Hi All,
I do realize that this list should focus on City issues. However, the e-mail below might be of interest to some. Phil, you mentioned yesterday how Chavez told the IMF to take a hike.
Marcy
I think it's good that we focus mainly on San Francisco issues, but one of the things that has made this list valuable, imho, is that people can and do talk about anything and everything.
The overall impression I have gotten from the media about South American views the past few years is that they intensely dislike Bush, while Hugo Chavez tends to be seen as a man of the people. So I was recently surprised by a March 5 Wall Street Journal article (p. A4) which reported:
"Mr. Chavez has his own problems. Many in Latin America view the Venezuelan leader as a meddler with militaristic tendencies. A region-wide poll taken in December by the Latinobarometro firm of Santiago, Chile, found that 39% of Latin Americans viewed both Messrs. Bush and Chavez negatively -- a level of disapproval exceeded among the region's leaders only by Cuba's Fidel Castro, Mr. Chavez's ally and mentor."
Castro more unpopular than Bush in Latin America, and his protege Chavez just as unpopular as the supposedly hated American president! Who would have guessed? I find some of my confidence in the perceptive abilities of the people of the world reaffirmed. Bad as Bush is, he is not in the same league as Castro, the world's longest-ruling dictator. Chavez, a demagogue who shows every sign of being a budding tyrant himself, would likewise have higher negatives than Bush in a saner world, but it is nevertheless a pleasant surprise to realize there is more sanity out there than I had been led to believe.
Love & liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Oh, I agree with you, Starchild! Conservative-leaning So. American
countries such as Chile, Argentina, Uruguay most likely see the
Chavez/Castro mold with very jaundiced eyes!
Marcy
I think it's good that we focus mainly on San Francisco
issues, but
one of the things that has made this list valuable, imho, is that
people can and do talk about anything and everything.The overall impression I have gotten from the media about
South
American views the past few years is that they intensely dislike
Bush, while Hugo Chavez tends to be seen as a man of the people. So
I
was recently surprised by a March 5 Wall Street Journal article
(p.
A4) which reported:
"Mr. Chavez has his own problems. Many in Latin America view the
Venezuelan leader as a meddler with militaristic tendencies. A
region-
wide poll taken in December by the Latinobarometro firm of
Santiago,
Chile, found that 39% of Latin Americans viewed both Messrs. Bush
and
Chavez negatively -- a level of disapproval exceeded among the
region's leaders only by Cuba's Fidel Castro, Mr. Chavez's ally
and
mentor."
Castro more unpopular than Bush in Latin America, and his
protege
Chavez just as unpopular as the supposedly hated American
president!
Who would have guessed? I find some of my confidence in the
perceptive abilities of the people of the world reaffirmed. Bad as
Bush is, he is not in the same league as Castro, the world's
longest-
ruling dictator. Chavez, a demagogue who shows every sign of being
a
budding tyrant himself, would likewise have higher negatives than
Bush in a saner world, but it is nevertheless a pleasant surprise
to
realize there is more sanity out there than I had been led to
believe.
Love & liberty,
<<< starchild >>>> Hi All,
>
> I do realize that this list should focus on City issues.
However,
> the e-mail below might be of interest to some. Phil, you
mentioned
> yesterday how Chavez told the IMF to take a hike.
>
> Marcy
>
> From: Amarcy D. Berry
> To: amarcyb@...
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 6:45 PM
> Subject: Fwd: the Rape of Iraq by Bush/IMF
>
> --- In VotersForPeace@yahoogroupscom, "Linda Schade" <lschade@>
> wrote:
>
> Peace Voters,
>
>
>
> For those who haven't understood the IMF/World Bank relationship
to US
> militarism. and why 'they hate us'.
>
>
>
> Linda
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: ufpj-leg-action-bounces+lschade=votersforpeace.org@
> [mailto:ufpj-leg-action-bounces+lschade=votersforpeace.org@
> g] On Behalf Of sue udry
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 11:20 AM
> To: UFPJ legislative discussion list; ufpj-leg-action@
> Subject: [Ufpj-leg-action] Iraq's Oil Law
>
>
>
> Here is an excellent article that lays out the problems with
Iraq's
> hydrocarbon law. Both Congress and the Bush administration are
> prioritizing
> the passage of an oil law as one of the key 'benchmarks' for Iraq.
> It has
> become apparent that many members of Congress just don't
understand
> the
> implications of that benchmark -- this article may help them!
[more
> info on
> the oil law is available at
> http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?preview=1
> <http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?
> preview=1&cache=0&id=13157>
> &cache=0&id=13157 ]
>
>
>
> http://wwwniqash.org/content.php?contentTypeID=171
> <http://www.niqash.org/content.php?contentTypeID=171&id=1816>
&id=1816
>
> Iraq's Hydrocarbon Law - in whose interests?
>
> Ewa Jasiewicz, PLATFORM
>
> A Hydrocarbon Law which advocates a radical restructuring of
Iraq's
> oil
> industry was approved by the Iraqi cabinet in February. If passed
by
> parliament, the law will mark a milestone in Iraqi history - a
shift
> of
> Iraq's massive reserves from public to private hands. It could see
> private
> companies develop and profit from Iraq's oil for 15-30 year
periods
> with
> virtually no possibility for the Iraqi state to renegotiate
> contractual
> terms and conditions.
>
> The first draft of the oil law was produced to a timeline set by
the
> International Monetary Fund. The IMF ordered, as a condition of
debt
> relief,
> the issuance of an oil law by December 2006. This law had to open
up
> Iraq
> oil (for the first time in over 30 years) to long-term investment
by
> foreign
> oil companies. Finally produced in July 2006, the first to review
it
> and
> comment on it were 9 multinational oil companies, the British
> government and
> US government. It would be eight months before the vast majority
of
> the
> Iraqi parliament would even see it.
>
> In January of this year, the US President decreed the passing of
an
> oil law
> allowing for foreign investment as his top benchmark. AP reported
in
> early
> April that sources close to Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki had
> revealed he
> feared being ousted by the US administration if he did not secure
the
> passing of an oil law by the end of June.
>
> The Oil Law - Legislation for Oil Privatisation?
>
> The oil law and Production Sharing Agreements (re-
named 'Exploration
> and
> Risk Contracts and Development and Production Sharing Contracts in
> the Oil
> Law) do not amount to privatisation of Iraqi oil in a strict
technical
> sense. With PSAs and the provisions of the oil law, the oil
> underground
> technically remains 'the property of the Iraqi people'. It is not
set
> to
> pass into private ownership; existing assets will not pass into
> private
> ownership and corporate structures will also not be privately
owned.
> However, the rights to control what happens to Iraq's oil - how
it is
> developed, its' rate of extraction, the profits which the state is
> able to
> claim - the control of oil flow and development - this is all up
for
> exclusive private control. Sami Husseini of the Institute for
Public
> Accuracy uses Standard Oil's John D Rockefeller's maxim to
illustrate
> this.
> 'Own nothing, control everything'.
>
> Despite being sold as a de-facto peace plan for Iraq; The
mechanism
> for
> uniting all Iraqi factions by offering a fair distribution of oil
> wealth,
> only one out of 43 articles actually deals with this. The details
of
> revenue
> distribution, including the proportion shared between central
> government and
> the regions, and the means by which allocations and percentages
will
> be
> decided is actually the subject of another separate law which has
yet
> to be
> published.
>
> The Law could risks exacerbating sectarian tensions. Its provision
> for a
> creation of a Federal Oil and Gas Council - most likely composed
by
> the
> Prime Minister, in consultation with the main parties, could see
the
> current
> sectarianised decision-making reflected in economic oil policy -
> potentially
> pitting region against region in a race to secure competitive
> contracts.
>
> Contentious articles of the law
>
> Article 41 of the law stipulates that any disputes between foreign
> companies
> and Iraqi authorities which cannot be resolved through
negotiation,
> will be
> resolved 'through arbitration or the competent authority'. In
> practice this
> means that, a successive Iraqi government wishing to reverse any
> terms would
> not be able to use its own judicial system to do so. It would be
> forced to
> take its case to a remote court where it would be treated as a
> corporate
> entity, on an equal footing with an international oil company
rather
> than as
> a country representative of 35 million people and their welfare.
>
> Article 11 does not allow for Parliamentary scrutiny of contracts
or
> revenues accrued from new fields. Fields such as West Qurna and
> Majnoon each
> alone account for approx. 10% of all government revenue. As such,
the
> terms
> of these developments should be subject to Parliamentary debate as
> they are
> in other countries such as Syria, Azerbaijan, Russia and Yemen. If
> long-term
> PSAs are signed, then the vote on the oil law will be the last say
> Parliament will have over what happens to Iraq's oil for a
> generation.
>
> It is normal practice in major oil producing countries with a
> technically
> skilled workforce to guarantee a minimum percentage of state
> participation
> in contracts. No such minimum is set in the law. For a country as
well
> endowed with resources and technical skills as Iraq, a high
minimum
> threshold would have been expected (50% is a normal level).
>
> Article 35 also allows companies unlimited transfer of profits
> outside of
> Iraq. This could restrict the government's ability to manage
financial
> crises.
>
> Article 9 states that foreign companies are only 'encouraged' to
co-
> operate
> with Iraqi companies and purchase goods and services from
> them 'whenever
> they are competitive'. Iraqis should only be employed 'to a
reasonable
> extent'. Normally contracts specify minimum Iraqi content and
> employment and
> minimum levels of training and technology transfer.
>
> Article 4 equates the definition of 'good oil field practices'
with
> what oil
> companies think is right. This could seriously restrict the
regulatory
> influence of the Iraqi government on environmental and health and
> safety
> issues.
>
> Yet opposition to the law is mounting at parliamentary,
expatriate and
> grassroots level. In a recent statement, the Association of
Muslim'
>
> Scholars said: "We call on members of the parliament to reject
this
> law.
>
> This critical draft law would revive foreign companies' control on
> Iraqi oil
> wealth that Iraq had gotten rid of years ago'. The National Accord
> Front,
> Iraqi National Dialogue Party and prominent members of the Sadr
bloc
> and
> Alawi's Iraqi list have all publicly spoken against the law.
>
> Also, at a gathering in Jordan in February, 50 Iraqi technocrats
and
> former
> senior civil servants in Iraq's oil ministry issued a statement in
> which
> they criticized the law for its 'gaps and ambiguities', rejected
long-
> term
> contracts and called for more parliamentary scrutiny of the oil
> investment
> process. They said: 'Long-term contracts of exploration,
development
> and
> production with international companies are better avoided until
the
> security situation improves.In all cases, it is better to present
> contracts
> with international companies to the parliament for approval.'
>
> A ministry of oil source who cannot be named explained, 'I know
that
> Iraq
> doesn't need PSAs, but there are some things that the Americans
will
> not
> compromise on. They will not compromise on PSAs'. It appears that
the
> US and
> its' partners have drawn a red line that cannot be crossed.
> Conversely,
> powerful actors within Iraqi civil society have also drawn their
own
> red
> line. Five trade union federations representing hundreds of
thousands
> of
> workers stated in December 2006, 'We strongly reject the
> privatization of
> our oil wealth, as well as production sharing agreements, and
there
> is no
> room for discussing this matter.
>
> This is the demand of the Iraqi street, and the privatization of
oil
> is a
> red line that may not be crossed.
>
> So it appears that the lines have been drawn - between the
interests
> of
> foreign oil companies and their sponsoring states and the
interests
> of the
> Iraqi people, constrained by the political and economic violence
of
> occupation. The developments of the coming months will reveal
whose
> interests the oil law will finally serve.
>
>
>
> --
> Sue Udry
> Legislative Action Coordinator
> United for Peace and Justice
> 301-565-4050 x315
> visit our website: http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?
id=3116
> support our work: http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=160
> join one of our Legislative listserves:
> either announcements only (2-3 emails/week):
> https://lists.mayfirst.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-leg-
action