thomas seifert blog

Donaupark Films präsentiert "5 Jahre danach"

2008-05-06T02:15:00.002+02:00

Bald geht mein Irak-Video "5 Jahre danach" online: www.diepresse.com/5jahredanach

Ich habe das Material seit meiner Rückkehr gesichtet und geschnitten, ich habe getextet und den Audio-Kommentar aufgesprochen. Nun ist der erste Teil (15 Minuten) fertig.

Die Vorspannmusik stammt von Pierre Gerwig Langer (Dynamedion Publishing-SESAC), Titel: "Move to Glory", die Abspannmusik von Gerhard Daum (ASCAP/GEMA), Titel: "Art of War". Es wurden Soundclips von Deutschlandradio, American Rhetoric Online Speech Bank und NPR verwendet. Einige Segmente wurden zudem mit einem zusammengeschnittenen Funkverkehrsmitschnitt unterlegt. Gefilmt wurde mit einer Panasonic HDTV DHC-SD5-Kamera (verwendet wurde auch ein Panasonic VW-W3707H Weitwinkelkonverter x 0.7), geschnitten mit Pinnacle Studio 11.1 Plus bzw. Samplitude Music Studio 2008 von Magix.
Als Produzenten fungieren die Donaupark Films und DiePresse.com

Irak-Reportage

2008-05-04T13:50:00.000+02:00

Meine Reportagen aus dem Irak sind online. Link: Thomas Seifert Irak Blog auf DiePresse.com

Reporter 08

2008-05-04T13:46:00.002+02:00

Die Ergebnisse der "Reporter08"-Reise mit Peter Babutzky zu den Zuckerrohrfeldern und Ethanolraffinerien in Brasilien sind online: Für den Link hier clicken!

Reporter 08

2007-10-02T18:02:00.000+02:00

DIE REPORTER VON MORGEN

Du hast eine Idee für eine Reportagereise oder wolltest schon immer aus einer spannenden Region der Welt berichten? Dann bewirb dich bis 28.10.2007 bei Reporter 08: "Die Presse" ermöglich es einem jungen Menschen, sein Vorhaben in die Tat umzusetzen. Der Gewinner oder die Gewinnerin reist gemeinsam mit Thomas Seifert, einem der profiliertesten Reporter Österreichs, in die vorgeschlagene Destination - und berichtet für die Tageszeitung "Die Presse" und online für DiePresse.com.

Reporter 08 richtet sich an junge, abenteuerlustige und neugierige Menschen im Alter von 18 bis 26, deren Horizont nicht an der Landesgrenze endet und die Reiseziele kennen lernen wollen, die man in keinem Reisebüro findet. Ein Städteurlaub in New York oder Paris ist somit nicht gemeint, ebenso wenig ein Erholungsurlaub auf Ibiza oder den Malediven.

Es gilt: Burundi oder Bolivien klingt spannender als Belgien, Liberia oder Laos interessanter als Liechtenstein. Was zählt, sind Ideen für gute Geschichten. Denn die Devise lautet:
Es geht um Journalismus, nicht Tourismus.

Du musst Dir die Frage stellen: Welche Probleme bewegen dich und die Welt? Worauf willst du den Blick lenken? Welche Länder und Kulturen wolltest du schon immer kennen lernen?

Alle Informationen und Online-Bewerbung: diepresse.com/reporter08

(um)welt:Fliegen mit gutem (Klima)Gewissen

2006-07-31T17:27:00.000+02:00

(um)welt:Fliegen mit gutem (Klima)Gewissen
VON THOMAS SEIFERT (Die Presse) 22.07.2006http://www.diepresse.com/Artikel.aspx?channel=r&ressort=ra&id=573713&archiv=false

Interview mit Jack Straw: "Guantánamo wird geschlossen"

2006-07-31T17:25:00.000+02:00

"Guantánamo wird geschlossen"
VON CHRISTIAN ULTSCH UND THOMAS SEIFERT (Die Presse) 16.03.2006
INTERVIEW. Der britische Außenminister Jack Straw über den Verhandlungsstil der Iraner, den Siegeszug der Islamisten in Nahost, die fehlende Nachkriegsplanung im Irak und die Kollateralschäden im Krieg gegen den Terror. http://www.diepresse.com/Artikel.aspx?channel=p&ressort=a&id=545636&archiv=false

2006-07-31T17:24:00.000+02:00

Prinz Alwaleed:"Wenn du Gott dankst, gibt er mehr"
VON THOMAS SEIFERT (Die Presse) 17.03.2006 http://www.diepresse.com/Artikel.aspx?channel=p&ressort=a&id=546394&archiv=false

Observer: Death rules the delta in battle to control oil

2006-03-06T22:50:00.000+01:00

Kidnappings and ethnic war in Nigeria have one root cause - oil. The power struggles and corruption that flow from it have claimed thousands of lives. Eleven years after his own father was killed there, Ken Wiwa reports from the Niger Delta on the persistent conflict that is tearing the country apart.
Von Ken Wiwa, Sohn von Ken Saro Wiwa, Story-Link

FAZ-Artikel -- Iran: Schurken, Helden und viel Nationalismus

2006-02-26T11:55:00.000+01:00

Ein interessanter Artikel in der FAZ am Sonntag (link) liefert interessante Hintergründe:

"Die Härte, mit der Teheran versucht, sein Atomprogramm durchzusetzen, ist nicht nur dem aggressiven Nationalismus des Präsidenten Ahmadineschad geschuldet, sondern hat auch etwas mit der Geschichte des modernen Irans zu tun. Denn das Land gründete seinen Unabhängigkeitskampf und die Entstehung seines nationalen Selbstbewußtseins in den vierziger und fünfziger Jahren des vorigen Jahrhunderts auf das Streben nach der souveränen Verfügung über das eigene Öl, über das vor allem die britischen Kolonialherren eine harte Hand hielten."

Öl als Waffe: Nigeria

2006-02-26T11:47:00.000+01:00

Der Kampf ums Öl im Nigerdelta geht weiter. Im Jänner gab es bei Gefechten zwischen Regierungstruppen und "Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (Mend)"-Guerillas 17 Tote (siehe Artikel auf Corpwatch.org), vergangene Woche nahmen die Rebellen vier Ölarbeiter als Geiseln, weitere Störungen der Produktion führten zu einem Förderverlust von bis zu einem Fünftel der gesamten Nigerianischen Kapazitäten (siehe New York Times).

Angriff auf Abkaik: Bei Selbstmordanschlag auf Ölanlage in Saudiarabien vier Tote

2006-02-25T23:49:00.000+01:00

Gerade an jenem Tag an dem der Film Syriana in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz im Kino anläuft, wird aus der Film-Fiktion um ein Haar Realität:

Bei dem versuchten Selbstmordanschlag auf eine Ölanlage in Saudiarabien sind am Freitag den 24.02.2006 vier Menschen getötet worden, zwei Wachmänner und die beiden Attentäter. Ziel des versuchten Anschlags war die Stabilisierungsanlage Abkaik (Abqaiq) in der ölreichen Ostprovinz des Königreichs Saudi Arabien.

Vor einem Jahr hatte der Anführer der Extremisten-Organisation Al-Kaida, Osama bin Laden, seine Anhänger zu Anschlägen auf Öl-Anlagen im Golf aufgefordert, die beiden Selbstmordattentäter haben versucht, mit Sprengstoff beladene Fahrzeuge ins Gelände der Anlage zu fahren. An einem Tor seien die Autos aber von Sicherheitskräften beschossen worden und explodiert.

"Es ist zwar nicht klar, was es für Schäden an der Anlage gibt, aber Abkaik ist die weltweit wichtigste Produktionsstätte", sagte Gary Ross vom Energieberater PIRA in New York. "Der Anschlag rückt die Sorgen über die Sicherheit der weltweiten Ölexporte erneut in den Mittelpunkt, zumal es bereits die bekannten Risiken in Nigeria, dem Iran und dem Irak gibt."

Dazu ein Zitat aus dem Schwarzbuch Öl:
Von den Ölfeldern wird das Rohöl zur Stabilisierungsanlage Abkaik gepumpt. Hier wird es aufbereitet und auf die zwei wichtigsten Pipelines des Königreiches verteilt. Durch Abkaik fließen täglich fast sieben Millionen Barrel Öl, Abkaik ist der Knotenpunkt der saudischen Ölindustrie und damit eine der verwundbarsten Industrieanlangen der Welt. Dort eine Besuchsgenehmigung zu erhalten, ist nicht ganz einfach: Das saudische Informationsministerium, der staatliche Ölkonzern Saudi Aramco, das Ölministerium sowie das Büro des Gouverneurs der Ostprovinz – sie alle müssen ihren Sanktus geben. Abkaik dient als Einstiegskulisse für das Buch »Die Saudi-Connection « des früheren CIA-Agenten Robert Baer. Gleich auf Seite eins lässt er eine Bombe unter dem Stabilisierungsturm Nr. 7, in dem Schwefel aus Rohöl extrahiert wird, detonieren. Baer schildert das fiktive Schreckens-Szenario in allen Details: wie ein weißer Ford Pickup an den Turm heranfährt; wie der Fahrer, »einer der tausenden Schiiten, die auf den saudischen Ölfeldern arbeiten«, den Motor abstellt, ein letztes Mal auf seine Uhr blickt und Verse aus dem Koran zu rezitieren beginnt. »Die Lichter der größten Öl-Verarbeitungsanlage blinken überall um ihn herum.« Dann folgt eine gewaltige Detonation – 6,8 Millionen Barrel Öl täglich sind plötzlich vom Markt verschwunden, noch Monate später würden immer noch vierzig Prozent weniger Öl produziert. »Mit sieben Millionen Barrel ist Abkaik der Gozilla unter den Öl-Verarbeitungsanlagen« – ein ideales Ziel für Terroristen, schreibt Baer.

Auch wenn der saudische Außenminister, seine Hoheit Prinz Saud al Faisal, bei einer Pressekonferenz im Wiener Traditionshotel Imperial3 Buchautoren wie Baer als anti-saudische Propagandisten abtat: Baers spannender Buch-Einstieg könnte direkt aus einer CIA-Risiko-Analyse stammen. Seit die Al-Qaida-Terroristen im saudischen Königreich immer wieder zuschlagen, ist ein solches Horrorszenario nicht mehr ins Reich der Phantasie zu verweisen.

In Abkaik ist man sich des Risikos bewusst. Der 47-jährige Schichtführer Abdullah Al-Utaibi zeigt uns die Anlagen: Zwischen Diesel- und Ethyl-Street – die Straßen innerhalb der Anlage tragen allesamt Namen aus dem Ölgeschäft – stehen elf gewaltige Sphäroide, riesige Druckbehälter, in denen der Druck des Öl-Gas-Gemisches reduziert wird, sobald es aus den Pipelines eingespeist wird. Zwischen Carbon- und Ethyl-Street ragen die zehn Stabilisatoren-Türme, auf die es die fiktiven Terroristen in Baers Buch abgesehen haben, in den Himmel. Warnend steht auf einer grünen Tafel in Arabisch und Englisch:»Was in Jahren nicht geschehen ist, könnte durch einen Unfall in Sekunden passieren.« Nur durch einen Unfall?

Al-Utaibi schildert detailliert und mit dem Stolz eines Ingenieurs die genauen Abläufe in der Anlage: wie aus »saurem« Öl »süßes« wird, wie das Öl vom Erdgas getrennt wird; wie das verarbeitete Rohöl in die Raffinerien,Verladeterminals oder in die Pipeline gepumpt wird. Was passiert, wenn Terroristen hier zuschlagen? »Das ist so gut wie ausgeschlossen«, sagt er, »wir haben ausgeklügelte Sicherheitssysteme,Wachen, Spezialzäune und Patrouillen.« Und nicht nur das: Immer wieder ist das Donnern saudischer F-15-Kampfjets zu hören. Die saudische Luftwaffenbasis Dahran liegt keine 45 Autominuten von hier. Von Abkaik wird das Rohöl weiter nach Ras Tanura und Juaimah gepumpt, wo Tanker mit der Fracht beladen werden.

Russia & OPEC

2006-02-16T01:30:00.000+01:00

“August 1986, a stake was driven silently through the heart of the Soviet economy. Although the effects would not be felt immediately, the Saudis opened the spigot and flooded the world market with oil.” This quote is from Peter Schweizers book “Victory – the Reagan Administration’s Secret Strategy that hastened the Collapse of the Soviet Union” that came out three years after the Soviet Empire had collapsed. Thomas Friedman, one of the leading columnists of the New York Times, who has made Americas Addiction to Oil his own personal crusade wrote in a column in December 2004, “When did the Soviet Union collapse? When did reform take off in Iran? When did the Oslo peace process begin? When did economic reform become a hot topic in the Arab world? In the late 1980's and early 1990's. And what was also happening then? Oil prices were collapsing.”

The drop in oil prices from 30 Dollars in November 1985 to 10 Dollar in July 1986 basically flushed everyone out of the market, and the Soviet Union was hit hard. The Saudi daily production had jumped from less than 2 million barrels to almost 6 million barrels, by the late fall of 1985 crude production would climb to 9 million barrels a day.

The problem for the Kremlin was, that the drop in oil prices was strapping the USSR of much-needed foreign currency, the Soviet trade-balance moved from 700 Million Dollars surplus in the first quarter of 1984 to a 1.4 billion deficit in the first quarter of 1985.

“The drop in oil prices was devastating, just devastating”, Yevgenny Novikov, Senior Staff Member of the Soviet Communist Party Central Committee told Schweizer for his book.

So one could say that the fates of Saudi Arabia and what is now the Russian Federation and former Soviet Republics are intertwined: The oil market, like other markets, is like a cake. If the other takes a big slice of market share, then you’re left with crumbs. At least, that’s what happens in a sellers market.

Enter the rise of China and India and the US falling in love with gas-guzzling SUV’s: We’re in a buyers market now. The world can’t just get enough of hydrocarbons. What’s on the table now is – like in the example before – a cake, this time the demand-cake and not the market-share-cake: This cake is big. 80 Million barrels of oil per day. The US cuts out the biggest slice – around 20 million barrels a day, the EU 14.6, Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand 8.6 and China more than 7 Million barrels per day. India with it’s population of more than a billion is still doing fine with 2.6 million barrels a day, but it’s catching up. The question everyone sitting around the table is asking is: “Hey is there enough for everyone?”

Good question. Geologists, especially in Europe, started a debate on Peak Oil, with some experts predicting the peaking of world oil resources sometime between pretty much now, while you are reading this magazine and 2015, maybe 2020. That doesn’t mean, that all oil wells will fall dry, but what it means is, that it will get more and more costly to extract, what’s still there. First the western oil companies ridiculed them, today Chevron has set up a website (www.willyoujoinus.com) that disseminates the views of the peak-oilists.

Europeans and Japanese are investing in fuel efficiency and alternative energy resources, and even the head of the Oil & Gas-Administration, President George W. Bush is now talking about getting rid of “America’s addiction to oil”. The Saudis seem to take this seriously, judging from the nervous remarks of oil minister Ali I. Al-Naimi and the Saudi Ambassador in Washington, D.C. Price Turki al Faisal.

Prince Turki said in a speech in the heart of the US oil industry, Dallas, Texas: “Oil is our bread and butter, at least for the time being, and so any decisions by such an important partner as the United States affects us and makes us concerned about where we are going.” The question is though, whether one should take Bush’s State-of-the-Union-blah-blah seriously. I wouldn’t – as long as he doesn’t fire former Halliburton CEO Vice President Dick Cheney to show, that he’s serious.

But back to the cake. The oil-cake is in high demand, everyone wants a slice. So there is no trouble between the two biggest cake-bakeries, there is enough consumers, who are willing to come back for more. That means that all is well between Saudi Arabia and Russia. The new motto: Cooperation instead of competition.

The two countries share a troubled past: Saudi Arabia was a staunch ally of the USA since American geologists found oil in the Saudi desert in 1938 and Franklin D. Roosevelt met with King Ibn Saud on board of the USS Quincy in the Suez-Canal in 1945. When the USSR invaded Afghanistan, Saudi organisations were one of the most important backers of the Mujahedin and in the 1990ies Saudi “charities” supplied Chechen Rebels.
Then Crown Price Abdullahs visit to Moscow in 2003 (the first since the opening of diplomatic relations between both countries) opened a new chapter in Russia-Saudi-relations. From then on both countries put their common interests before competition and signed a number of bilateral agreements, the most important of which is an agreement on cooperation in the field of oil and gas. Will the country that helped bring down the USSR with low oil prices now support the restoration of the Russian Empire while supporting high oil prices? This new OPEC-Russia-Axis is something to watch out for.

thomas seifert blog

2006-02-05T16:47:00.000+01:00

Filmtip:

Buchtip:

Rekordgewinn für EXXON

2006-01-30T17:07:00.000+01:00

Exxon Posts Quarterly Profit of $10.71 Billion New York Times-Link

Exxon Mobil Corporation reported today that its earnings in the fourth quarter of 2005 were $10.71 billion, or $1.71 a share, up 27 percent from the $8.42 billion, or $1.30 a share, in the final quarter of the previous year.

Exxon Mobil Corporation Announces Estimated Fourth Quarter 2005 Results EXXON-Link
Exxon Mobil Corporation (NYSE:XOM) today reported fourth quarter 2005 results. Earnings excluding special items were $10,320 million ($1.65 per share), an increase of $1,900 million from the fourth quarter of 2004. Fourth quarter net income included a special gain of $390 million from the resolution of a previously disclosed litigation issue. Including this gain, net income of $10,710 million ($1.71 per share) increased by $2,290 million.

Welt am Sonntag: Ahmadinedschad zückt die Öl-Waffe

2006-01-29T14:19:00.000+01:00

Lesenswert: Welt am Sonntag - Ahmadinedschad zückt die Öl-Waffe
Irans Präsident verunsichert vor den Treffen der Opec und der Atomenergiebehörde den Westen. Die Furcht vor stark steigenden Ölpreisen nimmt zu
Artikel-Link

Handelsblatt-Rezension

2006-01-25T04:48:00.000+01:00

Kurze Urlaubsunterbrechung:

HANDELSBLATT, Samstag, 21. Januar 2006

Geschichte von Gier und Krieg
Der Ressourcen-Fluch der Menschheit
Von Dietmar Petersen
Der reißerische Titel „Schwarzbuch Öl“ kommt daher wie eine Ladung Dynamit. Doch statt eines Enthüllungsbuchs bieten die Journalisten Thomas Seifert und Klaus Werner eine faktendichte und argumentative Geschichte über das Erdöl in der Weltpolitik.
Handelsblatt-Rezension-Link

Abwesenheitsnotiz

2006-01-12T12:44:00.000+01:00

Bin noch bis Anfang Februar in Vietnam & Kambodscha unterwegs.

Neue Postings ab 02.2006

"letzte Reserve" - FTD über "Schwarzbuch Öl"

2005-12-27T20:55:00.000+01:00

Thomas Seifert

Kriege sind nicht immer nötig: In Gabun beispielsweise wurde 1984, umgerechnet auf die Einwohnerzahl, mehr Champagner getrunken als in jedem anderen Land der Welt. Damals war Gabun, genauso wie heute, eines der ärmsten Länder der Welt. Aber es ist ein armes Land mit Öl. Damals trug Gabun zu den Profiten des Ölkonzerns Elf, heute Total, rund 75 Prozent bei.

Solche Details schmücken das "Schwarzbuch Öl" des österreichischen Publizistenduos Thomas Seifert, Redakteur beim Magazin News, und Klaus Werner, Ko-Autor von Das neue Schwarzbuch Markenfirmen,. Weitere Details: In Nigeria, das in den vergangenen 25 Jahren mehr als 300 Mrd. $ aus dem Ölgeschäft einnahm, wächst die Armut. Zwei Drittel der Nigerianer leben unter der Armutsgrenze, das Pro-Kopf-Einkommen liegt bei 1 $ pro Tag.

Drei ineinander greifende Gründe arbeiten Seifert und Werner für diese absurd wirkende Entwicklung heraus. Das Ölgeld fällt dem Staat in den Schoß, ohne erarbeitet worden zu sein. Der Reichtum wird dem Volk vorenthalten, stattdessen wird mit dem Geld ein Unterdrückungsapparat aufgebaut. Statistiken zeigen, dass der Grad an Demokratie in Ländern mit reichen Ölvorkommen niedriger ist als in ölfreien Staaten.

Öl sei "nichts anderes als ein hochkonzentriertes, zähflüssiges Machtinstrument", resümieren Seifert und Werner.
Letzte Reserve von Alexander Kluy, aus der FTD vom 30.11.2005

Franz Alt über das "Schwarzbuch Öl"

2005-12-27T20:24:00.000+01:00

Thomas Seifert

:: Schwarzbuch Öl - Eine Geschichte von Gier, Krieg, Macht und
Rechtzeitig zur Hurrikan-Katastrophe und zur Benzinkrise: Das Buch über den Rohstoff, der die Welt bewegt. Link

TAZ-Rezension "Schwarzbuch Öl" vom 24.12.2005

2005-12-26T11:18:00.000+01:00

Rollstuhl oder Rolls-Royce
Spannend resümiert das Schwarzbuch Öl die erste Halbzeit des Ölzeitalters - von den Anfängen des Petrokolonialismus bis zu Peak-Oil, dem Höhepunkt der globalen Ausbeutung schreibt Manfred Kriener in der TAZ.

"Thomas Seifert und Klaus Werner analysieren in ihrem Schwarzbuch Öl die Jahre von den frühen Ölfunden in Nahost bis heute. Eine Geschichte von Gier, Krieg, Macht und Geld heißt es ein wenig heftig im Untertitel. Natürlich stimmt das alles - gerade deshalb sollte man eher leisere Töne anschlagen, um das Buch unter die Leser zu bringen. Verdient hat es die schwarze Schwarte allemal. Dass sie vom Verlag mit einem Vokabular angepriesen wird, das an alte DKP-Wälzer erinnert - die schmutzigen Geschäfte mit dem schwarzen Gold etc., - schmälert nicht die Bedeutung und dramatische Aktualität des Buches. Es ist streckenweise ziemlich süffig geschrieben und knistert vor Spannung. Aber es ist nie unseriös."

"Die Endlichkeit des Öls und die dramatischen Konsequenzen daraus sind allerdings nicht das Hauptthema von Seifert und Werner. Ihr Schwarzbuch ist eigentlich ein historisches Buch, das den Ölkolonialismus der Industrieländer im Nahen Osten und in Zentralasien beschreibt. Mit den täglichen Bildern des Irakkriegs im Kopf, gewinnt die Lektüre dieser Ölhistorie an Wucht. Sicher, man weiß: die Kriege im Irak, in Kuwait, im Iran, in Aserbaidschan waren auch Kriege ums Öl. Genau dieses Auch treiben uns die Autoren aus - ohne jedes verschwörungstheoretische Raunen", urteilt die TAZ. Hier geht´s zur Rezension: TAZ-Link

Filmtipps

2005-11-27T14:00:00.000+01:00

In letzter Zeit liefen einige sehr gute Filme:

Operation Spring, ein Dokumentarfilm über eine sehr zweifelhafte Drogenrazzia der Wiener Polizei. Link: Operation Spring

We Feed The World, ein Dokumentarfilm des österr. Dokumentarfilmers Erwin Wagenhofer, der sich kritisch mit der Landwirtschaft auseinandersetzt.
Link: We Feed The World

Working Man's Death, ein Dokumentarfilm von Michael Glawogger (dem Regisseur von Megacities und Nacktschnecken). Link: Working Man's Death.

Oilcrash. Sehr interessant verspricht der Film meines Kollegen Basil Geske und Ray McCormack zu werden. Die Website ist gerade erst online gegangen (Achtung! Noch nicht ganz fertig!): Link: Oilcrash.

Why we Fight. Endlich kommt dieser hervorragende Streifen, auf den auch im Schwarzbuch Öl Bezug genommen wurde, in die Kinos. Why We Fight ist so etwas wie Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9-11 für Schlaue, ohne die Ironie-Stunts. In den USA läuft er im Jänner 2006 an. Link: Why We Fight.

WELT am SONNTAG: Wie nah ist das Ende des Ölzeitalters?

2005-11-27T11:33:00.000+01:00

Die WELT AM SONNTAG beschäftigt sich mit den Aussagen von Matt Simmons (LINK), der der Ansicht ist, dass Saudi-Arabien nicht wie behauptet auf rund 262 Milliarden Barrel Reserven sitzt, sondern auf rund 162 Mrd. Barrel. Sonnte Simmons recht behalten, hätte das dramatische Auswirkungen auf die Weltwirtschaft. Sein Buch "Twilight in the Desert" (AMAZON-LINK) führt diese These sehr ausführlich und schlüssig aus.

Das SCHWARZBUCH ÖL (AMAZON-LINK), das ich gemeinsam mit KLAUS WERNER geschrieben habe, nimmt ebenfalls darauf Bezug.

WELT AM SONNTAG: Wie nah ist das Ende des Ölzeitalters?
Saudi-Arabiens Ölfluß droht allmählich zu versiegen, behauptet der US-Investmentbanker und Energie-Experte Matthew Simmons. Die Märkte stehen vor einem Angebotsschock.

ORF On: Knebelverträge auf Jahrzehnte?

2005-11-27T11:16:00.000+01:00

Nun berichtet auch ORF ON über die PLATFORM-Studie über die Knebel-Ölverträge im Irak. Zu finden über diesen LINK.

Irak: Doch Blut für Öl!

2005-11-23T21:56:00.000+01:00

Diesmal Hinweise auf eine höchst interessante neue Studie über die neuen Production-Sharing-Agreements, die der Irak nach der Dezember-Wahl unterzeichnen soll:

Crude Designs - The rip-off of Iraq's Oil Wealth: http://www.waronwant.org/?lid=11112&PHPSESSID=362ad8ce74c2ddaca322a7b36cc9d938

Zu finden auch auf der Web-Site der Aktivistenwebsite PLATFORM: http://www.carbonweb.org/crudedesigns.htm

Crude Designs - The rip-off of Iraq's Oil Wealth
Control of Iraq's future oil wealth is being handed to multinational oil companies through long-term
contracts that will cost Iraq hundreds of billions of dollars, according to a new report published
today.

Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq's Oil Wealth reveals that current Iraqi oil policy will allocate the development of at least 64% of Iraq’s reserves to foreign oil companies. Iraq has the world’s third
largest oil reserves.

Figures published in the report for the first time show:

the estimated cost to Iraq over the life of the new oil contracts is $74 to $194 billion, compared with leaving oil development in public hands. These sums represent between two and seven times the current Iraqi state budget.
the contracts would guarantee massive profits to foreign companies, with rates of return of 42% to 162%.

The kinds of contracts that will provide these returns are known as production sharing agreement(PSAs). PSAs have been heavily promoted by the US government and oil majors and have the backing of senior figures in the Iraqi Oil Ministry. Britain has also encouraged Iraq to open its oilfields to foreign investment.

However PSAs last for 25-40 years, are usually secret and prevent governments from later altering the terms of the contract.

Crude Designs lead researcher, Greg Muttitt of PLATFORM, said:

"The form of contracts being promoted is the most expensive and undemocratic option available. Iraq’s oil should be for the benefit of the Iraqi people, not foreign oil companies.”

The new Iraqi constitution opened the way for much greater foreign involvement in Iraq's oilfields. Negotiations with oil companies are already underway, ahead of elections in
December and prior to the passing of a new Petroleum Law. This report calls for full and open debate in Iraq about the way oil resources are to be developed, not 30-year deals
negotiated behind closed doors.

Not only are these deals being negotiated without public discussion, ongoing violence in Iraq puts it at considerable disadvantage.

Mr Muttitt explains:"Iraq's institutions are new and weak. Experience in other countries shows that oil companies generally get the upper hand in PSA negotiations with governments. The companies will inevitably use Iraq's current instability to push for highly advantageous terms and lock Iraq to those terms for decades."

Andrew Simms, Policy Director at the new economics foundation (nef) and co-publisher of thereport says:“Over the last century Britain and the US left a global trail of conflict, social upheaval and environmental damage as they sought to capture and control a disproportionate share of the world's oil reserves. Now it seems they are determined to increase their ecological debts at Iraq's expense. Instead of a new beginning Iraq is caught in a very old colonial trap."

Louise Richards, Chief Executive of War on Want, also a co-publisher says: "People have increasingly come to realise that the Iraq war was about oil, profits and plunder. Despite claims from the politicians involved that this is a conspiracy theory, our new report gives detailed evidence to show that Iraq's oil profits, far from being used to alleviate some of the suffering the Iraqi people now face, are well within the sights of the oil multi-nationals."

Die Öloholiker

2005-10-28T17:23:00.000+02:00

Wer trägt die Schuld am hohen Ölpreis? – „China!“ tönt es aus den USA. Mit annähernd 7 Millionen Barrel Ölverbrauch pro Tag ist China mittlerweile der zweitgrößte Ölverbraucher der Welt. Die USA verbrauchen aber 20,5 Millionen Barrel Öl pro Tag (Japan 5,3 Millionen Barrel/Tag, Deutschland: 2,6 Millionen/Tag, Indien: 2,6 Millionen Barrel/Tag, Österreich: 284.000 Barrel/Tag, Schweiz: 258.000 Barrel/Tag) und das bei rund 296 Millionen Einwohnern – in China leben rund 1,3 Milliarden Menschen.
Die Wahren Öloholiker leben im land of the free. Die USA verbrauchen ein Viertel der gesamten Ölproduktion – die Effizienz der US-Wirtschaft lässt übrigens zu Wünschen übrig: Die Amerikaner brauchen 50 % mehr Öl pro erwirtschafteten Dollar Bruttosozialprodukt als die Europäische Union. Ein weiterer Grund: Die Liebe zu spritsaufenden Automodellen: Im Gegensatz zu den Europäern glauben die USA, den Benzinverbrauch ihrer Autoflotte mit Effizienz-Regeln in den Griff bekommen zu können. Die Energie-Effizienz der LKWs und PKWs auf Amerikas Straßen ist übrigens auf dem tiefsten Stand seit 20 Jahren – während die Europäische Automobilindustrie mit immer sparsameren Diesel-Motoren brilliert und die Japaner mit ihren Hybrid-Modellen (vor allem Toyota) Verkaufsrekorde erzielen.

Chevron & Peak Oil

2005-09-28T12:09:00.000+02:00

„Lassen Sie mich eines klarstellen: Die Zeiten, wo man einfach an Öl kam, sind vorbei. … Die Nachfrage steigt wie nie zuvor. Während die Weltbevölkerung und die Weltwirtschaft stetig wächst, genießen nun endlich Millionen von Menschen in Entwicklungsländern einen besseren Lebensstil, der aber zusätzliche Mengen an Energie benötigt. Tatsächlich meinen einige, dass die Welt in 20 Jahren 40 % mehr Öl verbrauchen wird, als heute. Zur selben Zeit reifen viele der Öl- und Gasvorkommen der Erde. Neue Funde werden hauptsächlich in Regionen gemacht, in denen das Öl schwieriger zu fördern ist – technisch, ökonomisch und auch politisch. Wenn eine steigende Nachfrage auf auf ein sinkendes Angebot trifft, heißt das, dass es mehr Konkurrenz um die selbe Ressource gibt. Wir können natürlich darauf warten, bis eine Krise uns dazu zwingt, etwas zu tun – oder wir können uns den schwierigen Fragen stellen.“

Dieser ganze Absatz stammt aus einem offenen Brief von David O’Reilly, CEO des zweitgrößten US-Ölkonzerns CHEVRON (155,3-Mrd.-Dollar-Umsatz, 13,3 Mrd. Dollar Gewinn, 47.000 Beschäftigte in 180 Ländern), der in den vergangenen Wochen in allen wichtigen US-Zeitungen abgedruckt war.

CHEVRON ist offenbar ins Lager der PEAK-OIListen gewechselt, der Ölkonzern gibt in TV-Spots und Printanzeigen zu, dass wir spätestens 2020 die zweite Hälfte der Erdöl-Epoche einläuten werden. Bislang waren die Ölkonzerne Chefbeschwichtiger und Beruhigungspillenverabreicher: „Macht Euch keine Sorgen, wir kriegen das hin, ihr kriegt Euer Öl, Ihr könnt Euch auf uns verlassen.“ Das war im Kern die Botschaft der Ölkonzerne. Nun wirbt der Konzern SHELL damit, dass die Zukunft im Gasgeschäft liegt, BP hat sich von „British Petroleum“ auf „Beyond Petroleum“ umgetauft und deutet damit an, dass BP-CEO Lord Browne of Madingley offenbar die Zukunft von BP im Post-Petro-Zeitalter sieht. EXXON (ESSO – von Konzernkritikern E$$O geschrieben) zieht nicht mit, EXXON-Boss Rex W. Tillerson zieht nicht mit, der weltgrößte Ölkonzern will von PEAK OIL oder Alternativenergie nichts wissen – der Konzern hat auch jahrelang „Forschungsinstitutionen“ unterstützt, die das Faktum des Klimawandels in Zweifel ziehen.

Offenbar setzt in der Ölindustrie ein Umdenken ein, die Konzerne beginnen sich langsam auf die Ära nach dem Öl einzustellen und ändern ihre Geschäfts-Strategien.

CHEVRON hat eine Website eingerichtet: Willyoujoinus? (Ich kann es immer noch nicht fassen, dass die Ölkonzerne nun PEAK OIL zugeben, dass sie zugestehen, dass versorgungs-seitig eben nicht alles paletti ist und dass es ohne Steigerung der Energie-Effizienz und der Nutzung von Alternativ-Energie nicht gehen wird.)

Hinweis: Vor kurzem ist das „Schwarzbuch Öl“ erschienen, das ich mit meinem Kollegen Klaus Werner (Bestseller-Co-Autor von „Schwarzbuch Markenfirmen“) geschrieben habe. Nähere Hinweise: Schwarzbuch Öl

George Soros über die Extractive Industries Transparancy Initiative

2005-03-23T22:20:00.000+01:00

Der Fluch der Ressourcen

Bestechungsaffären und dubiose„Deals“, vor allem in der Ölindustrie, häufen sich. Was tun? Leitgedanken einer Antikorruptionsinitiative imVorfeld eines Gipfeltreffens vonRegierungs-, Wirtschafts-, undNGO-Vertretern in London.George Soros*
Erschienen am 17.03.2005 in DER STANDARD (Originaltext in Englisch erschienen am 17.03.2005 in der FINANCIAL TIMES.

Länder, die über großenReichtum an natürlichenRessourcen verfügen, sind oft arm, weil ihre Regierungen die Ausbeutung dieserRessourcen nur zu ihrem eigenen Vorteil betreiben: Konkurrierende Öl- und Bergbau- unternehmen sind oftmals bereit, mit jedem Geschäfte zumachen, der ihnen eine Lizenz zusichert. Das hat zur Entstehung und Befestigungkorrupter und repressiver Regime und oft auch zu bewaffneten Konflikten geführt.
InAfrika wurden mit Ressourcen reich gesegnete Länder wie der Kongo, Angola und der Sudan durch Bürgerkriege zerstört. Im Mittleren Osten verläuft der Demokratisierungsprozess nur zögerlich.

Eine Beseitigung dieses „Fluches der Ressourcen“ könnte einen wichtigen Beitrag zur Linderung der Armutund des Elends auf dieser Welt leisten – und genau zu diesem Zweck hat sich eine internationale Bewegung formiert,die vor ein paar Jahren mit der Kampagne „Publish What YouPay“ ihren Ausgang nahm. Dabei wurden Öl- und Bergbau- unternehmen aufgerufen, ihre an die Regierungen geleisteten Zahlungen zu veröffentlichen.

Als Reaktion darauf rief die britische Regierung die Initiative für Transparenz in derRohstoffindustrie (EITI) insLeben. Drei Jahre nach Beginn dieses Prozesses hat nun Großbritannien eine wichtige EITI-Konferenz in Londoneinberufen, an der Regierungsvertreter sowie Reprä-sentanten aus der Wirtschaftund der Bürgergesellschaftteilnehmen sollen. Vieles wurde in den letzten Jahren bereits erreicht: Aufder Seite der Wirtschaft haben große internationale Rohstoffunternehmen den Wert und die Notwendigkeit größererTransparenz erkannt. British Petroleum hat sich verpflichtet, differenzierte Informationen zu Zahlungen im Bereich seiner Aktivitäten in Aserbaidschan zu veröffentlichen, und Royal Dutch Shell tut das gleiche in Nigeria.

Chevron-Texaco hat unlängst mit Nigeria und Sao Tomé einen Vertrag ausgehandelt, in dem eine Transparenzklausel die Veröffentlichung von Firmenzahlungen in der gemeinsamenProduktionszone vorsieht.

Das erfreulichste Zeichen ist, dass die Produzentenländer beginnen, ihrerseits dieInitiative ergreifen.

Nigeria restrukturiert seine staatlicheÖlgesellschaft, verabschiedet Transparenzgesetze und verfügt umfassende Unternehmensprüfungen im Öl- undGassektor. Außerdem ist geplant, in diesem Sommer mitder detaillierten Veröffentlichung von Unternehmenszahlungen an den Staat zu beginnen.

Transparenzindex. Die Republik Kirgistan war das erste Land, das gemäß den Richtlinien der EITI über eingroßes Goldabbauprojekt Bericht erstatte.

Aserbaidschan wird über seine ÖleinnahmenEnde dieses Monats berichten. Ghana, Trinidad und Tobagohaben ebenfalls derartige Aktivitäten angekündigt. Peru, Sao Tomé und Principe sowie Osttimor befinden sich gegenwärtig in Verhandlungen zur Implementierung der Initiative. Ebenso wichtig ist, dass lokale Aktivisten in vielen dieser Länder die EITI als Aufhänger benützen, um mehr Verantwortlichkeit im Umgang mit den Staatsfinanzen zu fordern. Es gibt allerdings noch vielmehr zu tun. Zwei Drittel der ärmsten Menschen dieser Welt leben in ungefähr 60 Entwicklungs- oder Transformationsländern, die von Einnahmen aus Öl, Bergbau oder Gas abhängig sind.

Der vor kurzemvon der britischen Organisation Save the Children veröffentlichte Transparenzindexzeigt, dass Transparenz dieAusnahme und nicht die Regel ist. Viele wichtige Erzeugerländer – insbesondere jene aus dem Mittleren Osten – haben noch nicht einmal ansatzweise ihre Finanzgebarung durchlässiger gemacht. AuchIndonesien nicht. Zudem wäre es natürlich entscheidend, auch staatliche Unternehmen, die für den Großteil der weltweiten Öl- und Gasproduktion verantwortlich sind, zur Offenlegung zu verpflichten.

Andere Regierungen sollten dem Beispiel Großbritanniens folgen und sich politisch und finanziell für die Ausweitungder EITI engagieren. Frankreich zum Beispiel scheint bisher nur wenig getan zu haben, um Länder in seinem Einflussbereich dahingehend zu ermutigen, geschweige denn sicherzustellen, dass seine eigenen Unternehmen ihre Zahlungen auszuweisen. Die jüngste Entscheidung der Regierung Bush einen parallelen Antikorruptionsprozess innerhalb der G-8 in Gangzu setzen, halte ich allerdingsfür wenig hilfreich, weil siedazu führt, dass die Vereinig-ten Staaten erstens sich nicht an der EITI als oberstem internationalen Gremium zur Transparenzkontrolle beiRohstoffeinnahmen beteiligen, und zweitens völlig unnötigerweise das Rad neuerfinden.

Im Übrigen ist mir nicht aufgefallen, dass die USA und Großbritannien ihre Macht imIrak bisher dazu genutzt hätten, die Transparenz imÖlsektor besonders zu fördern. Hoffen wir, dass die neue irakische Regierung das nachholt. Es ist jedenfalls schwer zu erkennen, wie die Demokratie Fuß fassen soll, wenn die wichtigste Einnahmequelle des Landes unter einem Schleier aus Geheimnissen verborgen bleibt, wie einst unter Saddam.

Minimalforderungen. Vor der EITI liegt also noch ein langer Weg, aber sie ist eines der wirksamsten zur Verfügung stehenden Mittel, um einen weltweiten Standard für Offenlegungspflicht und Verantwortlichkeit zu etablieren. Der Gipfel in dieser Woche ist eine gute Gelegenheit, die Fortschritte zu beurteilen und die Umsetzungsstrategien von EITI genauer zu definieren – etwa indem man einige Minimalforderungen an die betreffenden Länder richtet.

Alle, denen klar ist, welch entscheidende Rolle Energie und Bergbau zukommt, um die Lebensbedingungen der Durchschnittsbürger zu verbessern, täten gut daran, in dieser kritischen Phase in die Initiative zu investieren. EITI ist vielleicht noch keine bekannte Institution, aber gemeinsam mit anderen Bestrebungen der Zivilgesellschaft wie beispielsweise der Bewegung „Publish What You Pay“ könnte sie in der Welt mehr zum Guten wenden als die meisten anderen.*

Der US-FinanzmagnatGeorge Soros, Präsident des Soros Fund Management und Vorsitzender des Open Society Institute, lebt in New York. Copyright Project Syndicate, 2005; www.project-syndicate.org; Übersetzung aus dem Englischen vonHelga Klinger-Groier

Mother Jones - Irak 3 Jahre danach

2005-03-22T21:18:00.000+01:00

MotherJones.com News Commentary Arts Discuss Reader Services About Us

To print this page, select "Print" from the File menu of your browser

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MotherJones.com / News / dailymojo

Deconstructing Iraq: Year Three Begins
By Tom Engelhardt
Two years after the US mission in there was declared "accomplished," mayhem reigns in Iraq.

March 19 , 2005

By Tom Engelhardt

A Little Background Music

Shakar Odai, the head of the Internal Affairs Department of the Baghdad police was recently interviewed by David Enders of Mother Jones magazine who wrote: "‘More than 98' percent of the police officers (a force known alike for its use of torture and its widespread corruption) returned to work after the war, [Odai] said, and added that the police force has been greatly expanded as well. Some of the officers definitely sympathize with the resistance, he says. As he speaks, a bomb goes off outside, rattling the windows. Odai doesn't even turn around to look. ‘That happens sometimes fifteen times a day,' he sighs before continuing. ‘Before the war, we had six months to do background checks on any police officer we hired,' he said. ‘After the war, the Americans just began appointing officers.'

"Before he refers me to the seventh floor, where the MOI's human rights department is located, he offers me a piece of wardrobe advice, specifically in regard to the power-blue Oxford I'm wearing, the same color the police wear. ‘You should change your shirt. Someone might try to assassinate you.'"

Caryle Murphy and John Ward Anderson of the Washington Post offered the following on the opening of the Iraqi National Assembly inside "little America," also known as "the Green Zone" in a completely shut down Baghdad: "Amid tight security and the sound of explosions, Iraq's new parliament met for the first time Wednesday as Iraqi politicians and citizens alike urged lawmakers to stop bickering, form a new government and tackle the country's numerous problems, particularly the violent insurgency. The source of the blasts, which apparently came from mortars, was under investigation by the U.S. military. The explosions rattled windows in the auditorium inside Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone, where lawmakers gathered… for the first meeting of a freely elected parliament in Iraq in almost 50 years. U.S. helicopters hovered overheard, and several bridges approaching the Green Zone were closed because of the threat of suicide bombings, car bomb attacks and other potential insurgent strikes."

A Little Road Static

Dan Murphy of the Christian Science Monitor reports on the difficulty of leaving Baghdad in safety heading in any direction now that guerrilla and criminal "no-go" areas have spread so completely around the capital: "Mohammed Ghazi Umron has a front-row seat for the perils of Iraq's roads: the cab of his truck. And while this Shiite in his 30s enthusiastically voted in Iraq's January election, from where he sits the country is as dangerous as ever. The road north through Baquba? ‘Pretty dangerous,'' he says. Due south through Mahmudiyah? ‘It's bad, but I haven't heard of any drivers being killed there in a few weeks.' How about west through Abu Ghraib and on to Fallujah? ‘Very, very dangerous. We try not to go past Abu Ghraib.'… Nearly two years since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq, Baghdad is still one of the most dangerous cities in the world. It is ringed in peril. Travel in any direction a few miles outside city limits and the risks intensify."

Juan Cole at his Informed Comment blog reminds us that: "US Embassy employees are forbidden to travel by land the ten miles [from the Green Zone] to Baghdad airport because it is so dangerous, and have to be helicoptered in and out of the capital." Too bad they didn't bother to tell that to the Italians before intelligence operative Nicola Calipari headed by car for the airport with the freed Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena.

A Little Vietnam Buzz, or Thanks for the Memories (how brief they are!)

Back in late January, John Hedren of the Los Angeles Times reported: "The latest attempt to overhaul the U.S. approach [to the Iraqi forces] will incorporate lessons of military training successes in Afghanistan -- where American advisors remain with Afghan units for two years -- and will address what commanders describe as the scarcity of mid-level Iraqi leadership." In the minds of American planners, this represents a "sea change in methods" enabling "U.S. military strategists to assign an expanded cadre of American advisors to work closely with Iraqi units after they receive basic training… Under one proposal being considered, Americans would lead Iraqi military units, which U.S. commanders say suffer from a 'leadership gap.'"

This Friday, in a piece on exceedingly modest American troop cuts planned for Iraq in 2006 (if everything goes peachily), Eric Schmitt of the New York Times reported: "To speed the training, General [Richard A.] Cody [the Army vice chief of staff] announced Thursday that 666 Army officers and senior enlisted soldiers would be dispatched to Iraq to work with the Iraqis as part of a shift away from combat operations. In addition, he said 1,140 officers and senior enlisted troops would be drawn from Army units already in Iraq to comprise 10-member training teams to work with Iraqi forces." (It's surprising, given this administration, that the Pentagon would ship exactly 666 soldiers anywhere -- that number, of course, representing the Mark of the Beast.)

On the plan to station "advisors" with Iraqi forces over the long term, Hedren quotes Centcom commander Gen. John Abizaid as saying, "There are certainly lessons that we can take from Afghanistan and apply to Iraq." Of course, those of us of a certain age can actually remember the odd event from the dark ages that preceded the military glory that is now America; and, in that murk of history, the "lessons" that come to mind are from Vietnam, not Afghanistan, where our "advisors," despite endless years of effort, could somehow never quite turn "our" Vietnamese into the sort of fighting force the other side had. (Anyone wanna lay a bet about which model better applies to Iraq?)

Donald Rumsfeld recently put the new policy this way: "I think that you will see over the coming weeks and months a modest refocusing of U.S. efforts towards increasing the mentoring and training and assisting of the Iraqi forces as the Iraqi forces take over more and more responsibility for the security in the country." "Mentoring," it sounds so darn nurturing and sensitive as we start into year three in Iraq.

The Killing Fields

Way back in March 2002, then-Centcom Commander Tommy Franks, speaking of the Afghan dead in our recent war, famously said, "I don't believe you have heard me or anyone else in our leadership talk about the presence of 1,000 bodies out there, or in fact how many have been recovered… You know we don't do body counts." (At least in that distant year, there was still a fighting man implicitly ready to claim some memory of the "lessons" of Vietnam!)

Even as the Bush administration moved its operations forcefully to Iraq, which has since become a monster killing field, its officials, military and civilian, have remained consistent on this matter. The American dead are to be slipped home in the dead of night -- none of those disturbing Vietnam-era "body bags" in sight – and foreign "body counts" are out. No toting up of Iraqi bodies, no matter how many may be lying around or how civilian they might be.

Nonetheless, in a piece published last year in the British medical journal The Lancet, a group of researchers from Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University, and Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad did a household study of civilian deaths in Iraq (knocking on doors in 33 places in the country for almost 8,000 interviews, a dangerous task indeed). They estimated, based on their work, that somewhere around 100,000 Iraqi civilians, a majority of them women and children, had died due to the invasion and the ongoing occupation of the country and the insurgency. This study, for reasons well explained by Lila Guterman (Dead Iraqis) in the Columbia Journalism Review, was barely reported on in the American press, though the figures, approximate as they must be, are nonetheless probably conservative, or so concludes Guterman. Based on this study, it would not, she adds, be unreasonable to assume that in the five months since the paper came out, if "the death rate has stayed the same, roughly 25,000 more Iraqis have died."

Oh, one figure on the Iraqi and Afghan dead did come to light last week. One hundred and eight of them managed to die "in American custody," and "most of them violently, according to government data provided to The Associated Press. Roughly a quarter of those deaths have been investigated as possible abuse by U.S. personnel." This is assuredly but the tip of some iceberg or other.

As it happens, when it comes to the grim statistics of death, we know far more, and far more precisely, about the non-Iraqi (and Afghan) dead.

For American troops, 1,521 died between March 19, 2003, when the invasion of Iraq began and March 19, 2005; 1,384 since our President essentially declared the war won. According to Pentagon figures (which are in dispute), 11,344 of our troops have officially been wounded. In Afghanistan, there have been 153 American military deaths.

Some Americans, as it happens, are far more likely to die in Iraq and Afghanistan than others: "43 percent of those killed in action in Iraq and 44 percent killed in Afghanistan through mid-February came from towns of 20,000 people or fewer. Less than 23 percent of the U.S. population lives in towns that size."

Among other nations whose governments sent troops to Iraq, there have been 171 deaths, ranging from 86 British troops to 1 Hungarian soldier. Among contractors working in Iraq, there have been at least 212 deaths and this has to be a partial listing, given that the privatized world of contractors remains firmly hidden in the shadows of our Iraqi policy.

Among journalists (and "assistants"), 48 seem to have died since the war began; according to the Columbia Journalism Review, Iraq remains "the most dangerous place in the world to work as a journalist" and (depending on whom you are counting) between 33 and 39 of them died in 2004 alone. Above all, according to CJR's Mariah Blake, you don't want to be an Arab journalist in Iraq. It's practically the equivalent of a death sentence. As a result, while Iraq's insurgency has grown ever fiercer, devolving events in the country have become ever harder to cover. "[E]ven the Arab media are finding themselves increasingly reliant on secondhand accounts and official reports from Washington and Baghdad, and less able to gauge how events are playing out in the lives of ordinary Iraqis. 'We can no longer get close to people's suffering, people's hopes, people's dreams,' says Nabil Khatib, Al Arabiya's executive editor for news. 'We no longer know what's really going on because we can no longer get close to reality.'"

All sides (including Iraqi criminals) are now, it seems, targeting journalists in one fashion or another. Steve Weissman of the Truthout.org website has done the most interesting work on the American aspect of this, a four-part, open-ended, open-minded investigation of the subject.

On the home front, Newsweek reports that "as of last week 1,043 American children had lost a parent in Iraq. To put it another way, nearly two years after the invasion on March 19, 2003, among the 1,508 American troops who have died as of March 11 were an estimated 450 fathers, and 7 mothers."

All in all, this is no small record for a mission our President declared "accomplished" back in the spring of 2003.

The mayhem in Iraq can be measured in other ways as well. Here, for instance, are some figures from the air war: Total air sorties, 41,000; Strike Sorties, 15,500; Bombs Dropped, 27,000. And that only covers the pre-"Mission Accomplished" phase of the war. Since then, even as our Air Force has been loosed on Iraq's cities, the air war has simply fallen out of the media. Even though the old city of Najaf and just about all of Falluja were essentially destroyed, in part from the air and numerous other cities bombed, missiled, and strafed, American reporters have evinced no interest whatsoever in the destruction of heavily populated urban areas from the skies.

Or perhaps instead of more figures, a description might do fuller justice to the Iraqi mayhem -- this one from Juan Cole. (Had we not had his Informed Comment blog, we would be in the dark on all sorts of matters.):

"Readers often write in for an update on Fallujah. I am sorry to say that there is no Fallujah to update. The city appears to be in ruins and perhaps uninhabitable in the near future. Of 300,000 residents, only about 9,000 seem to have returned, and apparently some of those are living in tents above the ruins of their homes…. The scale of this human tragedy -- the dispossession and displacement of 300,000 persons -- is hard to imagine. Unlike the victims of the tsunami who were left homeless, moreover, the Fallujans have witnessed no outpouring of world sympathy. While there were undeniably bad characters in the city, most residents had done nothing wrong and did not deserve to be made object lessons--which was the point Rumsfeld was making with this assault. He hoped to convince Ramadi and Mosul to fall quiet lest the same thing happen to them. He failed, since the second Fallujah campaign threw the Sunni Arab heartland into much more chaos than ever before. People forget how quiet Mosul had been. And, the campaign was the death knell for proper Sunni participation in the Jan. 30 elections (Sunnis, with 20 percent of the population, have only 6 seats in the 275 member parliament). However much a cliché it might be to say it, the US military really did destroy Fallujah to save it."

The Killings Fields

While the killing has gone on ceaselessly in Iraq, the country has also essentially been looted, as has the American treasury, to the tune of multi-billions of dollars by Bush-friendly corporations on the make. Tales of the corruption involved pour out weekly, one more unbelievable than the next (or is it all too believable?) in what can only be called the "killings fields" of Iraq.

Not surprisingly, our Veep's former company, Halliburton, has been right up there at the front of the line with its corporate hand out for hand-outs. In the last week alone, David Ivanovich of the Houston Chronicle revealed that Halliburton's KBR subsidiary "charged the Pentagon $27.5 million to ship $82,100 worth of cooking and heating fuel" to Iraq. (And critics assume that this but a fraction of the overcharges Halliburton dumped on the Pentagon -- and so on us all.) At the same time, Ken Silverstein and T. Christian Miller of the Los Angeles Times discovered that a pet project of Iyad Allawi, the creation of a tank division for the new Iraqi Army (to the tune of $283 million), overseen by an American task force headed by Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, may have resulted in enormous cash kickbacks to officials of the Iraqi Defense Ministry through a Lebanese middleman. Dale Stoffel, a contractor/weapons dealer who tried to expose this scheme by emailing a Petraeus aide, was shot to death in an ambush near Baghdad only 8 days later. (Good luck to the FBI agents who are now investigating his death.) As a little footnote to the above, even after Stoffel's killing, the Americans evidently didn't blink an eye about continuing to work with the Lebanese middleman who promptly took over part of Stoffel's contract.

And that's just this week's news. Iraq is quite literally a cesspool, when it comes to the American taxpayer's dollar. If you want a little glimpse of how it all works, in the case of Halliburton's KBR, check out Vanity Fair writer Michael Shnayerson's, The Spoils of War.

On Enthusiasm for the War, or Voting with Their Feet

As news of the Iraq War filters into this country, recruits for our all-volunteer military, many having signed on for the promise of a good education in return for their time, are proving increasingly resistant to taking classes in Baghdad or environs:

"The Marine Corps for the second straight month in February missed its goal for signing up new recruits."

"The Army in February, for the first time in nearly five years, failed to achieve its monthly recruiting goal."

With the military being stretched to its limits, "part-time soldiers now make up about 40 percent of the 150,000 troops in Iraq, a Pentagon spokesman said." And the National Guard and the Reserves are fairing even worse than the regular military when it comes to volunteers: "Recruiting for the Army's reserve component -- the National Guard and Army Reserve -- is suffering even more as the Pentagon relies heavily on these part-time soldiers to maintain troop levels in Iraq. The regular Army is 6 percent behind its year-to-date recruiting target, the Reserve is 10 percent behind, and the Guard is 26 percent short."

In early January, "Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly -- commander of the Army Reserve -- … said morale was slipping and that the reserve might become a ‘broken' force because of the burdens it has taken on since the 9-11 attacks. ‘I do not wish to sound alarmist. I do wish to send a clear, distinctive signal of deepening concern,' Helmly wrote in a memo to Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker." All this, despite skyrocketing financial incentives and bonuses meant to get people into the military and keep them there.

Even the look of the military has been affected: "Since fiscal 2000, when African Americans made up 23.5 percent of Army recruits, their numbers have fallen steadily to less than 14 percent in this fiscal year, officials said. A similar trend has reduced the number of female Army recruits, who have dropped from 22 percent in 2000 to about 17 percent of this year's new soldiers."

Among Americans more generally, enthusiasm for the war, according to the latest Washington Post poll, continues to sink below the horizon. Asked in mid-March, "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?" 39% of Americans approved and 57% disapproved. Compare that with the 75%/22% response to the same question in late April of 2003.

The Coalition of the Willing Is Increasingly Willing to Go

Loss of enthusiasm isn't just a national phenomenon. As Boston Globe columnist Derrick Z. Jackson recently put the matter, the Coalition of the Willing in Iraq is turning into the Coalition of the "Wilting." Even in countries (other than the United States) whose governments were willing to send troops, the war in Iraq was never anything but unpopular. But the enthusiasm of those governments is now fast receding. The Netherlands and the Ukraine are withdrawing their troops. The Poles are planning to do so, and even Italy's Silvio Berlusconi, our President's closest non-Anglo war-pal, made his first withdrawal sounds last week, pressured by future elections and the war's immense unpopularity in Italy, before the Bush administration pressured him into backing down on his modest statements.

If you want to see the figures on foreign withdrawals, check out this New York Times chart (scroll down and click on "graphic"). What no one counts when counting forces in Iraq, however, are the possibly tens of thousands of mercenary security types, who make ever more money as the situation gets ever worse.

Other than the mercenaries, for whom the going gets good only when it gets really bad, the sole major players unwilling to speak of setting up schedules for withdrawal are Tony Blair and George W. Bush. Just this week, our President refused to discuss a "timetable" for withdrawal and insisted, "Our troops will come home when Iraq is capable of defending herself," which, given present realities, is more or less like saying: Never!

War Architects Heading for Other Planets, or Will This Be the Year of Consolidation?

Something else may be wilting -- the neocon grip on the upper levels of the Bush administration. Two key neocons crucial to pushing through an Iraq invasion policy at the Pentagon, Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz ("the Mr. Magoo of American foreign policy… the Mozart of ineptitude, the Einstein of incapacity."), are heading out of the administration, while former State Department Neanderthal John Bolton has been farmed out to -- from the Bush point of view -- the minor leagues. (Senator Jesse Helms once recommended him in the following way: "John Bolton is the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon, or what the Bible describes as the final battle between good and evil.") Feith announced that he was leaving his job as undersecretary of defense "for personal reasons… citing the desire to spend more time with his four children. 'For the last four years, they haven't seen me a lot.'" (Why is it that important men suddenly discover the need for family time only when their jobs evaporate?) Wolfowitz (the World Bank) and Bolton (the UN) are evidently being dumped on the international community (as in the Vietnam era, President Lyndon Johnson also dumped his Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on the World Bank). Donald Rumsfeld is reputedly planning to leave town within the year (possibly ceding his post to former State Department hardliner and "realist" Richard Armitage), and Dick Cheney is said to be spending much of his time on the President's social security package.

Meanwhile, the so-called realists are evidently being brought in to clean up shop and possibly consolidate the gains, such as they are, out there in the imperium. Evidently Afghanistan is the model they have in mind. While the hard-headed John Negroponte flies off from (or is it flees?) Baghdad for Washington to become the nation's first "intelligence czar," the administration is reputedly getting ready to fly in our present ambassador to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, the former oil company consultant who has steered the ex-Taliban principality into a Bush-style democracy -- that is, a warlord-divided narco-state of a grim sort with a desperately weak "central" government.

But look on the bright side, just the other day and possibly a tad early, Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Myers proclaimed Afghanistan "secure" and promptly suggested that "the United States is considering keeping long-term bases here as it repositions its military forces around the world."

Perfect! Now that the Khalilzad-installed government of Hamid Karzai is, we are told, seeking what's so charmingly referred to as a "strategic partnership" with the United States. U.S. Major General Eric Olsen added to the picture by mentioning our desire to hang onto the sprawling Soviet-era base at Bagram, north of Kabul. Already a major American base, he called it "a place where we see a long-term presence of coalition and, frankly, U.S. capabilities."

Frankly indeed.

Right now, Baghdad may be ungovernable, the insurgency remains fierce, the new Iraqi government unable to chose its leaders, gas lines endless in Baghdad, electricity supplies desperately low in significant parts of the country, allies dropping away, and security dismal, but what-we-worry. After all, above all, chaos or not, we're still there, the self-invited guests who came for dinner, and stayed on and on and on….

In fact, though it's hardly mentioned in our media, we've been digging in. Joshua Hammer of Mother Jones magazine reported in a recent issue that approximately $4.5 billion dollars has gone to -- who else? -- KBR for the construction and maintenance of up to 14 "enduring camps" or permanent military bases in Iraq. Many of these bases have a look of permanency that undoubtedly has to be seen to be imagined. But here's Hammer's description of just one:

"Camp Victory North, a sprawling base near Baghdad International Airport, which the U.S. military seized just before the ouster of Saddam Hussein in April 2003. Over the past year, KBR contractors have built a small American city where about 14,000 troops are living, many hunkered down inside sturdy, wooden, air-conditioned bungalows called SEA (for Southeast Asia) huts, replicas of those used by troops in Vietnam. There's a Burger King, a gym, the country's biggest PX -- and, of course, a separate compound for KBR workers, who handle both construction and logistical support. Although Camp Victory North remains a work in progress today, when complete, the complex will be twice the size of Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo -- currently one of the largest overseas posts built since the Vietnam War."

And let's just remember what those 14 bases sit on.

The Word That Cannot Be Spoken or Written

There's a word that can't really be spoken, or written, not at least in conjunction with "Iraq," or off the business pages of our papers (even though this week, the price of a barrel of the stuff broke $56). Fortunately, I can spell it for you: It's o-i-l. Take, as the Village Voice pointed out, the New York Times piece on the possible Khalilzad appointment which "ran 592 words and referred to Khalilzad's high school basketball career and his graduate work at the University of Chicago," but not his "experience as a consultant to a major oil company," one that once negotiated with the Taliban to build a pipeline across Afghanistan.

Iraq, as it happens, sits on top of probably the second largest oil deposits in the Middle East (after Saudi Arabia where we've been drawing down our bases for a while) and right in the strategic heartland of the oil lands of the Earth. As far as I can tell, there hasn't even been much oil exploration in the country in the last two decades, so who knows how much of what may lie under its territories? As is too seldom mentioned, the Bush administration is an energy regime with a number of its major players connected at various past moments to energy companies of various sorts. (Failing sorts in the case of our President.) Our present Secretary of State, a Chevron director from 1991-2001, once even had an oil tanker named after her.

As a group, they quite naturally look on the planet in an energy sort of way and dream of global control, at least in part, in terms of controlling energy flows. (That some of these dreams may prove quite irrational is beside the point. Just recall the mad fantasies of gold that once drove Spaniards deep into the New World and that have left us with land developers who give their projects historically bizarre names like El Dorado Acres? After all, they don't call oil "black gold" for nothing.) In the future, can there be any question that historians will look upon our most recent Iraq War as an energy war? If you have your doubts and want a sense of just how much oil was on the mind of the Bush administration as it invaded Iraq, consider Greg Palast's most recent piece of reportage, Secret U.S. Plans for Iraq's Oil, based on revelations by the BBC's Newsnight (or Juan Cole's take on it).

Or just think about the "withdrawal" news in the New York Times piece mentioned above. If all goes really well, we might draw down to 105,000 troops in Iraq by 2006. And if the Iraqis can begin to take over basic internal security jobs, then, as in Afghanistan, perhaps we'll try to organize one of those "strategic partnerships" and claim at least some of those KBR bases that are now as much a part of the Iraqi landscape as any ziggurat.

The most significant fact of our Iraq War and occupation (and war), which can't be repeated too many times, is that the Bush administration busted into the country without an exit strategy for a simple reason: They never planned to leave -- and they still don't. If you have a better reason for taking a withdrawal position and pressing for it, let me know by at least the beginning of Year Four of the Iraqi Deconstruction Era.

[Special thanks for research work goes to Nick Turse.]

Tom Engelhardt writes and edits Tomdispatch.com, where this piece first appeared.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

This article has been made possible by the Foundation for National Progress, the Investigative Fund of Mother Jones, and gifts from generous readers like you.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Öl im Irak: Interessanter Film über Bushs Ölpolitik im Irak

2005-03-22T21:05:00.000+01:00

Secret US plans for Iraq's oil

By Greg Palast
Reporting for Newsnight

The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.

Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protesters claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered.

In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists".

"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants.

Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.

We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities and pipelines [in Iraq] built on the premise that privatisation is coming
Mr Falah Aljibury

An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat.

Mr Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration.

Secret sell-off plan

The industry-favoured plan was pushed aside by a secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas.

The sell-off was given the green light in a secret meeting in London headed by Ahmed Chalabi shortly after the US entered Baghdad, according to Robert Ebel.

Mr Ebel, a former Energy and CIA oil analyst, now a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, told Newsnight he flew to the London meeting at the request of the State Department.

Mr Aljibury, once Ronald Reagan's "back-channel" to Saddam, claims that plans to sell off Iraq's oil, pushed by the US-installed Governing Council in 2003, helped instigate the insurgency and attacks on US and British occupying forces.

"Insurgents used this, saying, 'Look, you're losing your country, you're losing your resources to a bunch of wealthy billionaires who want to take you over and make your life miserable,'" said Mr Aljibury from his home near San Francisco.

"We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities, pipelines, built on the premise that privatisation is coming."

Privatisation blocked by industry

Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA who took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the invasion, stalled the sell-off scheme.

Mr Carroll told us he made it clear to Paul Bremer, the US occupation chief who arrived in Iraq in May 2003, that: "There was to be no privatisation of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while I was involved."

Ariel Cohen, of the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation, told Newsnight that an opportunity had been missed to privatise Iraq's oil fields.

He advocated the plan as a means to help the US defeat Opec, and said America should have gone ahead with what he called a "no-brainer" decision.

Mr Carroll hit back, telling Newsnight, "I would agree with that statement. To privatize would be a no-brainer. It would only be thought about by someone with no brain."

New plans, obtained from the State Department by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine under the US Freedom of Information Act, called for creation of a state-owned oil company favoured by the US oil industry. It was completed in January 2004 under the guidance of Amy Jaffe of the James Baker Institute in Texas.

Formerly US Secretary of State, Baker is now an attorney representing Exxon-Mobil and the Saudi Arabian government.

View segments of Iraq oil plans at www.GregPalast.com

Questioned by Newsnight, Ms Jaffe said the oil industry prefers state control of Iraq's oil over a sell-off because it fears a repeat of Russia's energy privatisation. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, US oil companies were barred from bidding for the reserves.

Ms Jaffe says US oil companies are not warm to any plan that would undermine Opec and the current high oil price: "I'm not sure that if I'm the chair of an American company, and you put me on a lie detector test, I would say high oil prices are bad for me or my company."

The former Shell oil boss agrees. In Houston, he told Newsnight: "Many neo conservatives are people who have certain ideological beliefs about markets, about democracy, about this, that and the other. International oil companies, without exception, are very pragmatic commercial organizations. They don't have a theology."

A State Department spokesman told Newsnight they intended "to provide all possibilities to the Oil Ministry of Iraq and advocate none".

Greg Palast's film - the result of a joint investigation by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine - will be broadcast on Thursday, 17 March, 2005.

Newsnight is broadcast every weekday at 10.30pm on BBC Two in the UK.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

Published: 2005/03/17 15:41:31 GMT

© BBC MMV

Öligarchen in Russland

2005-03-05T17:35:00.000+01:00

Interessante Story von Peter Maass über Vagit Alekperov, den Präsidenten von Lukoil. Die Geschichte ist im New York Times Magazine erschienen. Im Artikel wird diskutiert, warum Alekperov in Putins Russland Erfolg hat, während Michail Khodorkowski inhaftiert ist.