Time for A New Energy Policy? Nationalizing the Oil Industry

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Time for A New Energy Policy? Nationalizing the Oil Industry

Postby StarmanSkye » Tue May 02, 2006 2:33 am

Hmmmm...<br><br>Time to think about how things COULD be managed so much better? Considering oil's place as a strategic and vital necessity, why should it remain in the hands of robber-baron kleptocrats, their franchise protected by the trillion-dollar boondoggle-subsidized military-industry killing-machine jobs-program and Pentagon-hack-drafted Foreign Policy, vetted by the Federal Reserve Private Banking Syndicate?<br><br>How many more lives lost, suffering, destruction, sorrow and horrors must follow in the wake of America's plunder of resources for the sake of corporate profits and geostrategic force projection? Now the Bush Inc. Gangbangers and their sycophantic rabble-rousing camp followers are making appropriate growling noises, provoking the sheeple's fetid nightmare phantasies of PC-balanced Race War wet-dreams, manipulating public opinion via PR agitprop demonization and agitating for military interventions in Iran, with destabilization psyops and planned or even actual covert ops advance state-sanctioned (the 'good' kind) terrorism in Pakistan, Venezuela, Nigeria and Bolivia and the 'Stans ... and completing the military's planned encirclement of Russia and China.<br><br>As the Bush presidency invalidates representative democracy at home and expands Executive privelege to an unprecedented end-run-around-Congress extent in order to authorize spying and repression of domestic critics, declare pre-emptive foreign wars and prosecute a never-ending 'war' on a proper noun, America's lack of a cohesive forward-thinking intelligent energy policy has already claimed more than a quarter-million victims and gifted the Big Oil syndicates with record profits (their payback 'Thank-You! for backing the neocon gameplan?) -- still protected from levied taxes and positioned to collect an even greater ransom of blood and sweat and treasure as the clever madness of psyop-induced PR fear and anxiety infects the rigged-game so-called 'free market' and the price for oil and gold is poised to exceed the avaricious dreams of even the most greedy corrupt war-profiteers and catastrophe-mining speculators; Marking a massive transfer of wealth as the elites and their stooges shaft the poor and working and middle classes in the latest-installment of economic shoot-out at the OK-to-screw-ya Corral ...<br><br>Starman<br>******<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney05012006.html">www.counterpunch.org/whit...12006.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>The "N" Word<br>Take Back the Oil Companies!<br><br>By MIKE WHITNEY<br><br>Nationalizing the oil industry should be the central tenet of any progressive political movement. Evidence of the industry's involvement in the invasion of Iraq as well as its obvious complicity in corrupting the political system should provide ample proof that the oil giants are a clear and present danger to democracy and need to be put under state control.<br><br>In an era of oil scarcity we no longer have the luxury of allowing a handful of corporate plutocrats to decide the fate of the global economy. The industry chieftains have deliberately closed down refineries to lower production and enhance their profits. They have sluiced boatloads of cash into the political system to ensure that congress and the executive carry out their directives. Presently, there's not an inch of daylight between the Exxon boardroom and 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, they both operate off the very same script.<br><br>The oil industry is the primary beneficiary of Bush's war in Iraq. Industry executives had a place at the table when Dick Cheney carved up Iraq's oil fields for future distribution among America's elite corporations. Freedom of Information requests have provided "edited documents from the Cheney Energy Policy group. One of these was a map showing lease areas where oil drilling was planned (in Iraq). Another consisted of a list of 40 oil companies from 30 nations who were slated to get permission to drill for oil in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The problem for the US and Britain was that their oil companies were absent from this list of those who were to get concessions..The US and UK would thus be frozen out of what was clearly one of the greatest material prizes in world history." ("The CFR Debates" Lawerence Shoup; Z Magazine March 2006)<br><br>This explains why the industry backed a bumbling oil-man from Texas who showed neither interest in policy nor aptitude for leadership. Bush became the draught horse for executing an agenda that would replace diminishing Saudi reserves with the second largest supplies in the world, and then, conveniently remove France and Russia from the list of competitors.<br><br>2,400 American servicemen and 100,000 Iraqis (Note: Some recent estimates suggest the toll may be closer to 250,000 Iraqi war-dead, with up to 1000 victims per month in Baghdad alone; -S) have now sacrificed their lives on the altar of corporate profiteering. Bush has spread his energy war from Central Asia to the Middle East; increasing the incidents of terrorism by 4 fold. The American middle class is being crushed by soaring gas prices and government malfeasance while well-heeled oil moguls trundle off to the bank with the largest profits in history.<br><br>Isn't it time we rethought the economic system?<br><br>Anyone who has watched the futures market knows that the present system is doomed. Nowadays, any disgruntled partisan with a Kalashnikov can take out a pipeline and send oil prices skyrocketing. Bush has only aggravated this problem by saber rattling at Iran. His rhetoric has caused an erosion of confidence in the market and sent prices at the pump soaring. And, this is only the beginning.<br><br>The administration is determined to take its war wherever oil is obtainable; inciting a global resistance that could persist throughout the century. This seems to be the war that Bush and Cheney covet, although their objectives are cleverly concealed behind the facade of the war on terror.<br><br>How can the market survive this type of volatility; especially when Uncle Sam is creating thousands of new terrorists with every misguided invasion?<br><br>The new State Dept report confirms that resistance to America's foreign policy is increasing violence exponentially. Bush's "smash and grab" neoliberalism is transforming the world into a free-fire zone putting lives and vital resources at risk.<br><br>The system is hopelessly broken and needs "democratizing" so that energy can be distributed evenhandedly according to one's basic needs.<br><br>If everyone needs access to energy to maintain a minimal standard of living, then we should recognize oil as a basic human right like water or food. There should be regulating-bodies to ensure that distribution is equitable and not arbitrarily doled out to the highest bidder. There's no way that the current system can make this adjustment when the availability of cheap energy is quickly disappearing.<br><br>We are facing a future of diminishing supplies and growing demands. We can either cooperate on a national and international level; creating the appropriate institutions for fair distribution, or follow the "Bush model" of military intervention and unrelenting turmoil.<br><br>The belief that the market's "invisible hand" will guide us safely to the other shore is nonsense. There is no "free market" in the oil business; it's a complete myth. Oil extraction in Iraq is conducted at gunpoint, the ultimate form of coercion. Each barrel leaving the country has been stolen through military force.<br><br>Is this our window into the future or is cooperation possible?<br><br>The world's main source of energy should not be entrusted to corporate oligarchs whose only interest is padding the bottom line. The world's resources are not the sole province of the "highest bidder".<br><br>We need an entirely new approach to energy policy; a vision that anticipates dwindling supplies, conservation, and the threat of climate change. The path ahead doesn't have to be littered with the corpses of those who fought to defend their countries from exploitation. There's another way.<br><br>It is possible for people and nations to work together for the common good. And, after all, we only need to look at Iraq, Afghanistan and Nigeria to see the dismal alternative.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
StarmanSkye
 
Posts: 2670
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:32 pm
Location: State of Jefferson
Blog: View Blog (0)

Bolivia quasi-nationalizes

Postby wordspeak » Tue May 02, 2006 8:26 am

Bolivia Moves to Nationalize Gas Industry <br><br>By ALVARO ZUAZO Associated Press Writer <br>© 2006 The Associated Press<br><br>LA PAZ, Bolivia — President Evo Morales issued a decree nationalizing Bolivia's vast natural gas industry Monday, sending soldiers to occupy gas fields and threatening to evict foreign companies unless they give the Andean nation control over the entire chain of production.<br><br>The move fulfills an election promise by the leftist president, who has forged close ties with Cuba's Fidel Castro and Venezuela' Hugo Chavez, to increase state control over Bolivia's natural resources, which he says have been "looted" by foreign companies.<br><br><br>Morales sent soldiers and engineers with Bolivia's state-owned oil company to installations and fields tapped by foreign companies _ including Britain's BG Group PLC and BP PLC, Brazil's Petroleo Brasileiro SA, Spanish-Argentine Repsol YPF SA, France's Total SA and Texas-based Exxon Mobil Corp. The companies have six months to agree to new contracts or leave Bolivia, he said.<br><br>"The time has come, the awaited day, a historic day in which Bolivia retakes absolute control of our natural resources," Morales, Bolivia's first Indian president, said in a speech from the San Alberto field operated by Petrobras in association with Repsol and Total SA.<br><br>State television aired footage of soldiers and police standing guard outside some gas installations and petroleum company offices in the eastern city of Santa Cruz, where much of the industry is based.<br><br>Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera said troops were sent to 56 locations nationwide.<br><br>"The looting by the foreign companies has ended," Morales declared.<br><br>The announcement follows a trend by oil- and gas-rich Latin American nations to exact a larger share of profits from extraction of the fossil fuels.<br><br>The move comes as Ecuador argues with Washington over a new oil royalties law and less than a month after Chavez ordered the seizure of oil fields from Total and Italy's Eni SpA when the companies failed to comply with a government demand that operations be turned over to Venezuela's state oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela SA.<br><br>Brazil is Bolivia's biggest natural gas client, followed by Argentina, and Brazil's demand has been rising rapidly due to power generation, cooking and automotive needs.<br><br>Landlocked Bolivia must sell to its neighbors because it lacks a pipeline to ship gas to the Pacific Ocean and from there to Asia, Mexico or the United States.<br><br>Any price jolts would mostly be felt in Argentina and Brazil, but Bolivia already has been seeking to boost prices for customers in both countries.<br><br>Morales said all foreign companies must turn over most production control to Bolivia's cash-strapped state-owned oil company, Yacimientos Petroliferos Fiscales Bolivianos. Bolivia has South America's second largest natural gas reserves after Venezuela.<br><br>Multinational companies that produced 100 million cubic feet of natural gas daily last year in Bolivia will be able to retain only 18 percent of their production, with the rest being given to YPFB, he said. Morales did not name the companies.<br><br>A Repsol spokesman said the company could not respond because it had not received official word of the announcement. At an industry conference in Houston, Petrobras President Jose Sergio Gabrielli called the decree harsher than his company had expected.<br><br>"Evo Morales' decree was a unilateral measure adopted in an unfriendly way. It obliges us to analyze very carefully our situation in the country," Gabrielli told the Brazilian government's Agencia Brasil news service. He was expected to return early to Brazil Tuesday to meet with President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva for talks on the issue.<br><br>"We are monitoring the situation very closely," said Bob Davis, a spokesman for the world's largest oil company, Exxon Mobil, which has a 30 percent interest in a non-producing field called Itau, which is operated by Total.<br><br>In Madrid, Spain's Foreign Ministry expressed "deep concern" about the decree to nationalize the hydrocarbons sector.<br><br>"The government hopes that in the 180 days period announced by the Bolivian president for foreign companies to regularize their current contracts, there is authentic negotiation and dialogue between the government and the different companies in which each other's interests are respected," the ministry said in a statement.<br><br>Morales said the government would begin negotiations immediately with the companies to make sure they are willing to comply, but said they could be stripped of their privilege to operate in Bolivia if they don't sign new contracts within six months.<br><br>In the past, YPFB produced Bolivia's natural gas, but it was reduced to an administrative role in the mid-1990s after the country's gas exploration and production business was privatized. Experts have warned that the company is incapable of becoming a producer again without a massive infusion of cash.<br><br>Morales has repeatedly said the country's natural resources have been "looted" by foreign companies and must be nationalized so that Bolivians could benefit from the profits that were being sent overseas.<br><br>But he has also said that nationalization will not mean a complete state takeover, because Bolivia lacks the ability to tap all its natural gas on its own.<br><br>Last week, Morales told Brazil's Valor Economico newspaper that Bolivia would have to "set up a new battalion, a new army of oil and gas specialists to exert the property right" for a complete state takeover of petroleum production.<br><br>Morales chose May 1, International Day of the Workers, to announce the nationalization plan, wearing a YPFB helmet as he gave his speech.<br><br>Morales also said the state would retake majority control of Bolivian hydrocarbons companies that were partially privatized in the 1990s.<br><br>Morales is following the path of Chavez, his populist political mentor, said Pietro Pitts, editor-in-chief for the Venezuela-based LatinPetroleum.com.<br><br>"You can call Bolivia Venezuela Part II because it seems like he (Morales) is going to try to do the same thing that Chavez is doing," said Pitts, referring to giving the state majority control of hydrocarbons.<br><br>Ecuador's Congress last month ratified a hydrocarbons reform law designed to cut into windfall profits of foreign crude producers, among them U.S.-based Occidental Petroleum Corp. <p></p><i></i>
wordspeak
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:36 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Bolivia quasi-nationalizes

Postby Sepka » Wed May 03, 2006 3:30 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>we should recognize oil as a basic human right like water or food.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>The first step in such a process would be recognizing that oil rightfully belongs to those who need it, not to those who merely happen to live in areas where it's found.<br><br>-Sepka the Space Weasel <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Sepka
 
Posts: 1983
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Bolivia quasi-nationalizes

Postby Gouda » Wed May 03, 2006 7:07 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The first step in such a process would be recognizing that oil rightfully belongs to those who need it, not to those who merely happen to live in areas where it's found.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> Also sprach Sepka, in the great tradition of Teddy R and Sir Winston C...<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"Democracy has justified itself by keeping for the white race the best portions of the earth's surface." </em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--></strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br>-- Teddy Roosevelt<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." </em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--></strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br>-- Sir Winston Churchill<br> <br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=4149.topic">Sepka also sez:</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br>Re: Boomerang: US Covert Wars in the Middle East (4/30/06 4:29 pm)<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The object of American foreign policy is to advance American interests. I can't think of any nation, not even the Vatican, whose foreign policy doesn't fit that paradigm.<br><br>-Sepka the Space Weasel<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=4044.topic">and:</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> <br>Re: U.S. Intervention in Nicaragua's November Elections (4/24/06 2:22 am)<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Statements such as "If your country does X, our country will do Y" are the foundation of foreign policy, and always have been. Is it Nicaragua's expectation that the United States will pursue a friendly policy towards them whether or not they elect a hostile government? Like the Palestinians, the Nicaraguans can elect who they like. Like every nation on earth, the United States included, they need to be aware that their election choices have practical ramifications.<br><br>-Sepka the Space Weasel<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br>Perhaps Bolivia finds it in its interest to nationalize the oil it finds itself sitting on? Like every nation on Earth, the USA and its Corporations need to be aware that their policies will have practical ramifications, such as regular people getting fed up with racist, exploitive policy. <br><br>People don't like getting robbed, Sepka, and you probably would not like it either. And you know better that oil is not only about powering our much needed Cadillacs and Hummers. Like time, oil is money and a multi-convertible national resource. It may even trickle down to benefit health clinics and schools, who knows?! <br><br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>edit: spelling</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gouda@rigorousintuition>Gouda</A> at: 5/3/06 5:10 am<br></i>
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Bolivia quasi-nationalizes

Postby Sepka » Wed May 03, 2006 7:26 am

Interestingly, Teddy Roosevelt and Churchill are probably the two men that I would name as the greatest leaders of the 20th century. I wholeheartedy concur with Churchill's "dog in the manger" sentiment. I'd replace "white" with "civilized" or "western", but in his day the terms were synonymous.<br><br>I'm sure the Bolivians believe their recent thievery to be in their own interests. I'm equally sure that over the next few decades, they'll come to look back upon the present time as a peaceful period, before the troubles began. I can't really feel sorry for them. If they feel justified in harming American interests while attempting to advance their own, why should we have any higher scruples when dealing with them?<br><br>-Sepka the Space Weasel <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Sepka
 
Posts: 1983
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Bolivia quasi-nationalizes

Postby Gouda » Wed May 03, 2006 7:45 am

Thanks for the response, Sepka. I would just like to further clarify that "white", "civilized", "western", (and "superior") <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>[added on edit]</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> are synonymous in this day also. <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>If they feel justified in harming American interests while attempting to advance their own, why should we have any higher scruples when dealing with them?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> Oh, we won't. Petty thieves thieving from indigenous corporations need to be harshly dealt with. We'll conjure a justification and try to call it History. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gouda@rigorousintuition>Gouda</A> at: 5/4/06 2:30 am<br></i>
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Bolivia quasi-nationalizes

Postby Gouda » Thu May 04, 2006 4:33 am

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/05/03/bolivia.privatization.reut/index.html">edition.cnn.com/2006/BUSI...index.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>After being greeted by Morales on the airport tarmac, a beaming Chavez congratulated him on the nationalization, saying <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>"the voice of the people is the voice of God."</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Bolivia quasi-nationalizes

Postby Sepka » Thu May 04, 2006 1:24 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> Thanks for the response, Sepka. I would just like to further clarify that "white", "civilized", "western", (and "superior"<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START ;) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> [added on edit] are synonymous in this day also. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I can agree that civilized, western and superior are all synonymous. I say that without a trace of irony, either. It's hard for me to include "white" in there when Japan is now plainly part of the West, and when the last two Secretaries of State (in these times, perhaps the #2 position in the Administration) have both been black.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Petty thieves thieving from indigenous corporations need to be harshly dealt with.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>What triggers my cynicism about the whole issue is the double standard applied. When the Bolivian government decides to use force to settle an issue in their favour, the left lauds that as enlightened behaviour. Should the United States government decide to employ force in turn, that's oppression. In my view, if developing countries don't want strong-arm tactics used against them, they shouldn't use them against others. I'm sure that I'm hopelessly old-fashioned, but I was raised to believe that what's fair for one is fair for all.<br><br>-Sepka the Space Weasel <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sepka>Sepka</A> at: 5/4/06 11:45 am<br></i>
User avatar
Sepka
 
Posts: 1983
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Bolivia quasi-nationalizes

Postby Dreams End » Thu May 04, 2006 8:17 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Should the United States government decide to employ force in turn, that's oppression.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>What the hell? US uses force all the time. Just destroyed two countries...and if Sepka has his way, they'll destroy a third.<br><br>How many people were killed when Bolivia siezed the oil fields? How many were killed by US bombs in Iraq? <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

um, yeah

Postby wordspeak » Thu May 04, 2006 9:30 pm

Sepka, it's a matter of whether the money goes to the people, in the poorest country in Latin America, or to further line the pockets of the oil industry.<br>Bolivia's move isn't "force"; it's democratic politics. <p></p><i></i>
wordspeak
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:36 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: um, yeah

Postby Sepka » Sat May 06, 2006 1:53 pm

Bolivia's move is fundamentally no more than a protection racket. They waited until the money was invested to develop the oil fields, they waited until all of the work was done and the fields were producing a profit, then stepped up and demanded their rake-off because they have an army, and the oil companies don't. If's that's not robbery, I'm not sure what is. <br><br>Personally, I think the money should go to the millions of investors who risked their own money to explore and develop the oil fields, not to line the pockets of armed robbers.<br><br>-Sepka the Space Weasel <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Sepka
 
Posts: 1983
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: um, yeah

Postby Dreams End » Sat May 06, 2006 2:39 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>they have an army, and the oil companies don't<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>LOL. <br><br>that was a joke, right?<br><br>The oil company armies are sweating in the desert as we speak. <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: Monbiot - Chad and Bolivia

Postby Gouda » Thu May 18, 2006 10:37 am

Instructive.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>When Two Poor Countries Reclaimed Oilfields, Why Did Just One Spark Uproar?<br><br>The outcry over Bolivia's renationalization and the silence over Chad's betrays the hypocrisy of the critics</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>by George Monbiot<br> <br>Civilization has a new enemy. He is a former coca grower called Evo Morales, who is currently the president of Bolivia. Yesterday he stood before the European parliament to explain why he had sent troops to regain control of his country's gas and oil fields. Bolivia's resources, he says, have been "looted by foreign companies," and he is reclaiming them for the benefit of his people. Last week, he told the summit of Latin American and European leaders in Vienna that the corporations which have been extracting the country's fossil fuels would not be compensated for these seizures.<br><br>You can probably guess how this has gone down. Tony Blair urged him to use his power responsibly, which is like Mark Oaten lecturing the Pope on sexual continence. Condoleezza Rice accused him of "demagoguery." The Economist announced that Bolivia was "moving backwards." The Times, in a marvellously haughty leader, called Morales "petulant," "xenophobic," and "capricious," and labelled his seizure of the gas fields "a gesture as childish as it is eye-catching."<br><br>Never mind that the privatization of Bolivia's gas and oil in the 1990s was almost certainly illegal, as it took place without the consent of congress. Never mind that - until now - its natural wealth has only impoverished its people. Never mind that Morales had promised to regain national control of Bolivia's natural resources before he became president, and that the policy has massive support among Bolivians. It can't be long before Donald Rumsfeld calls him the new Hitler and Bush makes another speech about freedom and democracy being threatened by freedom and democracy.<br><br>This huffing and puffing is dressed up as concern for the people of Bolivia. The Financial Times fretted about the potential for "mismanagement and corruption." The Economist warned that while the government "may get richer, its people are likely to grow even poorer." The Times lamented that Morales had "set back Bolivia's development by 10 years or so ... the most vulnerable groups will find that an economic lifeline is soon removed from their reach." All this is humbug.<br><br>Four days before Morales seized the gas fields - on May 1 - an even bigger expropriation took place in an even poorer country: the African republic of Chad. When the Chadian government reasserted control over its oil revenues, not only did it ensure that an intended lifeline for the poor really was removed from their reach, but it also brought the World Bank's claims to be using oil as a social welfare program crashing down in flames. So how did all those bold critics of Morales respond? They didn't. The whole hypocritical horde of them looked the other way.<br><br>The World Bank decided to fund Chad's massive oil scheme in 2000, after extracting a promise from the government of Idriss Deby - which has a terrible human rights record - that the profits would be used for the benefit of the country's people. Deby's administration passed a law allocating 85% of the government's oil revenues to education, health, and development, and placing 10% "in trust for future generations." This, the bank said, amounted to "an unprecedented system of safeguards to ensure that these revenues would be used to finance development in Chad."<br><br>Without the World Bank, the project could not have gone ahead. It was asked to participate by Exxon, the leading partner in the project, to provide insurance against political risk. The bank's different lending arms stumped up a total of $333m, and the European Investment Bank threw in another $120m. The oil companies (Exxon, Petronas, and Chevron) started drilling 300 wells in the south of the country, and building a pipeline to a port in Cameroon, which opened in 2003.<br><br>Environmentalists predicted that the pipeline would damage the rainforests of Cameroon and displace the indigenous people who lived there; that the oil companies would consume much of Chad's scarce water and that an influx of oil workers would be accompanied by an influx of Aids. They also argued that subsidizing oil companies in the name of social welfare was a radical reinterpretation of the bank's mandate. As long ago as 1997, the Environmental Defense Fund warned that the government of Chad would not keep its promises to use the money for alleviating poverty. In 1999, researchers from Harvard Law School examined the law the government had passed, and predicted that the authorities "have little intention of allowing it to affect local practice."<br><br>In 2000, the oil companies gave the government of Chad a "signing bonus" of $4.5m, which it immediately spent on arms. Then, at the beginning of 2006, it simply tore up the law it had passed in 1998. It redefined the development budget to include security, seized the fund set aside for future generations, and diverted 30% of the total revenues into "general spending," which, in Chad, is another term for guns. The World Bank, embarrassed by the fulfilment of all the predictions its critics had made, froze the revenues the government had deposited in London and suspended the remainder of its loans. The Chadian government responded by warning that it would simply shut down the oil wells. The corporations ran to daddy (the US government) and, on April 27, the bank caved in. Its new agreement with Chad entitles Deby to pretty well everything he has already taken.<br><br>The World Bank's attempts to save face are almost funny. Last year, it said that the scheme was "a pioneering and collaborative effort ... to demonstrate that large-scale crude oil projects can significantly improve prospects for sustainable long-term development." In other words, it was a model for oil-producing countries to follow. Now it tells us that the project in Chad was "less a model for all oil-producing countries than a unique solution to a unique challenge." But, however much it wriggles, it cannot disguise the fact that the government's reassertion of control is a disaster both for the bank and for the impoverished people it claimed to be helping. Since the project began, Chad has fallen from 167th to 173rd on the UN's human development index, and life expectancy there has dropped from 44.7 to 43.6 years. If, by contrast, Morales does as he has promised and uses the extra revenues from Bolivia's gas fields in the same way as Hugo Chávez has used the money from Venezuela's oil, the result is likely to be a major improvement in his people's welfare.<br><br>So, on the one hand, you have a man who has kept his promises by regaining control over the money from the hydrocarbon industry, in order to use it to help the poor. On the other, you have a man who has broken his promises by regaining control over the money from the hydrocarbon industry, in order to buy guns. The first man is vilified as irresponsible, childish and capricious. The second man is left to get on with it. Why? Well, Deby's actions don't hurt the oil companies. Morales's do. When Blair and Rice and the Times and all the other apologists for undemocratic power say "the people," they mean the corporations. The reason they hate Morales is that when he says "the people," he means the people. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Monbiot - Chad and Bolivia

Postby wintler » Fri May 19, 2006 1:31 am

The US will not nationalise anything in a hurry, the plutocrats which run the junta that runs the place know it would be a very poor precedent. The US is pretty dependant upon the massive inflow of resources that globalisation at gun point is extorting from the rest of the 'less developed' planet, and validating resource nationalisation would give the distant serfs entirely the wrong ideas.<br>As the US$ drops through the floor, yanks will less and less be able to afford the still substantial (tho 35 years post peak) oil production of the US, never mind the imports, and we may even one day see US oil being exported. There will be more calls for nationalising US oil then too, still with buckleys chance of success. Learn to live with much less oil, folks, or breed up fast for more wars. <p></p><i></i>
wintler
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:28 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to Energy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests