Tuesday 14 December 2010
by: William Rivers Pitt, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
At the time of this writing, legislation to formalize the tax deal between President Obama and congressional Republicans cleared cloture by a large margin, and looked ready to sail through the Senate. Polls indicate a large margin of Americans approve of the deal, and newspapers like the Washington Post are hailing the process as "the most significant bipartisan vote since President Obama took office."
Not everyone agrees.
Last week, a battery of congressional Democrats rose up in outrage over the deal, specifically protesting not only the extension of George W. Bush's tax cuts for rich people, but for the attack on the payroll tax, which many see as the beginning of the end of Social Security.
Leading the charge was Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who took to the well of the Senate on Friday to deliver a marathon eight-and-a-half hour denunciation of the deal. As his speech rose and grew, bloggers and "mainstream" media reporters, and then the networks, focused on the fact that it was happening. Articles debated whether this was a "true" filibuster, or merely a very long speech, and a few snippets of what Sanders said were disseminated.
The thing was, if you were not watching C-SPAN, or if you didn't have eight hours to spare, you probably missed the vast majority of what he had to say. No articles I could find repeated his more salient points at any length, and by the end of the weekend, it was as if the event had not taken place.
Not on my watch, folks.
The speech delivered by Mr. Sanders on Friday ranks among the most important I have ever heard in my life, certainly the single most pertinent expression of fact and outrage that has been delivered in this current climate of "compromise" and collapse. He told more truth in his eight hours than many of us have heard from an elected official in the last ten years, and it would be a disgrace if his eloquence faded into the background without the study and reflection it deserves.
The thing is, Mr. Sanders basically recited a book on Friday; the sheer volume of what he had to say is staggering. I highly recommend reading the entire transcript yourself when you have the time, but make enough time; the full transcript is 124 pages long. In lieu of that, I took the time to cull out and highlight what I consider to be the most pertinent aspects of the speech. Because there is so much, I have broken these highlights into two parts. The second part will run later in the week, whether or not this tax deal passes.
What Sanders had to say is too important to miss. The emphasis added in these passages is mine. He begins below with an examination of the so-called "death tax":
This agreement includes a horrendous proposal regarding the estate tax. That is a Teddy Roosevelt initiative. Teddy Roosevelt was talking about this in the early years of the 20th century. It was enacted in 1916 and it was enacted for a couple of reasons. Teddy Roosevelt and the people of that era thought it was wrong that a handful of people could have a huge concentration of wealth and then give that wealth, transmit that wealth to their children. He did not think that was right.
Let us be very clear: This tax applies only - only - to the top three-tenths of 1 percent of American families; 99.7 percent of American families will not pay one nickel in an estate tax. This is not a tax on the rich, this is a tax on the very, very, very rich.
If my Republican friends had been successful in doing what they want to do, which is eliminate this estate tax completely, it would have cost our Treasury--raised the national debt by $1 trillion over a 10-year period. Families such as the Walton family, of Wal-Mart fame, would have received, just this one family, about a $30 billion tax break.
It is all too rare these days to actually hear an elected official jump up and down on the fact that this country has been neatly divided between the scrabbling, scratching majority and an all-powerful micro-minority that gets every break there is to get. Thirty billion for one family? How many schools is that?
Truthout needs your help to sustain groundbreaking, independent journalism in 2011. Make a tax-deductible contribution now by clicking here.
From there, Mr. Sanders moved on to the assault on Social Security:
Even though Social Security contributed nothing to the current economic crisis, it has been bartered in a deal that provides deficit-busting tax cuts for the wealthy. Diverting $120 billion in Social Security contributions for a so-called "tax holiday'' may sound like a good deal for workers now, but it's bad business for the program that a majority of middle-class seniors will rely upon in the future.
While this idea of lowering the payroll tax sounds like a good idea, in truth, it really is not a good idea. This idea originated from very conservative Republicans whose intention from the beginning was to destroy Social Security by choking off the funds that go to it. This is not just Bernie Sanders' analysis. There was recently - I distributed it recently at a meeting we held - a news release that came from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. The headline on that press release is "Cutting Contributions to Social Security Signals the Beginning of the End. Payroll Tax Holiday is Anything But.'' What the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, which is one of the largest senior groups in America, well understands is that there are people out there who want to destroy Social Security. And one way to do that is to divert funds into the Social Security trust fund and they don't get there.
A majority of Americans were against extending tax cuts for the wealthy, and a whole lot of people have been wondering for a while why this administration and this congress have not instead focused as intently as required on the subject of job creation. Mr. Sanders has a simple solution:
As a former mayor, infrastructure does not get better if you ignore it. You can turn your back, if you are a mayor or Governor, on the roads and the highways because you do not have the money to fix them today, but they are not going to get better next year. At some point, they are going to have to be repaired and fixed. We may as well do that right now.
So I believe the money, the very substantial sums of money in this agreement between the President and the Republicans, which goes into tax breaks for corporate America, could be effectively spent on infrastructure.
According to the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, $225 billion is needed annually for the next 50 years to upgrade our surface transportation system to a state of good repair and create a more advanced system. The Federal Highway Administration reports that $130 billion must be invested annually for a 20-year period to improve our bridges and the operational performance of our highways. At present, one in four of the Nation's bridges is either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. One in four of our bridges is either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Yet in this agreement struck by the President and the Republican leadership, to the best of my knowledge, not one nickel is going into our infrastructure. We need to invest in our infrastructure. We need to improve our infrastructure. When we do that, we can create millions of jobs.
From there, Mr. Sanders went on to remind everyone about the nightmare that was the Bush years, and what kind of damage was done to this country because of it. From there, he made several pointed remarks about what he believes to be the true foundations of Republican ideology:
The passage of this agreement would mean we would continue the Bush policy of trickle-down economics for at least 2 more years. That is not a good thing to do because, I think, as most Americans know, that philosophy, that economic approach, simply did not work. The evidence is quite overwhelming. I do not think there is much debate, when median family income during Bush's 8 years goes down by $2,200, when we end up losing over 600,000 private sector jobs, and all of the job growth was in the Federal level, I do not see how anybody would want to continue that philosophy. But that, in essence, is what will happen if this agreement is passed.
During the Bush years, the wealthiest 400 Americans saw their incomes more than double. Do you really think that after seeing a doubling of their incomes under the Bush years, these people are in desperate need of another million-dollar-a-year tax break? In 2007, the 400 top income earners in this country made an average of $345 million in 1 year. That is a pretty piece of change. That is the average, $345 million. In terms of wealth, as opposed to income, the wealthiest 400 Americans saw an increase in their wealth of some $400 billion during the Bush years. Imagine that. During an 8-year period, the top 400 wealthiest people each saw an increase, on average, of $1 billion apiece. Together, these 400 families have a collective net of $1.27 trillion. Does anybody in America really believe these guys need another tax break so that our kids and our grandchildren can pay more in taxes because the national debt has gone up?
Let me also say there is no doubt in my mind what many - not all but many - of my Republican colleagues want to do; that is, they want to move this country back into the 1920s when essentially we had an economic and political system which was controlled by big money interests; where working people and the middle class had no programs to sustain them when things got bad, when they got old, and when they got sick; when labor unions were very hard to come by because of anti-worker legislation. That is what they want. They do not believe in things like the Environmental Protection Agency. They do not believe in things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Federal aid to education. That is the fight we will be waging.
This point cannot be made strongly enough: What our Republican friends want to do - and they have been pretty honest and up front about it, especially some of the extreme, rightwing people who have been running for office and, in some cases, have won - they have been honest enough to say they want to bring this country back to where we were in the 1920s. Their ultimate aim is the basic repeal of almost all of the provisions that have been passed in the last 70 years to protect working people, the elderly, and children. They believe in a Darwinian-style society in which you have the survival of the fittest; that we are not a society which comes together to take care of all of us. You take care of me in need and I take care of you and your family; that we are one people. Their strategy is pretty clear. They want to ultimately destroy Social Security.
Once again, Sanders dared to raise a subject almost no one in Washington DC has the courage to touch - how much economic damage we have suffered, and continue to suffer, because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan:
In terms of the Federal budget, when President Bush first took office, he inherited a $236 billion surplus in 2001 and a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. That is what Senator Landrieu was discussing. But then some things happened. We all know that 9/11 was not his fault, but what happened is, we went to war in Afghanistan. We went to war in Iraq. The war in Iraq was the fault of President Bush, something I certainly did not support, nor do I think most Americans supported. The war in Iraq, by the time our last veteran is taken care of, will probably end up costing us something like $3 trillion, adding enormously to our national debt.
So when we talk about Iraq, it is not only the terrible loss of life that our soldiers and the Iraqi people have experienced, let's not forget what it has done to the deficit and the national debt. We did not pay for the war in Iraq. We just put it on the credit card.
This below was my favorite part. Rather than continuing to deal in abstractions and bland figures, Mr. Sanders laid it on the table and put a name and a face to the greed that has been driving us into the dirt:
Let me personalize this a little bit. This gentleman, shown in this picture I have in the Chamber - I have no personal animus toward him at all; I think I met him once in a large room. His name is James Dimon. He is the CEO of JPMorgan Chase. Over the past 5 years, Mr. Dimon, who is the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, received $89 million in total compensation - a bank that we now know received hundreds of billions in low-interest loans and other financial assistance from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department.
So Mr. Dimon received $89 million in total compensation. His bank was bailed out big time by the taxpayers. But under the legislation the President negotiated with the Republicans, Mr. Dimon - I use him just as one example for thousands; nothing personal to Mr. Dimon - will receive $1.1 million in tax breaks. So $1.1 million in tax breaks for a major CEO on Wall Street, who over the last 5 years received $89 million in total compensation.
Meanwhile - just to contrast what is going on here - 2 days ago, I brought before the Senate legislation which would provide a $250 one-time check to over 50 million seniors and disabled veterans, who for the last 2 years have not received a COLA on their Social Security. Many of those seniors and disabled vets are trying to get by on $14,000, $15,000, $18,000 a year. The total package for that bill was approximately $14 billion that would go out to over 50 million seniors and disabled vets. We won that vote on the floor of the Senate 53 to 45. But just because you get 53 votes in the Senate does not mean you win. Because the Republicans filibustered, I needed 60 votes. I could not get 60 votes. I could not get one Republican vote to provide a $250 check to a disabled veteran trying to get by on $15,000 or $16,000 a year.
But Mr. Dimon, who made $89 million in the last 5 years, will get a $1 million tax deduction if this agreement is passed. Now, that may make sense to some people. It does not make a lot of sense to me.
In America today - we don't talk about this too much, but it is time we did - we have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income in the industrialized world. I haven't heard too many people talk about that issue. Why not? Our Republican colleagues want huge tax breaks for the richest people, but the reality is the top 1 percent already today owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. How much more do they want? When is enough enough? Do they want it all? We already have millions of families today who have zero wealth. They owe more than they own. Millions of families have below zero wealth. We are living in a situation where the top 1 percent owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. The top 1 percent owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. That is simply unacceptable.
According to the Citizens for Tax Justice, if the Bush tax breaks for the top 2 percent are extended, these are some of the people who will benefit and what kind of benefits they will receive: Rupert Murdoch, the CEO of News Corporation, would receive a $1.3 million tax break next year. Mr. Murdoch is a billionaire. Do we really think he needs that? Jamie Dimon, the head of JPMorgan Chase, whose bank got a $29 billion bailout from the Federal Reserve, will receive a $1.1 million tax break. Trust me, Jamie Dimon, the head of JPMorgan Chase, is doing just fine. Vikram Pandit, the CEO of Citigroup, the bank that got a $50 billion bailout, would receive $785,000 in tax breaks. Ken Lewis, the former CEO of Bank of America - a bank that got a $45 billion bailout--the guy is already fabulously wealthy - would receive a $713,000 tax break. The CEO of Wells Fargo - these are the largest banks in America; the CEOs of these banks are already making huge compensation. John Stumpf, who is the CEO of Wells Fargo, would receive a $318,000 tax break every single year. The CEO of Morgan Stanley, John Mack, whose bank got a $10 billion bailout, would receive a $926,000 a year tax break. The CEO of Aetna, Ronald Williams, would receive a tax break worth $875,000.
Mr. Sanders has been leading the push to expose the insane lending policies practiced by the Federal Reserve during the onset of the financial crisis. Trillions of dollars were doled out to American companies as well as foreign companies and banks, with no oversight and no accountability, while Americans debated the comparably meager $700 billion bailout, having no idea what was going on in the Fed. When Sanders tried to get answers, he was told by Fed officials to go pound sand. On Friday, he let us know about it:
After years of stonewalling, the American people have learned the incredible, jaw-dropping details of the Fed's multimillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street and corporate America - not just Wall Street. It is one of the things we learned. As a result of this disclosure, in my view - we are going to get into what was in what we learned--Congress has to take a very extensive look at all aspects of how the Federal Reserve functions and how we can make our financial institutions more responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans and small businesses.
Then, on top of that, a number of the wealthiest individuals in this country also received a major bailout from the Fed. The ``emergency response,'' which is what the Fed described their action as during the Wall Street collapse, appears to any objective observer to have been the clearest case that I can imagine of socialism for the very rich and rugged free market capitalism for everybody else.
Furthermore, what we now know is the extent of the bailout for the large financial corporations. Goldman Sachs received nearly $600 billion. Morgan Stanley received nearly $2 trillion. Citigroup received $1.8 trillion. Bear Stearns received nearly $1 trillion. And Merrill Lynch received some $1.5 trillion in short-term loans from the Fed.
Furthermore, I think the American people are interested to know that the Fed bailed out the Korea Development Bank, the wholly owned, state-owned Bank of South Korea, by purchasing over $2 billion of its commercial paper. The sole purpose of the Korea Development Bank is to finance and manage major industrial projects to enhance the national economy not of the United States of America but of South Korea. I am not against South Korea. I wish the South Koreans all the luck in the world. But it should not be the taxpayers of the United States lending their banks' money to create jobs in South Korea. I would suggest maybe we want to create jobs in the United States of America. At the same time, the Fed also extended over $40 billion for the Central Bank of South Korea so that it had enough money to bail out its own banks.
After the cloture vote, Mr. Sanders released a statement explaining why he voted "No":
It makes no sense to me to provide huge tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires while we drive up the national debt that our children and grandchildren will have to pay. I further object strenuously to the lowering of rates on the estate tax, which only benefits the top 0.3 percent, the very, very wealthiest people in this country. I also am concerned about a significant precedent which diverts $112 billion in payroll taxes away from the Social Security trust fund. Our goal now must be to strengthen Social Security, not weaken it. Of course we must extend unemployment benefits and the tax breaks that the middle class desperately needs, but in my view we could have and should have negotiated a much stronger agreement.
As previously stated, the entire transcript from Friday is well worth a long, close read, for Mr. Sanders went into much greater detail and at greater length than has been provided above. This is just a taste, but what a taste. The sad realities and hard truths provided by Mr. Sanders must be spread far and wide, passed from hand to hand, repeated ad nauseam until everyone within reach of your arm is aware of what is really going on today. He had the courage to tell it straight. We must not let his words fade away.
http://www.truth-out.org/what-bernie-said-part-i65944?print
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Halliburton reportedly agrees to pay Nigeria $250 million to drop bribery charges against Cheney, firm
By John Byrne
Tuesday, December 14th, 2010 -- 8:30 am
The massive industrial conglomerate Halliburton has reportedly offered to pay $250 million to settle charges against its former chief executive, ex-Vice President Dick Cheney, in a multi-million dollar bribery case.
Nigeria filed charges against Cheney last week in an investigation of alleged bribery estimated at $180 million. Prosecutors named both Halliburton and KBR in the charges, as well as three European oil and engineering companies -- Technip SA, EniSpa, and Saipem Construction. Eleven Halliburton officials were arrested last month and freed on bail Nov. 29.
The charges allege that engineering contractor KBR, until 2007 a subsidiary of Halliburton, was among companies that paid bribes to secure a $6 billion contract for a natural gas plant. KBR pleaded guilty to the same bribes in a US court in 2009, and agreed to pay a $382 million fine. The Nigerian charges appear to stem from the US case -- though, in that trial, Cheney was never directly charged.
The $250 million figure would include a direct $130 million fine by the company and an agreement to repatriate another $120 million from Switzerland.
Representatives for Cheney and Halliburton met with Nigerian officials in London over the weekend.
In the United States, KBR has already admitted bribing Nigerian officials. In February 2009, the company agreed to pay a $402 million fine. Halliburton itself paid $177 million to settle allegations paid to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), but didn't admit wrongdoing. Still, despite the settlements, Halliburton's spokeswoman said “there is no legal basis for the charges” in a statement Dec. 8.
Nigeria's Economic and Financial Crimes Commission spokesman Femi Babafemi told Reuters the company had offered to pay up to $250 million.
"They have made offers of fines to be paid in penalties. They offered to pay $120 million in addition to the repatriation of $130 million trapped in Switzerland," Babafemi said.
"It will need to be ratified by the government and we expect a decision by the end of the week," he added.
Earlier this month, Halliburton said they hadn't seen the new charges, but still denied their involvement.
"Halliburton's oil-field services operations in Nigeria have never in any way been part of the LNG project and none of the Halliburton employees have ever had any connection to or participation in that project," Tara Mullee Agard, a spokeswoman for the Houston-based company, said in an e-mailed response to Bloomberg.
Cheney led Halliburton as CEO and Chairman of the Board from 1995 to 2000.
Writes Reuters:
Halliburton split from KBR in 2007. It has said that its current operations in Nigeria -- raided by the EFCC last month -- were not involved in the Bonny project and that there is no legal basis for the charges.
Those charged in Nigeria include KBR Chief Executive Officer William Utt and former KBR CEO Albert "Jack" Stanley, who worked under Cheney when he headed Halliburton and pleaded guilty in 2008 to U.S. charges related to the case.
KBR said Utt had only joined the firm in February 2006 and that the rest of its executive team was appointed thereafter. It has accused Nigeria of "wildly and wrongly asserting blame".
Notes Bloomberg, "An aide of former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo was charged with six counts of money-laundering in Abuja on Oct. 13 in connection with the alleged payment of bribes."
"The case is Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Halliburton and others, CV/435/10, High Court of Justice, Abuja Judicial Division (Abuja)."
With earlier reporting by Daniel Tencer.
Correction: Charges were filed against Halliburton and former Vice President Cheney last week, not this week.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/halliburton-reportedly-agrees-pay-nigeria-250-million-drop-bribery-charges-cheney-firm/
Tuesday, December 14th, 2010 -- 8:30 am
The massive industrial conglomerate Halliburton has reportedly offered to pay $250 million to settle charges against its former chief executive, ex-Vice President Dick Cheney, in a multi-million dollar bribery case.
Nigeria filed charges against Cheney last week in an investigation of alleged bribery estimated at $180 million. Prosecutors named both Halliburton and KBR in the charges, as well as three European oil and engineering companies -- Technip SA, EniSpa, and Saipem Construction. Eleven Halliburton officials were arrested last month and freed on bail Nov. 29.
The charges allege that engineering contractor KBR, until 2007 a subsidiary of Halliburton, was among companies that paid bribes to secure a $6 billion contract for a natural gas plant. KBR pleaded guilty to the same bribes in a US court in 2009, and agreed to pay a $382 million fine. The Nigerian charges appear to stem from the US case -- though, in that trial, Cheney was never directly charged.
The $250 million figure would include a direct $130 million fine by the company and an agreement to repatriate another $120 million from Switzerland.
Representatives for Cheney and Halliburton met with Nigerian officials in London over the weekend.
In the United States, KBR has already admitted bribing Nigerian officials. In February 2009, the company agreed to pay a $402 million fine. Halliburton itself paid $177 million to settle allegations paid to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), but didn't admit wrongdoing. Still, despite the settlements, Halliburton's spokeswoman said “there is no legal basis for the charges” in a statement Dec. 8.
Nigeria's Economic and Financial Crimes Commission spokesman Femi Babafemi told Reuters the company had offered to pay up to $250 million.
"They have made offers of fines to be paid in penalties. They offered to pay $120 million in addition to the repatriation of $130 million trapped in Switzerland," Babafemi said.
"It will need to be ratified by the government and we expect a decision by the end of the week," he added.
Earlier this month, Halliburton said they hadn't seen the new charges, but still denied their involvement.
"Halliburton's oil-field services operations in Nigeria have never in any way been part of the LNG project and none of the Halliburton employees have ever had any connection to or participation in that project," Tara Mullee Agard, a spokeswoman for the Houston-based company, said in an e-mailed response to Bloomberg.
Cheney led Halliburton as CEO and Chairman of the Board from 1995 to 2000.
Writes Reuters:
Halliburton split from KBR in 2007. It has said that its current operations in Nigeria -- raided by the EFCC last month -- were not involved in the Bonny project and that there is no legal basis for the charges.
Those charged in Nigeria include KBR Chief Executive Officer William Utt and former KBR CEO Albert "Jack" Stanley, who worked under Cheney when he headed Halliburton and pleaded guilty in 2008 to U.S. charges related to the case.
KBR said Utt had only joined the firm in February 2006 and that the rest of its executive team was appointed thereafter. It has accused Nigeria of "wildly and wrongly asserting blame".
Notes Bloomberg, "An aide of former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo was charged with six counts of money-laundering in Abuja on Oct. 13 in connection with the alleged payment of bribes."
"The case is Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Halliburton and others, CV/435/10, High Court of Justice, Abuja Judicial Division (Abuja)."
With earlier reporting by Daniel Tencer.
Correction: Charges were filed against Halliburton and former Vice President Cheney last week, not this week.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/halliburton-reportedly-agrees-pay-nigeria-250-million-drop-bribery-charges-cheney-firm/
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Nigeria: Halliburton plans plea bargain in Cheney corruption case
Nigerian officials say Cheney's former company, Halliburton, is preparing to plea bargain.
By Sam Olukoya
Created December 7, 2010 18:15
LAGOS, Nigeria — Halliburton is planning to make a plea bargain in former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney's corruption case, Nigerian officials told GlobalPost.
Nigeria's anti-corruption agency charged Cheney as the head of Halliburton [2] when its engineering subsidiary, KBR, allegedly paid bribes totaling $180 million [3] to secure contracts worth $6 billion.
KBR has admitted to bribing officials. Last year the company pleaded guilty in a U.S. federal court to paying the bribes to Nigerian officials prior to 2007, when it was a subsidiary of Halliburton. KBR, which is now independent from Halliburton, agreed to pay $597 million in fines, according to the Associated Press.
Cheney's lawyer dismissed the new Nigerian charges as "entirely baseless."
However, Halliburton is in talks with Nigerian officials to make a plea bargain in the case, said Femi Babafemi, spokesman for Nigeria's Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, the agency which has pressed the charges against Cheney.
"The companies are asking for a plea bargain, we are reviewing their request, we are talking with them, but we have not gone far with the talks yet," Babafemi told GlobalPost.
Although Babafemi did not give further details, other sources within the agency said the plea bargain might involve a $500 million settlement.
Babafemi did not confirm whether the anti-corruption agency will ultimately settle for a plea bargain. But similar deals have been reached with other foreign multinational companies that have recently been charged with corruption in Nigeria.
Cheney and three other top executives [4] could face sentences of three years in a Nigerian prison if convicted of the charges in the 16-count indictment, said Babafemi.
Halliburton and four other firms allegedly paid the bribes to win a contract to build a liquefied natural gas plant in Nigeria's oil-rich southern delta.
In addition to Halliburton, the four companies to face charges are KBR, which is now based in Houston, Texas; Technip SA, Europe’s second-largest oilfield services provider; Eni SpA, Italy’s biggest oil company; and Saipem Construction Co., a unit of Eni.
All the individuals named in the case are former and current executives of those companies.
Other multinational firms that have made plea bargains include Julius Berger, the Nigerian subsidiary of Bilfinger Berger AG of Germany, which had also been named in the same case as Halliburton. That firm has already paid $26 million to have the charges against it dropped.
Last month, Siemens AG, Europe's largest engineering company, agreed to pay $46.5 million to settle charges that it had bribed some Nigerian officials with 17.5 million euros in return for contracts.
Uche Onyeagocha, a Nigerian lawyer, said it is very likely the terms of the plea bargain will cover all the officials being charged, including Cheney.
"A plea bargain does not exist under the Nigerian law, so in this case the companies will have the opportunity of protecting their interest," Onyeagocha said.
The possibility that the five companies together with their former and current officials could escape trial through a plea bargain has angered some Nigerian anti-corruption groups.
"There cannot be an out of court settlement. In a purely criminal matter like this, the full letters of the law should apply," Adetokunbo Mumuni, an anti-corruption campaigner, said. "Whoever is involved should be taken through the entire process to determine their guilt or not."
He insisted that caution should be exercised to stop the former vice president's prominence from overshadowing the main issue.
"The issue should not be so much about the former U.S. vice president, it should be to what extent the law will be properly applied," Mumuni said.
The Halliburton case is part of a growing number of corruption allegations brought against western companies operating in Nigeria. These have included Royal Dutch Shell and a major Swiss freight company, Panalpina Welttransport. The Swiss company is being investigated in connection with illegal payments it allegedly made to Nigerian customs officials on behalf of Shell.
Although Nigeria has long had a reputation for being corrupt itself, anti-corruption campaigners said these new charges shed light on the destructive role that major multinational firms play.
"What we are seeing shows how western multinational companies are fueling corruption in countries like Nigeria. They are perpetrating crimes they cannot commit back home," said Philip Jakpor, a spokesman for Environmental Rights Action, the Nigerian affiliate of Friends of Earth, a nongovernmental organization.
On the streets of Lago, Nigeria's capital, the charges against Cheney have sparked a lively debate.
In the midst of an intense argument at a crowded newsstand in Agege, a Lagos suburb, Tope Olawale, an electrician, said he doubted Cheney would appear in a Nigerian court to face corruption charges.
Olawale said the United States would not allow its former vice president to go to court in Nigeria.
"America will not mind starting a war against Nigeria, if only to stop its former vice president from being tried in a Nigerian court," he said.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/nigeria/101204/nigeria-corruption-dick-cheney-halliburton
By Sam Olukoya
Created December 7, 2010 18:15
LAGOS, Nigeria — Halliburton is planning to make a plea bargain in former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney's corruption case, Nigerian officials told GlobalPost.
Nigeria's anti-corruption agency charged Cheney as the head of Halliburton [2] when its engineering subsidiary, KBR, allegedly paid bribes totaling $180 million [3] to secure contracts worth $6 billion.
KBR has admitted to bribing officials. Last year the company pleaded guilty in a U.S. federal court to paying the bribes to Nigerian officials prior to 2007, when it was a subsidiary of Halliburton. KBR, which is now independent from Halliburton, agreed to pay $597 million in fines, according to the Associated Press.
Cheney's lawyer dismissed the new Nigerian charges as "entirely baseless."
However, Halliburton is in talks with Nigerian officials to make a plea bargain in the case, said Femi Babafemi, spokesman for Nigeria's Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, the agency which has pressed the charges against Cheney.
"The companies are asking for a plea bargain, we are reviewing their request, we are talking with them, but we have not gone far with the talks yet," Babafemi told GlobalPost.
Although Babafemi did not give further details, other sources within the agency said the plea bargain might involve a $500 million settlement.
Babafemi did not confirm whether the anti-corruption agency will ultimately settle for a plea bargain. But similar deals have been reached with other foreign multinational companies that have recently been charged with corruption in Nigeria.
Cheney and three other top executives [4] could face sentences of three years in a Nigerian prison if convicted of the charges in the 16-count indictment, said Babafemi.
Halliburton and four other firms allegedly paid the bribes to win a contract to build a liquefied natural gas plant in Nigeria's oil-rich southern delta.
In addition to Halliburton, the four companies to face charges are KBR, which is now based in Houston, Texas; Technip SA, Europe’s second-largest oilfield services provider; Eni SpA, Italy’s biggest oil company; and Saipem Construction Co., a unit of Eni.
All the individuals named in the case are former and current executives of those companies.
Other multinational firms that have made plea bargains include Julius Berger, the Nigerian subsidiary of Bilfinger Berger AG of Germany, which had also been named in the same case as Halliburton. That firm has already paid $26 million to have the charges against it dropped.
Last month, Siemens AG, Europe's largest engineering company, agreed to pay $46.5 million to settle charges that it had bribed some Nigerian officials with 17.5 million euros in return for contracts.
Uche Onyeagocha, a Nigerian lawyer, said it is very likely the terms of the plea bargain will cover all the officials being charged, including Cheney.
"A plea bargain does not exist under the Nigerian law, so in this case the companies will have the opportunity of protecting their interest," Onyeagocha said.
The possibility that the five companies together with their former and current officials could escape trial through a plea bargain has angered some Nigerian anti-corruption groups.
"There cannot be an out of court settlement. In a purely criminal matter like this, the full letters of the law should apply," Adetokunbo Mumuni, an anti-corruption campaigner, said. "Whoever is involved should be taken through the entire process to determine their guilt or not."
He insisted that caution should be exercised to stop the former vice president's prominence from overshadowing the main issue.
"The issue should not be so much about the former U.S. vice president, it should be to what extent the law will be properly applied," Mumuni said.
The Halliburton case is part of a growing number of corruption allegations brought against western companies operating in Nigeria. These have included Royal Dutch Shell and a major Swiss freight company, Panalpina Welttransport. The Swiss company is being investigated in connection with illegal payments it allegedly made to Nigerian customs officials on behalf of Shell.
Although Nigeria has long had a reputation for being corrupt itself, anti-corruption campaigners said these new charges shed light on the destructive role that major multinational firms play.
"What we are seeing shows how western multinational companies are fueling corruption in countries like Nigeria. They are perpetrating crimes they cannot commit back home," said Philip Jakpor, a spokesman for Environmental Rights Action, the Nigerian affiliate of Friends of Earth, a nongovernmental organization.
On the streets of Lago, Nigeria's capital, the charges against Cheney have sparked a lively debate.
In the midst of an intense argument at a crowded newsstand in Agege, a Lagos suburb, Tope Olawale, an electrician, said he doubted Cheney would appear in a Nigerian court to face corruption charges.
Olawale said the United States would not allow its former vice president to go to court in Nigeria.
"America will not mind starting a war against Nigeria, if only to stop its former vice president from being tried in a Nigerian court," he said.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/nigeria/101204/nigeria-corruption-dick-cheney-halliburton
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Noam Chomsky: WikiLeaks Cables Reveal "Profound Hatred for Democracy on the Part of Our Political Leadership"
By Noam Chomsky and Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!
Posted on November 30, 2010, Printed on December 5, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/149032/
© 2010 Democracy Now! All rights reserved.
Posted on November 30, 2010, Printed on December 5, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/149032/
Video of Amy Goodman's interview with Noam Chomsky at the bottom of this article.
AMY GOODMAN: For reaction to the WikiLeaks documents, we’re joined by world renowned political dissident and linguist Noam Chomsky, Professor Emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, author of over a hundred books including his latest Hopes and Prospects. Forty years ago, Noam and Howard Zinn helped government whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg edit and release the Pentagon Papers that top-secret internal U.S. history of the Vietnam War.
Noam Chomsky joins us from Boston... Before we talk about WikiLeaks, what was your involvement in the Pentagon Papers? I don’t think most people know about this.
NOAM CHOMSKY: Dan and I were friends. Tony Russo, who also who prepared them and helped leak them. I got advanced copies from Dan and Tony and there were several people who were releasing them to the press. I was one of them. Then I- along with Howard Zinn as you mentioned- edited a volume of essays and indexed the papers.
AMY GOODMAN: So explain how, though, how it worked. I always think this is important- to tell this story- especially for young people. Dan Ellsberg- Pentagon official, top-secret clearance- gets this U.S. involvement in Vietnam history out of his safe, he Xerox’s it and then how did you get your hands on it? He just directly gave it to you?
NOAM CHOMSKY: From Dan Ellsberg and Tony Russo, who had done the Xeroxing and the preparation of the material.
AMY GOODMAN: How much did you edit?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, we did not modify anything. The papers were not edited. They were in their original form. What Howard Zinn and I did was -- they came out in four volumes -- we prepared a fifth volume, which was critical essays by many scholars on the papers, what they mean, the significance and so on. And an index, which is almost indispensable for using them seriously. That’s the fifth volume in the Beacon Press series.
AMY GOODMAN: So you were then one of the first people to see the Pentagon Papers?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Outside of Dan Ellsberg and Tony Russo, yes. I mean, there were some journalists who may have seen them, I am not sure.
AMY GOODMAN: What are your thoughts today? For example, we just played this clip of New York republican congress member Peter King who says WikiLeaks should be declared a foreign terrorist organization.
NOAM CHOMSKY: I think that is outlandish. We should understand -- and the Pentagon Papers is another case in point -- that one of the major reasons for government secrecy is to protect the government from its own population. In the Pentagon Papers, for example, there was one volume -- the negotiations volume -- which might have had a bearing on ongoing activities and Daniel Ellsberg withheld that. That came out a little bit later. If you look at the papers themselves, there are things Americans should have known that others did not want them to know. And as far as I can tell, from what I’ve seen here, pretty much the same is true. In fact, the current leaks are -- what I’ve seen, at least -- primarily interesting because of what they tell us about how the diplomatic service works.
AMY GOODMAN: The documents’ revelations about Iran come just as the Iranian government has agreed to a new round of nuclear talks beginning next month. On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the cables vindicate the Israeli position that Iran poses a nuclear threat. Netanyahu said, "Our region has been hostage to a narrative that is the result of sixty years of propaganda, which paints Israel as the greatest threat. In reality, leaders understand that that view is bankrupt. For the first time in history, there is agreement that Iran is the threat. If leaders start saying openly what they have long been saying behind closed doors, with can make a real breakthrough on the road to peace," Netanyahu said. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also discussed Iran at her news conference in Washington. This is what she said:
HILARY CLINTON: I think that it should not be a surprise to anyone that Iran is a source of great concern, not only in the United States. What comes through in every meeting that I have- anywhere in the world- is a concern about Iranian actions and intentions. So, if anything, any of the comments that are being reported on allegedly from the cables confirm the fact that Iran poses a very serious threat in the eyes of many of her neighbors and a serious concern far beyond her region. That is why the international community came together to pass the strongest possible sanctions against Iran. It did not happen because the United States said, "Please, do this for us!" It happened because countries- once they evaluated the evidence concerning Iran’s actions and intentions- reached the same conclusion that the United States reached: that we must do whatever we can to muster the international community to take action to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. So if anyone reading the stories about these, uh, alleged cables thinks carefully what they will conclude is that the concern about Iran is well founded, widely shared, and will continue to be at the source of the policy that we pursue with like-minded nations to try to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Secretary to Hillary Clinton yesterday at a news conference. I wanted to get your comment on Clinton, Netanyahu’s comment, and the fact that Abdullah of Saudi Arabia- the King who is now getting back surgery in the New York- called for the U.S. to attack Iran. Noam Chomsky?
NOAM CHOMSKY: That essentially reinforces what I said before, that the main significance of the cables that are being released so far is what they tell us about Western leadership. So Hillary Clinton and Benjamin Netanyahu surely know of the careful polls of Arab public opinion. The Brookings Institute just a few months ago released extensive polls of what Arabs think about Iran. The results are rather striking. They show the Arab opinion holds that the major threat in the region is Israel -- that’s 80. The second major threat is the United States -- that’s 77. Iran is listed as a threat by 10%.
With regard to nuclear weapons, rather remarkably, a majority -- in fact, 57 – say that the region would have a positive effect in the region if Iran had nuclear weapons. Now, these are not small numbers. 80, 77, say the U.S. and Israel are the major threat. 10 say Iran is the major threat. This may not be reported in the newspapers here -- it is in England -- but it’s certainly familiar to the Israeli and U.S. governments, and to the ambassadors. But there is not a word about it anywhere. What that reveals is the profound hatred for democracy on the part of our political leadership and the Israeli political leadership. These things aren’t even to be mentioned. This seeps its way all through the diplomatic service. The cables to not have any indication of that.
When they talk about Arabs, they mean the Arab dictators, not the population, which is overwhelmingly opposed to the conclusions that the analysts here -- Clinton and the media -- have drawn. There’s also a minor problem; that’s the major problem. The minor problem is that we don’t know from the cables what the Arab leaders think and say. We know what was selected from the range of what they say. So there is a filtering process. We don’t know how much it distorts the information. But there is no question that what is a radical distortion is -- or, not even a distortion, a reflection -- of the concern that the dictators are what matter. The population does not matter, even if it’s overwhelmingly opposed to U.S. policy.
There are similar things elsewhere, such as keeping to this region. One of the most interesting cables was a cable from the U.S. ambassador in Israel to Hillary Clinton, which described the attack on Gaza -- which we should call the U.S./Israeli attack on Gaza -- December 2008. It states correctly there had been a truce. It does not add that during the truce -- which was really not observed by Israel -- but during the truce, Hamas scrupulously observed it according to the Israeli government, not a single rocket was fired. That’s an omission. But then comes a straight lie: it says that in December 2008, Hamas renewed rocket firing and therefore Israel had to attack in self-defense. Now, the ambassador surely is aware that there must be somebody in the American Embassy who reads the Israeli press -- the mainstream Israeli press -- in which case the embassy is surely aware that it is exactly the opposite: Hamas was calling for a renewal of the cease-fire. Israel considered the offer and rejected it, preferring to bomb rather than have security. Also omitted is that while Israel never observed the cease-fire -- it maintained the siege in violation of the truce agreement -- on November 4, the U.S. election 2008, the Israeli army invaded Gaza, killed half a dozen Hamas militants, which did lead to an exchange of fire in which all the casualties, as usual, were Palestinian. Then in December, Hamas -- when the truce officially ended -- Hamas called for renewing it. Israel refused, and the U.S. and Israel chose to launch the war. What the embassy reported is a gross falsification and a very significant one since- since it has to do the justification for the murderous attack- which means either the embassy hasn’t a clue to what is going on or else they’re lying outright.
AMY GOODMAN: And the latest report that just came out -- from Oxfam, from Amnesty International, and other groups -- about the effects of the siege on Gaza? What’s happening right now?
NOAM CHOMSKY: A siege is an act of war. If anyone insists on that, it is Israel. Israel launched two wars -- '56 and ’67 -- in part on grounds its access to the outside world was very partially restricted. That very partial siege they considered an act of war and justification for -- well, one of several justifications -- for what they called "preventive" -- or if you like, preemptive -- war. So they understand that perfectly well and the point is correct. The siege is a criminal act, in the first place. The Security Council has called on Israel to lift it, and others have. It's designed to -- as Israeli officials have have stated -- to keep the people of Gaza to minimal level of existence. They do not want to kill them all off because that would not look good in international opinion. As they put it, "to keep them on a diet." This justification, this began very shortly after the official Israeli withdrawal. There was an election in January 2006 after the only free election in the Arab world -- carefully monitored, recognized to be free -- but it had a flaw. The wrong people won. Namely Hamas, which the U.S. did not want it and Israel did not want. Instantly, within days, the U.S. and Israel instituted harsh measures to punish the people of Gaza for voting the wrong way in a free election.
The next step was that they -- the U.S. and Israel -- sought to, along with the Palestinian Authority, try to carry out a military coup in Gaza to overthrow the elected government. This failed -- Hamas beat back the coup attempt. That was July 2007. At that point, the siege got much harsher. In between come in many acts of violence, shellings, invasions and so on and so forth. But basically, Israel claims that when the truce was established in the summer 2008, Israel’s reason for not observing it and withdrawing the siege was that there was an Israeli soldier -- Gilad Shalit -- who was captured at the border. International commentary regards this as a terrible crime. Well, whatever you think about it, capturing a soldier of an attacking army -- and the army was attacking Gaza -- capturing a soldier of an attacking army isn’t anywhere near the level of the crime of kidnapping civilians. Just one day before the capture of Gilad Shalit at the border, Israeli troops had entered Gaza, kidnapped two civilians -- the Muammar Brothers -- and spirited them across the border. They’ve disappeared somewhere in Israel’s prison system, which is where hundreds, maybe a thousand or so people are sometimes there for years without charges. There are also secret prisons. We don’t know what happens there.
This alone is a far worse crime than the kidnapping of Shalit. In fact, you could argue there was a reason why was barely covered: Israel has been doing this for years, in fact, decades. Kidnapping, capturing people, hijacking ships, killing people, bringing them to Israel sometimes as hostages for many years. So this is regular practice; Israel can do what it likes. But the reaction here and the rest of the world of regarding the Shalit kidnapping- well, not kidnapping, you don’t kidnap soldiers- the capture of a soldier as an unspeakable crime, justification for maintaining and murders siege... that’s disgraceful.
AMY GOODMAN: So you have Amnesty International, Oxfam, Save the Children, and eighteen other aide groups calling on Israel to unconditionally lift the blockade of Gaza. And you have in the WikiLeaks release a U.S. diplomatic cable -- provided to The Guardian by WikiLeaks -- laying out, "National human intelligence collection directive: Asking U.S. personnel to obtain details of travel plans such as routes and vehicles used by Palestinian Authority leaders and Hamas members." The cable demands, "Biographical, financial, by metric information on key PA and Hamas leaders and representatives to include the Young Guard inside Gaza, the West Bank, and outside," it says.
NOAM CHOMSKY: That should not come as much of a surprise. Contrary to the image that is portrayed here, the United States is not an honest broker. It is a participant, a direct and crucial participant, in Israeli crimes, both in the West Bank and in Gaza. The attack in Gaza was a clear case in point: they used American weapons, the U.S. blocked cease-fire efforts, they gave diplomatic support. The same is true of the daily ongoing crimes in the West Bank, and we should not forget that. Actually, in Area C- the area of the West Bank that Israel controls -- conditions for Palestinians have been reported by Save The Children to be worse than in Gaza. Again, this all takes place on the basis of crucial, decisive, U.S., military, diplomatic, economic support; and also ideological support -- meaning, distorting the situation, as is done again dramatically in the cables.
The siege itself is simply criminal. It is not only blocking desperately needed aid from coming in, it also drives Palestinians away from the border. Gaza is a small place, heavily and densely overcrowded. And Israeli fire and attacks drive Palestinians away from the Arab land on the border, and also drive fisherman in from Gaza into territorial waters. They compelled by Israeli gunboats -- all illegal, of course -- to fish right near the shore where fishing is almost impossible because Israel has destroyed the power systems and sewage systems and the contamination is terrible. This is just a stranglehold to punish people for being there and for insisting on voting the wrong way. Israel decided, "We don’t want this anymore. Let’s just get rid of them."
We should also remember, the U.S./Israeli policy -- since Oslo, since the early 1990’s -- has been to separate Gaza from the West Bank. That is in straight violation of the Oslo agreements, but it has been carried out systematically, and it has a big effect. It means almost half the Palestinian population would be cut off from any possible political arrangement that would be made. It also means Palestine loses its access to the outside world -- Gaza should have and can have airports and seaports. Right now, Israel has taken over about 40% of the West Bank. Obama’s latest offers have granted even more, and they’re certainly planning to take more. What is left is just canonized. It’s what the planner, Ariel Sharon called Bantustans. And they’re in prison, too, as Israel takes over the Jordan Valley and drives Palestinians out. So these are all crimes of a piece.
The Gaza siege is particularly grotesque because of the conditions under which people are forced to live. I mean, if a young person in Gaza -- student in Gaza, let’s say -- wants to study in a West Bank university, they can’t do it. If it a person in Gaza needs advanced medical training or treatment from an East Jerusalem hospital where the training is available, they can’t go! Medicines are held back. It is a scandalous crime, all around.
AMY GOODMAN: What do you think the United States should do in this case?
NOAM CHOMSKY: What the United States should do is very simple: it should join the world. I mean, there are negotiations going on, supposedly. As they are presented here, the standard picture is that the U.S. is an honest broker trying to bring together two recalcitrant opponents -- Israel and Palestinian Authority. That’s just a charade.
If there were serious negotiations, they would be organized by some neutral party and the U.S. and Israel would be on one side and the world would be on the other side. And that is not an exaggeration. It should not be a secret that there has long been an overwhelming international consensus on a diplomatic, political solution. Everyone knows the basic outlines; some of the details you can argue about. It includes everyone except the United States and Israel. The U.S. has been blocking it for 35 years with occasional departures -- brief ones. It includes the Arab League. It includes the Organization of Islamic States. which happens to include Iran. It includes every relevant actor except the United States and Israel, the two rejectionist states. So if there were to be negotiations that were serious, that’s the way they would be organized. The actual negotiations barely reach the level of comedy. The issue that’s being debated is a footnote, a minor footnote: expansion of settlements. Of course it’s illegal. In fact, everything Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza is illegal. That hasn’t even been controversial since 1967. ...
AMY GOODMAN: I want to read for you now what Sarah Palin tweeted – the former Alaskan governor, of course, and Republication vice presidential nominee. This is what she tweeted about WikiLeaks. Rather, she put it on Facebook. She said, “First and foremost, what steps were taken to stop WikiLeaks’ director Julian Assange from distributing this highly-sensitive classified material, especially after he had already published material not once but twice in the previous months? Assange is not a journalist any more than the editor of the Al Qaeda’s new English-language magazine “Inspire,” is a journalist. He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?” Noam Chomsky, your response?
NOAM CHOMSKY: That’s pretty much what I would expect Sarah Palin to say. I don’t know how much she understands, but I think we should pay attention to what we learn from the leaks. ... Perhaps the most dramatic revelation, or mention, is the bitter hatred of democracy that is revealed both by the U.S. Government – Hillary Clinton, others – and also by the diplomatic service.
To tell the world – well, they’re talking to each other -- to pretend to each other that the Arab world regards Iran as the major threat and wants the U.S. to bomb Iran, is extremely revealing, when they know that approximately 80% of Arab opinion regards the U.S. and Israel as the major threat, 10% regard Iran as the major threat, and a majority, 57%, think the region would be better off with Iranian nuclear weapons as a kind of deterrent. That is does not even enter. All that enters is what they claim has been said by Arab dictators – brutal Arab dictators. That is what counts.
How representative this is of what they say, we don’t know, because we do not know what the filtering is. But that’s a minor point. But the major point is that the population is irrelevant. All that matters is the opinions of the dictators that we support. If they were to back us, that is the Arab world. That is a very revealing picture of the mentality of U.S. political leadership and, presumably, the lead opinion, judging by the commentary that’s appeared here, that’s the way it has been presented in the press as well. It does not matter with the Arabs believe.
AMY GOODMAN: Your piece, Outrage Misguided. Back to the midterm elections and what we’re going to see now. Can you talk about the tea party movement?
NOAM CHOMSKY: The Tea Party movement itself is, maybe 15% or 20% of the electorate. It’s relatively affluent, white, nativist, you know, it has rather traditional nativist streaks to it. But what is much more important, I think, is the outrage. Over half the population says they more or less supported it, or support its message. What people are thinking is extremely interesting. I mean, overwhelmingly polls reveal that people are extremely bitter, angry, hostile, opposed to everything.
The primary cause undoubtedly is the economic disaster. It’s not just the financial catastrophe, it’s an economic disaster. I mean, in the manufacturing industry, for example, unemployment levels are at the level of the Great Depression. And unlike the Great Depression, those jobs are not coming back. U.S. owners and managers have long ago made the decision that they can make more profit with complicated financial deals than by production. So finance – this goes back to the 1970s, mainly Reagan escalated it, and onward- Clinton, too. The economy has been financialized.
Financial institutions have grown enormously in their share of corporate profits. It may be something like a third, or something like that today. At the same time, correspondingly, production has been exported. So you buy some electronic device from China. China is an assembly plant for a Northeast Asian production center. The parts and components come from the more advanced countries – and from the United States, and the technology . So yes, that’s a cheap place to assemble things and sell them back here. Rather similar in Mexico, now Vietnam, and so on. That is the way to make profits.
It destroys the society here, but that’s not the concern of the ownership class and the managerial class. Their concern is profit. That is what drives the economy. The rest of it is a fallout. People are extremely bitter about it, but don’t seem to understand it. So the same people who are a majority, who say that Wall Street is to blame for the current crisis, are voting Republican. Both parties are deep in the pockets of Wall Street, but the Republicans much more so than the Democrats.
The same is true on issue after issue. The antagonism to everyone is extremely high – actually antagonism – the population doesn’t like Democrats, but they hate Republicans even more. They’re against big business. They’re against government. They’re against Congress. They’re against science –
AMY GOODMAN: Noam, I wanted ask if you were President Obama’s top adviser, what would you tell him to do right now?
NOAM CHOMSKY: I would tell him to do what FDR did when big business was opposed to him. Help organize, stimulate public opposition and put through a serious populist program, which can be done. Stimulate the economy. Don’t give away everything to financiers. Push through real health reform. The health reform that was pushed through may be a slight improvement but it leaves some major problems untouched. If you’re worried about the deficit, pay attention to the fact that it is almost all attributable to military spending and this totally dysfunctional health program.
Part 1
Part 2
Noam Chomsky is an author and Institute Professor Emeritus at MIT, where he taught for over half a century. He is author of dozens of books. His most recent is Hopes and Prospects.
Amy Goodman is the host of the nationally syndicated radio news program, Democracy Now!.
© 2010 Democracy Now! All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/149032/
Thursday, December 2, 2010
The peak oil debate is over by Dr. James Schlesinger
The following is a transcription of Dr. James Schlesinger’s keynote address: "The Peak Oil Debate is Over." Transcript provided by Rick Munroe
Dr. Schlesinger served as Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (1971-73), Secretary of Defense (1973-75), Director of the CIA and was the first Secretary of Energy (1977-79). His wealth of experience at the highest levels of public administration is consolidated by his octogenarian wisdom.
What follows is the text of his insightful presentation at ASPO-Washington on Friday, October 8, 2010.
Italics have been added (either to reflect Dr. Schlesinger’s verbal emphasis or to highlight points which are particularly noteworthy).
Video of the talk appears at the end of this article and at http://vimeo.com/16259773 .
- Rick Munroe, Energy Bulletin contributor
Dr. Schlesinger: “Thank you very much. Between us, I cannot emulate the erudition that was displayed at the last session. But I am delighted to be here nonetheless and I hope you share that.
May I start with a bromide: a resource which is finite is not inexhaustible. If you think that over, it should not be a revelation. That was a bromide… some people think a keynote should never rise above a bromide….
Some five years ago in Italy I concluded a talk by saying that like the inhabitants of Pompeii, who ignored the neighboring volcano, Vesuvius, until it detonated, the world ignores the possibility of peak oil at its peril.
Two years ago in addressing ASPO in Cork, Ireland, I argued that the peakists had won the intellectual argument, except for some minor details about precise timing, but that by and large everyone recognized that there were limits on our capacity to increase the production of crude oil as we have steadily since World War Two.
[I also argued] that peakists were no longer a beleaguered minority, that they had won, and that consequently they should be gracious in victory.
There’s an old spiritual that is relevant here. The walls of those who doubted the peak seemed to be impregnable. Nonetheless, you marched around the walls seven times and then blew the trumpets and the walls of Jericho came tumbling down.
But acceptance by knowledgeable people is not enough. The political order should respond. Nonetheless, our willingness, let alone our ability, to do anything serious about the impending inability to increase oil output is still a long way off.
The political order responds to what the public believes today, not to what it may come to believe tomorrow. It is also resistant to any action that inflicts pain or sacrifice on those who vote. The payoff in politics comes from reassurance, perhaps precluded by a rhetorical challenge.
Still, the challenge is clear in both logic and in the evidence. Let me start briefly with the logic,
If something cannot be sustained, it will eventually not be sustained… ultimately it will shrink.
Secondly, you cannot produce oil unless you first discover it (a contribution by Colin Campbell).
Third, a resource that is finite cannot continually have its production increased.
What is the evidence?
First, we remain heavily dependent on super-giant and giant oilfields discovered in the 50s and 60s of the last century… I might add, of the last millennium. Only rarely in recent decades have discoveries equaled production. Mostly, it’s been one barrel discovered for every three barrels produced.
Second, old super-giants like Burgan in Kuwait and [Cantarell] in Mexico have gone into decline earlier than had been anticipated… and going into decline have been Alaska, the North Sea, western Siberia and the like.
Third, while it is not yet “Twilight in the Desert” (as you may have read) still we are well into the afternoon, even in Saudi Arabia. Even the Ghawar oilfield is increasingly hard to sustain.
Fourth, in 2004 we experienced our first demand-driven price spike, as opposed to the previous price spikes driven by supply interruptions. We still operate at about the level of production capacity of 2004.
Next, given projected decline curves running from 4 to 6 percent, and the projected increase in demand during the next quarter century, we shall require the new capacity equivalence of five Saudi Arabias.
Even the International Energy Agency, which previously had been sanguine, now suggests that we can no longer increase production of conventional oil in the course of this decade.
Note that it is conventional oil: that is all that Hubbert talked about. Somewhat disingenuously, the debate has been turned on him by talking about fuel liquids in general, throwing in tar sands, heavy oil, coal liquids, oil shale and so on.
But clearly, large conventional oil production is increasingly no longer part of the future unless there is a technological breakthrough, which Mr. Gilbert talked about just a few moments ago, raising the ultimate recovery rate from existing fields, which at this moment we cannot expect.
Of course, there are uncertainties which make timing predictions with regard to the peak risky. Iraq, which has been held back for a variety of reasons, may come along as one of those five new needed Saudi Arabias.
Offshore Brazil and offshore oil elsewhere are promising. Shale gas, which is apparently coming in abundance (but is not, of course, oil) may somewhat alleviate the pressures on liquid fuels.
But in general we must expect to get along without what has been our critical energy source in expanding the world’s economy for more than half a century.
Can the political order face up to the challenge? There is no reason for optimism.
We are likely to see pseudo-solutions, misleading alternatives and sheer sloganeering: “energy independence,” “getting off foreign oil” and the like. All of that sheer sloganeering we have seen to this point.
The political order (which abhors political risk) tends to rely on the Biblical prescription, “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”
Thank you very much.”
http://permaculture-media-download.blogspot.com/2010/12/peak-oil-debate-is-over-by-dr-james.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PermacultureMediaDownloadBlog+%28Permaculture+Media+Download+Blog%29&utm_content=FaceBook
Dr. Schlesinger served as Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (1971-73), Secretary of Defense (1973-75), Director of the CIA and was the first Secretary of Energy (1977-79). His wealth of experience at the highest levels of public administration is consolidated by his octogenarian wisdom.
What follows is the text of his insightful presentation at ASPO-Washington on Friday, October 8, 2010.
Italics have been added (either to reflect Dr. Schlesinger’s verbal emphasis or to highlight points which are particularly noteworthy).
Video of the talk appears at the end of this article and at http://vimeo.com/16259773 .
- Rick Munroe, Energy Bulletin contributor
Dr. Schlesinger: “Thank you very much. Between us, I cannot emulate the erudition that was displayed at the last session. But I am delighted to be here nonetheless and I hope you share that.
May I start with a bromide: a resource which is finite is not inexhaustible. If you think that over, it should not be a revelation. That was a bromide… some people think a keynote should never rise above a bromide….
Some five years ago in Italy I concluded a talk by saying that like the inhabitants of Pompeii, who ignored the neighboring volcano, Vesuvius, until it detonated, the world ignores the possibility of peak oil at its peril.
Two years ago in addressing ASPO in Cork, Ireland, I argued that the peakists had won the intellectual argument, except for some minor details about precise timing, but that by and large everyone recognized that there were limits on our capacity to increase the production of crude oil as we have steadily since World War Two.
[I also argued] that peakists were no longer a beleaguered minority, that they had won, and that consequently they should be gracious in victory.
There’s an old spiritual that is relevant here. The walls of those who doubted the peak seemed to be impregnable. Nonetheless, you marched around the walls seven times and then blew the trumpets and the walls of Jericho came tumbling down.
But acceptance by knowledgeable people is not enough. The political order should respond. Nonetheless, our willingness, let alone our ability, to do anything serious about the impending inability to increase oil output is still a long way off.
The political order responds to what the public believes today, not to what it may come to believe tomorrow. It is also resistant to any action that inflicts pain or sacrifice on those who vote. The payoff in politics comes from reassurance, perhaps precluded by a rhetorical challenge.
Still, the challenge is clear in both logic and in the evidence. Let me start briefly with the logic,
If something cannot be sustained, it will eventually not be sustained… ultimately it will shrink.
Secondly, you cannot produce oil unless you first discover it (a contribution by Colin Campbell).
Third, a resource that is finite cannot continually have its production increased.
What is the evidence?
First, we remain heavily dependent on super-giant and giant oilfields discovered in the 50s and 60s of the last century… I might add, of the last millennium. Only rarely in recent decades have discoveries equaled production. Mostly, it’s been one barrel discovered for every three barrels produced.
Second, old super-giants like Burgan in Kuwait and [Cantarell] in Mexico have gone into decline earlier than had been anticipated… and going into decline have been Alaska, the North Sea, western Siberia and the like.
Third, while it is not yet “Twilight in the Desert” (as you may have read) still we are well into the afternoon, even in Saudi Arabia. Even the Ghawar oilfield is increasingly hard to sustain.
Fourth, in 2004 we experienced our first demand-driven price spike, as opposed to the previous price spikes driven by supply interruptions. We still operate at about the level of production capacity of 2004.
Next, given projected decline curves running from 4 to 6 percent, and the projected increase in demand during the next quarter century, we shall require the new capacity equivalence of five Saudi Arabias.
Even the International Energy Agency, which previously had been sanguine, now suggests that we can no longer increase production of conventional oil in the course of this decade.
Note that it is conventional oil: that is all that Hubbert talked about. Somewhat disingenuously, the debate has been turned on him by talking about fuel liquids in general, throwing in tar sands, heavy oil, coal liquids, oil shale and so on.
But clearly, large conventional oil production is increasingly no longer part of the future unless there is a technological breakthrough, which Mr. Gilbert talked about just a few moments ago, raising the ultimate recovery rate from existing fields, which at this moment we cannot expect.
Of course, there are uncertainties which make timing predictions with regard to the peak risky. Iraq, which has been held back for a variety of reasons, may come along as one of those five new needed Saudi Arabias.
Offshore Brazil and offshore oil elsewhere are promising. Shale gas, which is apparently coming in abundance (but is not, of course, oil) may somewhat alleviate the pressures on liquid fuels.
But in general we must expect to get along without what has been our critical energy source in expanding the world’s economy for more than half a century.
Can the political order face up to the challenge? There is no reason for optimism.
We are likely to see pseudo-solutions, misleading alternatives and sheer sloganeering: “energy independence,” “getting off foreign oil” and the like. All of that sheer sloganeering we have seen to this point.
The political order (which abhors political risk) tends to rely on the Biblical prescription, “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”
Thank you very much.”
Dr. James Schlesinger "The Peak Oil Debate is Over" from ASPO-USA on Vimeo.
http://permaculture-media-download.blogspot.com/2010/12/peak-oil-debate-is-over-by-dr-james.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PermacultureMediaDownloadBlog+%28Permaculture+Media+Download+Blog%29&utm_content=FaceBook
It's official: Recession since Dec. '07
The National Bureau of Economic Research declares what most Americans already knew: the downturn has been going on for some time.
By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: December 1, 2008: 5:40 PM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The National Bureau of Economic Research said Monday that the U.S. has been in a recession since December 2007, making official what most Americans have already believed about the state of the economy .
The NBER is a private group of leading economists charged with dating the start and end of economic downturns. It typically takes a long time after the start of a recession to declare its start because of the need to look at final readings of various economic measures.
The NBER said that the deterioration in the labor market throughout 2008 was one key reason why it decided to state that the recession began last year.
Employers have trimmed payrolls by 1.2 million jobs in the first 10 months of this year. On Friday, economists are predicting the government will report a loss of another 325,000 jobs for November.
The NBER also looks at real personal income, industrial production as well as wholesale and retail sales. All those measures reached a peak between November 2007 and June 2008, the NBER said.
In addition, the NBER also considers the gross domestic product, which is the reading most typically associated with a recession in the general public.
Many people erroneously believe that a recession is defined by two consecutive quarters of economic activity declining. That has yet to take place during this recession.
This downturn longer than most
The NBER did not give any reasons or causes of the recession. But it is widely accepted that the housing downturn, which started in 2006, is a primary cause of the broader economic malaise.
The fall of housing prices from peak levels reached earlier this decade cut deeply into home building and home purchases. This also caused a sharp rise in mortgage foreclosures, which in turn resulted in losses of hundreds of billions of dollars among the nation's leading banks and a tightening of credit.
The current recession is one of the longest downturns since the Great Depression of the 1930's.
The last two recessions (1990-1991 and 2001) lasted eight months each, and only two of the 10 previous post-Depression downturns lasted as long as a full year, according to the NBER.
In a statement, White House Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto said that even though the recession is now official, it is more important to focus on the steps being taken to fix the economy.
"The most important things we can do for the economy right now are to return the financial and credit markets to normal, and to continue to make progress in housing, and that's where we'll continue to focus," he said. "Addressing these areas will do the most right now to return the economy to growth and job creation."
President-elect Obama's transition team did not have an immediate comment on the recession announcement. But other top Democrats said this is further proof of the need for another economic stimulus package, which Obama has advocated.
"With rising costs of living, rising unemployment, record foreclosures and depleted savings, we must do more to help families make ends meet," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in a statement. "With the cooperation of our Republican colleagues, we intend to send a plan to the White House as soon as possible following President-elect Obama's inauguration next month."
How long will it go?
Nonetheless, several economists said the real concern is that there is no end in sight for the downturn.
Some suggested that the best case scenario for the economy is that it would reach bottom in the second quarter of 2009. And even if that happens, that would still make this recession the longest since the Great Depression.
Rich Yamarone, director of economic research at Argus Research, said the only good news for the economy is that some of the steps already taken by the government earlier this year could start to spur growth soon. For example, he said interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve, which started in September 2007, "should be working their magic any day now."
In February, Congress passed a $170 billion tax rebate meant to stimulate the economy. But that only boosted GDP during the second quarter.
The financial market and credit crisis worsened during this summer, prompting Congress, the Treasury Department and the Fed to pump trillions of dollars into the economy through a variety of programs, including a $700 billion bailout of banks and Wall Street firms and hundreds of billions of lending by the Fed to major companies and lenders.
But Lakshman Achuthan, managing director of Economic Cycle Research Institute, said that at this point, the only solution for the recession is time.
"All the hand waving and real cash that policymakers are throwing at the problem won't change the fact we're stuck in this nasty recession," he said. "The ultimate cure of a recession is letting it run its course."
Achuthan's research firm tracks weekly leading economic indicators that are supposed to signal a change in direction for the economy four or five months ahead of time. Those indicators are continuing to fall at a record pace.
Still, he said he's not worried about the current recession turning into a depression, as many Americans fear.
"Even with indicators in a tailspin, this still is only a very severe recession," he said. "There's lots of gloom, but we don't see doom." To top of page
First Published: December 1, 2008: 12:26 PM ET
http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/01/news/economy/recession/index.htm
By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: December 1, 2008: 5:40 PM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The National Bureau of Economic Research said Monday that the U.S. has been in a recession since December 2007, making official what most Americans have already believed about the state of the economy .
The NBER is a private group of leading economists charged with dating the start and end of economic downturns. It typically takes a long time after the start of a recession to declare its start because of the need to look at final readings of various economic measures.
The NBER said that the deterioration in the labor market throughout 2008 was one key reason why it decided to state that the recession began last year.
Employers have trimmed payrolls by 1.2 million jobs in the first 10 months of this year. On Friday, economists are predicting the government will report a loss of another 325,000 jobs for November.
The NBER also looks at real personal income, industrial production as well as wholesale and retail sales. All those measures reached a peak between November 2007 and June 2008, the NBER said.
In addition, the NBER also considers the gross domestic product, which is the reading most typically associated with a recession in the general public.
Many people erroneously believe that a recession is defined by two consecutive quarters of economic activity declining. That has yet to take place during this recession.
This downturn longer than most
The NBER did not give any reasons or causes of the recession. But it is widely accepted that the housing downturn, which started in 2006, is a primary cause of the broader economic malaise.
The fall of housing prices from peak levels reached earlier this decade cut deeply into home building and home purchases. This also caused a sharp rise in mortgage foreclosures, which in turn resulted in losses of hundreds of billions of dollars among the nation's leading banks and a tightening of credit.
The current recession is one of the longest downturns since the Great Depression of the 1930's.
The last two recessions (1990-1991 and 2001) lasted eight months each, and only two of the 10 previous post-Depression downturns lasted as long as a full year, according to the NBER.
In a statement, White House Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto said that even though the recession is now official, it is more important to focus on the steps being taken to fix the economy.
"The most important things we can do for the economy right now are to return the financial and credit markets to normal, and to continue to make progress in housing, and that's where we'll continue to focus," he said. "Addressing these areas will do the most right now to return the economy to growth and job creation."
President-elect Obama's transition team did not have an immediate comment on the recession announcement. But other top Democrats said this is further proof of the need for another economic stimulus package, which Obama has advocated.
"With rising costs of living, rising unemployment, record foreclosures and depleted savings, we must do more to help families make ends meet," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in a statement. "With the cooperation of our Republican colleagues, we intend to send a plan to the White House as soon as possible following President-elect Obama's inauguration next month."
How long will it go?
Nonetheless, several economists said the real concern is that there is no end in sight for the downturn.
Some suggested that the best case scenario for the economy is that it would reach bottom in the second quarter of 2009. And even if that happens, that would still make this recession the longest since the Great Depression.
Rich Yamarone, director of economic research at Argus Research, said the only good news for the economy is that some of the steps already taken by the government earlier this year could start to spur growth soon. For example, he said interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve, which started in September 2007, "should be working their magic any day now."
In February, Congress passed a $170 billion tax rebate meant to stimulate the economy. But that only boosted GDP during the second quarter.
The financial market and credit crisis worsened during this summer, prompting Congress, the Treasury Department and the Fed to pump trillions of dollars into the economy through a variety of programs, including a $700 billion bailout of banks and Wall Street firms and hundreds of billions of lending by the Fed to major companies and lenders.
But Lakshman Achuthan, managing director of Economic Cycle Research Institute, said that at this point, the only solution for the recession is time.
"All the hand waving and real cash that policymakers are throwing at the problem won't change the fact we're stuck in this nasty recession," he said. "The ultimate cure of a recession is letting it run its course."
Achuthan's research firm tracks weekly leading economic indicators that are supposed to signal a change in direction for the economy four or five months ahead of time. Those indicators are continuing to fall at a record pace.
Still, he said he's not worried about the current recession turning into a depression, as many Americans fear.
"Even with indicators in a tailspin, this still is only a very severe recession," he said. "There's lots of gloom, but we don't see doom." To top of page
First Published: December 1, 2008: 12:26 PM ET
http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/01/news/economy/recession/index.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
