|
Iraq Rebuilding Contracts Awarded (to Haliburton - Cheney's former employer) (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Trancer-X |
Defending Liberty in a Global Economy
Delivered at the Collateral Damage Conference,
Cato Institute June 23, 1998
Richard B. Cheney
An example that comes immediately to mind has to do with efforts to develop the resources of the former Soviet Union in the Caspian Sea area. It is a region rich in oil and gas. Unfortunately, Iran is sitting right in the middle of the area and the United States has declared unilateral economic sanctions against that country. As a result, American firms are prohibited from dealing with Iran and find themselves cut out of the action, both in terms of opportunities that develop with respect to Iran itself, and also with respect to our ability to gain access to Caspian resources. Iran is not punished by this decision. There are numerous oil and gas development companies from other countries that are now aggressively pursuing opportunities to develop those resources. That development will proceed, but it will happen without American participation. The most striking result of the government’s use of unilateral sanctions in the region is that only American companies are prohibited from operating there.
Another good example of how our sanctions policy oftentimes gets in the way of our other interests occurred in the fall of 1997 when Saddam Hussein was resisting U.N. weapons inspections. I happened to be in the Gulf region during that period of time. Administration officials in the area were trying to get Arab members of the coalition that executed operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm in 1991 to allow U.S. military forces to be based on their territory. They wanted that capability in the event it was necessary to take military action against Iraq in order to get them to honor the UN resolutions. Our friends in the region cited a number of reasons for not complying with our request. They were concerned with the fragile nature of the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, which was stalled. But they also had fundamental concerns about our policy toward Iran. We had been trying to force the governments in the region to adhere to an anti-Iranian policy, and our views raised questions in their mind about the wisdom of U.S. leadership. They cited it as an example of something they thought was unwise, and that they should not do.
So, what effect does this have on our standing in the region? I take note of the fact that all of the Arab countries we approached, with the single exception of Kuwait, rejected our request to base forces on their soil in the event military action was required against Iraq. As if that weren’t enough, most of them boycotted the economic conference that the United States supported in connection with the peace process that was hosted in Qatar during that period of time. Then, having rejected participation in that conference, they all went to Tehran and attended the Islamic summit hosted by the Iranians. The nation that's isolated in terms of our sanctions policy in that part of the globe is not Iran. It is the United States. And the fact that we have tried to pressure governments in the region to adopt a sanctions policy that they clearly are not interested in pursuing has raised doubts in the minds of many of our friends about the overall wisdom and judgement of U.S. policy in the area.
This is also an excerpt from the Cato book, Economic Casualties: How U.S. Foreign Policy Undermines Trade, Growth, and Liberty.
http://www.cato.org/speeches/sp-dc062398.html
Maybe if they tried putting themselves in the other persons shoes they could gain some sort of understanding.
This sounds a bit too much like imperialism to me. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm
No, really, it's not about the oil!
Today the Subcommittee examines the interests of a new contestant in this new great game, the United States. The five countries which make up Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, attained their independence in 1991, and have once again captured worldwide attention due to the phenomenal reserves of oil and natural gas located in the region. In their desire for political stability as well as economic independence and prosperity, these nations are anxious to establish relations with the United States.
Central Asia would seem to offer significant new investment opportunities for a broad range of American companies which, in turn, will serve as a valuable stimulus to the economic development of the region. Japan, Turkey, Iran, Western Europe, and China are all pursuing economic development opportunities and challenging Russian dominance in the region. It is essential that U.S. policymakers understand the stakes involved in Central Asia as we seek to craft a policy that serves the interests of the United States and U.S. business.
http://commdocs.house.gov/committee.../hfa48119_0.htm |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm
No, really, it's not about the oil!
Today the Subcommittee examines the interests of a new contestant in this new great game, the United States. The five countries which make up Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, attained their independence in 1991, and have once again captured worldwide attention due to the phenomenal reserves of oil and natural gas located in the region. In their desire for political stability as well as economic independence and prosperity, these nations are anxious to establish relations with the United States.
Central Asia would seem to offer significant new investment opportunities for a broad range of American companies which, in turn, will serve as a valuable stimulus to the economic development of the region. Japan, Turkey, Iran, Western Europe, and China are all pursuing economic development opportunities and challenging Russian dominance in the region. It is essential that U.S. policymakers understand the stakes involved in Central Asia as we seek to craft a policy that serves the interests of the United States and U.S. business.
http://commdocs.house.gov/committee.../hfa48119_0.htm |
Oi, not this afghanistan/pipeline thing again.
A. It's natural gas and
B. It wasn't.
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...?threadid=93284
And with respects to your previous posting, if it was ALL about oil as you seemed to imply, the situation could have been remedied in a far cheaper and much less costly manner ... the US could have dropped its self imposed sanctions against Iran. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Oi, not this afghanistan/pipeline thing again.
A. It's natural gas and
B. It wasn't.
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...?threadid=93284
And with respects to your previous posting, if it was ALL about oil as you seemed to imply, the situation could have been remedied in a far cheaper and much less costly manner ... the US could have dropped its self imposed sanctions against Iran. |
Yeah a gas pipeline from the Dauletabad fields in Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan.
The pipeline through Afghanistan is necessary to bypass RUSSIA, who the OIL companies don't want to get involved with for obvious reasons.
However, the three countries had earlier signed an agreement to develop a natural gas and oil pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan.
It doesn't take much thought to figure that one out. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
It's not like this hasn't been an underlying issue for the last 9-10 years now...
here's a nice excerpt from:
48–119 CC
1998
U.S. INTERESTS IN THE CENTRAL ASIAN REPUBLICS
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
FEBRUARY 12, 1998
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
STATEMENT OF JOHN J. MARESCA, VICE PRESIDENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, Unocal CORPORATION
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I am reminded of a joke where God is asked when peace will come to the Middle East. He says, ''Not in my lifetime.'' I am afraid that this may well be true of Afghanistan as well. In fact, I am more hopeful right now, having just returned from one trip to the Middle East and another trip to Central Asia that there is a greater chance for peace between Israel and its neighbors than there is for peace in Afghanistan. And I know Afghanistan probably better than anyone else in the Congress. I hate to tell you that.
But let me ask a few questions. So there will be no pipeline until there is an internationally regionized government and a government that is recognized by the people of Afghanistan too, I would imagine that you wanted to put that caveat on it. Right? It's not just internationally recognized, but it has to be accepted by the people of the country. Right?
Mr. MARESCA. It depends on who you mean by the people. I assume that no matter what government is put in place, there will be some people who are opposed to it.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I found something here. There seems to be a little attachment onto there that may be a little more controversial than people understood when they first heard what you were saying. So the government doesn't necessarily have to be acceptable to the people of Afghanistan as long as it's internationally recognized?
Mr. MARESCA. Of course it has to be accepted by the people. What I mean is that there will always be factions in Afghanistan. There certainly will be factions even when a single government is formed. But when a government is formed that is recognized internationally, it will certainly have to be recognized by the people, yes.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. The current government of Afghanistan or the current group of people who hold Kabul, I guess is the best way to say that, and about 60 percent of the country are known as the Taliban. What type of relationship does your company have to the Taliban?
Mr. MARESCA. We have the same relationship as we have with the other factions, which is that we have talked with them, we have briefed them, we have invited them to our headquarters to see what our projects are.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right.
Mr. MARESCA. These are exactly the same things we have done with the other factions.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. However, the Taliban, who are now in control of 60 percent of Afghanistan, could you give me an estimate of where the opium that's being produced in Afghanistan is being produced? Is it in the Taliban areas or is it in the northern areas of Afghanistan?
Mr. MARESCA. I can't tell you precisely, but I think it's being produced all over Afghanistan.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. To be precise, it's being produced in the Taliban areas. You are talking to someone who has studied it. Whether there is some minor amount of heroin and opium being produced in the other areas is debatable. There is some obviously being produced everywhere, but the major fields that are being produced are in the Taliban-controlled areas.
What about the haven for international terrorists? There is a Saudi terrorist who is infamous for financing terrorism around the world. Is he in the Taliban area or is he up there with the northern people?
Mr. MARESCA. If it is the person I am thinking of, he is there in the Taliban area.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. And in the northern area as compared to the place where the Taliban are in control, would you say that one has a better human rights record toward women than the other?
Mr. MARESCA. With respect to women, yes. But I don't think either faction here has a very clean human rights record, to tell you the truth.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, it's one thing to say nobody has a clean civil rights record or human rights record and then just to ignore the fact that half of the people you are talking about totally obliterate the human rights of half of the population. I mean in the non-Taliban areas, there are some violations of human rights, but it's sort of spread out, and in the Taliban areas, half of the population—that's women—have no rights at all.
It is sort of like saying that Hitler is kind of the same as these other dictators, and ignoring the fact that he also wants to kill all the Jewish people. That has to be a factor, doesn't it? The fact that half of the population of Afghanistan is being treated now like they have no rights at all and being oppressed so brutally? Doesn't that have to be part of the equation? You can't just say these are moral equivalents, because they are both bad. Isn't one worse because of that?
Mr. MARESCA. Congressman, I am not here to defend the Taliban. That is not my role. We are a company that is trying to build a pipeline across this country.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I sympathize with that. By the way, you are right. All factions agree that the pipeline will be something that's good. But let me warn you that if the pipeline is constructed before there is a government that is acceptable at a general level to the population of Afghanistan and not just to international, other international entities, other governments, that your pipeline will be blown up.
http://commdocs.house.gov/committee...a48119_0.htm#38 |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Yeah a gas pipeline from the Dauletabad fields in Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan.
The pipeline through Afghanistan is necessary to bypass RUSSIA, who the OIL companies don't want to get involved with for obvious reasons.
However, the three countries had earlier signed an agreement to develop a natural gas and oil pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan.
It doesn't take much thought to figure that one out. |
That's right, it doesn't take much thought to figure that, however, it takes more thorough thought to dismiss it. I have a funny feeling you failed to read the aforementioned thread that I posted that dealt with the subject.
Asides from the reasons mentioned in the past thread on the subject, primarily the fact that Unicol withdrew from the pipeline deal and that the US imposed sanctions making the deal the Taliban wanted impossible, let's look at the current situation of the pipeline and who the primary benefactors are.
| quote: |
An agreement has been signed in the Turkmen capital, Ashgabat, paving the way for construction of a gas pipeline from the Central Asian republic through Afghanistan to Pakistan.
.
.
.
The leaders of the three countries have now signed a framework agreement defining the legal aspects of setting up a consortium to build and operate the pipeline.
The trans-Afghanistan pipeline would export Turkmen gas via Afghanistan to Pakistani ports, from where it could reach world markets.
India is the largest potential buyer and the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, said Delhi was welcome to join the project.
Turkmenistan has some of the world's greatest reserves of natural gas, but still relies on tightly controlled Russian pipelines to export it.
Ashgabat has long been desperate to find an alternative export route.
Wary investors
Afghanistan would profit by receiving millions of dollars in transit fees and construction of the pipeline would provide thousands of desperately needed jobs.
It is also hoped such a project would boost regional economic ties and pave the way for further foreign investment.
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm
| quote: |
Unocal has repeatedly denied it is interested in returning to Afghanistan despite having conducted the original feasibility study to build the pipeline.
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2017044.stm
So now, let's summarize. The US went to war in Afghanistan over this pipeline, and that pipeline primarily benefits 3 OTHER countries the most over the US?
Furthermore, the company that the US went to war to help, no longer wants any part of the pipeline deal???
Meanwhile, while all these other countries are benefiting from the pipeline deal, the US has now pledged to spend another billion dollars to rebuild afghanistan???
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3120758.stm
Now despite my major in business, perhaps I lack the business savy to see the lucrative profit opportunities of this situation?
So this was an aussie plot? I knew those buggers from down under were behind it all :p
Ah, lift the blinders shall we? Your article:
| quote: |
The four giant firms located in the US and the UK have been keen to get back into Iraq, from which they were excluded with the nationalization of 1972. They face companies from France, Russia, China, Japan and elsewhere, who already have major concessions. But in a post-war military governments, imposed by Washington, the US-UK companies expect to overcome their rivals and gain the most lucrative oil deals that will be worth hundreds of billions, even trillions of dollars in profits in the coming decades.
|
My article:
| quote: |
Iraqi oil flows again
Iraq has concluded its first sale of crude oil since supplies were halted by the US-led invasion in mid-March.
A tender to sell 10 million barrels of Iraqi oil was awarded on Thursday to six companies, including ChevronTexaco of the US.
News that Iraqi supplies had finally resumed helped push oil prices lower in New York, with crude futures closing down 85 cents at $31.51.
Before the war, Iraq shipped about 1.7 million barrels a day, roughly 4% of world exports.
However, the country's export capacity is expected to remain well below pre-war levels for several months because of damage and looting at the country's oil facilities.
Fair deal
The other five companies sharing in the tender were Repsol and Cepsa of Spain, Tupras of Turkey, France's Total, and Italian oil firm ENI.
The even-handed distribution of contracts confounded expectations that US and UK firms would glean the lion's share of Iraq's first oil shipments, in recognition of the lead role that those countries played in toppling Sadam Hussein's regime.
"One would have thought that [Iraq's oil authorities] would have awarded more to US and British companies," an oil trader told the Reuters news agency.
"And given the French position in the war, people are surprised that Total has got in there with two million barrels."
About 5.5 million barrels are destined for the European market, with a further four million bound for the US, Iraq's State Oil Marketing Organisation said.
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2986118.stm
On an aside, I have to say that I really love the bbc news network. They have the best search engines (CNN always pulls up 5 million random articles), and they keep their articles archived significantly longer than any other news agency (reuters only archives for like 30 days or some bs like that). :) |
|
|
| occrider |
Let's look at your bolded quotes:
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
So there will be no pipeline until there is an internationally regionized government and a government that is recognized by the people of Afghanistan too, I would imagine that you wanted to put that caveat on it. Right? It's not just internationally recognized, but it has to be accepted by the people of the country. Right?
|
So the subcommittee on the asia and the pacific of the committee on international relations in the house of representatives is questioning why the pipeline cannot be built under the current system of government and that translates to what exactly?
| quote: |
What about the haven for international terrorists? There is a Saudi terrorist who is infamous for financing terrorism around the world. Is he in the Taliban area or is he up there with the northern people?
|
And?
| quote: |
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I sympathize with that. By the way, you are right. All factions agree that the pipeline will be something that's good. But let me warn you that if the pipeline is constructed before there is a government that is acceptable at a general level to the population of Afghanistan and not just to international, other international entities, other governments, that your pipeline will be blown up.
http://commdocs.house.gov/committee...a48119_0.htm#38 |
And so this congressional committee is warning Unocal that in the instable, factioned conditions of the Afghanistan government, their pipeline would likely be attacked. Isn't that common sense? Is this proof of some grand conspiracy theory? A secretive conspiracy that spanned two Presidancy's in which some moron web master forgot to take off the internet? And I always thought so highly of the CIA ... |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
Before I begin to delve into that quoted mess, I have to ask if you have ever heard of the Silk Road Strategy Act of 1999? Here's a brief snippet:
SEC. 3. POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.
It shall be the policy of the United States in the countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia--
(1) to promote and strengthen independence, sovereignty, democratic government, and respect for human rights;
(2) to promote tolerance, pluralism, and understanding and counter racism and anti-Semitism;
(3) to assist actively in the resolution of regional conflicts and to facilitate the removal of impediments to cross-border commerce;
(4) to promote friendly relations and economic cooperation;
(5) to help promote market-oriented principles and practices;
(6) to assist in the development of the infrastructure necessary for communications, transportation, education, health, and energy and trade on an East-West axis in order to build strong international relations and commerce between those countries and the stable, democratic, and market-oriented countries of the Euro-Atlantic Community; and
(7) to support United States business interests and investments in the region.
I don't watch or read the news as much as I read the transcripts from Congressional and House Subcomittee Hearings and the like. The news networks are too easily swayed by both large corporations and our Federal Government. Do you REALLY think that the real dirt is going to be broadcasted via normal media instruments?
It's interesting however, that it was our own country's foreign policy that created the monsters that we seem so determined to bring down. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Let's look at your bolded quotes:
So the subcommittee on the asia and the pacific of the committee on international relations in the house of representatives is questioning why the pipeline cannot be built under the current system of government and that translates to what exactly? |
I'm sure you've heard that we were quite instrumental in creating their interim gov't. with (ex-CIA contact and ex-UNOCAL advisor) Hamid Karzai as it's ~interim~ Prime Minister.
| quote: | | And so this congressional committee is warning Unocal that in the instable, factioned conditions of the Afghanistan government, their pipeline would likely be attacked. Isn't that common sense? Is this proof of some grand conspiracy theory? A secretive conspiracy that spanned two Presidancy's in which some moron web master forgot to take off the internet? And I always thought so highly of the CIA ... |
You're getting ahead of yourself now. The US tried negotiating with the Taliban for quite some time but were ultimately unsuccessful. Perhaps after unsuccessful bribes they came to wits-end and decided that bargaining was the wrong path to take after all. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
That's right, it doesn't take much thought to figure that, however, it takes more thorough thought to dismiss it. |
Dude, that has to be the lamest retort to date. Especially when so much of our top-tier government is either ex-CIA or ex-Oil Industry.
| quote: | | I have a funny feeling you failed to read the aforementioned thread that I posted that dealt with the subject. |
Of course I didn't! I saw how hard lined you were from the start with all of your pro-war rhetoric, and your war signature emblazoned at the bottom of every post.
| quote: | | Asides from the reasons mentioned in the past thread on the subject, primarily the fact that Unicol withdrew from the pipeline deal and that the US imposed sanctions making the deal the Taliban wanted impossible, let's look at the current situation of the pipeline and who the primary benefactors are. |
The primary benefactors? Right now I can only see victory for the oil-barons (can you say Rockefeller's Revenge five times, fast?)
| quote: | | So now, let's summarize. The US went to war in Afghanistan over this pipeline, and that pipeline primarily benefits 3 OTHER countries the most over the US? |
So how would these 3 countries benefit any more than the U.S.A.? Are they hurting for oil? Are their companies putting up all the dough for the construction? Do THEY rely on foreign oil to power their ever growing population's motorized vehicles?
http://commdocs.house.gov/committee...a80291_0.htm#12
I really don't understand what you are trying to allude to, if you even are?
| quote: | | Furthermore, the company that the US went to war to help, no longer wants any part of the pipeline deal??? |
I'm sure we have someone else that could take their place. We certainly have the need...
"Mr. Chairman, today America's dwindling oil reserves provide less than half of the oil our economy uses. This leaves us heavily dependent on the Middle Eastern regimes that control the vast majority of the world's known oil reserves. Many of these regimes are either actively hostile to the United States, as is the case with Iran, Iraq, and Lybia, or unsteady, autocratic regimes beholden to Islamic fundamentalists like Saudi Arabia."
"Today, therefore, 52 percent of the oil we use in America is imported from foreign sources. Our most recent EIA forecast suggests, as again was acknowledged in some of the opening statements, that our dependence could grow to 62 percent by the year 2020."
http://commdocs.house.gov/committee...a80291_0.htm#11
| quote: | | Meanwhile, while all these other countries are benefiting from the pipeline deal, the US has now pledged to spend another billion dollars to rebuild afghanistan??? |
Wouldn't that tie in with the needed stabilization of that region. I hope you realize that you appear to be talking in circles on this.
| quote: | | Now despite my major in business, perhaps I lack the business savy to see the lucrative profit opportunities of this situation? |
Cheaper gas due to not having to rely on OPEC as well as not having to fund a terrorist state's economy. That doesn't make sense to you?
| quote: | | So this was an aussie plot? I knew those buggers from down under were behind it all :p |
I was kidding.
Ah, lift the blinders shall we? Your article:
My article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2986118.stm
"A tender to sell 10 million barrels of Iraqi oil was awarded on Thursday to six companies, including ChevronTexaco of the US.
News that Iraqi supplies had finally resumed helped push oil prices lower in New York, with crude futures closing down 85 cents at $31.51.
Before the war, Iraq shipped about 1.7 million barrels a day, roughly 4% of world exports."
Okay, thanks?
| quote: | | On an aside, I have to say that I really love the bbc news network. They have the best search engines (CNN always pulls up 5 million random articles), and they keep their articles archived significantly longer than any other news agency (reuters only archives for like 30 days or some bs like that). :) |
Okay I agree with you on something, CNN is crap.
"Crude oil prices are determined by worldwide supply and demand, and are influenced by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries' (OPEC) policies on production quotas. In recent years OPEC has tried to keep world oil prices in a target price band of $22–28 per barrel for the OPEC crude oil basket, which corresponds to a $24–$30 price band for the U.S. benchmark, West Texas Intermediate (WTI) oil. OPEC's potential to influence oil prices worldwide arises because its members possess over 80 percent of the world's excess oil production capacity."
http://commdocs.house.gov/committee...a80291_0.htm#21
I seriously think that you are decieving yourself by thinking that we are in the Middle East for humanitarian reasons. |
|
|
|
|
