Chevron Lobbyists Accused of 'Misleading Congress'

The Chevron/Ecuador scandal rumbles on:

Leaders from Ecuador's rainforest, suing Chevron over the "Amazon Chernobyl", are accusing the oil giant of misleading the Bush Administration and Congress to escape a potential $16 billion liability in an environmental lawsuit.

The indigenous leaders - from the Cofan, Secoya, and Siona tribes - are planning a trip to Washington, DC in September to talk directly with Members of Congress and the office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

"We are coming to tell the truth about Chevron's desperate attempt to quash the legal claims of thousands of vulnerable people in the Amazon rainforest who are struggling to survive due to oil contamination," said Pablo Fajardo, the lead Ecuadorian lawyer for the plaintiffs.

"These people deserve their day in court without interference from Chevron," he added. "Chevron must respect the rule of law."

The damages report prompted Chevron to disclose the liability to its shareholders for the first time, and to hire a slew of Washington lobbyists who have dedicated themselves to trying to block the extension of U.S. trade preferences for Ecuador. Luis Gallegos, Ecuador's U.S. ambassador, has said a failure to extend the trade preferences by the end of the year would cost the country 350,000 jobs and force 1.2 million people into poverty.

Among the lobbyists hired by Chevron are former Senators John Breaux and Trent Lott, and Mac McLarty, former White House Chief of Staff in the Clinton Administration. Their work has been focused on Ambassador Susan Schwab, the United States Trade Representative; key Members of Congress; and John Negroponte, Deputy Secretary of State.

Fajardo said the aim of Chevron's lobbyists is to use the threat of canceling trade preferences to intimidate Ecuador's government into extinguishing the legal rights of its citizens to save the country's economy.

Interestingly, one Democrat senator has alreay been involved in this case on the side of the Ecuadoreans.....one Barak Obama. From February 2006:

Senators Barack Obama (D-Ill) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) have stepped up the pressure on Chevron, sending a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman urging him to ignore company's campaign to improperly exclude Ecuador from trade negotiations until the Ecuadorian government shuts down the lawsuit.

The senators write: "We are writing to seek your assurances that the U.S. Trade Representative will not allow negotiations over the Andean Free Trade Agreement to interfere with a case involving Chevron that is under consideration by the Ecuadorian judiciary, particularly one involving environmental, health and human rights issues that have regional importance. While we are not prejudging the outcome of the case, we do believe the 30,000 indigenous residents of Ecuador deserve their day in court."

Question is, will Obama stand by this letter when the time comes, or will he give in to pressure from the oil giant? Failing that, will Chevron increase the pressure so they can persuade the Bush administration of their case before it's too late (should there be an Obama presidency)? Or will Chevron fund a massive smear campaign against Obama? The people of Ecuador have a lot riding on the next couple of months. Let's hope that their day in court finally arrives.

More at Ecuador Rising.

Chevron Shareholders Put Profits Before Human Rights

From the International Herald Tribune:

SAN RAMON, California: Activists are taking advantage of Chevron's annual shareholders meeting to blast the oil giant for alleged environmental and human rights abuses overseas.

At its corporate headquarters in San Ramon, California, on Wednesday, Chevron Corp. Chief Executive David O'Reilly faced intense criticism at the meeting for its past and present operations in Ecuador, Nigeria and Myanmar.

And outside, dozens of demonstrators waving "Clean Up Chevron" signs protested at the gates of its suburban campus.

But despite increasingly vocal complaints, Chevron shareholders voted against six proposals aimed at improving its human rights and environmental record abroad.

O'Reilly also told shareholders that he expects gas prices to fall over the next couple years as supply rises to meet increasing global demand.

Chevron Post Record Profits

The company accused of destroying the environment in Ecuador and who also employs the man who green lit the human rights abuses in Iraq and Guantanamo, has posted has reported a first-quarter net income increase of 10%. From MarketWatch:

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Rounding out an impressive set of results from the major oil producers, Chevron Corp. on Friday said first-quarter net income climbed 10% as revenue jumped on higher prices for crude oil, natural gas and refined products.

The San Ramon, Calif. integrated oil and gas giant said earnings for the three months ended March 31 increased to $5.17 billion, or $2.48 a share, from $4.72 billion, or $2.18 a share in the year-ago period, which included a one-time $700 million gain.

Revenue rose to $65 billion from $46 billion, as the company's oil and gas production business grew, even as its refining and marketing results were essentially break-even for the period.

They will, of course, need all the revenue they can muster should the Ecuadorean case go against them. Fingers crossed.

Pentagon Watching Chevron's Back?

After four visits from Chevron in the past ten days, now MOA is 'privileged' to receive a visit from the Pentagon. Could they be looking out for Chevron in the light of the recent appointment of one William Haynes?



I guess it helps to have friends in high places.

William Haynes Chevron

(Apologies for the poor grammar in the headline, there is a reason.)

Well, someone at Chevron certainly is keeping their eye on blogs posting about Ecuador, Chevron and William Haynes. In the past week, I have had no less than four visits from someone holed up at Chevron HQ (lucky old me). Generally speaking, they appear to use the search term that I have used as the title of this post, which then leads them to this lovely little post I wrote on the connection between William Haynes and the 'war on terror'. One wonders how many other visits they will pay to this blog in the near future.

In honour of my new found friends at Chevron, I would like to dedicate the following short animation to their tireless work in Ecuador. You deserve it chaps, no really.

What's The Link Between Chevron, Guantanamo and Ecuador?

So, at long last the mainstream media appears to be catching up with reality of torture in Guantanamo and Abu Ghriab. Whilst stories surrounding the extent to which those closest to Bush were aware of the new policy regarding torture has been doing the rounds on the internet for some time, it is only now that it is being taking seriously by one of the 'quality' newspapers in the UK. The Guardian's Weekend magazine prints an extensive excerpt from Philippe Sands' Torture Team: Deception, Cruelty And The Compromise Of Law which explores Donald Rumsfeld's authorisation of previously illegal interrogation techniques. Although Rumsfeld's name sticks out like a sore thumb, there is one other name that repeatedly surfaces in this expose: William J Haynes II. Yes, the very same William J Haynes II who has recently been employed by Chevron.

Sands' piece makes a pretty damning case against Haynes. Sands writes:

....in the Pentagon, an event took place for which there was no comment, no fanfare. With a signature and a few scrawled words, Rumsfeld reneged on the tradition of valour to which Bush had referred. Principles for the conduct of interrogation, dating back more than a century to President Lincoln's famous instruction of 1863 that "military necessity does not admit of cruelty", were discarded. He approved new and aggressive interrogation techniques that would produce devastating consequences.

The document had been drafted a few days earlier by the general counsel at the Defence Department, William J Haynes II (known as Jim Haynes), Rumsfeld's most senior lawyer. The Haynes memo was addressed to Rumsfeld and copied to two colleagues: General Richard Myers, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the most senior military official in the US, and Doug Feith, under-secretary of defence for policy and number three at the department.

Yes, Haynes was the man responsible for the policy of torture and human rights abuses that the Bush administration employed across the globe. But to what extent did Haynes approve of new interrogation techniques?


[Attached to the memorandum] was a list of 18 techniques of interrogation, set out in a three-page memorandum.

These techniques were new to the military. Category I comprised two techniques, yelling and deception. Category II included 12 techniques, aiming at humiliation and sensory deprivation, including stress positions, such as standing for a maximum of four hours; isolation; deprivation of light and sound; hooding; removal of religious and all other comfort items; removal of clothing; forced grooming, such as shaving of facial hair; and the use of individual phobias, such as fear of dogs, to induce stress.

Finally came Category III. These methods were to be used for only a very small percentage of detainees - the most uncooperative (said to be fewer than 3%) and exceptionally resistant individuals - and required approval by the commanding general at Guantánamo. In this category were four techniques: the use of "mild, non-injurious physical contact", such as grabbing, poking and light pushing; the use of scenarios designed to convince the detainee that death or severely painful consequences were imminent for him or his family; exposure to cold weather or water; and, finally, the use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of suffocation. This last technique came to be known as water-boarding, described on a chat show by the vice-president, Dick Cheney, as a "dunk in the water" and a "no-brainer" if it could save lives.

The Haynes memo recommended "blanket approval" of 15 of the 18 techniques, including just one of the four techniques listed in Category III: mild, non-injurious physical contact. However, he did not reject the others, nor did he advise that they were contrary to the Geneva conventions. Rumsfeld signed his name next to the word "Approved", and added his comment at the bottom of the page: "I stand for eight to 10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to four hours?"

'Blanket approval'. Not 'contrary to the Geneva convention'. Haynes essentially gave the administration the go ahead to indulge in torture on a scale never seen before. Haynes is culpable for one of the greatest crimes against humanity since the Second World War. And now, he has been enlisted to work on legal matters with Chevron. Legal matters that may well include the dispute with Ecuador regarding the alleged damage to the local environment. A dispute that has led to allegations of intimidation of key players in the prosecution (see Chevron in Ecuador label). A dispute that has been subject to a massive smear campaign by Chevron. One does not have to consider for long what Mr Haynes might bring to the dispute. Perhaps new techniques that will encourage the prosecution to drop it's case? One thing can almost be guaranteed. Haynes will explore avenues that will push the boundaries of the law in Chevron's favour. However, as Sands points out, there is still an opportunity for Haynes to receive the justice he deserves:

In June 2006, the Supreme Court overturned President Bush's decision on Geneva, ruling it to be unlawful. The court confirmed that Common Article 3 applied to all Guantánamo detainees. It was as simple as that. Whether they were Taliban or al-Qaida, every one of the detainees had rights under Common Article 3 - and that included Mohammed al-Qahtani.

The majority opinion, reaffirming the "minimal protection" offered by Common Article 3, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens. One of the Justices went even further: Common Article 3 was part of the law of war and of a treaty that the US had ratified. "By Act of Congress," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote pointedly, "violations of Common Article 3 are considered 'war crimes', punishable as federal offences, when committed by or against United States nationals and military personnel."

Justice Kennedy's remark put the issue of war crimes on the American political agenda. Individuals who had contributed to a violation of Common Article 3 would know that they were at risk of criminal investigation and prosecution. Even more ominously, it underscored the risk of being investigated outside the US.

Parties to the international Torture Convention are required to investigate any person who is alleged to have committed torture. If appropriate, they must then prosecute - or extradite the person to a place where he will be prosecuted. The Torture Convention is also more explicit than Geneva in that it criminalises any act that constitutes complicity or participation in torture. Complicity or participation could certainly be extended not only to the politicians and but also the lawyers involved in the condoning of the 18 techniques. After all, the scheme applied to al-Qahtani was devised by lawyers, reviewed by lawyers, overseen by lawyers.

Haynes could yet be prosecuted for his abuse of the most basic of human rights. These final few paragraphs might also explain one other aspect of the situation in Iraq. Moqtada al-Sadr is seen as a real threat to US power in the region. A threat that needs to be crushed in order for the US plan to be fully carried out. What, perhaps, makes this even more crucial is the realisation that should al-Sadr wield any power in Iraq, the consequences could be very serious indeed for various members of the Bu$h clique. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that leading members of the current administration could face extradition to Iraq for their flagrant abuse of the Torture Convention at Abu Ghraib. This, from their point of view, cannot be allowed to happen. Consequently, it is vital for al-Sadr to be portrayed as a dangerous Iranian proxy (ridiculous considering the extensive links between the current Iraqi government and Iran) by the Western establishment (politicians and the media). The thought of Western leaders being exposed as war criminals would be too much for the Western system of government to contend with.

Chevron Corporation Pay A Visit

Now, why would they be looking at this poxy little site I wonder?

Chevron in Ecuador

Two clips regarding the case against Chevron's activities in Ecuador. The first is an interview with President Correa of Ecuador conducted by Greg Palast. The second, a spin on a recent Chevron campaign.

Chevron in Ecuador

Given Chevron's existing links to the White House (Condoleeza Rice sat on the board of Chevron for many years), it is perhaps unsurprising that another name connected to the White House has joined the company. However, given the recent revelations about the extent to which those at the seat of power had authorised torture techniques, it is quite surprising to learn who this man is, a certain William Haynes II.

Haynes was general counsel to the Pentagon from 2001 until February this year. As general counsel, Haynes was heavily involved in crafting legal policies that led to the horrific abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. So involved was Haynes, that he is currently under investigation by the Senate for his role at the Pentagon during this period. Perhaps his most important contribution to the Bush terror regime, was a memo relating to a further memo that claimed that torture conducted overseas is not covered by federal law. Consequently, Haynes and his boss, Donald Rumsfeld, used this memo to justify harsh interrogation techniques at Guantanamo. In short, Haynes was a crucial component of the Bush presidency who was particularly close to both Bush and Dick Cheney. In fact, he was such an ally to Bush, he even volunteered to make calls on Bush's behalf when Bush was up for election in 2000.

Haynes' role as chief corporate counsel could have serious repercussions for Chevron's ongoing battle in Ecuador relating to a charge of environmental damage. The damage is such that Richard Cabrera, a geologist appointed by the court, set a minimum of $7 billion in damages to remediate damage. He also added a maximum figure of $16 billion which would include penalties for "unjust enrichment." Of course, Chevron dismissed the findings out of hand and have attempted to have the report struck from the case claiming it is "flawed and patently partisan". Furthermore, there have been numerous accusations about Chevron's conduct during investigations, particularly regarding the efforts of Cabrera.

During the course of the investigations, Chevron has been accused of "engaging in a pattern of vicious,defamatory and unethical attacks" . These attacks include full page advertisements accusing Cabrera of being a criminal, stalking him whilst he was completing his fieldwork and filing a separate motion with another court to have him removed from the case. In fact, the harassment became so grave, that the trial judge 'ordered security agents to keep Chevron representatives away from Cabrera so he could complete his field work without interference or fear of intimidation'. Furthermore, although there is no proof that Chevron were responsible, Cabrera's office was broken into and a laptop containing files relating to the case went missing. Undoubtedly, there have been real concerted efforts to de-rail this case by Chevron. The efforts they have gone to underline quite how damaging this court case could be if they are ordered to pay damages to the people of Ecuador.

Chevron have already shown how far they prepared to push the boundaries of the law in Ecuador in order to protect their interests in the country. With the addition of Haynes to the team, there is no doubt that Chevron seem set to explore new methods to achieve their aims. If Chevron are willing to appoint a man who is partially responsible for gross human rights abuses in the name of national interest, one wonders just how far they are prepared to go in defending corporate interest. One can be sure that both Chevron, and Haynes, are preparing to take this battle to another level - a level that could have serious consequences for those seeking justice in Ecuador.


Further Information: ChevronToxico: Clean Up Ecuador Campaign

SEC Urged To Impose 'Substantial' Sanction on Chevron Over Possible $10 Million Liability

Taken from the PR Newswire:

SAN FRANCISCO, March 26 /PRNewswire/ -- The Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) has been urged to impose a "substantial" sanction on
Chevron for misrepresentations to shareholders over a potential $10 billion
liability resulting from a class-action environmental lawsuit in the
Ecuadorian Amazon.

In a letter to SEC Chairman Christopher Cox, environmental group Amazon
Watch said Chevron had told shareholders a "series of falsifications,
exaggerations, omissions, and misleading public statements" to downplay its
liability in a lawsuit brought by thousands of rainforest residents over
what experts say is the worst oil-related disaster on the planet. The full
text of the letter can be seen on http://www.chevrontoxico.org.

A court-appointed expert is preparing a damages assessment, which the
plaintiffs expect to be more than $10 billion.

"Chevron created an environmental catastrophe in Ecuador and as a
result thousands of vulnerable rainforest residents are suffering from
dangerous toxic pollution," said Luis Yanza, a representative of the 80
communities and five indigenous groups that brought the lawsuit.

Last month, Chevron conceded to the office of the U.S. Trade
Representative that it expects "a near-term unfavorable finding from the
Ecuadorian court and potentially enormous ... financial liability,"
according to a copy of the submission obtained by Amazon Watch. Chevron
also said it was the victim of an "unfair" trial, an assertion that the
plaintiffs dispute.

Yet Chevron for years has refused to mention this potential liability
in its public filings as required by securities law, the group said in the
letter. Chevron also placed information on its corporate website that
suggests it faces no risk in Ecuador, according to the organization.

"Chevron misleads its shareholders by claiming in public that it has no
liability in Ecuador, while in private it claims to face an enormous
liability," said Atossa Soltani, Amazon Watch executive director. "Which is
it? The SEC must ensure that Chevron tells the truth about its liabilities
in public as well as in private discussions."

Expected to conclude this year, the Ecuador lawsuit accuses Chevron of
digging close to 1,000 open-air waste pits in the rainforest and filling
them with toxic-laden oil sludge that has leeched into the soil and
groundwater. The company is also accused of dumping 18 billion gallons of
toxic wastewater into rainforest waterways from 1964 to 1990, the years it
operated a lucrative oil concession in Ecuador.

Chevron's sub-standard operational practices in Ecuador "threaten the
survival of rainforest indigenous groups and can be linked to hundreds of
deaths from cancer and other oil-related diseases," said the letter.

What Links Uribe, Exxon and Chevron?

Well, it would appear that they all intend to make hefty capital from the current war of words that is brewing in South America. Uribe, in particular, is desperate to re-assert his terrorist fighting credentials after Chavez's victorious negotiations to have four hostages released from captivity by the FARC. This has particularly hurt Uribe as he has allegedly been on the receiving end of some pretty harsh criticism by the hostages regarding his tactics. The problem for Uribe is that if you remove the terrorist threat you remove his reason to exist. He has no real interest in ensuring that hostages are returned safely and that a peace deal is brokered because, the longer the 'war' continues, the longer Uribe and his kind will be needed in power. Uribe was voted in because he is seen to be tough with the 'terrorists', with no 'terrorists' to fight, why would anyone vote for leaders of his kind? Thus Uribe has been humiliated by Chavez who achieved in a few weeks what Uribe was unable to achieve in six years. By painting Chavez as a friend to terrorists (and terrorists who are seeking a 'dirty bomb' no less), Uribe hopes to diminish his standing amongst Colombians and thus avert the possibility of a Chavez-esque leader emerging in Colombia (something not desired in Washington either).

As for Exxon, their reasons for wanting to see Chavez's reputation damaged in South America is obvious. Venezuela has been embarking on a massive programme of nationalisation and Exxon is not too keen on this development to say the least. To date, the oil giant has refused to enter into partnership with the Venezuelan government and has even gone to the extent of freezing the PDVSA's assets through a UK court. It is now arguing that this should go further and they are now insisting that it should get a global order from a U.K. court freezing $12 billion of Petroleos de Venezuela SA assets since a New York court doesn't have the power. Exxon clearly has much to gain from the 'link' between Chavez and 'terrorism' and the subsequent damage to his reputation that they hope this brings. So what of Chevron? What do they hope to achieve from this stand-off in South America?

Chevron is in the middle of a court battle in Ecuador revolving around the alleged dumping of 18 billion gallons of toxic waste into the Amazon rainforest and abandoning of hundreds of open-air toxic waste pits in an area roughly the size of Rhode Island. This battle has become increasingly dirty as time has gone on. Chebron has repeatedly attacked the court-appointed special master who is preparing the damages assessment against the oil giant. Amongst the many allegations, Chevron are accused of:

.....personal harassment and an ad hominem advertising campaign, coinciding with the mysterious theft of case-related files from the court-appointed special master's office,according to the Amazon Defense Coalition, the organization that represents an estimated 30,000 plaintiffs in the case, including the members of five Amazon indigenous groups.

According to one lawyer on the case, Julio Prieto:

"Chevron is using extrajudicial influence to undermine the one independent expert who is preparing to tell the truth about Chevron's damages in Ecuador."

Cabrera has been the victim of a particularly vicious campaign of intimidation by Chevron. The attacks include:

...the purchase of full-page advertisements in Ecuadorian newspapers suggesting Cabrera is a criminal. Cabrera also has been stalked by a team of 25 Chevron lawyers and private
security agents while he does his fieldwork near Chevron's former production sites in the rainforest. Press releases put out by Chevron mock Cabrera for his middle name, "Stalin."

Most recently, Chevron has filed a motion with a separate Ecuadorian court seeking to depose Cabrera, an action which the plaintiffs consider illegal. Cabrera has also been the victim of a mysterious robbery of his office from where his files on the case were stolen.

Chevron's harassment became so grave that the trial judge ordered security agents to keep Chevron representatives away from Cabrera so he could complete his field work without interference or fear of intimidation.

These are the latest in a long line of examples of Chevron's disregard for the legal process in Ecuador:

The latest charges follow a series of incidents in 2005 and 2006 that called into question Chevron's commitment to a fair trial. These included the creation of a false military report written by Chevron lawyers claiming they were going to be kidnapped, death and kidnapping threats against community leaders active in the lawsuit, and the separate robbery of case-related materials from the law offices of Alejandro Ponce, who works with the plaintiffs.

Chevron also admitted in 2006 that it was making payments to Ecuadorian military officials in exchange for "protection" services during the trial. Several uniformed Ecuadorian soldiers have accompanied Chevron's lawyers to judicial inspection sites, carrying their bags and technical equipment while peering menacingly at members of the local population.

Clearly, an attempt by Colombia and the US to smear President Correa is in the interests of Chevron. By creating evidence that Correa is linked to terrorists in a neighboring South American country, public confidence in Correa will surely be damaged, allowing a more pliable leader to step forward and lead the way. When this is put into the context of recent events in Ecuador (only three presidents since 1979 have served a full-term in the country and the last three were overthrown), one can see that Chevron hope that Correa will be another Ecuadorean leader who fails to complete a full term.

I am not convinced that this confrontation is part of an attempt to launch a military strike on any of the left-leaning nations in South America. However, I am convinced that this is part of an attempt to smear the leaders of these countries and thus strengthen opposition movements in these countries. The US cannot afford another military front opening up and will avoid one at all costs (as will Colombia), their only real option is a political strike which appears very much on the table. Fox News has already been making explicit links between the government of Ecuador and the FARC, claiming that:

"Colombia said documents in Reyes' laptop also indicate that Ecuador' internal security minister met recently with a FARC envoy to discuss deepening relations with Ecuador, and even replacing military officers who might oppose that."

However, it has also emerged that (surprise, surprise) the documents that the Colombian government claims shows that the FARC intended to asssemble a 'dirty bomb', actually show nothing of the sort. From The Guardian:

Colombia said documents found at the base showed rebels wanted to make a radioactive dirty bomb. But the documents it shared with reporters didn't support the allegation, indicating instead that the rebels were trying to buy uranium to resell at a profit.

Still, make enough allegations of links to terror and, eventually, one will stick. One wonders how many other outrageous smears the Colombian government will come out with over the coming days and weeks.