John McCain - More of the same?

It would certainly appear so. After all, much like Bush, John McCain is enthrall to the oil industry. Bush and McCain may not like each other very much (and many people don't seem to like either of them), but you could barely get a fag paper between the two of them (nb. US readers, fag=cigarette, not some offensive term for homosexuals). Expect more of the same attempts by the US to control oil supplies across the globe if McCain comes to power (God forbid - although the alternative ain't exactly on a different plain).

Since 1989, McCain has received around $700,000 from the oil industry. Furthermore, McCain has worked :

....tirelessly to advance the interests of the oil industry. For example, McCain’s tax plan gives the top five oil companies $3.8 billion a year in tax breaks. McCain meanwhile has voted against reducing dependence on foreign oil, has twice rejected windfall profits tax for Big Oil, and has voted against taxing oil companies to provide a $100 rebate to consumers. If that were not enough, McCain also made a risky political decision recently to back new offshore oil drilling in the US.

Vote McCain, and you most definitely get more Bush (in terms of the President, not women you misogynist fool). But it doesn't end there. What about McCain's supposedly superior experience in international affairs? Ok, put aside his comments about Iraq and Pakistan sharing a border. And don't mention his acknowledgement of the state of Czechoslovakia (ceased to exist in 1993). Despite these gaffes, McCain has a very serious agenda on the international stage, particularly as a result of his relationship with the International Republican Institute (IRI). And just what are his links to the IRI?

Since 1993, McCain has served as Chair of the outfit, which is funded by the U.S. government and private money. The group, which receives tens of millions of taxpayer dollars each year, claims to promote democracy world-wide. On the surface at least, IRI seems to have a rather innocuous agenda including party building, media training, the organization of leadership trainings, dissemination of newsletters, and strengthening of civil society.

The hottest country in which IRI currently operates is Iraq. According to the IRI’s own web site, since the summer of 2003 the organization “has conducted a multi-faceted program aimed at promoting the development of democracy in Iraq. Toward this end, IRI works with political parties, indigenous civil society groups, and elected and other government officials. In support of these efforts, IRI also conducts numerous public opinion research projects and assists its Iraqi partners in the production of radio and television ads and programs.”

Furthermore, the IRI has been instrumental in events in Haiti. Funding from the IRI was used to foment a violent coup in Haiti against the leadership of Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Funding was also used to support opposition parties in the country, and an IRI representative persuaded the opposition parties to avoid compromising with Aristide. It is highly unlikely that Senator McCain was unaware of these events, although it is equally hard to say that he authorised them. However, with such a background in backing violent coups against democratically elected governements, he is perhaps perfectly placed for the role of US president. And, should that day arrive, it doesn't take a genius to work out which country will be first in the firing line. Somewhere rich in oil perhaps?

Bush to Cement His Environmental Legacy

From al-Jazeera:

George Bush, the US president, has called on the US congress to end its ban on offshore oil drilling and open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil exploration.

Bush said congressional restrictions in place since 1981 had become "outdated and counterproductive" after global oil prices rose to their highest ever levels.

"Congress must face a hard reality. Unless members are willing to accept gas prices at today's painful levels or even higher, our nation must produce more oil, and we must start now," Bush said.

Bush, speaking at the White House on Wednesday, also called for an end to the ban on oil shale drilling and for the US to build more oil refineries.

Global crude oil prices have risen to nearly 140 dollars a barrel, and US petrol prices now average more than four dollars a gallon, a rise of one dollar from a year ago.

Under the 1981 federal ban, states are prohibited from allowing offshore oil and gas drilling and exploration, protecting almost the entire Atlantic and Pacific coastlines and sections of
the Gulf of Mexico.

Al Jazeera's Rosiland Jordan said environmentalists were likely to be outraged by Bush's proposal.

Perhaps we ought to focus on cutting our dependency on oil full stop, or is that a little too radical?

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.

Burma - Another Reason to Hate Chevron

As if the situation in Ecuador wasn't enough. This from The Guardian:

A human rights watchdog group on Tuesday accused Chevron Corp of complicity in human rights abuses along a natural gas pipeline in Myanmar in which it holds a stake and said Chevron could be sued.

EarthRights International claimed in a report issued on Tuesday that Myanmar's army has in recent years committed serious abuses including rape and murder while providing security for the pipeline that moves gas from the Yadana gas field, located offshore in the Andaman Sea.

The group also said the army has forced Burmese citizens to build sentry posts, perform security duties along the pipeline and maintain roads.

"The people of Burma are making the pipeline go through their own physical energy, their blood, their sweat and their tears," Katie Redford, U.S. office director of EarthRights, said in an interview.

"That's what 'Human Energy' means in Burma," Redford said, referring to Chevron's current advertising campaign, which aims to improve the company's image on environmental and social issues.

Mmm, another human rights abuse for William Haynes to get his teeth into. Still, he has plenty of experience, doesn't he?

You can read more about the report on the Yadana pipeline here.

Afghanistan Heading Back to Pre-Invasion State

"Kabul has seen a wave of liberal, unwelcome influences of late. There are women dressed immodestly, prostitution can be found openly and even alcohol is available on the market. Our job is to protect the Afghan people from being exposed to this un-Islamic way of life and poor morals."

Now some people reading the above quote might think that it originated from post-Soviet Afghanistan. It sounds like the early rumblings of the Taliban regime that was to ravage the country for many years. In fact, the above quote is a little more recent. Very recent. In fact, the above quote is lifted from today's Guardian.

Despite the high ideals of bringing 'freedom and democracy' to a country that has been afflicted by wave upon wave of imperialism over the years, Afghanistan is actually turning back the clock. In recent weeks, the Afghan government has attempted to ban popular Indian soap operas and, more seriously, the high court has confirmed the death sentence of nearly 100 people. In terms of the crackdown on the media, The Guardian reports:

Last week parliament tried to stop several private TV channels from broadcasting a number of Indian soap operas. But many stations, including the popular local Tolo TV, are defying the ban. The ministry of information and culture issued a "final warning" to Tolo and Afghan TV to stop broadcasting the Indian soaps by April 29, saying that "otherwise they will be referred to the judiciary".

To make matters worse (as if that was possible), US puppet and former consultant to Unocal, President Hamad Karzai, has sided with the conservatives in this latest tussle. Far from bringing freedom and democracy to Afghanistan, Karzai seems intent on returning the country to it's previous repressive state. That the Americans seem willing to go along with this is hardly surprising. Back in October 2006, former senator Bill Frist (a Republican no less) called on the Taliban to be brought into the Afghan government. No sooner had the US proclaimed high ideals about the future of Aghanistan, than it returns the country back to it's pre-war state. For the people of Afghanistan, they have once more become the victims to the imperial ambition of others.

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.

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

US A Threat to Free Speech in Iraq

Just a week ago, Iraqi Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr called on his followers to halt attacks on government forces as the security situation threatened to spiral out of control. That Iran was a crucial player in prompting al-Sadr to announce a ceasefire was, typically, a mere sideshow to the events in Iraq as witnessed through the prism of US hegemony. Al-Sadr has been seen as a vital bulwark to growing corporate control of Iraq's sovereignty for many people in Iraq. It is in this context, that we must view reporting of al-Sadr and any attacks that are made on his supporters. The final removal of al-Sadr as a serious voice of opposition in the region, will finally pave the way for a corporate takeover of Iraq and the completion of the neoconservative mission and thus enable the Iraq oil law to become binding. As one analyst from the Revenue Watch Institute, a group that advises policy-makers in the US and Iraq on the oil law, has said:

"Together with fair local elections, a resolution to Iraq's oil law conflict is the key to unlocking Iraq's development potential."

'Development potential' that would, as we know, benefit foreign oil corporations. Therefore, the neutralisation of al-Sadr's support is crucial to the establishment of a oil law that is in the interests of US corporate power.

Consequently, it comes as little surprise to learn of the latest action taken by US forces in the region. Tomorrow, al-Sadr had planned to march with 1 million Iraqis against the US presence within Iraq. The march would have given a very clear message to the forces of the empire. Let Iraqis govern themselves and allow them to put their interests above those of the global markets. This was, however, clearly intolerable for the forces of corporatism in Iraq. Consequently, US forces made their mark in Sadr city and sent a very clear warning: Iraq is under our authority. To reinforce this message, the US army launched airstrikes within Sadr city killing at least nine people (referred to as 'criminals' by the US army). Furthermore, due to intense fighting between Iraqis and US forces, at least 20 people were killed and 52 wounded, including women and children. There is little doubt why the US decided to act at this point, particularly when al-Sadr had been encouraging supporters to observe a ceasefire. A ceasefire, incidentally, that has done more to curb violence in Iraq than the so-called 'surge'

As a consequence of this action in Sadr city, al-Sadr has decided to call off the planned protest to mark five years of occupation. The reason for calling off the protest? According to al-Sadr himself:

"I call those beloved Iraqi people who wish to demonstrate against the occupation to postpone their march, out of my fear for them and my concern to spare their blood."

The US forces had achieved what they had hoped for. By indulging in shock tactics to frighten the supporters of al-Sadr, they have successfully frightened him into calling off a legitimate protest march against the ongoing occupation of Iraq. And yet, protests are a very potent symbol of a successful democracy, a democracy we were led to believe the neoconservatives were keen to spread. Instead what we are seeing is the suppression of voices that seek to threaten US hegemony in the region. Quite simply, it is US style corporatism or it is nothing. Anything that sits outsides the boundaries set by the occupying power is a threat to security and must be dealt with severely, regardless of civilian casualties. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who sought to curtail freedoms and ban the right to protest. It would appear that this alternative is no better. Unless, of course, you continue to see the world through the prism of US corporatism.

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.

Exxon should settle Venezuela dispute

Taken from today's Guardian:

On February 7 an English court granted an injunction to US multinational oil company ExxonMobil freezing the assets of the Venezuelan oil firm PDVSA in England and Wales. The order covered assets to the value of $12bn. The Venezuelan government was given no notice of the case nor any opportunity to be represented at the hearing. This week PDVSA will appeal against the decision in the high court.

ExxonMobil's action was in response to the policy of the Venezuelan government to take back majority control of its own oil resources. Unlike other international oil companies - 30 out of 32 contracts have been renegotiated, with amicable agreements and compensation terms reached with the Venezuelan government - ExxonMobil refused the terms offered.

We believe the court ruling contravenes the right of Venezuela's democratically elected government to exercise sovereignty over its natural resources. The nationalisation of the state oil company has allowed Venezuela to tackle a range of social inequalities, by taking back the oil wealth and redistributing it to benefit the Venezuelan people.

We urge the amicable settlement of this dispute through arbitration under the auspices of the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, a body of the World Bank, as sought by the Venezuelan government.

Diane Abbott M.P, Tony Benn, John Pilger, Bruce Kent, Prunella Scales, Caroline Lucas MEP, Gordon Hutchison, Secretary, Venezuela Information Centre (VIC), Brian Wilson, Chair, Scottish Venezuela Society, Ann Pettifor, Director, Advocacy International, Neil Lawson, Compass, Graeme Smith, General Secretary, STUC, Keith Sonnet, Deputy General Secretary, UNISON, Ken Loach, Colin Burgon M.P, Jon Cruddas M.P, Mike Hancock M.P, Adam Price M.P., Angus MacNeil M.P., Richard Harvey, David Hillman, Jon Trickett M.P, Jeremy Corbyn M.P, Victoria Brittain, Graham Goddard, Deputy General Secretary, UNITE Billy Hayes, General Secretary CWU, Rodney Bickerstaffe, Sue Branford, Chair, War on Want, Richard Gott, Doug Nicholls, National Secretary CYWU/UNITE, Derek Wall, Green Party, Cllr. Salma Yaqoob, Hazel Marsh, University of East Anglia, Andy Bain, President TSSA, Maggie Bowden, General Secretary, Liberation, Ruqayyah Collector, Black Students Officer, NUS, Marie Daley, UCU National Executive Committee, Michael Derham, Northumbria University, Bill Greenshields, Vice-President NUT, Chris Kitchen, General Secretary NUM, Matt Wrack, General Secretary FBU, Dr Mandy Turner, University of Bradford, Dr Kaveh Moussavi, University of Oxford, Paul Laverty, Gerry Doherty, General Secretary TSSA, Baljeet Ghale, President NUT (personal capacity), Joe Marino, General Secretary, BFAWU, Doreen Massey, Open University, Martin McIvor, Editor, Renewal, Gerry Morrissey, General Secreary, BECTU, Linda Newman, President UCU, Diana Raby, University of Liverpool, Mick Shaw, President, FBU

BP and Shell Eager to Get Their Hands on Iraqi Oil

From Scenta:

BP has been holding meetings with Iraqi oil officials as it speeds up plans to re-enter one of the biggest but politically most controversial oil provinces in the world, five years after the toppling of Saddam Hussein by the British and US military.

The move comes as BP is drawing fire for abandoning any pursuit of green credentials. Environmental groups accuse the new chief executive, Tony Hayward, of "recarbonising" a once enlightened oil group.

BP said it was "possible" some of its executives might meet the Iraqi oil minister, Hussain al-Shahristani, today at a Royal Institute of International Affairs conference in London, sponsored by BP, Shell and other western oil majors.

A spokesman for BP, which will report annual profits of about $18bn, confirmed managers met Iraqi oil officials last week in Jordan and talked about providing technical assistance.

Iraq has more than 115bn barrels of recoverable reserves, an attraction for oil groups at a time when easily recoverable reserves are becoming more difficult to secure.

BP was last night playing down any likelihood of an imminent move into Iraq. "It is a country of interest to us but we are waiting for political and security stability to return before we will take anything further," a spokesman said.

The group has already undertaken technical studies on the Rumeila oilfield for the new government of Iraq. It is gearing up for further involvement following the drafting of a new oil law in Iraq. The chief executive of Shell, Jeroen van der Veer, also admitted last week that his company was looking closely at re-entering Iraq.

Yes, Shell and BP are poised to get their grubby little hands on Iraq's oil, courtesy of the proposed Iraq Oil Law. And they said the war was about oil. Pish.

Total - We're The Good Guys.....Honest Guv'

Apologies if this is already common knowledge, but I have been catching up on the news this last week after a hectic few days. Whilst popping into my local, friendly Total garage today, I came across a leaflet outlining its justification for remaining in Burma. The leaflet was predictably full of false sentiment and one passage in particular caught my eye:

'Our presence in Burma brings responsibility, but a decision to leave the country would entail similar responsibilities. If TOTAL left Burma, we would be replaced immediately by other operators who may not apply the same social or ethical standards. There would be no real impact on the State's revenues or on the political debate, but there would certainly be a negative impact on the Burmese people. As long as we believe our operations on the Yadana project contribute to the welfare of the people of Burma, TOTAL is committed to staying and demonstrating that our presence is more beneficial than our absence.'

Yes, all those other oil companies are nasty wicked people, we are good and kind and pure. Mmmmmmm.

The leaflet also draws attention to their website: http://burma.total.com. The website itself is a perfect example of corporate propaganda. Some of it needs to be seen to be believed. The image of Total as an altruistic, benevolent organisation is, frankly, absurd in the extreme. They are in business to make profit, all other considerations are secondary, least of all human rights.

Greenspan Claims Prime Motive For War in Iraq Was Oil

Not that that would be immediately apparent when you see the headline in The Times:

Fed veteran Alan Greenspan lambasts George W Bush on economy

Mmmm, who would have thought that the corporate media would take such a line? Anyway, despite their efforts to focus on the capitalist agenda rather than the humanitarian one, the real story is Greenspan's claims about the illegal invasion of Iraq. Greenspan, a self-confessed life-long Republican, claimed:

"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

Of course it was about oil. Only a few cranks seriously believe that it was about deposing a dictator. It was about oil, capitalism, money, empire building, authority, power and anything but humanitarian reasons. To claim it was anything else, is to be ignorant of the facts.

Iraqi Government Refuses Recognition of Unions

Like father like son:

Iraq's Oil Ministry has directed all its agencies and departments not to deal with the country's oil unions.

The unions and Iraq's government, especially the prime minister and oil minister, have been at odds for months now over working conditions and the draft oil law.

The unions went on strike in early June and are threatening to stop production and exports again if demands are not met. The unions claim the oil law, if approved by Parliament, will give foreign oil companies too much access to the oil. The unions enjoy enormous support, especially in the south of Iraq.

"The Minister has directed the prohibition of cooperation with any member of any union in any of the committees organized under the name of the Union as these unions do not enjoy any legal status to work inside the government sector," Laith Abd Al Hussein AL Shahir, the ministry's general director, wrote in a July 18 letter obtained by UPI.

Saddam Hussein outlawed worker organizing in the public sector; subsequent U.S. occupying powers and now the Iraqi government do not recognize the workers' rights to organize.

Truly, they are adopting American style democracy to its fullest degree.

Brendan Nelson Lets The Cat Out of the Bag

Who? Nelson is Australia's Defence Minister. Here is what he had to say on Iraq on the wider Middle East:

In comments to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr Nelson admitted that the supply of oil had influenced Australia's strategic planning in the region.

"Obviously the Middle East itself, not only Iraq but the entire region, is an important supplier of energy, oil in particular, to the rest of the world," he said.

"Australians and all of us need to think what would happen if there were a premature withdrawal from Iraq.

"It's in our interests, our security interests, to make sure that we leave the Middle East, and leave Iraq in particular, in a position of sustainable security." [BBC]

Oooops.

(h/t War Within a Breath)

Iraq Oil Law

I was going to post on this myself but well, as RickB at Ten Percent already has, I can't be arsed. Go read his account and find out more yourself.

The Oil Law Explained

Hat-tip - antonymus:

Iraq Oil Law

Taken from Avaaz:

Amidst rising bloodshed, President Bush has told the Iraqi Parliament they have till the 31st of May to pass a flawed oil law that could give multinational companies unprecedented control of Iraq's oil fields. But some Iraqi leaders are daring to resist - and they need our help.

Two weeks from now, members of the Iraqi Parliament -- including Sunni, Kurdish and Shia leaders -- are planning to read Avaaz's petition of solidarity from the floor of Parliament. They say this statement of global support for Iraqi sovereignty will strengthen the resolve of their colleagues to face down Bush and big oil companies by opposing this law. So sign the petition today--let's make 100,000 voices heard in Iraq's Parliament before they vote:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/iraq_oil_law/?cl=9680928

Our simple message: we support Iraq's sovereign right to its own oil. Revenue from oil should be distributed fairly to the Iraqi people. And the Iraqi national parliament should decide this without foreign influence.

Oil accounts for 70% of Iraq's national income. The proposed oil law would give multinational companies broad control of those revenues for three decades -- a deal more generous than any in the Middle East. In most countries, oil corporations perform services under contracts with governments. In Iraq, foreign companies would sit on the national council that gives out the contracts.

Here's how the head of the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions, Hassan Jum'a Awwad, put it:

"Iraq is passing through the most difficult of times, because all and sundry are hounding it and covet a share of its riches. Everyone knows that the oil law does not serve the Iraqi people, and that it serves Bush, his supporters and the foreign companies at their expense."

It's a rare sign of hope to see Iraqis coming together on anything, but this law is bad enough to unite almost everyone. Iraqis are asking for our help. Let's tell them the world supports their right to set their own future. Sign on and help us reach 100,000 voices before they present the petition to the Parliament:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/iraq_oil_law/?cl=9680928

In peace, Ricken, Graziela, Paul and the Avaaz Team

Chevron Admit Kickbacks to Saddam

Hat-tip to Aaron at breathe for this one (I haven't seen this reported that much in the UK):

United States oil giant Chevron is ready to admit that it should have known that illegal payments were being paid to Saddam Hussein to purchase Iraqi petroleum during the Oil for Food Program. Will Condoleezza Rice admit her accountability?

According to Claudio Gatti, an investigative reporter for Il Sole 24 Ore, whose report was published in the New York Times, Chevron made illegal payments of $20 million dollars to Iraq indirectly through a number of small oil traders, who purchased and then resold Iraqi oil to Chevron between 2000 and 2002.

Chevron must now pay between $25 to $50 million dollars in fines as part of a settlement with the U.S. Justice Department.

And Condi's involvement?

......Condoleezza Rice's tenure on the Board of Directors (from 1991 to January 15, 2001) covered half of this period, and she served as the Chair of the Public Policy Committee. By the time Rice resigned from the board to work in the White House, Chevron had bought millions of barrels of crude from Iraq, and likely knowledgeable board members would have been those on the Public Policy Committee, which considers important legal, environmental and other policy issues.

The White House linked to a scandal involving the oil industry? Surely not.