even de betrouwbaarheid van je site. Doe er je voordeel mee.

Zie artikel uit het San Francisco Chronicle.

[Tomas]

Geplaatst door Qaiys
Zie artikel uit het San Francisco Chronicle.

Daar kwam de foto niet vandaan. Maar dat weet je eigenlijk wel., je hebt nu eenmaal iets patalogisch in je. Zie je op de foto van de tv, dat de tekst omhoog loopt bij de boeg? Snap je het nu, of moet ik het uittekenen?

[Qaiys]

Geplaatst door Tomas
Daar kwam de foto niet vandaan. Maar dat weet je eigenlijk wel., je hebt nu eenmaal iets patalogisch in je.

Dat ik de San Francisco Cronicle erbij haal is om aan te geven dat het daadwerkelijk waar is dat een tanker naar condoleezza is genoemd omdat je zegt dat door die foto de betrouwbaarheid van die site minder wordt. Mij gaat het helemaal niet om de foto maar om het artikel.

Plaatjes zijn alleen bijzaak en voor plaatjeskijkers die een hekel hebben aan lezen.

En dat patholgische jegens mijn persoon moet je niet doen, wees volwassen en hou op met dat op de man spelen aub.


Zie je op de foto van de tv, dat de tekst omhoog loopt bij de boeg? Snap je het nu, of moet ik het uittekenen?

Ik snap hier niet waar je het over hebt.

[mark61]

Geplaatst door Qaiys
Ik snap hier niet waar je het over hebt.

Ik zal het dan maar even voor je uitleggen, o drukbezette: het is stompzinnig vervalsingen te plaatsen bij een artikel als je overtuigend wil overkomen. En infantiel op de koop toe. Make your pick.

[Qaiys]

Geplaatst door mark61
Ik zal het dan maar even voor je uitleggen, o drukbezette: het is stompzinnig vervalsingen te plaatsen bij een artikel als je overtuigend wil overkomen. En infantiel op de koop toe. Make your pick.

Kun je nou echt niet eens reageren zonder kinderachtige reakties?

Ik plaatste dat fotootje omdat het bij het artikel hoorde. Zoals je weet plaats ik altijd links en als iemand de link zou volgen zou ik dan achteraf beschuldigd kunnen worden van het achterhouden van die foto. Ik vond namelijk zoals je uit mijn reaktie kunt lezen ook niet dat het echt overkwam

Maar dat terzijde, dat wat ik niet begreep is iets anders.

[mark61]

Geplaatst door Qaiys
Kun je nou echt niet eens reageren zonder kinderachtige reakties?

Huh?


Ik plaatste dat fotootje omdat het bij het artikel hoorde. Zoals je weet plaats ik altijd links en als iemand de link zou volgen zou ik dan achteraf beschuldigd kunnen worden van het achterhouden van die foto.

Paranoide? Wat nou beschuldigen van achterhouden van?

Al heb je ergens gelijk, als je meteen zo'n foto erbij zet kan iedereen zich de moeite van het lezen van de tekst besparen. Maar dat is dan weer contraproductief. Kom dan meteen met de SFC.