Rosja/USA : ropa cenniejsza niż krew

IP: *.krakow.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl 25.10.02, 08:43
Ropa cenniejsza niż krew
http://www.solidarnosc.pol.pl/2001/ts28/t10.html
z SEJLAMEM BIESZAJEWEM, wicemarszałkiem parlamentu Czeczenii, rozmawia ANTONI
ZAMBROWSKI

� W jakich okolicznościach odbyła się pańska rozmowa telefoniczna z
prezydentem Czeczenii Asłanem Maschadowem?
� Rozmawiałem z naszym prezydentem w Strasburgu, gdzie przebywałem na
Zgromadzeniu Parlamentarnym Rady Europy. Prezydent zadzwonił, by udzielić mi
instrukcji. Wcześniej przekazaliśmy mu informację o sytuacji z zespołem
roboczym RE do spraw Czeczenii. W ciągu 6 miesięcy wprowadzali oni w błąd
deputowanych Zgromadzenia Parlamentarnego. Wmawiali słuchaczom, że opracowali
konkretny plan uregulowania kwestii czeczeńskiej. W rzeczywistości odciągali
uwagę od spraw podstawowych � od zawieszenia broni, wstrzymania działań
zbrojnych i podjęcia rozmów pokojowych. W zamian przekazywali deputowanym
europejskim, że sytuacja w Czeczenii zmierza ku normalizacji, pokojowe życie
się stabilizuje, otwierane są szkoły, przedszkola i żłobki. Że urząd
pełnomocnika do spraw obrony praw człowieka w Czeczenii pana Kołomanowa
działa w ścisłym kontakcie z obserwatorami Rady Europy i dobrze wywiązuje się
ze swych zadań. Że obserwatorzy europejscy docierają we wszystkie zakątki
Czeczenii i kontrolują przypadki naruszania praw człowieka, rozpatrują
zgłoszenia obywateli o wykroczeniach, przeciwdziałając tym wykroczeniom�

� Przecież to putinowska propaganda, monstrualne kłamstwo w iście
goebbelsowskiej skali. Nie uwierzy w to żaden uczciwy dziennikarz, śledzący
wydarzenia w Czeczenii.
� Zgadza się, w rzeczywistości wszystko jest na opak. Europejscy obserwatorzy
nie mają żadnej swobody poruszania się po terenie naszego kraju poza
miejscami wyznaczonymi przez chroniących ich rosyjskich wojskowych. Nie
posiadają żadnych informacji o łamaniu praw człowieka przez wojsko rosyjskie.
Jeśli jakiś Czeczen odważyłby się złożyć oświadczenie na piśmie o gwałtach ze
strony wojska, padłby on ofiarą szantażu ze strony Rosjan, którzy pod groźbą
śmierci zmusiliby go do wycofania pisma jako świadomego oszczerstwa. A zatem
ten zespół roboczy do spraw Czeczenii wprowadzał w błąd deputowanych
Zgromadzenia Parlamentarnego. Byliśmy więc zmuszeni do powiadomienia o
sytuacji naszego prezydenta. Przekazaliśmy mu treść memorandum zespołu o
konieczności rewizji konstytucji Czeczenii, o powołaniu na mocy dekretu
prezydenta Putina Zgromadzenia Czeczeńskiego, które zastąpiłoby nasz legalny
parlament. W tym Zgromadzeniu zasiadaliby kolaboranci, wyznaczeni przez
Moskwę, w typie byłego promoskiewskiego prezydenta Groznego Beslana
Gantamirowa. Otrzymaliśmy od prezydenta wytyczne o natychmiastowym wycofaniu
się ze współpracy z zespołem roboczym do spraw Czeczenii.

� Czy długo trwała rozmowa z prezydentem?
� Około trzech minut. Najpierw około minuty, później jeszcze dwukrotnie po
minucie.

� Rozumiem, że wyciągnięto wnioski z tragicznego przypadku prezydenta
Dudajewa, namierzonego przez rosyjskie służby specjalne podczas zbyt długiej
rozmowy telefonicznej. Co jeszcze powiedział prezydent?
� Oprócz udzielenia wytycznych dyplomatycznych opowiedział o sytuacji
wojskowej w Czeczenii. Posiedzenie Zgromadzenia Parlamentarnego odbyło się 25
czerwca i prezydent poinformował mnie, że w tym czasie od 5 dni toczyły się
zażarte walki w lasach południowej, górzystej części Czeczenii. Bojownicy
czeczeńscy strącili dwa śmigłowce rosyjskie, zniszczyli kilka pojazdów
opancerzonych i zabili wielu rosyjskich żołnierzy i oficerów. Straty własne
wyniosły pięciu partyzantów. Prezydent stwierdził, że w czasie potyczek
zbrojnych Rosjanie ponoszą straty dziesięciokrotnie przewyższające nasze
straty. Nadrabiają to, mordując ludność cywilną.

� Jak ocenia on ogólną sytuację w Czeczenii?
� Stwierdził, że w partyzantce czeczeńskiej nie ma wątpliwości co do wybranej
drogi i nie ma żadnych rozbieżności. Szeregi bojowników są zjednoczone jak
nigdy. Prezydent jako wódz naczelny wyznacza konkretne zadania, które
energicznie egzekwuje. Jedyną troską partyzantów są gwałty czynione przez
Rosjan na ludności cywilnej. Te straty służą jednak sprawie niepodległości
Czeczenii. Młodzież nie ma innego wyboru, jak zasilać szeregi bojowników.
Jedni idą do lasu, by uniknąć tortur i poniżenia, inni � by pomścić swych
pomordowanych krewnych. Rosja wzmaga terror w Czeczenii, ale to tylko podsyca
zbrojny opór. Mimo to prezydent Maschadow cały czas ponawia propozycje
pokojowe, proponuje podjęcie rozmów, ale Rosja je odrzuca. Odpowiednie
propozycje pokojowe złożyliśmy również w jego imieniu w Strasburgu.
Złożyliśmy też dokumenty opisujące zbrodnie wojenne wojsk rosyjskich, a także
potwierdzające to materiały Human Right Watch oraz rosyjskiego Memoriału.

� O jakich zbrodniach rosyjskich mówił prezydent Maschadow?
� W ciągu 10-12 dni przed naszą rozmową Rosjanie aresztowali i wywieźli w
niewiadomym kierunku około 300 osób. Mniej więcej 60 proc. tej liczby
stanowili młodzi chłopcy w wieku nie przekraczającym 12-13 lat. Pozostali to
staruszkowie.

� Młodzi ludzie w wieku poborowym już dawno musieli uciec z domów, aby nie
trafić do obozów filtracyjnych jako podejrzani o udział w ruchu oporu.
� Tych ludzi wywieziono w nieznanym kierunku. Część z nich wykupiły za
pieniądze rodziny, trupy niektórych znaleziono, los pozostałych nie jest
znany. Wojsko rabuje nasze wsie i miasta. "Oczyszczanie terenu" � to gwałt i
rabunek. Ładują wszystko co ma jakąś wartość na swe pojazdy, a jeśli ktoś
protestuje, to ginie od kuli lub granatu. Na terenie Czeczenii działa ponad
50 obozów filtracyjnych. To są mordownie, gdzie torturuje się i zabija
uwięzionych ludzi obojga płci.

� Ostatnio znowu było "czyszczenie terenu" w Czeczenii Północnej.
� Z dwóch miejscowości Asinowska oraz Sernowolska wygarnięto w ubiegły
czwartek ponad 700 osób, wszystkich ułożono na brzuchach na polu. Po kolei
zabierano do namiotu na przesłuchania, w których biciem wymuszano przyznanie
się do udziału w akcjach partyzanckich. W większości byli to starcy lub mali
chłopcy. Później wszystkich pokrwawionych zamknięto w miejscowym meczecie.
500 z nich wykupili krewni, resztę wywieziono w nieznanym kierunku. Szefowie
miejscowej administracji prorosyjskiej zostali zamknięci na klucz w swych
gabinetach na początku pacyfikacji przez żołnierzy rosyjskich. Po pacyfikacji
urażeni podali się do dymisji. Przeszukanie domów oznacza rabunek cennych
przedmiotów...

� ...oraz, jak podał przedstawiciel "Memoriału", niszczenie tego, co się nie
da zrabować.
� W ciągu ostatnich 10 dni z samego Groznego wojsko uprowadziło w nocy z
mieszkań ponad 50 osób. Rodziny boją się zgłosić w urzędzie zaginięcie swych
krewnych, aby nie podzielić ich losu.
� W Inguszetii odbywa się obecnie głodówka protestacyjna czeczeńskich
uchodźców.
� Trwa już 24 dni. W miasteczkach namiotowych głoduje 56 osób, w tym dzieci.
Ze względów solidarnościowych przyłączyło się do nich dwóch rosyjskich
obrońców praw człowieka. Wielu głodujących ze względu na wyczerpanie, zabrano
już do szpitala. Domagają się od Rosji zaprzestania działań zbrojnych,
wycofania wojska z Czeczenii oraz podjęcia rozmów pokojowych z prezydentem
Maschadowem. W najbliższy wtorek takie głodówki solidarnościowe podejmą
uchodźcy czeczeńscy w całej Europie � w Polsce, w Niemczech, w Belgii oraz w
Azerbejdżanie.

� Dlaczego czeczeńskie agendy tak słabo informują o wydarzeniach w Czeczenii?
� Wojsko rosyjskie nie chce stosować powszechnie uznanych reguł i norm. Może
zamordować każdego dziennikarza, który powie coś nie po ich myśli. Nie
oszczędzą też kobiet. Nie pozostaje nam nic innego, jak walczyć w ciszy
informacyjnej. Nasi partyzanci walczą i giną w zapomnieniu, opuszczeni przez
świat. Wiemy jednak, że musimy stawiać opór, by Rosjanie nie czuli się
bezkarni. Gdybyśmy nie walczyli, straty ludności cywilnej byłyby jesz
    • Gość: diabeł ludobójstwo OK za tanią ropę i gaz! IP: *.krakow.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl 25.10.02, 08:46

      � Dlaczego czeczeńskie agendy tak słabo informują o wydarzeniach w Czeczenii?
      � Wojsko rosyjskie nie chce stosować powszechnie uznanych reguł i norm. Może
      zamordować każdego dziennikarza, który powie coś nie po ich myśli. Nie
      oszczędzą też kobiet. Nie pozostaje nam nic innego, jak walczyć w ciszy
      informacyjnej. Nasi partyzanci walczą i giną w zapomnieniu, opuszczeni przez
      świat. Wiemy jednak, że musimy stawiać opór, by Rosjanie nie czuli się
      bezkarni. Gdybyśmy nie walczyli, straty ludności cywilnej byłyby jeszcze
      większe. Gdy zadajemy im ciężkie straty, zmusza to ich do myślenia. Bezkarność
      natomiast demoralizuje. Ich represje odbywają się za przyzwoleniem zarówno
      prezydenta Putina, jak i wszystkich urzędów z FSB, MSW, Ministerstwa
      Sprawiedliwości oraz urzędu rzecznika Kołomanowa. I to wszystko milcząco
      aprobują rządy państw europejskich. Wszystkie instancje Europy Zachodniej
      przymykają oczy na rosyjskie przestępstwa w Czeczenii, w tym Rada Europy i
      Zgromadzenie Parlamentarne. Dlaczego? Bo państwa europejskie są zainteresowane
      w dostawach taniego gazu z Rosji, taniej ropy i innych surowców. Czeczeńska
      krew nie ma notowań na giełdzie.

    • Gość: diabeł against the interests of the oil industry IP: *.krakow.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl 25.10.02, 08:48
      The History and Politics of Chechen Oil
      By Robert E. Ebel
      http://www.amina.com/article/oil_op.html
      Robert E. Ebel is the Director of the Energy and National Security Program at
      the Center for Strategic and International Studies (Washington, D.C., USA).
      Some of his publications include "Chernobyl and Its Aftermath: A Chronology of
      Events", "Energy Choices in the Near Abroad: The Haves and the Have-nots Face
      the Future." This article had been adapted from "Post-Soviet Prospects", a
      publcation by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

      In the early years of the twentieth century, Russian oil--and that then meant
      oil of the Caucasus--was regarded as an international prize. The oil age had
      arrived, displacing coal and steel. The economic and military strength of a
      nation very much would now reflect its access to oil. Covetous eyes turned to
      the oil of Baku, Grozny, Emba and Maikop.

      Indeed, at the beginning of the twentieth century, Russian oil accounted for
      just about one-half of all oil produced in the world. A short ten years later,
      however, the very rapid growth in oil production in the United States and
      elsewhere, coupled with Russia's own slight decline, caused the relative
      importance of Russian oil to fall to about 20 percent of the world's total. By
      1950, before the resurgence of Soviet oil and based on development first of the
      Urals-Volga oil fields (popularly known as the Second Baku) and then of Western
      Siberia, Soviet oil provided barely more than 7 percent of the world total.

      The oil district of Grozny was, next to Baku, the most important Russian oil
      area before the revolution. Oil had been produced from shallow wells northwest
      of the city of Grozny as early as 1833, although commercial production did not
      commence until 1983. Grozny oil hit a prerevolutionary peak of 33,400 barrels
      per day in 1915 and accounted for about 18 percent of Russian oil production.
      The oil fields at Baku provided almost all the remainder.

      Foreign interests in the Russian oil industry were considerable, as noted, and
      foreign capital followed that interest. More than one-half the capital
      investment in Russian oil came from abroad. It has been estimated that before
      World War I the total amount invested in the Russian oil industry was about
      $214 million. Of that sum, about $130 million represented foreign capital.

      Great Britain, in its search for oil, was particularly active in Russia,
      providing more than 60 percent of the foreign capital. The British moved to
      take dominating positions where they could in the producing regions, ranging
      from 50 percent at Grozny to 90 percent at the Emba oil fields. The United
      States was barely a player at all.

      The Politics of Chechen Oil

      By today's standards, the oil fields of Grozny were never particularly
      prolific, reaching a peak of 154,000 barrels per day in 1932, then entering a
      slow decline until the role of oil in the USSR's energy balance was emphasized,
      beginning in the mid-1950s. Yet for Russia and then for the Soviet Union,
      Grozny oil had at one time been relatively quite important, accounting for
      roughly one-third the national total in 1932. But this share dropped quickly in
      succeeding years, a combination of growth in production elsewhere and a
      physical decline in Grozny.

      Over the years Grozny has become a key oil pipeline juncture, because of its
      importance as an oil refining center supplying consumers in the North Caucasus
      and supplying specialty lubricants and paraffins to the country as a whole.
      Grozny is also a juncture for natural gas from gas fields in Russia and from
      Central Asia.

      Some observers have suggested that the decision by Moscow to send its military
      forces into the breakaway republic of Chechnya was motivated by a desire to
      secure control over its oil industry. Others have suggested that repressing the
      Chechen desire for independence from Russia was driven by economic
      considerations-to ease prospects for construction of a pipeline from the Tengiz
      fields of Kazakhstan across Russia to the port of Novorossisk on the Black Sea
      and of a pipeline extending northwest from Baku to link up with the proposed
      line from Tengiz.

      The most logical pipeline routing to move Tengiz crude to Novorossisk would be
      Tengiz-Atyrau-Komsomolsk-Tikhoretsk-Novorossisk. This route, if chosen, would
      run well to the north of Chechnya, although certainly not beyond the reach of
      dissident action.

      But bringing oil from Baku to Novorossisk would be a different matter. A number
      of years ago a crude oil pipeline was built from Tikhoretsk through Grozny to
      Baku to deliver crude oil to the Baku refinery complex. Although this line
      would have to be substantially rebuilt and expanded and the direction of flow
      reversed, it is nonetheless a viable option, despite the fact that it transits
      Chechnya.

      A quiescent Chechnya is thus important to Russia if crude oil to be produced by
      the Western consortium as it develops fields offshore in the Caspian Sea is to
      flow through Russia enroute to world markets. If Chechnya remains a threat,
      then a pipeline routing through Turkey becomes a more attractive alternative.

      Selection of a pipeline routing involves a mix of political and economic
      considerations. Far more than the collection of transit fees is at stake.
      Pipelines can and have become points of leverage in times of political
      disagreements and hostage in times of armed conflict.

      Two recent developments hold implications for all interested parties. First,
      Russia has covered its equity share in the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC) by
      nominating as its contribution the 200 kilometer section of pipeline linking
      Atyrau and Komsomolsk and forming part of the proposed Tengiz-Novorossisk line.
      The CPC is a Russian-Oman-Kazakhstan partnership established for the purpose of
      building an export pipeline to connect the Tengiz oil field in Kazakhstan with
      the port of Novorossisk. The value of this section of pipeline, placed at $300
      million, was derived through an audit performed by several Western companies.

      Second, the CPC has taken the first step in providing for an outlet of Tengiz
      crude oil to world markets by agreeing to build a 250-km pipeline from
      Kropotkin, located south of Tikhoretsk, to a new terminal to be built north of
      Novorossiisk. This pipeline link, to cost, to cost about $400 million, is to be
      ready sometime in 1997. Initially this first segment will carry mostly Russian
      oil and reportedly will be financially viable when handling 180,000 barrels per
      day.

      Chevron, the foreign partner in the joint venture to develop Tengiz, is not a
      member of the CPC, having rejected membership conditions as too onerous.
      Without Chevron's commitment to utilize the planned Tengiz-Novorossiisk
      pipeline, any future construction beyond the Kropotkin-Novorossiisk link could
      not be justified.

      It has often been conjectured that the first pipeline to become available,
      whether ostensibly to move Baku crude or Tengiz crude to market, would then
      become the pipeline of choice for both. The availability of the Kropotkin-
      Novorossiisk link and of expanded handling facilities at the port could
      encourage the Western consortium engaged in Caspian Sea oil development to
      choose a Baku-Kropotkin-Novorossiisk routing over the Turkish alternative.

      Limited Chechen Oil Potential

      It is unlikely that Moscow's venture into Chechnya was motivated by a desire to
      control Chechen oil. At one time, oil from Chechen-Ingushetiya was a very
      important contributor to the USSR's supply, accounting for about 10 percent of
      total Soviet crude oil production, but its national importance has long since
      vanished.

      On a regional basis, Chechen oil has had more going for it, at least in
      relative terms. In 1980, Chechen oil accounted for a bit less t
      • Gość: diabeł against the interests of the oil industry IP: *.krakow.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl 25.10.02, 09:35
        On a regional basis, Chechen oil has had more going for it, at least in
        relative terms. In 1980, Chechen oil accounted for a bit less than 40 percent
        of oil produced in the North Caucasus. That relative share has been rising in
        recent years, reaching 50 percent in 1992, as crude oil production in the Kuban
        and Stavropol regions of the North Caucasus has fallen at a faster rate than
        has Chechen oil.

        Chechnya's declaration of independence in 1991 and the following political and
        economic uncertainties seemingly have worked against the interests of the oil
        industry. Indigenous supply has been steadily falling and the onset of armed
        conflict with Russia has brought the industry to a virtual standstill. The
        daily output of oil in December 1994 had fallen to fewer than 6,500 barrels, in
        large part as workers departed to join in the defense of their homeland. The
        Russian Ministry of Fuels and Energy has reported that at the beginning of
        December no more than 100 of Chechnya's 1,500 wells were actually producing.

        Oil reserves in Chechen-Ingushetiya can be estimated, under the best of
        circumstances, at 60 million tons, divided roughly equally between Ingushetiya
        and Chechnya. These reserves, in the proven category, are sufficient to support
        crude oil production at the level of the early 1990s for some 15 years.

        Nonetheless, once the hostilities have ended, an early return of Chechen oil
        even to previously limited production levels should not be expected. Most of
        the experienced oil workers left the Grozny oil fields several years ago, and
        considerable time will be required to develop qualified replacements. And that
        is in addition to the time and capital needed for repairing the damage to oil-
        related facilities. Further, most of the oil wells are low-yield, and these
        kinds of wells, if out of operation for any extended time, may never be brought
        back.

        Looking Ahead

        A politically stable Chechnya, when and if that happens, does not of itself
        guarantee the smooth and uninterrupted flow of oil across its lands. Chechen
        nationalism is deeply imbedded and clearly will not be erased by whatever
        settlement terms may be reached between Chechnya and Russia. Pipelines are
        easily blown up, although they are almost as easily repaired. Nonetheless,
        political risk increases when a pipeline crosses an international boundary. The
        anticipated return must at least offset anticipated risk.


    • Gość: diabeł Petroleum, Pipelines and Paranoia IP: *.krakow.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl 25.10.02, 09:37
      Petroleum, Pipelines and Paranoia in the Caucasus
      By Marshall I. Goldman, Associate Director, Russian Research Center, Harvard
      University
      Source: International Conference on "International Law and the Chechen
      Republic", Cracow, Poland, Dec.1995


      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Disputes over petroleum deposits and pipelines have ruptured more than one
      harmonious international alliance. As Daniel Yergin in his book, The Prize, so
      clearly demonstrates, petroleum carries with it as many hazards as windfals.*1
      Petroleum discoveries have the potential to turn poor nations into rich ones
      but along the way the discoverers may have to ward off other claimants not only
      from the outsaide but as often as not from the insaide as well.

      While it would be a distortion of history to claim that the struggle between
      Russia and Chechnya arises solely because of the of the jockeying for control
      of the Chechen oil deposits, refineries as well as the crucial pipeline which
      passes through Grozny, there is no doubt that petroleum has played a central
      role in the dispute. Given the potential of what seem to be vast untapped
      deposits in the Caspian Sea and the fact that the best if not only pipeline
      route from the Caspian through Russia to the West runs through Grozny, the odds
      are that tensions between Russia and Chechnya will not soon disappear. That
      will be the case even if constitutional matters dealing with regional rights
      and the integrity of the Russian Republic can be resolved.

      I

      The Caucasus region and Chechnya were among the first known producers of
      petroleum. The bible even contains references to petroleum products in the Baku
      region. Even Marco Polo alluded to a small 13th centuery export trade in oil
      soaked sand.*2 The Turks, Persian and Russian jockeyed with each other for
      control of the region. Peter the Great actively sought to ship oil from the
      Caucasus north to Russia.*3 subsequently however, Persia regained control and
      it was only after 1877 and the conclusion of the Russian Turkish war that
      Russia was able to exert its hegemony over Persia and Turkey and the various
      mountain tribes including in Chechanes.

      Commercial exploitation of the region's oil occurred inthe early 1870s after
      the first two commercial oil wells were drilled. By 1898, Russia with oil from
      Baku and Grozny had become the world's output. It out produced the United
      States for three or four years until 1902 when new oil fields were discovered
      in Texas and the United States once again became the largest producer.*4

      Grozny began to extract oil from shallow wells in 1833 but its commercial
      development occurred only in 1893.*5 At its pre-revolutionary high the Grozny
      region accounted for 18% of total Russian oil output. In the Soviet Era, output
      peaked in 1932 at 154,000 barrels per day (b/d) and contributed not quite 1/3
      of the country's total production. Recognizing the importance of the region and
      its oil for his army and industry, Hitler made the conquest of Grozny and Baku
      a major priority. In the end he was unable to achieve his dream, but he came
      close.*6 After the war, output in both Baku and Grozny continued to dimish so
      that by 1990 Chechnya was able to produce only 84,000 b/d. After the break up
      of The Soviet Union, there was a further drop so that by 1994, output amounted
      to only 28,000 b/d.*7

      Despite the drastic drop in output and shift of attention to new more prolific
      oil fields, particulary those in West Siberia, the Caucasus region nevertheless
      continued to play an important role. Output around Baku also fell but because
      of the areas early importance, a pipeline network was construced with Grozny at
      the hub with branches to Russia heading west , to Kazakhstan in the northeast,
      and to Baku in Azerbaijan from the south. The pipeline in turn led to the
      construction of an important oil refinery which was the sole source of the
      USSR's paraffin and a major producer of its high grade aviation fuel.*8

      II.

      With the growth of output in West Siberia, Moscow inevitably devoted more and
      more of its attention to that part of its petroleum empire. But with the break
      up of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the growing awareness by foreigners
      particularly American and British oil companies that there were major
      unexploited oil deposits in the Caspian Sea as well as in the nearby Tengiz
      fields in Kazakhstan, the region suddenly became the center of attention again.
      Russia, as well as the other newly independent republics began to allow for the
      possibility that they might need foreign technological help to exploit these
      potential deposits because existing Soviet technology was inadequate. In
      additio leaders in both Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan began to realize that the
      development of their oil reesources could provide them with the economic
      wherewithal to finance their independence from Russia. Moreover, all they were
      seeking to do was keep the prceeds from exploiting resources on their own
      territory. For 70 years the benefits had been diverted to Moscow because none
      of these regions had their own independence.

      Similar arguments were made in Chechnya. The difference however, was that at
      least initialy, the Russians acknowledged the independence of Azerbaijan and
      Kazakhstan, but no such recognition was accorded to Chechans. Indeed when the
      Chechans unilaterally declared their independence in late 1991, Yeltsin sent in
      troops in an effort to squelch the uprising. The initial efforg failed and the
      Russians troops were called home. The Russians however continued to insisted
      that there could be no such thing as independence for Chechnya, and ultimately
      on December 11, 1994, a full fledged war began. In the meantime however the
      Chechans began to divert some of the oil output from their fields and the
      transit pipeline for their own use as well as for axport. Much of the wealth
      that accured to Chechnya came from the export of that oil. (In some cases oil
      claimed by the Chechans was exchanged for oil shipped elsewhere from Russia to
      the outside world.)

      III.

      At first Russian authorities seem to accept this new reality. Even the
      unauthorized Chechan oil diversions from the pipeeline did not seem too
      upsetting. Gradually however the official attitude began to harden. This was
      the consequence of several developments. After the initial euphoria following
      the breakup of the Soviet Union and the delight that Moscow would no longer
      have to underwrite or finance the economies of its lackadaisical if not
      parasitic former colonies, some more calculating voices came to realize that a
      few of the republics were sitting on very valuable resources. Why it was asked
      should the exploitation of those of those resources benefit only the break away
      republics? Given that at least the preliminary geological exploration was made
      under Soviet auspices, not to mention expense, this seemed particularly unjust.
      As a minimum the Russians were entitled to a "finders fee". Finally Russians
      officials also came to relize, especially those who began to long for the
      reconstitution of the old USSR, that the more income the former Republics were
      able to generate, the more resistant they would be to rejoining the Soviet
      Union. It was probably no coincidence therefore, that the Russians began to
      restrict the access of several republics to outside export markets. Limiting
      Chevron's shipments of Kazakh oil through its pipeline to the west was one of
      the most blatant examples. Not surprisingly the view is very different in the
      former republics. To them the Russian efforts smack of neoimperialism. Without
      the revenue anticipated from Chevron's development of the Tengiz oil,
      Kazakhstan has had some severe financial problems. They are particularly
      concerned that because Chev
      • Gość: diabeł Petroleum, Pipelines and Paranoia IP: *.krakow.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl 25.10.02, 09:39
        They are particularly concerned that because Chevron has been unable to sell
        what it already can produce, Chevron has been forced to cut back its investment
        in Kazakhstan. Similarly, Turkmenistan has been badly hurt because the Russians
        have been delinquent in paying for Turkmen gas used within Russia. This also
        explains why the Uzbeks are seeking markets to their south and east, that is
        non-Russian territory, and in this way seeking to escape Russian control.
        Finally the Russians have fought a prolonged battle to retain control of
        petroleum reserves in non-Russian territory such as Tataristan and Chechnya.
        Grudgingly they have come to allow it in Tataristan which makes the Chechans
        feel that they too should be allowed to keep the proceeds from the sale of
        petroleum produced within their territory.

        IV

        The renewed Russian determination to assert control over the use of what they
        consider to be their resources has been complicated by the turmoil within the
        region, particularly i Chechnya. Relative to Russia's total production of oil,
        the amount of oil Chechans may be able to siphon off from deposits within
        Chechnya are not that large. At its post World War II pesk, Chechan oil
        amounted to no more than 10% of the national total. Today it is closer to 5%.
        But Chechnya's importance in Russian oil poitics and economics is no longer a
        matter of production alone. Much more important in today's world is the fact
        that that Grozny is at the hub of Russia's pipeline network from the Caucasus'
        and most important to the vast deposits in the Caspian sea off Azarbajian.
        According to some estimates the newest geological survey indicate that the
        azeri, Guneshli and Chirag offshore fields may turn fourth largest producing
        field in the world.*9

        [As of now, the trunk line from the Tengiz fields also traverses Chechnya.
        There are plans however to build a spur that would allow the Tengiz oil to
        skirt Chechnya on its way to Novorossiisk on the Black Sea. Even this diversion
        however would be vulnerable to sabotage since it will pase close to the Chechan
        border not far from Budennovsk, where a group of Chechans seized 150 Russian
        hostages in June 1995.]

        If Russia's only concern was the Chechan rebellion, Russia would not be so
        anxious about the development of mineral reserves in the Caspian. However, in
        the aftermath of the breakup of the USSR, and the emergence of a newly
        assertive "independent" Azerbaijan, Russian oil policy has suddenly taken on a
        new importance. This is due to the fact that there is a real possibility that
        russia may find itself looking on from the outside as Azerbaijan, not Russia,
        becomes the recipient of billions of dollars worth of royalties from the sale
        of Caspian oil. Given the growing likelihood of such a development, the
        Caucasus, the Caspian Sea and the Chechan pipeline have suddenly become matters
        of international power politics, not only in the Kremlin, but because of the
        intense interest in the area by American oil companies, by the Washington White
        House.

        Under the old regime, foreigners would probably not have been allowed an equity
        share or a participation role in the development in of the Caspian deposits.
        The Soviets never did that and as mentioned earlier even now there is great
        resistance to such an approach by the Russian owners of the newly privatized
        oil companies. This is true even when they lack the technology needed to
        develop deeper off shore deposits. Instead their practice is to do the work for
        them. The foreigners then have no equity share in the operation and this allows
        the Russians to retain their control.

        Lacking the wherewithal to underwrite their own off shore development the
        azeris have adopted traditional world practices and opened up their fields to
        tender offers. Conscious of the sensitivities involved, they have sought a very
        broad mix of partners, the better to withstand Russian pressures. As the
        accompanying table indicates, the lead partners are the Azeris (SOCAR) with a
        20% share and British Petroleum (Great Britain) and Amoco (American) each with
        a 17% interest. In addition four other American firms, one British, one
        Russian, one Norwegian, one Turkish and one Saudi Arabian company also have
        shares. The Iranians also sought a role and the Azeris agreed to transfer to
        them a 5% share from the Azeri holdings. However even though Iran shares the
        Caspian sea coast, the United States government insisted thar Iran be kept out
        and the Azeris ultimately backed down.

        There was no such protest when the Azeris decided to offer an even larger share
        to the Russian company, LUKoil. Attempting to temper Russian hostility, the
        Azeris turned over a 10% interest in the project to LUKoil out of their own
        stake, thereby reducing their equity from 30 to 20%. As Russia's awareness of
        what was happening began to grow, however such gestures were considered to be
        inadequate. Adopting the new logic, Russian critics were quick to point out
        that LUKoil was a private business while the Caspian sea deposits were a matter
        of concern to the Russian government.

        Not were Russians any happier when the state oil company of Azerbajian (SOCAR)
        entered into a subsequent agreement with LUKoil to exploit the Karabakh oil
        field located 120 km east of Baku in the Caspian sea.*10 LUKoil's share was
        32.5% and it was joined by the Italian firm Agip and the American Pennzoil
        which each took another 30%. This left SOCAR with 7.5%. with or without LUKoil,
        the Russians continue to insist that the Azeri authorities have no legal right
        to conclude such agreements.

        It is easy to understand the Russian concerns. Oil from Caspian Sea deposits
        were first developed in the days of the czars and expanded in the Soviet era.
        Why should other governments now become the beneficiary of this initial work.
        To emphasize its point, the Russian government is now insisting that the
        Caspian Sea is really a lake and therefore Azerbijan can only claim underwater
        rights up to 10 km of shore rather than the much larger territory that it could
        claim if the Caspian were truly an international sea. Beyond that 10 km, Russia
        claims that it can drill for oil and that anyone else who does must receive
        Russian permission.*11 Moreover The Russians insist that the governing code for
        the exploitation of the Caspian reserves, is the USSR-Iranian Traty of 1940 as
        well as earlier bilateral treaties of 1921 and 1935. The Russians claim to be
        the recipients of the former Soviet Union's prerogatives. This treaty then, can
        only be amended by a vote of both parliaments which in this case means Russia
        and Iran. The fact that Iran is not now a partner in the consortium means thet
        the original parties to the treaty have been excluded and therefore it is only
        natural that they are opposed to any such agreements. Such an interpretation
        invalidates unilateral acts by the Azeris which as the Russians see it, have
        all been illegal.*12

        This hardening of attitudes is part of the growing suspicion by the Russians of
        western intentions. As an example of his growing xenophobia Russian writers
        have gone so far as to assert that "almost all Russian oil deposits are "under
        the thumb" of leading foreign companies."*13 Quoting Russian intelligence
        sources, these writers have accused Mobil oil of covertly gaining access to
        secret geological surveys of oil fields in Tyumin in West Siberia.

        It is not just that oil companies from Russia's former enemies have been
        gathering data and control over what was once the Soviet Union's most valuable
        resources, but that their efforts seem to be part of a strategy to cut Russia
        off completly from the Trans Caucasus.*14 How else can the United States
        support of Chechnya and "The Confederation of Mountain Peoples" be explained.
        This also fits innicely
        • Gość: diabeł Petroleum, Pipelines and Paranoia IP: *.krakow.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl 25.10.02, 09:44
          This also fits innicely with newly intesified Russian attaks on NATO which is
          viewed as soliciting new members in eastern Europe and even the former
          republics of the Soviet Union all in an effort to push the border between east
          and west to Russia's front door. In a pincher movement, the United States seems
          to be moving up from the south.

          As if all this were not threatening enough, the United States and its obedient
          oil companies have also begun to insist on the opening of a second pipeline
          route from the Caspian Sea. They argue such a second route is necessarry
          because pumping Caspian oil through Grozny would be too risky. Their solution
          is to construct a pipeline through Georgia and then on to Turkey. Even though
          this is a more expensive alternative than using the Grozny pipeline, a second
          pipeline would bring Turkey more prominently into the arrangement and allow the
          passage of oil by pipeline on to the Mediterranean Coast rather than
          neccesitate the shipment of more oil through the dardanelles Straits are
          already overcrowded.

          In reply the Russians insist that they can pacify the Chechans and guarantee
          the security of the pipeline. As for the Dardanelles, the Russians have offered
          to build yet another pipeline from the Black Sea coast port of Burgas in
          Bulgaria to Alexandropulos in Greece also on the Mediterranean. As the Russians
          see it, Georgia with its various civil wars is not much more secure for a
          pipeline than Chechnya. The real reason the American oil companies want to ship
          through Georgia they insist is to deprive the Russians of the transit fees and
          insure that the Russians will lose monopoly control over the pumping and
          shipping of Caspian Oil.

          V

          The increasingly shrill tone of Russian declarations about the development of
          the Caspian oil shelf reflects the growing awareness by the Russians that the
          breakup of the Soviet Union has proven to be more costly than it was initialy
          realized. The losses include not only the almost $8 billion that will be
          invested in developing Caspian oil but the royalties and transit payments that
          the newly produced oil might bring particularly if the oil is routed north
          through Grozny must be pacified so that the Russian pipeline, which under
          normal circumstances would be the cheapest route from the Caspian to the West,
          will obviate the need for a Georgian alternative. Of course if the unrest in
          Georgia Flares again there will no longer be any advantage to using the
          southern route.

          Many Russians have traditionally looked to theories of conspiracy to explain
          their history as well as current developments. It is not hard to see how they
          might fall back on such notions in explaining current developments on their
          doorstep in the Caucasus. First there is the breakup of the Soviet Union into
          fifteen independent countries and if that were not enough, the further effort
          to fragment even Russia. Than American petroleum firms rushed into claim shares
          of the mineral wealth of the Caspian, a body of water that has traditionally
          been treated as its own by the Soviet Union. To top it off senior officials
          from the American government have intervened to orchestrate the actions of the
          American petroleum firms and have forced them to exclude the Iranians from all
          such efforts. They than urged them to insist on the construction of a more
          expensive and in some sense redundant southern pipeline through Georgia that is
          designed to weaken Russia's bargaining role even more. As some of my more
          paranoid Russian associates have put it, "You could not defeat us in the Cold
          War so you sent in Gorbachev and Yeltsin with their ideas of Glasnost,
          Perestroika and shock Therapy to destroy us economically and break us up
          politically".

          Short of precipitating the overthrow of the existing Azeri leadership (there
          has already been several attempts) the Russians will have a hard time
          reclaiming control of the Caspian reserves. Yet Russia could still salvage
          something from all this, if only it could guarantee a secure pipeline through
          Chechnya. As the Russians insist on maintaining an occupation army in the
          region this will not be an easy thing to do. This means that the Russians have
          an incentive to seek a peace accord. Alternatively defense minister Pavel
          Grachev's could prevail and the army could attempt to secure the pipeline by
          means of forceful repression. Grachev's way is hardly the solution for the long
          run.

          Table 1. SHARES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CASPIAN OIL PROJECT
          SOCAR (Azerbaijan) 20%
          British Petroleum (Great Britain) 17%
          Amoco (United States) 17%
          LUKoil (Russia) 10%
          Pennzoil (United States) 9%
          UNOCAL (United States) 9%
          Staatoil (Norwegian) 9%
          McDermott (United States) 2%
          Aramco (Great Britain) 2%
          DNKL (Saudi Arabia) 2%
          Turkish Petroleum (Turkey) 2%

          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          *1 Yergi, Daniel the Prize. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991. pgs: 334, 336,
          337

          *2 Tolf, Robert W. The Russian Rockefelleres, Stanford California, Hoover
          Institution Press, 1976, p. 41-42; Marshall I. Goldman, The Enigma of Soviet
          Petroleum: Half Empty or Half Full?, Boston, George Allen and Unwin, 1980, p.
          13.

          *3 Tolf, p. 42

          *4 Goldman, Marshall I. p. 15

          *5 Ebel, Robert E. "The History and Politics of Chechan Oil", Post-Soviet
          prospects, Washington D.C., The Center for Strategic and International Studies,
          Vol. 3, no. 1 January, 1995, p. 1

          *6 yergin, pgs. 336,337

          *7 Ebel, p.2

          *8 Ebel, p.4

          *9 Kirkorian, Van Z. Sisyphus' Oil: Pipeline Politics in the Caspian Basin, New
          York, Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, CIS Lawnotes, December, 1995, p.1;
          Financial Times, May 8, 1993, p.4: New York Times. September 9, 1995, p.3

          *10 OMRI Radio Liberty, Radio Free Europe, November 16,1995

          *11 Monitor, The Jamestown Foundation, November 22, 1995: Sovetskaia Rossiia,
          October 26, 1995 p.3; Van Z. Krikorian, Pp. 2,4,5

          *12 Monitor, The Jamestown Foundation, November 22, 1995

          *13 Nezavisimaia gazeta, October 20, 1995, p.6; Prism. The Jamestown
          Foundation, November 19, 1995, p.6

          *14 Sovetskaia Rossiia, October 26, 1995, p.3
    • Gość: diabeł USA : No Blood For Oil IP: *.krakow.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl 25.10.02, 09:49
      No Blood For Oil – Stop the War Against Iraq
      www.greenparty.org/releases/release_071802.html
      The Greens/Green Party USA charged today that George Bush's warmongering
      threats make him a far greater danger to world peace than Saddam Hussein. "I'm
      no Saddam-hugger, but if we want someone to step down from office, the world
      would benefit if George W. Bush would do so," said GPUSA spokesperson Mitchel
      Cohen.

      The Greens/Green Party USA blasted Junior Bush's administration for escalating
      the oil wars of Papa Bush, and denounced Bush's plan for an all-out bombardment
      of Iraq. "For several years prior to 9-11 the giant US oil corporation Unocal
      had planned to construct an oil pipeline in Afghanistan. It had been blocked by
      the Taliban, much as Iraq is struggling to prevent a complete US takeover of
      its much coveted oil-producing facilities. It is no coincidence that the US
      selection for President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, had been an executive
      with Unocal and is now proceeding with the pipeline development project, with
      the help of the World Bank," Cohen charged.

      "Now the spectre of Bush's 'war without end' is being extended to other oil-
      producing countries: the US-backed coup in Venezuela earlier this year is one
      such example; it was defeated only because hundreds of thousands of workers and
      poor people poured into the streets there in defense of democracy. The war
      against Iraq is moving full steam ahead; and, over the coming months, Saudi
      Arabia's oilfields may be fully expropriated by Exxon et al., under US military
      occupation," Cohen said. "The Green Party USA condemns these brazen acts of
      lawlessness on the part of the US government, which are in clear violation of
      the UN Charter and International Law."

      The Green Party USA announced that it has joined with other antiwar groups in
      sponsoring nonviolent antiwar activities across the country; it is mobilizing
      its members to demonstrate on October 6th as part of Not In Our Name, on
      October 26th as part of the antiwar march in Washington D.C., and in mid-
      November to confront the School of the Americas in Georgia. "We are racing
      against the clock to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and turn
      back the vast ecological devastation that is already underway, thanks to Bush's
      endless war for empire and global domination. Almost one million Iraqi
      civilians, many of them children, have unnecessarily died this past decade due
      to the ongoing bombings and the sanctions imposed by the United Nations," Cohen
      said.

      Green Party USA representative from Maine, Nancy Oden, added: "The Green Party
      wants Iraqis and other people throughout the world to know that there are
      millions of Americans who oppose the war crimes being planned by the White
      House. Silence is complicity. It is time for all of us to speak out against the
      coming massacre, stop Bush's 'endless war,' and prevent US officials from
      turning the Bill of Rights into a rag to wipe the blood from their jackboots."

      Last November, Oden found herself to be one of the early targets of the new
      apparatus of repression as she attempted to board a plane to Chicago where she
      was scheduled to address a Green Party USA board meeting. "I was told my name
      had been flagged in the computer," she said. Military personnel escorted her
      away from the plane and prevented her from boarding. "Since that time, hundreds
      of people have been unconstitutionally detained at airports," Oden said. "The
      attacks on civil liberties unleashed by Attorney General Ashcroft and those
      Democrats and Republicans who voted for the PATRIOT ACT are part and parcel of
      the bipartisan endorsement for the oilgarchy's pledge of 'endless war'."

      Oden condemned the Bush regime's threats against the Iraqi people. "The US is
      spending as much on its military as are all the other countries in world
      combined," she said. It has more weapons of mass destruction than the rest of
      world; it is the only country to have ever launched a nuclear first strike -–
      August 6th, 1945
      • Gość: krupski rypczak Re: USA : No Blood For Oil IP: *.nyc.rr.com 25.10.02, 12:09
        To juz teraz sam ze soba dyskutujesz.
        Green Party dawniej Communist Party of United States of America.
        • Gość: diabeł Re: USA : No Blood For Oil IP: *.krakow.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl 25.10.02, 20:46
          to ciekawe, komunisci amerykańscy stali się zielonymi...

          GREENPEACE to napewno V Miedzynarodówka.
        • Gość: diabeł Re: USA : No Blood For Oil IP: *.krakow.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl 25.10.02, 21:57
          Gość portalu: krupski rypczak napisał(a):

          > To juz teraz sam ze soba dyskutujesz.
          > Green Party dawniej Communist Party of United States of America.

          communist Party Of USA nadal istnieje :www.cpusa.org/

          więc w beszczelny sposób kłamiesz.






          fight for peace, equality, democracy and socialism

          Threat to Humanity - Bush’s New Military Doctrine
          by Sam Webb, National Chair, Oct 22, 2002
          Three weeks ago the Bush administration announced a new strategic-military
          policy, titled, “The National Security Strategy of the United States,” which,
          to put it bluntly, is a promissory note for unending and calamitous war.
          More Front Page


          Report on 2002 Elections
          by Joelle Fishman, Chair, Political Action Committee, CPUSA, Oct 2, 2002
          The results of the 2002 elections are not in the bag for the Bush Republicans.
          It would be a fatal mistake to come to that conclusion at this critical moment,
          six weeks before Election Day. The Bush Republicans are engaging in tactics of
          desperation. This election is too close to call as of today.

          More Front Page





          CPUSA Statement on the Bush War Drive
          by CPUSA, Sep 26, 2002
          The world is faced with the nightmarish specter of endless wars, unbridled
          military aggression and global chaos brought on by Bush's "war on terrorism."
          Under the pretext of combating terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of
          mass destruction, the Bush administration has set its sights on Iraq as the
          first target in its drive to dominate and control the world.
          More Front Page

          Life in the balance: Capitalism at war with nature and humanity
          by John Bachtell, National Secretary, Jun 20, 2002
          Saving humanity from self destruction is a defining issue of our age, whether
          from immediate destruction of the Earth's ecosphere through nuclear
          annihilation or longer term environmental pollution.
          More Environmental Protection


      • Gość: diabeł Re: USA : No Blood For Oil IP: *.krakow.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl 23.11.02, 15:15
        Gość portalu: diabeł napisał:

        > No Blood For Oil – Stop the War Against Iraq
        > <a
        href="www.greenparty.org/releases/release_071802.html"target="_blank"
        > >www.greenparty.org/releases/release_071802.html</a>
        > The Greens/Green Party USA charged today that George Bush's warmongering
        > threats make him a far greater danger to world peace than Saddam
        Hussein. "I'm
        > no Saddam-hugger, but if we want someone to step down from office, the world
        > would benefit if George W. Bush would do so," said GPUSA spokesperson Mitchel
        > Cohen.
        >
        > The Greens/Green Party USA blasted Junior Bush's administration for
        escalating
        > the oil wars of Papa Bush, and denounced Bush's plan for an all-out
        bombardment
        >
        > of Iraq. "For several years prior to 9-11 the giant US oil corporation Unocal
        > had planned to construct an oil pipeline in Afghanistan. It had been blocked
        by
        >
        > the Taliban, much as Iraq is struggling to prevent a complete US takeover of
        > its much coveted oil-producing facilities. It is no coincidence that the US
        > selection for President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, had been an executive
        > with Unocal and is now proceeding with the pipeline development project, with
        > the help of the World Bank," Cohen charged.
        >
        > "Now the spectre of Bush's 'war without end' is being extended to other oil-
        > producing countries: the US-backed coup in Venezuela earlier this year is one
        > such example; it was defeated only because hundreds of thousands of workers
        and
        >
        > poor people poured into the streets there in defense of democracy. The war
        > against Iraq is moving full steam ahead; and, over the coming months, Saudi
        > Arabia's oilfields may be fully expropriated by Exxon et al., under US
        military
        >
        > occupation," Cohen said. "The Green Party USA condemns these brazen acts of
        > lawlessness on the part of the US government, which are in clear violation of
        > the UN Charter and International Law."
        >
        > The Green Party USA announced that it has joined with other antiwar groups in
        > sponsoring nonviolent antiwar activities across the country; it is mobilizing
        > its members to demonstrate on October 6th as part of Not In Our Name, on
        > October 26th as part of the antiwar march in Washington D.C., and in mid-
        > November to confront the School of the Americas in Georgia. "We are racing
        > against the clock to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and
        turn
        >
        > back the vast ecological devastation that is already underway, thanks to
        Bush's
        >
        > endless war for empire and global domination. Almost one million Iraqi
        > civilians, many of them children, have unnecessarily died this past decade
        due
        > to the ongoing bombings and the sanctions imposed by the United Nations,"
        Cohen
        >
        > said.
        >
        > Green Party USA representative from Maine, Nancy Oden, added: "The Green
        Party
        > wants Iraqis and other people throughout the world to know that there are
        > millions of Americans who oppose the war crimes being planned by the White
        > House. Silence is complicity. It is time for all of us to speak out against
        the
        >
        > coming massacre, stop Bush's 'endless war,' and prevent US officials from
        > turning the Bill of Rights into a rag to wipe the blood from their jackboots."
        >
        > Last November, Oden found herself to be one of the early targets of the new
        > apparatus of repression as she attempted to board a plane to Chicago where
        she
        > was scheduled to address a Green Party USA board meeting. "I was told my name
        > had been flagged in the computer," she said. Military personnel escorted her
        > away from the plane and prevented her from boarding. "Since that time,
        hundreds
        >
        > of people have been unconstitutionally detained at airports," Oden said. "The
        > attacks on civil liberties unleashed by Attorney General Ashcroft and those
        > Democrats and Republicans who voted for the PATRIOT ACT are part and parcel
        of
        > the bipartisan endorsement for the oilgarchy's pledge of 'endless war'."
        >
        > Oden condemned the Bush regime's threats against the Iraqi people. "The US is
        > spending as much on its military as are all the other countries in world
        > combined," she said. It has more weapons of mass destruction than the rest of
        > world; it is the only country to have ever launched a nuclear first strike -
        > 211;
        > August 6th, 1945
    • Gość: diabeł USA/Iraq: The oil connection IP: *.krakow.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl 25.10.02, 20:59
      America stands on the brink of conflict: Why Now?
      TAKE ACTION NOW http://www.newdream.org/iraq.html
      Chances are you've seen at least ten articles about our impending war with
      Iraq. It's probably less likely that you expected number eleven to come from
      the Center for a New American Dream. After all, what could the war possibly
      have to do with helping Americans consume responsibly to protect the
      environment, enhance quality of life and promote social justice? A lot,
      actually. Our government's decisions in the coming weeks could well determine
      whether America pursues a 21st century dream based on freedom, justice and
      international cooperation or one based on rampant resource consumption and vast
      inequities enforced by an overpowering military presence.

      Send this page to a friend

      Please take five minutes to read the following article
      and call the White House today.


      America stands on the brink of a bloody and costly war in the Middle East.
      Before we rush headlong into conflict, Americans should ask our leaders-why
      now? Why oppose the will of the international community, risk further igniting
      an already tense region, shed the blood of American soldiers and innocent Iraqi
      civilians, and further jeopardize global economic and political stability?

      Could it be that this war is partly about a growing desire for Iraqi oil?

      Other factors, from a genuine desire to punish Iraq for breaching international
      law to the election-month temptation to distract voters away from domestic
      woes, may be at play. But there is little doubt that control of oil supplies is
      pivotal. Along with coal, the drive for 'black gold' has reigned supreme as the
      core organizing principle of the Bush-Cheney Energy Plan. This principal has
      driven a number of shortsighted policies, including the defeat of efforts to
      improve fuel economy, a refusal to join other nations in support of the Kyoto
      Protocol on global warming, an end to the EPA's practice of including CO2
      emissions in its pollution reports, a push to drill in the Arctic National
      Wildlife Refuge and, most recently, an undermining of efforts in Johannesburg
      to set specific global goals for solar and wind energy production.

      These tunnel vision pro-oil policies have been disheartening to those who care
      about the environment and its inhabitants. A major war in the Middle East,
      however, could be catastrophic.

      The fact is, a responsible energy policy would depose oil from its throne of
      America's number one priority and free us to craft foreign policy based upon
      actual security concerns, respect for international law, and concern for human
      welfare.
      A few things to consider:

      The oil connection

      The Defense Department asserts there are 12 nations with nuclear weapons
      programs, 13 with biological weapons, 16 with chemical weapons, and 28 with
      ballistic missiles that serve as potential threats to the United States. But
      only one of those countries sits atop the second largest oil reserves in the
      world. Iraq.

      This administration has made no secret of the fact that it would rather accept
      international condemnation and egregious environmental harm than consider even
      modest measures to lessen our dependence on oil. The National Energy Policy
      Report, released by the White House in May 2001, noted the growing US
      dependence on foreign oil. Imported oil supplies accounted for half of US oil
      consumption in 2000 and is expected to jump to two-thirds by 2020. Our
      government's refusal to consider practical and economically sound conservation
      measures leads to ever more desperate attempts to keep the oil flowing.
      Drilling in Alaskan wilderness, a measure touted by the administration, would
      provide small relief and would not make a dent in this figure at current
      consumption levels.

      Iraq has proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the second
      largest in the world after Saudi Arabia. American oil companies-many with ties
      to senior officials in the Bush Administration-have been banished from direct
      involvement in Iraq since the late 1980s, and stand to profit enormously from a
      post-Hussein government friendly to the United States. Industry officials
      assert that a US-led ouster of Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil
      companies by scuttling oil deals between Iraq and other countries and
      reshuffling world petroleum markets in favor of US oil firms.

      We have two choices: adopt sound conservation and renewable energy measures, or
      depend upon Persian Gulf countries to meet growing US oil requirements.

      Can the vested interests of multi-national oil companies and their allies in
      government be used as a justification for sacrificing the lives of American
      soldiers and Iraqi civilians who get caught in the crossfire?

      Evidence to justify an invasion has not been presented

      Authoritative independent analysts emphatically assert there is no evidence
      that Iraq could build or deliver nuclear weapons, nor is it anywhere close to
      being able to deliver its crude chemical or biological weapons to American
      shores. The administration has not provided adequate evidence of new threats
      either to the United Nations or to the United States Congress.

      To date, there is also no reason to believe that the Iraqi regime has any links
      with al Qaeda terrorists. Indeed, Hussein is scorned by al Qaeda terrorists for
      his lack of devotion to their narrow religious views. Prior to the Gulf War,
      Osama bin Laden even offered to raise an army of thousands of fighters to rid
      Kuwait of Iraqi soldiers. Perversely, despite the animosity between bin Laden
      and Hussein, a US invasion of an Islamic country would fuel resentment of
      America in the region and drive recruits to al Qaeda training camps.

      With no immediate threat on the horizon and with most of the world's nations
      urging the US to exercise restraint and to craft a measured and appropriate
      method of dealing with Saddam Hussein, why is the Bush administration clamoring
      for war right now?

      Unilateral action undermines the principles of international law and collective
      security

      President Bush is claiming a right to invade based on UN Security Council
      resolutions that were enacted after the Gulf War that called for weapons
      inspections in Iraq by UN representatives. Bush claims the right to respond to
      violations unilaterally, even if the Security Council itself opposes the
      invasion. International law is clear: enforcement decisions concerning Security
      Council resolutions are the prerogative of the Security Council as a whole-not
      of any one member of the Council. The administration's claim of the right to
      invade Iraq even if it is against the will of the Council would be no more
      valid than if Russia decided to unilaterally invade Israel for resolution
      violations or if China decided to invade India or Pakistan for their
      violations. In these fragile times, the administration cannot pick and choose
      which international laws it wants to respect and which it wants to ignore in
      order to pursue its narrow interests. This is clearly a matter that requires an
      international consensus concerning the response.

      Is there a better way? YES.

      Instead of breaking the law, inciting chaos, and fighting a war to support an
      addiction to oil and the financial interests of oil companies and their
      administration allies, we could adopt a saner energy policy based on
      efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy. Such a policy would reduce our
      dependence on foreign oil and preserves our credibility in the international
      community. The choices are clear: wean ourselves from oil, or further embroil
      ourselves in international incidents staged to keep the oil flowing to the US.


      URGE PRESIDENT BUSH NOT TO UNILATERALLY ATTACK IRAQ AND TO SUPPORT A SANER
      ENERGY POLICY THAT REDUCES OUR DEPENDENCE ON OIL AND PRESER
    • Gość: mirmat Rosja/Francja : ropa cenniejsza niż krew IP: *.dialup.eol.ca 25.10.02, 21:00
      Najwiekszym bestialstwem ostatnich lat jest wymordowanie 2 milionoe chrzescijan
      przez muzulmanow w Sudanie. Sudan posiada duze zasoby ropy ale Ameryka
      zdecydowanie odmowila jej eksploatacji i potepila Sudanskich islamistow. Na to
      jak na lato zabojady, ktorzy z wprawa prostytutki zaczely obslugiwac Sudanskich
      mordercow. Ci sami Francuzi sa najwierniejszymi milosnikami wladcow na Kremlu.
      Oczywiscie Rosyjska ropa nie ma nic z tym wspolnego.
      • Gość: diabeł Kanada IP: *.krakow.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl 07.11.02, 01:49
        Gość portalu: mirmat napisał(a):

        > Najwiekszym bestialstwem ostatnich lat jest wymordowanie 2 milionoe
        chrzescijan
        >
        > przez muzulmanow w Sudanie. Sudan posiada duze zasoby ropy ale Ameryka
        > zdecydowanie odmowila jej eksploatacji i potepila Sudanskich islamistow. Na
        to
        > jak na lato zabojady, ktorzy z wprawa prostytutki zaczely obslugiwac
        Sudanskich
        >
        > mordercow. Ci sami Francuzi sa najwierniejszymi milosnikami wladcow na
        Kremlu.
        > Oczywiscie Rosyjska ropa nie ma nic z tym wspolnego.

        ja wszedzie czytam co innego :

        /../The Talisman Oil Company of Canada, in which the PC(USA) is a major
        shareholder, is one of the main partners with the Sudanese government in oil
        production in Sudan.

        Oil revenues generated by Talisman Oil in Sudan are providing resources, both
        financial and physical, for the Sudan government to continue its war against
        the southern Sudanese.

        Talisman Oil Company has yet to respond positively to shareholder initiatives
        to amend its involvement with the government of Sudan to protect the rights of
        the people of Sudan. /.../




    • Gość: diabeł What does Russia see in Chechnya? Oil IP: *.krakow.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl 26.10.02, 13:48
      What does Russia see in Chechnya? Oil
      By Andrew Meier
      Date: January 20, 1995
      www.amina.com/article/wha_oil.html
      Of the many issues baffling Western observers about Russia's intervention in
      Chechnya, the question of timing
    • Gość: diabeł USA-Iraq Conflict: The Oil Angle IP: *.krakow.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl 26.10.02, 15:30
      USA-Iraq Conflict: The Oil Angle

      [ D: wszystkie mapy i tabele : 216.239.51.100/search?
      q=cache:UNMuEjfzV08J:www.networkideas.org/news/sep02/news24_USA_Iraq_Conflict_Oi
      l.htm+oil+iraq+usa+war&hl=en&ie=UTF-8]

      Parthapratim Pal

      The ongoing tension between Iraq and the USA is having a direct impact on
      global oil prices. Initially the threat of a US attack on Iraq pushed up oil
      prices to a nineteen-month high in August this year. But after Iraq agreed to
      unconditionally allow U.N. weapons' inspectors to visit Iraq, the forward
      prices of Brent Crude for November delivery fell by 101 cents, or 3.5 per cent,
      to $27.53 a barrel on London's International Petroleum Exchange. However, the
      real implications of the USA-Iraq conflict may go well beyond short-term oil
      price movements and can have a profound impact on the future global oil
      scenario.

      Oil has always been an important factor in the USA - Iraq conflict. The Gulf
      War was prompted by Iraq's attack on Kuwait was because Iraq suspected Kuwait
      of extracting oil from its reserves. Recently, the deputy prime minister of
      Iraq, Tariq Aziz, commented that Iraqs cooperation with UN weapons' inspectors
      will not stop the US from attacking Iraq because "America . . . wants to
      control the oil in Iraq". He further added, "The only way to control the oil in
      Iraq is to destroy and divide Iraq and bring in a government like in
      Afghanistan." (CNN website, September 2002).

      It may be difficult, given the information currently available, to conclusively
      establish Aziz's fears. But a look at the current global oil scenario reveals
      some interesting facts. The USA is the largest consumer of oil in the world.
      According to data published on the website of British Petroleum
      (www.bp.com/),[1] the USA consumes about 895.6 million tonnes of oil,
      which is about 25.5 per cent of global oil consumption. Domestic oil production
      in the USA in 2001 was about 351.7 million tonnes. Calculations show that at
      this rate of oil production, the oil reserves of the USA will be exhausted in
      about ten and a half year's time.
      Oil import data of the USA show that it has a diversified source of oil
      suppliers. Figure 1, which shows the distribution of suppliers of oil to the
      USA, reveals that about 49 per cent of US oil imports are from various
      countries in North and South America, 25 per cent is from the Middle East and
      the rest is from other sources which include Europe and Africa.

      The British Petroleum website also provides data on proven oil reserves of the
      major oil producers of the world. To estimate how long the oil reserves of
      major oil suppliers to the USA will last, a simple calculation is carried out
      here. Two assumptions are made for the calculation. The first assumption is
      that countries will continue producing oil at the current level (i.e. at the
      level of 2001) and secondly, no new oil reserves will be discovered in these
      countries. Under these assumptions, dividing the proven oil reserves of a
      country by its current level of production should give the number of years the
      oil reserves of a country is going to last. The results of the calculation are
      shown in Table 1. While this calculation will not give an accurate picture of
      the future global oil scenario, the results of Table 1 can be used as a rough
      benchmark to assess the future of oil producers. The results show that, apart
      from Venezuela and the countries of the Middle East, the oil reserves of other
      oil suppliers to the USA will be exhausted within the next forty-one years. It
      is interesting to note that, at the current rate of production, the oil
      reserves of Iraq and Kuwait will last much longer. In fact, according to the
      calculations, the oil reserves of these two countries will survive the longest
      period of time.[2]

      Table 1. Number of Years a Country's Oil Reserve is expected to last

      Country Years

      Iraq 128.98
      Other Former Soviet Union 16.05
      Kuwait 127.70
      Romania 16.01
      United Arab Emirates 114.81
      Iran 67.25
      Trinidad & Tobago 15.34
      Saudi Arabia 85.13
      Other Asia Pacific 15.13
      Iran 67.25
      Oman 14.77
      Azerbaijan 67.02
      Republic of Congo (Brazzaville) 14.34
      Venezuela 63.58
      Ecuador 14.18
      Qatar 55.57
      Thailand 14.17
      Other S. & Cent. America 41.21
      Uzbekistan 13.77
      Nigeria 30.41
      Australia 12.56
      Kazakhstan 27.71
      Turkmenistan 12.47
      Cameroon 24.69
      Denmark 11.81
      Italy 24.42
      Malaysia 11.40
      Yemen 23.08
      Syria 10.99
      Mexico 21.52
      Egypt 10.72
      Brunei 21.05
      USA 10.52
      Gabon 19.97
      Indonesia 10.21
      Angola 19.44
      Argentina 9.85
      Russian Federation 19.25
      Norway 8.02
      Algeria 18.25
      Colombia 6.44
      Brazil 18.09
      Canada 6.20
      United Kingdom 5.94
      Vietnam 5.85

      Source: Calculated using data from
      www.bp.com/downloads/1086/bp_stats_history.xls
      However, there is a possibility that due to restrictions imposed on export of
      oil from Iraq, Iraq's current level of oil production is less than its normal
      level. If this is true, using current oil production data will overestimate the
      sustainability of oil reserves in Iraq. Figure 2 shows Iraq's oil production
      data for the period 1965 to 2001. From the figure it is evident that though
      production of oil in Iraq declined after the Gulf War of 1991, it gradually
      increased from 1996 and in 2001 it was at a reasonably high level. Therefore,
      using oil production data of 2001 to calculate the sustainability of reserves
      should not distort the calculations for Iraq.

      The above analysis shows that the oil reserves of the three countries from the
      Middle East, viz. Iraq, Kuwait and UAE, are likely to last longer than the oil
      reserves of any other country. These reserves can, therefore, become great
      strategic assets in the near future, and getting control of them can become
      crucial for a global hegemon like the USA. It is also notable that, apart from
      Iraq, the USA has friendly regimes in the other two Middle Eastern countries.
      Therefore, a regime more friendly than the current one in Iraq is definitely of
      strategic significance to the USA in the medium and long run.

      [1] BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2002.
      [2] This test is also carried out using last ten years' average oil production
      data. The results from both the tests yield similar conclusions. In fact, if
      one uses the average oil production data for the last ten years to calculate
      the sustainability of the oil reserves, then it shows that the oil reserves of
      Iraq and Kuwait will last longer than what is indicated in Table 1. It also
      shows that the oil reserves of the USA will be exhausted in 9.7 years. Also see
      Figure 2 and the discussion about Iraq's oils production below.


      • Gość: diabelek Re: USA-Iraq Conflict: The Oil Angle IP: *.netcom.ca 26.10.02, 16:45
        No dobra Diable krakowski. A teraz napisz po polsku co Ty sam o tym myslisz.
        • Gość: diabeł Re: USA-Iraq Conflict: The Oil Angle IP: *.krakow.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl 26.10.02, 17:10
          Gość portalu: diabelek napisał(a):

          > No dobra Diable krakowski. A teraz napisz po polsku co Ty sam o tym myslisz.

          to przecież oczywiste. w przypadku konfliktów bliskowschodniego i kaukaskiego
          ropa i jej strategiczne znaczenia mają bardzo duże znaczenie. nie mówi się tego
          wprost stosując propagande o pokoju, terroryzmie itp.

          pytanie : czy powinniśmy odbierać (kontrolować) złoża ropy krajom arabskim
          i czy mamy do tego prawo?

          wygląda na to, że prawa nie mamy bo cel ten jest maskowany.

          rozumiem, że USA, GB, Rosja chcą kontrolować strategiczne tereny roponośne.
          czy oznacza to , że trzeba eksterminować miliony ludzi ?

          to może Ty mi na to odpowiesz.
          • Gość: ucho b*** Re: USA-Iraq Conflict: The Oil Angle IP: *.netcom.ca 27.10.02, 16:05
            Gość portalu: diabeł napisał(a):

            > Gość portalu: diabelek napisał(a):
            >
            > > No dobra Diable krakowski. A teraz napisz po polsku co Ty sam o tym myslis
            > z.
            >
            > to przecież oczywiste. w przypadku konfliktów bliskowschodniego i kaukaskiego
            > ropa i jej strategiczne znaczenia mają bardzo duże znaczenie. nie mówi się
            tego
            >
            > wprost stosując propagande o pokoju, terroryzmie itp.
            >
            > pytanie : czy powinniśmy odbierać (kontrolować) złoża ropy krajom arabskim
            > i czy mamy do tego prawo?
            >
            > wygląda na to, że prawa nie mamy bo cel ten jest maskowany.
            >
            > rozumiem, że USA, GB, Rosja chcą kontrolować strategiczne tereny roponośne.
            > czy oznacza to , że trzeba eksterminować miliony ludzi ?
            >
            > to może Ty mi na to odpowiesz.
            -------------
            To jest pytanie dla pp. Putina , Busha i niektorych biznesmenow ,ktorzy
            maja na nich wplyw.

            • Gość: ucho b*** $, ropa, Rosja i czeczenscy gorale IP: *.netcom.ca 27.10.02, 16:12

              The main events leading to the new war clearly indicate that Russia's principal
              concerns lie in the production, transport and control of the oil from this
              region. The first Chechen war ended with the Khasavyurt peace agreement with
              allowed for Russian repair and reopening of the Chechen section of the pipeline
              from Baku to Novorossiysk. This pipeline is extremely important to Russia. Not
              only does the Russian pipeline monopoly "Transneft" earn transit fees of up to
              $300 million annually from this line, its successful operation will determine
              routes of future oil and gas pipelines. The pipeline was reopened in October
              1997, but the Chechens, who following the first war had achieved a de-facto
              independence, demanded a greater share of the transit income than the Russians
              were prepared to give them. Russia then began a series of moves to eliminate
              the need to deal with Chechnia at all. Work on a new pipeline by-passing the
              Chechen section of the pipeline via Daghestan was started and at the same time
              Moscow constructed both a new railway linking the Daghestan capital, Mahackale
              to the Russian rail network, and new power lines connecting Dagestan directly
              to the Russian power grid. Both these last two measures eliminated the need to
              use existing links, which passed through the Chechen capital Grozny and, of
              course, enabled power and rail links to Chechnia to be cut without affecting
              Dagestan and Azerbaijan. The Chechens responded by siphoning oil from the
              pipeline and finally by sabotaging it. Transneft was forced to close the
              pipeline in June 99 because of what it described as "attacks by Chechen
              bandits." The by-pass pipeline was not complete so Russia proceeded to
              transport oil by rail through Dagestan thereby by-passing the Chechen section
              of the pipeline and depriving the Chechens of any income from the line
              whatsoever. In August Chechen fighters entered Dagestan and declared the whole
              Caucasus region an independent Islamic state. This move, of course, cut the
              rail route and effectively undermined Russian attempts to by-pass Chechnia and
              fulfil its contracts to Azerbaijan oil companies. It was this move, which
              provoked the all out war with Chechnia. Although the terrorist bombings of
              flats in Moscow and other cities in September which killed over 300 Russian
              workers provided the pretext and ideological justification for the war they
              were not the cause of the war. There is considerable doubt over whether the
              Chechens were even responsible for these bombings. The claim that it was the
              Russian security forces who planted the bombs is entirely credible (see
              Revolutionary Perspectives 15).

              The Baku/Novorossiysk pipeline is the first of a number of new oil and gas
              pipelines, which are due to be constructed through the area. A new pipeline is
              required for the Caspian oil fields since the existing pipeline is far too
              small to take the future production, a new pipeline is required from the Tengiz
              oil fields in Kazakhstan and a gas pipeline is needed from the Turkmenistan gas
              fields to Europe. Flows of oil and gas are set to increase dramatically in the
              next decade. The "early" Caspian oil, for example, which is due for the next
              two years will be approximately 20 million tonnes annually but the main oil is
              expected to be over 70 million tonnes per year. Transit fees alone could be
              billions of dollars. Russia, of course, wishes to route all the new pipelines
              through its territory and so gain both the income and the control which this
              will bring. All these projects are threatened by the anarchy in Chechnia and
              Transneft's inability to keep the existing pipeline operating. If Russia cannot
              control events in Chechnia, which is part of its own territory, her ability to
              influence what happens in the three independent republics to the south,
              Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia, will vanish. Pipelines will be routed
              elsewhere.
            • Gość: diabeł Re: USA-Iraq Conflict: The Oil Angle IP: *.krakow.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl 28.10.02, 10:23
              Gość portalu: ucho b*** napisał(a):

              > Gość portalu: diabeł napisał(a):
              >
              > > Gość portalu: diabelek napisał(a):
              > >
              > > > No dobra Diable krakowski. A teraz napisz po polsku co Ty sam o tym m
              > yslis
              > > z.
              > >
              > > to przecież oczywiste. w przypadku konfliktów bliskowschodniego i kaukaski
              > ego
              > > ropa i jej strategiczne znaczenia mają bardzo duże znaczenie. nie mówi się
              >
              > tego
              > >
              > > wprost stosując propagande o pokoju, terroryzmie itp.
              > >
              > > pytanie : czy powinniśmy odbierać (kontrolować) złoża ropy krajom arabskim
              > > i czy mamy do tego prawo?
              > >
              > > wygląda na to, że prawa nie mamy bo cel ten jest maskowany.
              > >
              > > rozumiem, że USA, GB, Rosja chcą kontrolować strategiczne tereny roponośne
              > .
              > > czy oznacza to , że trzeba eksterminować miliony ludzi ?
              > >
              > > to może Ty mi na to odpowiesz.
              > -------------
              > To jest pytanie dla pp. Putina , Busha i niektorych biznesmenow ,ktorzy
              > maja na nich wplyw.

              Nie. To jest pytanie dla tych wszystkich którzy popierają Busha i Putina.

              >
    • Gość: diabeł 'New World Order' IP: *.krakow.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl 30.10.02, 09:10
      THE FALKLANDS ALTERNATIVE Copyright Joe Vialls, 1991 - 1995
      For decades the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has coveted global
      domination, not with the consent of the American people but rather by directing
      the actions of the American President as a child pulls the strings of a limp
      puppet. The term 'New World Order' was coined back in the late sixties by the
      CIA, not by a democratically elected leader of the American people. With the
      collapse of the USSR the CIA saw its chance and pushed for global domination by
      manipulation of world oil reserves. Its prime objective of developing the vast
      but little-known oil reserves in the British dominated Falkland Islands had
      been frustrated since the early 1980s by oil prices too low to finance
      expensive Falklands exploration. Intending to 'bounce' oil prices high enough
      by forcibly reducing Middle East production, all the CIA needed was an excuse,
      which was miraculously provided in 1990 by President Hussein of Iraq.
      Thomas Reeve Pickering, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and the
      Bush Administration's champion for compulsory democracy, cut a dashing figure.
      Tall and urbane, he looked the perfect statesman as he hurled vitriolic remarks
      at the countries of the Middle East during 1990 and 1991. There is no doubt
      that after sustained exposure, most television viewers believed Pickering's
      carefully structured UN presentations.
      Enter `Thomas Reeve Pickering' into any counter-intelligence computer
      and the machine groans with agony as it struggles to flood the screen with an
      overwhelming mass of data. Tanzania? Jordan? Washington's war on Nicaragua?
      Pickering was around for all of them and many more. He was even in El Salvador
      during the period the CIA supervised the `Death Squads' responsible for the
      torture, assassination and disappearance of more innocent people than could be
      counted.
      It is possible, though unlikely, that the numbers who died in El
      Salvador might have exceeded those who died at the hands of the Shah's hated
      `Savak' secret police in Iran. As with the death squads in El Salvador, Savak
      had its torture and assassination techniques honed to perfection by the CIA.
      Back in 1974 Victor Marchetti, formerly an Executive Assistant to the
      Deputy Director of the CIA, wrote of the `New Order' then being planned at
      Langley headquarters. He explained in chilling terms why resignation was his
      only honourable choice:
      " And there was a diabolical invention that might be called a mini-
      cannon" ... "There were a number of uses for the mini-cannon, one of which was
      demonstrated to us using an old army school bus. It was fastened to the
      gasoline tank in such a fashion that the incendiary projectile would rupture
      the tank and fling flaming gasoline the length of the bus interior,
      incinerating anyone inside. It was my lot to show the rest of the class how
      easily it could be done. It worked, my God, how it worked. It was, I guess, the
      moment of truth. What did a busload of burning people have to do with freedom?
      What right did I have, in the name of democracy and the CIA, to decide that
      random victims should die? The intellectual game was over. I had to leave. "
      Victor Marchetti resigned before the CIA decided to target the Middle
      East in its attempt to shift primary oil production from the Persian Gulf to
      the Falkland Islands. However, evidence the CIA maintained its vicious
      determination to murder random innocent victims by the thousand was soon to be
      provided in the Middle East with sickening massacres in both Iraq and Kuwait.
      The CIA's first priority was `putting men on the ground' in the
      Middle East as intelligence operatives. Despite the sophistication of
      reconnaissance satellites there was no substitute for human beings capable of
      infiltrating and undermining foreign sovereign governments: the Agency's normal
      method of operation.
      From the outset the CIA recognised two countries in particular would
      be very difficult to undermine easily: Iraq and Libya. The Agency infiltrated
      the Kurdish population in the north of Iraq but failed to gain the influence it
      needed. Sceptical readers should note that all Kurds inside Iraq are now known
      as `Freedom Fighters' while their brethren north of the border in NATO Turkey
      are labeled `Terrorists'.
      The governments of Iraq and Libya managed to foil dozens of CIA
      attempts aimed not only at infiltration but also assassination of the Iraqi and
      Libyan heads of state. One CIA report written in 1985 referred to a failed
      attempt to murder Colonel Al Qadhafi, stating the hired killers were
      `inefficient'. Ex. CIA Deputy Director John McMahon echoed the criticism.
      If Middle East oil production was to be drastically reduced to
      increase world oil prices to the point where the Falklands oil reserves could
      be exploited, the timing of the CIA's Gulf "war" was critical. Equally critical
      was the need for large numbers of sneak bombing attacks on Middle East
      civilians in order to shatter public morale as quickly as possible.
      On 12 July 1990 during a small ceremony at the Lockheed `Skunk Works'
      in California, the last of 59 deadly F117A stealth bombers was handed over to
      its new owners: the 37th Tactical Fighter Wing, normally hidden deep in the
      remote Nevada desert at its secret `black' Tonopah air base.
      Though the F117A was labeled the "Stealth Fighter" in order to
      deceive American taxpayers, it was no such thing. The F117A was designed using
      low-visibility data provided by the CIA as a black project killing-machine
      capable only of slaughtering under the cloak of darkness, very much in the
      tradition of assassins of old. Nor was the F117A very accurate: during the only
      operational mission before the Gulf debacle, two stealth bombers attacked an
      army barracks in Panama where both missed their targets completely. There would
      be many more `misses' in the densely populated city of Baghdad.
      Three weeks after the last stealth bomber flew into Tonopah, Iraqi
      forces invaded Kuwait and the 37th Tactical Fighter Wing was given a new
      commander, Colonel Alton Whitley. Within four hours of Whitley taking command
      the stealth bombers were ordered to fly to Saudi Arabia via Langley air force
      base in Virginia under cover of darkness. The United Nations had not yet
      responded to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, but the stealth bombers were already
      being positioned for their attack runs.
      The CIA was well aware of President Hussein's armed forces massing to
      the north of the Kuwaiti border during 1990. Despite the fact it had many days
      of advance warning the CIA failed to tell the Kuwaiti government of the
      forthcoming attack. With all the sophisticated communications at its disposal
      it was a truly damning omission that escaped western media attention, pointing
      directly at CIA manipulation of the invasion itself.
      Millions of television viewers watched the most damning evidence of
      CIA premeditation but most failed to recognise it. though European troops were
      rushed to the Gulf in out-of-date ill-fitting desert camouflage there was no
      such problem for the US forces. Despite the fact America has never fought a
      large-scale desert campaign, nearly a quarter of a million US troops arrived in
      Saudi Arabia wearing well fitting post-Vietnam pattern desert camouflage.
      Someone somewhere had done a vast amount of covert advance planning and
      purchasing for the desert campaign, because no nation of earth keeps a quarter
      million uniforms on hand for every different climate zone in the world.
      From that point forward white became black and black became white -
      courtesy of the CIA `Psychological & Paramilitary Staff' unit operating under
      the direction of the Deputy Director Plans (DDP).
      • Gość: diabeł 'New World Order' cd IP: *.krakow.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl 31.10.02, 19:54
        For decades the unit has specialized in deception and abuse at the
        psychological level, fitting it perfectly for the role of turning both
        President Hussein and Colonel Al Qadhafi into "non-democratic dictators" in the
        eyes of the west.
        The most memorable (and successful) of the ploys used was to turn
        President Hussein into the man who `gassed his own Kurds' at Halabja. The same
        devastating images of dead women and children lying in the streets were shown
        thousands of times on all western television channels, placing President
        Hussein well beyond western `rehabilitation' under any circumstances.
        Unfortunately the entire exercise was a complete lie. The CIA knew
        very well that a February 1990 US Army War College report concluded Iraq was
        not responsible for the Halabja attack, stating it was the Iranian bombardment
        that had actually killed the Kurds.' The War College findings were hardly
        surprising: the Kurdish people of Halabja were killed by a war gas known
        as "Phosgene" used by the Iranians but not the Iraqis. Though Iraq did use war
        gas on the battlefield it was "Mustard", an entirely different chemical which
        causes death in a visibly different way, enabling US Army chemical warfare
        experts to easily identify the attack as Iranian in origin.
        Though many readers may say "so what?" the distinction is important
        in identifying CIA media techniques used to deliberately distort the perception
        of the western public. When the US Administration was looking for an excuse to
        use ground forces to finish off the people in Kuwait, the CIA flashed a story
        round the world about Iraqi soldiers ripping new-born Kuwaiti babies out of
        their incubators and throwing them on the floor. As with the Kurds of Halabja
        the story was proved totally false, though not before US tanks had buried 8,000
        Iraqi soldiers alive in their bunkers and destroyed half the ground
        installations in Kuwait and southern Iraq. Disinformation is critically
        important to the CIA, for without it the Agency would be unable to whip up
        sufficient public outrage to justify its savage attacks.
        For an alert western public there were other indications that neither
        President Hussein or Colonel Al Qadhafi were dictators who habitually murdered
        their own citizens. If that was the case there would be no point in both of
        them training huge numbers of doctors, for doctors cure people - they do not
        kill. While Saudi Arabia and Great Britain (two of the coalition partners) have
        only one doctor for every 4,321 and 4,632 people respectively, Iraq has one
        doctor for every 2,303. Colonel Al Qadhafi has trained a stunning one doctor
        for every 757 people. Facts like these were considered counter-productive to
        the CIA's aims and were ruthlessly suppressed.
        Boosted by CIA lies and disinformation the Bush Administration pushed
        with indecent haste for military action against President Hussein. After
        successfully applying pressure to the United Nations Security Council, the Bush
        Administration ordered its stealth bombers to attack the capital of Iraq
        instead of the forces occupying Kuwait. Under cover of darkness during the
        night of 16-17 January 1991 the first F117As flew out of Khamis Mushait in
        southern Saudi Arabia to start the killing in Baghdad. The `black' stealth
        bombers were to fly a total of 1,271 missions in less than six weeks, dropping
        more than five million pounds of bombs on populated areas.
        The total bombardment was awesome and sickening: 88,000 tons of
        bombs, 97% of which flew wide of their targets, ripping more than 70,000
        innocent women and children to bloody shreds and maiming countless thousands
        more. Sadly, the dead and maimed women and children were only a sideshow for
        the primary CIA objective of manipulating world oil reserves.
        Around 16 February 1991 American AV8B Harrier ground-attack jets
        started flying with wing-mounted napalm pods. Less than a week later on 22
        February President Bush accused Iraqi forces of lighting 140+ oil wells in
        Kuwait. If the Iraqi forces had done so they managed it while under continual
        attack by about 2,500 coalition aircraft: an act of crass stupidity or
        outstanding bravery in the face of stupefying American firepower.
        Somehow the western media missed the point that napalm burns at a temperature
        high enough to melt the side-pipes on oil wellheads and is capable of setting
        fire to the crude oil which then blasts out under high pressure. Most of the
        public also remained unaware that CIA pilots are cross-trained to fly a large
        variety of both military and civilian aircraft.
        During this precise period Kuwaiti Air Force pilots were grounded in
        Saudi Arabia on the orders of the American Commander in Chief. It is left to
        the reader to speculate why the U.S. high command ensured that no native
        Kuwaiti pilot be allowed to fly over his own oil fields during this specific
        phase of the operation.
        Within 24 hours of the Bush accusation the Iraqi government denied setting fire
        to the oil wells and urgently called on the United Nations Security Council to
        send a team to "Investigate the destruction of non-military installations in
        Kuwait": a curious response from the Iraqi government if it was guilty of the
        alleged crime. The American-dominated Security Council dismissed the request
        out of hand.
        When the Iraqis retreated from Kuwait, American forces violated
        mutually agreed cease-fire terms by shooting more people in the back with
        radioactive 30mm Depleted Uranium (DU) shells than Joe Stalin could have
        imagined in his most vivid dream. Unluckily for its human targets, the CIA was
        out to prove Joe Stalin a mere simpleton with a strictly limited imagination.
    • Gość: diabeł USA : ropa cenniejsza niż krew IP: *.krakow.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl 02.11.02, 08:00
      BP CEO warns against Iraqi oil carve-up by US firms
      By Terry Macalister



      LONDON, 31 October — The chief executive of BP, Lord Browne, who is one of the
      British government’s favorite industrialists, has warned Washington not to
      carve up Iraq for its own oil companies in the aftermath of any future war.

      The comments from the most senior European oil executive, who has impeccable
      political connections in the UK, will be seen by anti-war protesters as further
      proof that US President George Bush has already made his mind up about an early
      attack.

      They will also serve to underline concern that the US is primarily concerned
      with seizing control of Saddam Hussein’s oil and handing it over to companies
      such as ExxonMobil rather than destroying his weapons of mass destruction.

      Britain’s biggest company is reviewing what impact a regime change in Baghdad
      would have on its own business and global crude supplies.

      Both London and Washington have been lobbied by the UK oil giant, which is
      concerned that European companies could be left out in the cold.

      "We have let it be known that the thing we would like to make sure, if Iraq
      changes regime, is that there should be a level playing field for the selection
      of oil companies to go in there if they’re needed to do the work there," said
      Lord Browne Tuesday at a briefing on the company’s results.

      Lord Browne said that most exploration for new supplies had halted there when
      the Iraqis nationalized their industry. But he believed there was a plenty of
      oil and gas waiting to be discovered in Iraq and that BP should be in prime
      position to capitalize because it had found most of the country’s oil before
      being thrown out in the 1970s.

      BP said it had had no contact with Baghdad since 1989. Iraq’s reserves amount
      to 115 billion barrels of oil, making it the biggest source of oil in the world
      behind Saudi Arabia.

      Lord Browne’s views will be listened to carefully in London because the BP
      executive team has such close links with the UK government that it was once
      dubbed Blair Petroleum. A number of former BP executives, such as Lord Simon,
      have been seconded into the British civil service while one of Blair’s personal
      assistants, Anji Hunter, joined Lord Browne’s team.

      Impending war with Iraq has given a financial boost to BP and other Western oil
      firms by driving up the price of oil to $27 per barrel. (The Guardian)

    • Gość: diabeł Sudan : Western Firms and Genocide IP: *.krakow.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl 07.11.02, 01:22
      No Blood for Oil!
      Western Firms and Genocide in Southern Sudan
      http://www.gfbv.de/gfbv_e/docus/report/sudan_e.htm
      Genocide in Southern Sudan

      Sudan has systematically violated the UN-Convention on the prevention of
      genocide and the criminal punishment of those who engage in genocide since its
      independence in 1956. In the 1950s and the 1960s entire village communities
      were destroyed, members of Christian communities were held captive in their
      churches and then burned to death, Southern Sudanese leaders were liquidated
      and countless Southern Sudanese were tortured to death. An agreement that was
      negotiated in 1972 with the Southern Sudanese resistance movement, and was to
      allow for the independence of Southern Sudan, was systematically hollowed out
      by the government in Khartoum and was ultimately completely undermined. In 1983
      the Islamic-Fundamentalist government of Northern Sudan, which is predominantly
      Arabic, began fighting a brutal new civil war. Almost 2.5 million Black-African
      Southern Sudanese died as a result of famine and war, while fleeing, or as a
      result of massacres or mass expulsions. In 1992 the military junta in Khartoum
      declared the genocide of the Southern Sudanese a „holy war“. Since its
      establishment more than 30 years ago, The Society for Threatened Peoples (GfbV)
      has fought for the human rights of the Black-Africans of Southern Sudan and
      against genocide and the enslavement of the Southern Sudanese and Nuba. To
      support the Southern Sudanese the Society for Threatened Peoples has arranged
      countless campaigns, public demonstrations and press conferences.

      The oil fields in Southern Sudan ...

      ...hold up to three billion barrels of crude oil (1 Barrel = ca. 159 l). The
      oil wells have been up and running since August 30, 1999, but in approximately
      15 years the oil fields will be emptied of their oil. The wealth produced by
      the export of oil is bought with blood, since the oil fields are in a region
      where a brutal war has been raging for 34 years. The troops of Sudan’s radical
      Islamic military regime, and the militias and units of the Sudan People’s
      Liberation Army (SPLA), wage war against each other in the oilregion of Unity
      State. Simultaneously, both sides are engaged in a war against the civilian
      population. Actually, the Black-African and predominantly Christian peoples,
      the Dinka and the Nuer, who live on land where the oil was found, ought to be
      rich. Instead, famine, starvation and death plague the Dinka and the Nuer. The
      oil deposits in Southern Sudan were partially responsible for the destruction,
      in 1983, of the 1972 Addis-Abeba Agreement, which had guaranteed the South
      partial autonomy and had introduced a period of relative peace. In 1983 the
      Sudanese government in Khartoum eliminated the South’s right to partial
      autonomy and created a new territory out of the Upper Nile, Unity, North and
      West Bahr El Ghazal, Buheirat, Warab, West and East Equatoria provinces. Since
      then a brutal war is raging in Southern Sudan once again.

      Power struggle between Al-Turabi and General Al-Bashir ?

      On June 30, 1989 General Al-Bashir led a military coup and took control of the
      government. He ruled with the support of the National Islamic Front (NIF), a
      fundamentalist, radical Islamic Party led by the ideologist Hassan Al-Turabi.
      At the end of 1999 the long growing power struggle between Al-Turabi and
      General Al-Bashir became an open topic (BBC, 12/16/1999). By means of a
      presidential decree on Dec. 12, 1999 Turabi was given an administrative
      position. But Turabi was not completely weakened by this move. Turabi still
      plays an influential role in the NIF since only one of seven newly elected
      Party Secretaries supports Bashir (Reuters, 3/2/2000). In public speeches
      Turabi has castigated General Bashir and accused him of allowing the regime to
      veer from its Islamic course. In reaction to such statements Bashir has
      forbidden Turabi from making public appearances (AFB, 2/28/2000). Even if
      Bashir does dominate Sudanese politics in the near future, this will not
      necessarily lead to an improvement of the human rights conditions in Sudan. On
      March 13, 2000 the news agency MISNA reported that the Sharia had been used
      against 13 people. On March 6 Gasmalle Habib was hanged, Salik al Obeid’s right
      hand and left foot were amputated, and Ismael Khidir faced the same fate. The
      hands or feet of four other prisoners of the Khartoum Federal Prison were also
      amputated: Al Nur Mohamed Idris, Abdel Gayum Issa, Hisham Ahmed and Mohamed
      Abdalla Adam. The limbs of six people were removed.

      Oil Production - a State-goal

      Ever since the NIF-Regime declared oil production in the Unity State a State-
      goal, oil has played an increasingly large role in the worsening of conflicts
      in Sudan. Europe is also involved in these conflicts since European firms have
      purchased franchises in Sudan. In the meantime the pipeline running from the
      oil fields near Bentiu and Heglig to Port Sudan on the Red Sea has been put
      into operation. 500 km of this 1610 km long pipeline were build by Mannesmann,
      a German company. On Jan. 26, 2000 oilexports had reached 180,000 barrels per
      day (Dow Jones Newswire, 1/26/2000).
      Total est. size of oil deposits: 800 Mill – 3 Billion barrels of crude oil
      (1 barrel = ca. 159 Liter)
      Est. length of time till oil deposits are exhausted: 15 years
      Pipeline: 1610 km from Bentiu and Heglig through the Al-Jayli Refinery
      to Port Sudan
      Capacity: 250 000 b/T
      Diameter: 71 cm
      Most important oil fields: UNITY (Block 1), HEGLIG (Block 2), Block 5A,
      ADAR YALE (Block 3), ABU JABRA (Block 6)

      Pipeline under attack

      The Southern Sudanese resistance movement threatened to attack the pipeline
      during the construction of the pipeline and after oil production began. On
      September 19, 1999, exactly 20 days after the first shipments of crude oil had
      taken place, these threats were realized for the first time. The opposition to
      the Bashir-Regime is led by the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) which was
      founded in 1995 and includes Northern Sudanese political parties, the Umma
      Party, the Democratic Unionist and Communist Party, unions, the SPLA (an armed
      Southern Sudanese freedom movement) and the SPLA's political arm, the SPLM. The
      NDA is an umbrella organization that represents the majority of the Northern
      and Southern Sudanese citizens and took responsibility for the attack. With
      this attack the NDA has made it clear that it will not sit by and watch as the
      NIF-Government, in alliance with international firms, exploits Southern-Sudan's
      oil resources. Increasingly, the military conflicts between rebels, militias
      and government troops have shifted to the oilregions. The victims of these
      conflicts are primarily village residents who have nothing to do with the
      fighting. Their huts and fields are razed to the ground, and farmers are killed
      arbitrarily, kidnapped or expelled from the villages.

      The export of oil stabilizes the military regime...

      ...which uses the money earned through the export of oil to finance its war. In
      April 1999 Hassan Al Turabi openly announced that oil profits are used to
      purchase weapons (AFP, 4/30/1999). In the same month that the first oil tankers
      left Sudan filled with Sudanese oil, 20 T-55 tanks arrived in Sudan. The NIF-
      Government spends approximately half of the state budget, one million US
      dollars per-day, to finance the war in Southern Sudan. The profits from the
      export of oil are estimated at approximately 400 million US dollars per year.
      Such profits are more than sufficient to cover the costs of the war in Southern
      Sudan.

      European firms are also members of the international consortium of petroleum
      companies. As an automobile driver in Germany you may have already filled up
    • Gość: diabeł Afganistan IP: *.krakow.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl 11.11.02, 19:42
      FEBRUARY 2002
      http://prorev.com/bushwaroil.htm
      ||| DANIEL FISHER FORBES - It has been called the pipeline from hell, to hell,
      through hell. It's a 1,270-kilometer conduit, 1.2 meters in diameter, that
      would snake across Afghanistan to carry natural gas from eastern Turkmenistan-
      with 700 billion cubic meters of proven reserves-to energy-hungry Pakistan and
      beyond. Unocal of the U.S. and Bridas Petroleum of Argentina vied for the $1.9
      billion project in the 1990s. Now, with the collapse of the Taliban, oil
      executives are suddenly talking again about building it. "It is absolutely
      essential that the U.S. make the pipeline the centerpiece of rebuilding
      Afghanistan," says S. Rob Sobhani, a professor of foreign relations at
      Georgetown University and the head of Caspian Energy Consulting. The State
      Department thinks it's a great idea, too. Routing the gas through Iran would be
      avoided, and Central Asian republics wouldn't have to ship through Russian
      pipelines.

      MORE

      ENRON-AFGHAN CONNECTION

      ||| LARRY CHIN ONLINE JOURNAL - For years, Enron (along with Unocal, BP Amoco,
      Exxon, Mobil, Pennzoil, Atlantic Richfield, Chevron, Texaco, and other oil
      companies) has been involved in a multi-billion dollar frenzy to extract the
      reserves of the three former Soviet republics, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, and
      Kazakhstan. . . According to Alexander's Oil & Gas Connections, Enron signed a
      contract in 1996, giving it rights to explore 11 gas fields in Uzbekistan, a
      project costing $1.3 billion. The goal was to sell gas to the Russian markets,
      and link to Unocal's southern export pipeline crossing Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan
      and Afghanistan. . . Enron recently conducted feasibility studies for a $2.5
      billion trans-Caspian gas pipeline to be built jointly with General Electric
      and Bechtel. Enron's goal was to link this pipeline to another line through
      Afghanistan.

      As described in many accounts, notably the recently published "Osama Bin Laden:
      The Forbidden Truth" by Jean Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasique, a Central
      Asia Gas (CentGas) consortium led by Unocal had plans for a 1,005 mile oil
      pipeline and a 918 mile natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through
      Afghanistan to Pakistan. This project stalled because of the political
      instability in Afghanistan.

      Former Unocal lobbyist Hamid Karzai now heads a bombed and gutted Afghanistan.
      Bush's US envoy is Zalmay Khalizad, another former Unocal representative, who
      helped draw up the plans for the original CentGas pipeline. . . If Enron had
      not made the mistake of collapsing, Kenneth Lay and his team would be in the
      thick of it. MORE

      ||| RANJIT DEVRAJ, ASIA TIMES - Where the "great game" in Afghanistan was once
      about czars and commissars seeking access to the warm water ports of the
      Persian Gulf, today it is about laying oil and gas pipelines to the untapped
      petroleum reserves of Central Asia . . . "US influence and military presence in
      Afghanistan and the Central Asian states, not unlike that over the oil-rich
      Gulf states, would be a major strategic gain," said V R Raghavan, a strategic
      analyst and former general in the Indian army. Raghavan believes that the
      prospect of a western military presence in a region extending from Turkey to
      Tajikistan could not have escaped strategists who are now readying a military
      campaign aimed at changing the political order in Afghanistan, accused by the
      United States of harboring Osama bin Laden . . . [A] study by the Institute for
      Afghan Studies placed the total worth of oil and gas reserves in the Central
      Asian republics at around US$3 trillion at last year's prices. Not only can
      Afghanistan play a role in hosting pipelines connecting Central Asia to
      international markets, but the country itself has significant oil and gas
      deposits. During the Soviets' decade-long occupation of Afghanistan, Moscow
      estimated Afghanistan's proven and probable natural gas reserves at around five
      trillion cubic feet and production reached 275 million cubic feet per day in
      the mid-1970s . . . According to observers, one problem is the uncertainty over
      who the beneficiaries in Afghanistan would be - the opposition Northern
      Alliance, the Taliban, the Afghan people or indeed, whether any of these would
      benefit at all . . . The "coalition against terrorism" that US President George
      W Bush is building now is the first opportunity that has any chance of making
      UNOCAL's wish come true. If the coalition succeeds, Raghavan said, it has the
      potential of "reconfiguring substantially the energy scenarios for the 21st
      century." MORE
      JANUARY 2002

      [Now, apparently, it's safe to talk about]

      ||| PETER SCHWEIZER, USA TODAY - Now that the war in Afghanistan is essentially
      over, pulling off the country's reconstruction will not be easy. But, as
      Secretary of State Colin Powell has said, the USA has "an enormous obligation
      to not leave the Afghan people in a lurch."
      One potential solution could give the United States an opportunity to help
      Afghanistan, help our friends and boost our own economy, all at the same time.
      For two centuries, Afghanistan has been a victim of its geography, wrangled
      over by others because of its strategic location. Now, as the United States
      looks toward rebuilding Afghanistan, geography may prove to be the country's
      best asset. North and west of Afghanistan are enormous oil and natural gas
      reserves in countries such as Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and
      Azerbaijan. The region's available but untapped energy resources are second
      only to those of the Middle East. Production in this area now is about 1
      million barrels a day. But daily production could rise to 3.4 million barrels
      or more by 2010 if a way is found to get the energy onto world markets. That's
      where Afghanistan becomes an intriguing option. During the 1990s, several
      groups of international energy companies considered building a massive pipeline
      from Central Asia to the sea, where ships could transport the oil to the world.
      One option was a pipeline to Turkey via Azerbaijan. Another was a pipeline
      across Iran to the Persian Gulf. A third option, considered by Unocal and
      others, was to construct a 1,040-mile pipeline that would cross Afghanistan to
      the Pakistani coast. The Afghan option made the most sense geographically, but
      never really went anywhere because of concerns about the Taliban and political
      instability. But the Bush administration now has the unique opportunity to push
      through the Afghan option. Almost everyone would reap enormous rewards:

      In Afghanistan, it would create jobs and generate hundreds of millions of
      dollars annually in fees. It also would help Afghanistan, which suffers from
      chronic energy problems but has no known oil or gas reserves, develop its coal
      resources. Additionally, with the relative prosperity that pipeline money could
      bring, many Afghans might reduce their incentives to produce illicit drugs such
      as opium.

      Building the pipeline would help Pakistan, where an oil terminal would have to
      be built. Pakistan has stood firmly with us during the war on terrorism. Like
      Afghanistan, the country is desperately in need of economic development.

      The Central Asian governments of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan would also benefit
      economically.

      The oil pipeline would send a powerful political message to the region: The
      United States will support those countries that support it.

      The United States would benefit from greater world energy production, which
      brings down prices. Lower oil prices are like a tax cut. They put more money in
      the pockets of U.S. consumers and businesses and strengthen the economy.

      [Schweizer is at the Hoover Institution] MORE

      ||| RANJIT DEVRAJ, ASIA TIMES - Where the "great game" in Afghanistan was once
      about czars and commissars seeking access to the warm water ports of the
      Persia
    • Gość: diabeł Irak: Szybka akcja, niskie ceny ropy IP: *.krakow.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl 12.11.02, 14:59
      info.onet.pl/587441,10,item.html
      Irak: Szybka akcja, niskie ceny ropy

      Szybka i udana akcja wojskowa przeciwko Irakowi to najbardziej prawdopodobny z
      czterech możliwych scenariuszy konfliktu rozważanych przez analityków Credit
      Suisse First Boston.

      Szanse takiego "przyjaznego rynkowi" scenariusza analitycy CSFB oceniają na 50
      proc., a docelową cenę baryłki ropy naftowej w razie jego realizacji na 19
      dolarów, a więc poniżej dolnego progu ustalonego przez OPEC (22-28 dolarów).

      Analitycy dają 20 proc. szans drugiemu scenariuszowi "rynkowej niepewności", a
      więc opóźnienia wojny. Docelowo cena ropy ustabilizowałaby się wówczas na 22
      dolarów za baryłkę.

      Taki scenariusz zrealizowałby się wówczas, gdyby Saddam Husajn "grał z
      inspektorami w kotka i myszkę", lub w razie komplikacji w Radzie Bezpieczeństwa
      przy okazji opracowywania rezolucji zatwierdzającej użycie siły.

      Nieco mniejsze, 15-procentowe prawdopodobieństwo CSFB widzi w możliwej
      wewnętrznej zmianie w Iraku polegającej na obaleniu Saddama Husajna w wyniku
      wojskowego przewrotu i pełnej współpracy z ONZ. Wtedy ropa kosztowałaby 20
      dolarów za baryłkę.

      Także na 15 proc. analitycy oceniają szansę scenariusza katastroficznego: długi
      i kosztowny konflikt z perspektywą zakłócenia dostaw ropy z Zatoki Perskiej w
      wyniku embarga Ligi Arabskiej lub akcji Iraku.

      Wynikiem takiego scenariusza mogłaby być także polityczna destabilizacja
      regionu Zatoki Perskiej. Cena ropy na światowych rynkach sięgnęłaby wówczas 45
      dolarów za baryłkę.

      "Najważniejsze w razie wybuchu konfliktu będzie stanowisko Arabii Saudyjskiej" -
      napisali analitycy CSFB.

      Kraj ten jest nie tylko największym producentem i eksporterem ropy, którego
      udział w globalnym rynku wyniósł 12,3 proc. w 2000 roku, ale co więcej ma
      największe możliwości zwiększenia wydobycia ze względu na niewykorzystany
      potencjał oceniany na 3 mln baryłek dziennie.

      Arabia Saudyjska zasygnalizowała gotowość współpracy z Waszyngtonem w
      ewentualnym ataku na Irak pod warunkiem, że USA uzyskają mandat ONZ.

      Irak eksportuje około 1,9 mln baryłek dziennie, co odpowiada około 2 proc.
      globalnej podaży i wstrzymanie dostaw produkcji irackiej ropy nie miało by
      daleko idących rynkowych konsekwencji biorąc pod uwagę, że OPEC ma
      niewykorzystane moce przerobowe oceniane na 4-5 mln baryłek dziennie.

      Innym czynnikiem stabilizującym rynek ropy w razie wybuchu konfliktu w Zatoce
      Perskiej są amerykańskie rezerwy tego surowca. W czasie operacji "Pustynna
      Burza" z 1991 roku Waszyngton zmniejszył swoje rezerwy o 10 mln baryłek, co
      spowodowało spadek ceny ropy o 10 dolarów.

      Zaistnienie "przyjaznego rynkowi" scenariusza oznaczałoby, że zniknąłby nie
      tylko rynkowy podatek wkalkulowany w cenę ropy, obecnie oceniany na około 5
      dolarów, ale co więcej "inwestorzy zaczęliby dyskontować perspektywę
      normalizacji produkcji irackiej ropy na poziomie około 2,8 mln baryłek dziennie
      wobec obecnej produkcji ocenianej na 2,5 mln baryłek dziennie".

      Irak ma drugie największe w świecie znane rezerwy ropy naftowej po Arabii
      Saudyjskiej.
Pełna wersja