Damning Keystone XL: Will Regulators Do What Protesters Can't?

Will Regulators Damn Keystone XL?

by Daniel J. Graeber - Oil Price

Starting Tuesday, U.S. regulators will hold regular meetings on oil and natural gas pipeline safety standards. A series of pipeline issues, ranging from a deadly gas pipeline explosion in California, to a massive oil spill in Michigan, have brought pipeline safety to the forefront of the American energy debate. The safety meetings, scheduled in Virginia, come days after environmental regulators in Nebraska end a public comment period for Keystone XL, one of the most contentious U.S. pipeline issues.

The U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration scheduled hearings beginning Dec. 11 in Virginia. During those meetings, safety committees are expected to review proposed rules related to pipeline damage prevention. PHMSA described the committees as " statutorily mandated advisory committees that advise PHMSA on proposed safety standards, risks assessments, and safety policies for natural gas pipelines and for hazardous liquid pipelines."

In October, the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality announced it was finished with its draft evaluation report for the proposed reroute of the Keystone XL pipeline through the state. In its 600-page draft, the NDEQ found that TransCanada's new proposal "avoids the region that was identified as the Sandhills by NDEQ, which is based on extensive research conducted by various state and federal agencies several years ago."

NDEQ closed the period for written testimony on the reroute Friday. Bold Nebraska, an advocacy group opposing the pipeline, said this week that TransCanada's route remains problematic, however.

"TransCanada (NYSE:TRP) is still risking our aquifer and still risking the fragile sandy soils of our state," said Bold Nebraska's Executive Director Jane Kleeb in a statement. "When TransCanada first submitted their route to the U.S. State Department, their designation of the Sandhills was much larger and much more accurate to the reality of the Sandhills region."

Nebraskans get about 85 percent of their drinking water from regional aquifers, a November report published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology states. The study found few published groundwater case studies on the fate of tar sands oil, the type of crude designated for Keystone XL, but noted there may be a residual impact. The report recommended for the pipeline a "risk-managed route." That route targets a section of the state that was "intensely spray-irrigated, row-cropped (and) underlain by contaminated groundwater." This route, the report finds, would provide easier access should any emergency response be needed for Keystone XL.

Supporters of Keystone XL say the project is needed to ensure U.S. energy security and support jobs. U.S. Rep Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the pipeline could "create an estimated 100,000 or more direct and indirect jobs" for American workers. Detractors, like Bold Nebraska, however, said any potential benefits far outweigh the risks.

The journal report finds that pipeline spills have declined considerably during the past 10 years. While it's unclear what action the PHMSA may consider in its safety review, it's clear that, despite high-profile concerns like the so-called fiscal cliff, regulators are taking pipeline issues seriously as the North American energy boom gains steam.


Source: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Will-Regulators-Damn-Keystone-XL.html

Criminal Bankers Walk Away Scot Free

Matt Taibbi: After Laundering $800 Million in Drug Money, How Did HSBC Executives Avoid Jail?

by Democracy Now!

The banking giant HSBC has escaped indictment for laundering billions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels and groups linked to al-Qaeda. Despite evidence of wrongdoing, the U.S. Department of Justice has allowed the bank to avoid prosecution and pay a $1.9 billion fine. No top HSBC officials will face charges, either.

We’re joined by Rolling Stone contributing editor Matt Taibbi, author of "Griftopia: A Story of Bankers, Politicians, and the Most Audacious Power Grab in American History." "You can do real time in jail in America for all kinds of ridiculous offenses," Taibbi says.

"Here we have a bank that laundered $800 million of drug money, and they can’t find a way to put anybody in jail for that. That sends an incredible message, not just to the financial sector but to everybody. It’s an obvious, clear double standard, where one set of people gets to break the rules as much as they want and another set of people can’t break any rules at all without going to jail."

Housing Revolution in Venezuela

Venezuela's Housing Revolution

by TRNN

"Great Housing Mission" seeks to address soaring housing deficit, democratize city space

Watch full multipart Venezuela

Is an Islamic Reformation Coming?

Does Islam Need Reform? An Interview With Ziauddin Sardar

by ANDRE VLTCHEK

Ziauddin Sardar is a London-based scholar and writer. Born in Pakistan, Sardar has written for Nature, the New Scientist and the New Statesman. His books include: What Do Muslims Believe?, Desperately Seeking Paradise, and Reading the Quran. He is the chair of The Muslim Institute Trust.

AV: Your Institute is opening its doors for meaningful dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims, and between Muslims belonging to different torrents of faith. Could you describe your plans and goals in detail? Is there a goal or sets of goals, or are you more interested in the process, in an ongoing dialogue and reforms?

ZS: The primary goal of the Muslim Institute is to promote thought and creativity and provide a platform where all questions relating to Islam, Muslims, the West, however controversial or contested, can be openly debated and discussed without fear or accusations. There are numerous issues, relating to say gender, minorities, sexual orientation, as well as issues of dogma and belief that we think Muslims should address. Our ultimate goal is reform; but we need to being somewhere and that place is an open, honest and on-going dialogue that appreciates different positions within Islam and shapes a common ground on some of these issues. We try to do this both through our conferences and seminars, which have been devoted to such issues as ‘the Idea of Islam’, ‘Men in Islam’ and the notion of community, as well as through our quarterly journal Critical Muslim. We believe that radical and rapid change can often be counter-productive and that reform has to be gradual and systematic and grounded in textual analysis to be meaningful. So we see our work as a long-term, multi-generational effort.

AV: Muslim people, in fact entire Muslim nations and cultures suffered tremendously from Western imperialism. Is open and free dialogue between the Western culture and Islam still possible or the damage had been too great, the trust broken? And how could one even begin to talk when almost all Muslim nations are living in submission, under what could be easily described as Western neo-colonialism?

ZS: Trust between Islam and the West has indeed been broken; and has to be re-built.

The rising tide of Islamophobia and notions such as the Clash of Civilizations do not help. But despite the hurdles, we have to work to create mutual trust and respect.

We need to realize that colonialism did much more than simply damage Muslim nations and cultures. It played a major part in the suppression and eventual disappearance of knowledge and learning, thought and creativity, from Muslim cultures. Colonial encounter began by appropriating the knowledge and learning of Islam, which became the basis of the ‘European Renaissance’ and ‘the Enlightenment’ and ended by eradicating this knowledge and learning from both from Muslim societies and from history itself. It did that both by physical elimination – destroying and closing down institutions of learning, banning certain types of indigenous knowledge, killing off local thinkers and scholars – and by rewriting History as the history of western civilization into which all minor histories of other civilization are subsumed.

As a consequence, Muslim cultures were delinked from their own history with many serious consequences. For example, the colonial suppression of Islamic science led to the displacement of scientific culture from Muslim society. It did this by introducing new systems of administration, law, education and economy all of which were designed to impart dependence, compliance and subservience to the colonial powers. The decline of Islamic science and learning is one aspect of the general economic and political decay and deterioration of Muslim societies. Islam has thus been transformed from a dynamic culture and a holistic way of life to mere rhetoric. Islamic education has became a cul de sac, a one way ticket to marginality. It also led to the conceptual reduction of Muslim civilization. By which I mean concepts that shaped and gave direction to Muslim societies became divorced from the actual daily lives of Muslims – leading to the kind of intellectual impasse that we find in Muslim societies today. Western neo-colonialism perpetuates that system.

But colonialism also damaged the imperial powers. It dehumanised the west: notions of supremacy and exclusive rationality, and ideas that attribute modernity solely to the west are, in my opinion, symptoms of dehumanisation. A worldview that assumes it is the yardstick for measuring all other cultures, and insists that all other cultures must be judged by its norms and values, and must conform to its dictates lacks humanity by definition. Such a perspective on humanity cannot conceive that there can be other, different, ways of being human. I believe that there are numerous ways of being human; and western way of being human is only one amongst many. Because the western civilisation is the dominant civilization we automatically assume that this dominant way is the only way and the right way to be human. By suppressing other ways of being human, the West does not allow other, different ideas, notions, concepts, to come to the fore. Imperialism has given the West a fractured perception of its own superiority and a truncated notion of what it means to be human.

So the trust building exercise that we are undertaking has two components. First, it aims to recover lost tradition of intellectual thought and inquiry in Muslim cultures, and provide Muslims with confidence to engage with the modern world of the twenty-first century. Second, it aims to humanize the West by showing that western culture is only one culture amongst many on this planet. The history of the world is not the history of the West: the histories of other cultures are not just tributaries that flow into the Universal History of western civilization. Rather, all cultures, including Islam and the West, are human cultures with equal strengths and weaknesses. We need to come together on the basis of mutual equality and move forward jointly on the basis of trust to build a more equitable and just world.


Ziauddin Sardar and Andre Vltchek discussing Islam at Mr. Sardar’s club in London.

So we, the Muslim intellectuals, find ourselves somewhere between Western and Islamic cultures struggling to create new ideas from a synthesis of the two worldviews and trying to transcend the limitations of both. Our position is not a counter argument but an illustration that new ideas, as well as new forms of criticism, emerge from different perspectives on humanity. Our goal is to move forward from current impasse and bankruptcy of many western and Islamic notions to recognize, appreciated and explore other ways of knowing, being and doing and different ways of being human.

AV: For years, decades, even centuries, the European and later North American imperialism had been forging cooperation with radical fractions of Islam. Entire progressive governments and countries had been destroyed by such ‘unholy alliance”, from Iran and Egypt to Afghanistan and Indonesia. Could you talk about the mechanism of such alliances and how could progressive, even mainstream Islam prevent forging them in the future?

ZS: I would argue that western imperialism has not so much forge alliance with radical factions as created them. The ‘war on terror’ and invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the drone bombing of Pakistan, have all increased radicalization amongst young Muslims. The very idea that freedom and democracy can be imposed is a gift to radical preachers. Imposing a pro-American regime in Baghdad does not amount to giving the Iraqis freedom either. This is exactly the kind of imposition that insists that one size fits all irrespective of condition and circumstance that the Muslim world hates. Muslims want to seek ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’, as the American Declaration of Independence terms its central values, on their own terms – as we see in the ‘Arab Spring’. They want the right to define and determine the content and form of these values according to their own history and culture, and finds that western powers are often a practical obstacle to attain them in their own terms in their own countries.

In part, Islamic fundamentalism is essentially an outcome of these impositions. It is the last resource of the powerless. In part, it is a product of fossilized traditional system that has a rather backward-looking and romantic notion of Islam. Perverted notions of Islam are used by the radical to legitimize their actions and provide a sense of misplaced pride.

But in the end it is a vacuous enterprise: all slogans and no policies. Its days are numbered.

I think mainstream Islam has realized the dangers of fundamentalism; and is standing up to the radical forces. The situation in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya illustrate both the dangers of radical Islam and the fact that there is serious resistance on the ground. Mainstream Muslims are raising their voices and are determined to be heard.

AV: It is extremely sensitive question, but could Islam be ‘reformed’ and if yes, then should it be reformed? You promote critical thought in Islam, but there is entire, mostly conservative or so-called ‘fundamentalist” school of thought which claims that Islam should not be reformed or criticized at all simply because it is ‘perfect’ as it is. According to you: is it perfect? Should Islam be reformed and if ‘yes’, how should it be done?

ZS: Yes, indeed. I think Islam needs reform: a serious dose of self-criticism and critical thought, which is what we are trying to do in our quarterly Critical Muslim. For example, the Sharia, or Islamic law, needs to be totally formulated. It is too deeply entrenched in medieval times and the Bedouin culture of ninth and tenth century Middle East. The relationship between Islam and the state needs to be rethought. Where state and religion have come together, for example in Saudi Arabia and Iran, authoritarianism and despotisms has reigned supreme. We need a new mechanism that separates religious authority from political power. Islam also needs to be democratize by which I mean that individual Muslims must have the right to exercise their conscience, interpret the Sacred texts of Islam themselves, and that the power of the religious authorities, the Mullahs and the ulama (religious scholars) must be curtailed. Islam, like most cultures, has a problem with the Other – women, minorities, homosexuals – which needs to be addressed. So there are numerous issues within Islam that need urgent thought and reform.

Of course, there is an ultra conservative and radical section of Muslims who are against reform; for them, as you said, Islam is perfect and needs no change. But these Muslims, who have been comfortably relying, or rather falling back, on age-old interpretations for centuries are out of sync with time; this is why they feel so painful in the contemporary world, so uncomfortable with modernity. They will be always with us; indeed, they are a part of the diversity of Islam. But the vast majority of Muslims realize that serious rethinking within Islam is long overdue, and reform has now become essential. It is all about discovering what it means to be a Muslim in the twenty-first century and understanding the contemporary meaning and significance of Islam.

www.musliminstitute.org

www.criticalmuslim.com

 

Andre Vltchek is a novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific – Oceania – is published by Lulu. His provocative book about post-Suharto Indonesia and market-fundamentalist model is called “Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear” (Pluto). After living for many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and Africa. He can be reached through his website.

Saddam's WMD Finally Found! - in Syria?

Won't Get Fooled Again? Hyping Syria's WMD 'Threat'

by David Edwards - Media Lens

Reading about crimes of state over many years, it is tempting to try to fathom the mind-set of political leaders. What actually is going on in their heads when they order sanctions that kill hundreds of thousands of children? What is in their hearts when they wage needless wars that shatter literally millions of lives? Are they desperately cruel, mindlessly stupid? Do they imagine they are living in a kind of hell where monstrous acts have to be committed to avoid even worse outcomes? Are they indifferent, focused on what will bring them short-term political and economic gain? Are they morally resigned, perceiving themselves as essentially powerless in the face of invincible political and economic forces ('If I didn't do it, someone else would.')?

Similar questions come to mind as the US and UK governments once again raise the spectre of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ to demonise a target for ‘regime change’, this time in Syria. What is actually going on in the minds of people who know that exactly the same ploy was exposed as a cynical deception just a few years ago? Do they view the public with contempt? Are they laughing at us? Are they playing the only card they perceive to be available to them; one that they know will work imperfectly, but will have to do?

In the US, NBC commented:

‘U.S. officials tell us that the Syrian military is poised tonight to use chemical weapons against its own people. And all it would take is the final order from Syrian President Assad.’

US media watch dog Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting asked: ‘So where did all of this new information come from?’ The familiar, ominous answer: ‘Anonymous government officials talking to outlets like the New York Times.’ This, for example:

‘Western intelligence officials say they are picking up new signs of activity at sites in Syria that are used to store chemical weapons. The officials are uncertain whether Syrian forces might be preparing to use the weapons in a last-ditch effort to save the government, or simply sending a warning to the West about the implications of providing more help to the Syrian rebels.

‘“It's in some ways similar to what they've done before,” a senior American official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters. “But they're doing some things that suggest they intend to use the weapons. It's not just moving stuff around. These are different kind of activities.”’ (Michael Gordon, Eric Schmitt, Tim Arango, 'Flow of arms to Syria through Iraq persists, to US dismay,' New York Times, December 1, 2012)

FAIR commented:

‘Absent any further details, that would seem to be a strange standard for confirmation… But the theatrics – satellite images, anonymous sources speaking about weapons of mass destruction and so on – are obviously reminiscent of the lead up to the Iraq War.’

They are indeed. On May 26, 2004, the New York Times published a humbling mea culpa titled, ‘The Times and Iraq.’ The editors commented:

‘Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper.’

As a result, the paper published a ‘Confidential News Sources Policy’, which included:

‘In any situation when we cite anonymous sources, at least some readers may suspect that the newspaper is being used to convey tainted information or special pleading. If the impetus for anonymity has originated with the source, further reporting is essential to satisfy the reporter and the reader that the paper has sought the whole story.’ (Confidential News Sources, New York Times, February 25, 2004)

Clearly this has all been forgotten.

The same claims about Syrian WMD have of course also poured out of the UK media. A December 5 leading article in The Times was titled: 'Assad's Arsenal.' The first line of the editorial:

'The embattled Syrian regime may be preparing to use chemical weapons. That would be a catastrophe; it must be averted, whatever it takes.’

As ever, Rupert Murdoch's editors - and, no doubt, the boss, standing just over their shoulders - regretfully declared that Western military 'intervention' might turn out to be the only answer: ‘we must also hope that the US and its allies would take any action that was deemed necessary to prevent the human and moral disaster that would be caused by the Syrian regime attempting its final exit in a cloud of mustard gas’.

War, for the West, is now as normal as the air we breathe. Obviously it is the job of the West, with its blood-soaked track record, to save the peoples of the world from tyrannies that just happen to obstruct its geostrategic goals.

In November 2002, as war loomed on Iraq, The Times reported:

‘President Saddam Hussein has been trying to buy from Turkish suppliers up to 1.25 million doses of atropine, a derivative of deadly nightshade.

‘It has wide-ranging medical uses but also protects the body from nerve agents that can paralyse their victims and kill in as little as two minutes.’ (Elaine Monaghan, ‘Iraq move increases chemical war fear,’ The Times, November 13, 2002)

In 2010, The Times published the claim that Iran intended to develop a ‘trigger’ for a nuclear weapon. Investigative journalist Gareth Porter reported:

‘U.S. intelligence has concluded that the document published recently by the Times of London… is a fabrication, according to a former Central Intelligence Agency official.’

The counterterrorism specialist Porter had in mind, Philip Giraldi, commented:

‘The Rupert Murdoch chain has been used extensively to publish false intelligence from the Israelis and occasionally from the British government.’

In April 2011, The Times reported of Libya:

'There are increasing fears that Colonel Gaddafi could use suspected stocks of chemical weapons against [Misrata]... There are also fears that Colonel Gaddafi has stocks of nerve gas in the southern desert city of Sabha.' (James Hider, 'Amid rigged corpses and chemical weapon threat, city fears for its life,' The Times, April 27, 2011)

No matter, The Times might yet see a Libya-style 'intervention' in Syria. The Guardian reports this week:

'Britain's military chiefs have drawn up contingency plans to provide Syrian rebels with maritime, and possibly air, power in response to a request from David Cameron, senior defence sources said on Monday night.’

The UK government is planning to fight with ‘rebels’ despite clear evidence of war crimes and the involvement of numerous foreign mercenaries armed and funded by regional tyrants. The Syrian government also stands accused of appalling crimes.

Rusting Bins Of Mass Destruction - The Fantasy Specialists

In the Guardian, Matt Williams and Martin Chulov used dramatic language to report claims ‘that the [Syrian] regime is considering unleashing chemical weapons on opposition forces’.

The Guardian article cited CNN, which in turn cited ‘an unnamed US official as the source of its report’. Williams and Chulov expressed not a word of scepticism in their piece, adding a two-sentence denial from the much-demonised Syrian ‘regime’ as ‘balance’.

A BBC article managed this reference to scepticism:

‘Pressed in the interview by the BBC's Frank Gardner, he said he could understand why the public might be sceptical after the blunders made over Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago.’

To his credit, the BBC’s Jonathan Marcus did rather better:

‘Was there an element of political spin here to accompany Nato's decision to deploy patriot missiles in Turkey?

‘Sources contacted by the BBC say that there are indications of activity at certain chemical weapons storage sites.

‘However it is of course impossible to determine if this is a preliminary to the weapons' use or, as some analysts believe, much more likely, the movement of munitions to ensure their security. Indeed such movement has been noted in the past.’

Despite the caution, Marcus promoted the idea that Syrian WMD might fall into the ‘wrong’ hands and that the US might need to intervene to prevent that happening.

In the Independent, Robert Fisk went much further, pouring scorn on the claims:

‘The bigger the lie the more people will believe it. We all know who said that – but it still works. Bashar al-Assad has chemical weapons. He may use them against his own Syrian people. If he does, the West will respond. We heard all this stuff last year – and Assad’s regime repeatedly said that if – if – it had chemical weapons, it would never use them against Syrians.

‘But now Washington is playing the same gas-chanty all over again. Bashar has chemical weapons. He may use them against his own people. And if he does…’

Fisk added:

‘over the past week, all the usual pseudo-experts who couldn’t find Syria on a map have been warning us again of the mustard gas, chemical agents, biological agents that Syria might possess – and might use. And the sources? The same fantasy specialists who didn’t warn us about 9/11 but insisted that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction in 2003: “unnamed military intelligence sources”... And yes, Bashar probably does have some chemicals in rusting bins somewhere in Syria’.

If accurate, Fisk's ‘rusting bins’ make a nonsense of the ‘considerable pressure' on 'the US to come up with plans to secure the Syrian weapons in the event of the collapse of the regime’ described by Marcus.

Alex Thomson of Channel 4 News wrote an excellent piece titled: 'Syria, a weapon of mass deception?’:

‘Without wishing to delve too far into The Who’s back catalogue… we need to remind ourselves in the UK that we won’t get fooled again.’

Thomson offered a rare 'mainstream media' example of rational thinking on the issue:

‘But just to be old fashioned: what’s the evidence of any threat? What’s the basis for all this? What, in short, are they all talking about? Yes, by all accounts Syria has nerve and chemical agents. But possession does not mean threat of use. Israel is not credibly threatening to use nuclear weapons against Iran, despite possessing them.’

He noted that 'the story built upon nothing [has been] accepted as global fact when it’s nothing of the kind' and made the obvious point:

‘After Iraq and WMD, if the CIA or MI6 say it’s cold at the north pole, any sensible person would seek at least a couple more sources or would fly there and check.'

Amid the standard channelling of propaganda, then, a small number of journalists have learned from the past and are willing to challenge official claims. But we should also not be fooled by these admirable but rare examples of dissent. The overwhelming majority of corporate media reports - notably the TV broadcasts reaching millions of people - echo the claims of government ‘impartially’; that is, without the least sign of independent thought or critical comment. The best journalists reject such an obviously compromised version of ‘professionalism’ – but they are few and far between.

China Nexen Deal: How Harper Deceived Canadians

How Harper's Nexen Deal Deceived Canadians

by Maude Barlow - Council of Canadians

On December 7, Prime Minister Stephen Harper approved the first two complete takeovers of Canadian-owned energy firms by foreign state-owned companies in our country's history. He gave permission to CNOOC of China to purchase Nexen Inc., with its global conventional oil and shale gas assets, and to Petronas of Malaysia for its purchase of Progress Energy Resources Corp., a natural gas firm with operations in British Columbia and Alberta.

The Prime Minister did this without the support of the Canadian public, whose opposition to both foreign takeovers crossed traditional political and party lines.

Instead of listening to the public, or even those within the Conservative Party who opposed the CNOOC deal in particular, the Prime Minister used sleight of hand to trick Canadians into thinking these were "exceptional" cases, to be repeated only cautiously in the future.

He made changes to the Investment Canada Act that raised the general threshold under which there would be no review of foreign takeovers to $1 billion while leaving it at $330 million for bids by state-owned firms. He appeared to close the door to ownership of the tar sands by companies controlled by foreign governments.

But he didn't close it at all. He left it wide open and signaled to China, Malaysia and other countries that Canada's strategic energy resources were entirely for sale, not just to the highest bidder but to any bidder at all. Foreign ownership of the tar sands, whether state-owned or otherwise, was to become the norm, not the exception.

This deceit will have lasting repercussions on our ability to manage Canada's natural heritage, to protect our ecosystems that are already threatened by oil and gas development, and to uphold basic Indigenous, human and labour rights.

Canada is already familiar with foreign ownership of energy companies, though the oil, gas and mineral resources and their management are, under the Constitution, the sole property and responsibility of the Crown. Treaty rights also guarantee Indigenous title to the land and what is underneath it, as well as a right to be consulted on any project or international treaty that threatens to undermine those rights.

But Canada is also party to trade and investment treaties, for example the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which gives foreign-owned energy companies rights to challenge the way resources are managed, as well as other government measures, including environmental policies, that interfere with profits. Even Indigenous treaty rights are undermined by the "right to invest" in these trade and investment deals.

Just as many questions as answers in Harper's Friday night Q and A - amazing lack of transparency in how these guys do business.

The Harper government has signed and is on the verge of ratifying a Foreign Investment Protection and Promotion Agreement (FIPA) that extends NAFTA-like investor rights to Chinese firms operating in Canada. Resistance to the FIPA with China has been as fierce and cross-sectional as to the CNOOC purchase of Nexen.

Conservative pundits, labour unions, Indigenous communities, environmentalists and opposition party politicians of all stripes have said the FIPA should not be ratified, or that it should be studied publicly for the effects it might have on our ability to manage public resources like the tar sands, natural gas projects or proposed trans-Canada oil pipelines in the public interest. Our experience with investment treaties should have made this public review period automatic.

Canada has been sued many times by U.S. firms using NAFTA's investment chapter. The federal government has paid out about $160 million in fines and settlements, often in cases where environmental or conservation decisions were challenged. Investor lawsuits were successfully launched against a ban on the export of PCB waste, as well as a ban on the inter-provincial trade of gasoline containing the suspected neurotoxin MMT.

More recently, Lone Pine Resources, a U.S.-owned oil and gas firm with multiple Canadian holdings, filed notice against Canada under NAFTA for the Quebec government's decision this year to ban hydrofracking, or shale gas exploration, in the St. Lawrence Valley.

The company is asking for $250 million in compensation for the lost profits it was expected to make had the fracking gone ahead. The Quebec government banned gas development in the region because of the environmental risks and community opposition. NAFTA's investment chapter allows the firm to punish Canada for its prudence.

If the Harper government truly believes that foreign state-owned companies should not be given excessive control over the tar sands, he has the responsibility to say no to the FIPA with China. In fact, the Prime Minister has backed himself into a corner. There is nowhere for him to turn.

First, as we've seen, the treaty will give CNOOC, Sinopec, PetroChina and other established Chinese firms the right to challenge environmental, conservation or others measure affecting their energy investments. It doesn't matter if the policy treats foreign and national firms exactly the same. The state-owned or controlled energy companies have a right to be free from so-called indirect or regulatory expropriation, and to certain "minimum standards of treatment" that are defined by paid arbitrators, not the government.

But more importantly for the Prime Minister, if the FIPA is ratified there will be no way to review further takeovers of Canadian companies by these firms. Canada would retain the right to screen foreign takeovers from China-based companies. But once established, these firms must be treated exactly the same as national firms, or as well as or better than foreign private firms. If ExxonMobil can gobble up smaller Canadian players with attractive tar sands holdings or important new technologies, Canada must, under a FIPA with China, grant CNOOC that same right.

Harper should naturally reject the FIPA with China if he believes what he said on Friday about state-owned enterprises in the tar sands. But of course he doesn't believe it. His government's main objective is expansion of the tar sands and shale gas, regardless of the environmental costs or of which companies are doing the damage.

So it's once again up to Canadians to force the Prime Minister to make the right decision. We need to flood this government with phone calls and letters opposing the FIPA. You can do it directly from the Council of Canadians website.

We need to do this not because we are opposed to Chinese investment but because we reject the idea that corporations from any country, whether state-owned or otherwise, should be able to sue us when Indigenous rights or community choice or environmental measures come before profits -- which they should, always.

We shouldn't have to pay for our democratic right, and the rights of Indigenous communities, to control the way Canadian resources are managed.

Bully of the Congo: Canada Flexing Abroad

Canada as Global Bully: The Congo Example

by Yves Engler 

Thank you Julian Fantino.

The International Co-operation Minister caused a ruckus last week when he said that the Canadian International Development Agency should actively promote the country's interests abroad rather than primarily focus on poverty reduction. Fantino defended "aid" that was given to groups partnering with Canadian companies building mines around the world. He said CIDA has "a duty and a responsibility to ensure that Canadian interests are promoted."

While some commentators suggested the former Toronto police chief stuck his foot in his mouth, we should thank Fantino for his comments because they raise some important questions that Canadians seldom talk about.

How is Canadian foreign policy made? Which countries are we friendly towards and why? Which do we work against and why? What should be the primary purpose of Canadian foreign policy and aid?

As the author of five books on Canadian foreign policy, I know the answers to these questions can be controversial and complex. A short essay is certainly inadequate to properly address the subject. But a short story about Canada's relationship with one of the poorest countries in the world might help answer these questions.

Congo's woes and potential wealth

According to the CIA, the Democratic Republic of the Congo has the planet's lowest (228th in the world) per capita Gross Domestic Product. Coincidently (perhaps), this same country, Africa's largest by landmass, may possess more mineral wealth ($24 trillion by one calculation) than any other.

So, what sort of relationship does Canada, home to the most mining companies in the world, have with the Congo?

Since April 2012, Rwanda has reasserted its military control over a large chunk of the Congo. Rwandan troops and the M23 militia group it sponsors recently captured Goma, a city of a million people in the mineral rich east part of the country.

While Rwanda's proxies have now withdrawn to the outskirts of Goma, top officials in the city and province have been removed in place of individuals more sympathetic to Kigali (the capital of Rwanda). In one of a number of insightful reports, the Globe and Mail's Geoffrey York notes "a [new] layer of administrators, informers, police and other operatives [have been put in place] who will bolster M23's economic power in the city -- including their grip on the trade in 'blood minerals'."

Rwanda's actions in the Congo have already led to significant suffering. About 650,000 people have been displaced from their homes over the past seven months and there have been many reports of looting, rapes and assassinations. In the days after Goma was captured, the Red Cross said it picked up 62 bodies from the city's streets.

An ally of Washington and London, Paul Kagame's Rwanda government has repeatedly invaded the Congo over the past 16 years. In the worst instance, a 1998 Rwandan (and Ugandan) invasion sparked a multi-country war that lasted five years and caused millions of deaths. Peer-reviewed studies by the International Rescue Committee found that up to 5.4 million people were killed as a result of the conflict. An October 2010 UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights report on the Congo from 1993 to 2003 charged Rwandan troops with engaging in mass killings "that might be classified as crimes of genocide."

Canada's double standard with Rwanda

Ottawa has been decidedly ambivalent towards the recent Rwandan-sponsored war. Over the past six months Foreign Affairs has published four press releases on the matter, but only one sentence mentions Rwanda despite the UN reporting that Rwandan troops are once again involved and that the country's defence minister commands the entire operation. That sentence reads: "We are extremely concerned by continuing allegations of Rwandan support of M23 and urge the immediate cessation of any form of assistance."

The four press releases contain more criticism of the relatively powerless Congolese government than of Rwanda. In fact, one release is little more than an attack against the government in Kinshasa. In a statement about "the increasing instability in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo," Foreign Affairs urges "the Congo to ensure the protection of human rights is central in their daily deliberations." With no mention of Rwanda or the M23, it goes on to state: "The rapidly rising number of displaced persons and refugees is a troubling trend and needs to be addressed immediately."

Over the past year the Conservative government has produced more statements and comments critical of Congolese president Joseph Kabila than of the M23. "Canada Concerned by Post-election Situation in Democratic Republic of Congo" and "Minister of State Valcourt Encourages Reforms in Democratic Republic of Congo," noted two of the statements. During an October trip to the Francophonie summit in Kinshasa, Prime Minister Harper and his staff repeatedly complained about the Kabila government's human rights record. After meeting representatives of the political opposition Harper described the "complete unacceptability of failures in the electoral process and the abuse of human rights that are taking place in this country."

While there are major question marks surrounding the legitimacy of the December 2011 Congolese poll in which Kabila was re-elected, it was certainly as free and fair as the most recent Rwandan election. But when Kagame "won" re-election in August 2010, the Conservatives' release noted that "Canada commends the people of Rwanda on participating in their country's presidential election..." The harshest criticism in the statement was that Canada was "concerned" by violence, "intimidation of political opposition" and "restrictions on the media."

Scolding Kabila

While Rwanda is in Ottawa's good books, the Conservatives are generally hostile towards the Kabila government. Kabila angered Western countries when he signed a $6 billion resource infrastructure deal with China in 2008. The Conservatives are also concerned about the government's move to regain control over the country's natural resources, including the $3 billion in Canadian mining investment in the Congo.
During the recent Francophonie summit in Kinshasa, Harper called on Kabila to improve the country's business climate, "especially in the natural resources sector." At the G8 in June 2010 the Conservatives inserted an entire declaration to the final communiqué criticizing Kinshasa's treatment of foreign investors, because the Congo revoked a mining concession held by Vancouver-based First Quantum.

Months earlier Ottawa began to obstruct international efforts to reschedule the country's foreign debt, which was mostly accrued during more than three decades of Joseph Mobuto's dictatorship and the subsequent war. Canadian officials "have a problem with what's happened with a Canadian company," Congolese Information Minister Lambert Mende said, referring to the government's move to revoke a mining concession that First Quantum acquired under dubious circumstances during the 1998-2003 war. "The Canadian government wants to use the Paris Club [of debtor nations] in order to resolve a particular problem," explained Mende. "This is unacceptable."

Hard questions about Canada's aims

But the Conservatives did not stop with trying to obstruct the Congo's debt forgiveness. They also took the issue to other international forums. The Financial Post reported: "Harper will raise the case of Vancouver-based First Quantum Minerals Ltd. with representatives from the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and other governments that do business in the DRC."

Just the Conservatives looking after "Canadian interests," one could argue.

And this pro-corporate meddling in the Congo is nothing new. It's certainly not the first time Canada has worked against the Congo's population, which remains impoverished despite almost a century and a half of foreigners "developing" the country's resources.

In the early 1890s, Halifax native William Stairs led a 1,950-man mission to conquer the resource-rich Katanga region of the Congo on behalf of Belgium's King Leopold II. The Royal Military College in Kingston maintains a plaque devoted to Stairs' work even though he was notoriously racist and barbarous. Some 10 million Congolese were killed under Leopold's rule.

Canada also played an important role in the UN mission to the Congo that facilitated the murder of independence leader Patrice Lumumba in 1961. Apparently a Canadian officer handed Lumumba over to the CIA and Belgium operatives who would later dispose of the prime minister.

We ask again: How is Canadian foreign policy made? Which countries are we friendly towards and why? Which do we work against and why? What should be the primary purpose of Canadian foreign policy and aid?

 

 

Deconstructing David: The Mythical Petraeus

The Petraeus Myth 

by TRNN

Gareth Porter: America needed a war hero but his "achievements" riddled by half-truths and pure propaganda.

 

Watch full multipart The Porter Report

Gareth Porter is a historian and investigative journalist on US foreign and military policy analyst. He writes regularly for Inter Press Service on US policy towards Iraq and Iran. Author of four books, the latest of which is Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam.

"Your Bill, America" Picking Up the Empire Tab

Picking Up a $170 Billion Tab: How U.S. Taxpayers Are Paying the Pentagon to Occupy the Planet

by David Vine  - TomDispatch

“Are you monitoring the construction?” asked the middle-aged man on a bike accompanied by his dog.

“Ah, sì,” I replied in my barely passable Italian.

“Bene,” he answered. Good.

In front of us, a backhoe’s guttural engine whined into action and empty dump trucks rattled along a dirt track. The shouts of men vied for attention with the metallic whirring of drills and saws ringing in the distance. Nineteen immense cranes spread across the landscape, with the foothills of Italy’s Southern Alps in the background. More than 100 pieces of earthmoving equipment, 250 workers, and grids of scaffolding wrapped around what soon would be 34 new buildings.

We were standing in front of a massive 145-acre construction site for a “little America” rising in Vicenza, an architecturally renowned Italian city and UNESCO world heritage site near Venice. This was Dal Molin, the new military base the U.S. Army has been readying for the relocation of as many as 2,000 soldiers from Germany in 2013.

Since 1955, Vicenza has also been home to another major U.S. base, Camp Ederle. They’re among the more than 1,000 bases the United States uses to ring the globe (with about 4,000 more in the 50 states and Washington, D.C.). This complex of military installations, unprecedented in history, has been a major, if little noticed, aspect of U.S. power since World War II.

During the Cold War, such bases became the foundation for a “forward strategy” meant to surround the Soviet Union and push U.S. military power as close to its borders as possible. These days, despite the absence of a superpower rival, the Pentagon has been intent on dotting the globe with scores of relatively small “lily pad” bases, while continuing to build and maintain some large bases like Dal Molin.

Americans rarely think about these bases, let alone how much of their tax money -- and debt -- is going to build and maintain them. For Dal Molin and related construction nearby, including a brigade headquarters, two sets of barracks, a natural-gas-powered energy plant, a hospital, two schools, a fitness center, dining facilities, and a mini-mall, taxpayers are likely to shell out at least half a billion dollars. (All the while, a majority of locals passionately and vocally oppose the new base.)

How much does the United States spend each year occupying the planet with its bases and troops? How much does it spend on its global presence? Forced by Congress to account for its spending overseas, the Pentagon has put that figure at $22.1 billion a year. It turns out that even a conservative estimate of the true costs of garrisoning the globe comes to an annual total of about $170 billion. In fact, it may be considerably higher. Since the onset of “the Global War on Terror” in 2001, the total cost for our garrisoning policies, for our presence abroad, has probably reached $1.8 trillion to $2.1 trillion.

How Much Do We Spend?

By law, the Pentagon must produce an annual “Overseas Cost Summary” (OCS) putting a price on the military’s activities abroad, from bases to embassies and beyond. This means calculating all the costs of military construction, regular facility repairs, and maintenance, plus the costs of maintaining one million U.S. military and Defense Department personnel and their families abroad -- the pay checks, housing, schools, vehicles, equipment, and the transportation of personnel and materials overseas and back, and far, far more.

The latest OCS, for the 2012 fiscal year ending September 30th, documented $22.1 billion in spending, although, at Congress’s direction, this doesn’t include any of the more than $118 billion spent that year on the wars in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the globe.

While $22.1 billion is a considerable sum, representing about as much as the budgets for the Departments of Justice and Agriculture and about half the State Department’s 2012 budget, it contrasts sharply with economist Anita Dancs’s estimate of $250 billion. She included war spending in her total, but even without it, her figure comes to around $140 billion -- still $120 billion more than the Pentagon suggests.

Wanting to figure out the real costs of garrisoning the planet myself, for more than three years, as part of a global investigation of bases abroad, I’ve talked to budget experts, current and former Pentagon officials, and base budget officers. Many politely suggested that this was a fool’s errand given the number of bases involved, the complexity of distinguishing overseas from domestic spending, the secrecy of Pentagon budgets, and the “frequently fictional” nature of Pentagon figures. (The Department of Defense remains the only federal agency unable to pass a financial audit.)

Ever the fool and armed only with the power of searchable PDFs, I nonetheless plunged into the bizarro world of Pentagon accounting, where ledgers are sometimes still handwritten and $1 billion can be a rounding error. I reviewed thousands of pages of budget documents, government and independent reports, and hundreds of line items for everything from shopping malls to military intelligence to postal subsidies.

Wanting to err on the conservative side, I decided to follow the methodology Congress mandated for the OCS, while also looking for overseas costs the Pentagon or Congress might have ignored. It hardly made sense to exclude, for example, the health-care costs the Department of Defense pays for troops on overseas bases, spending for personnel in Kosovo, or the price tag for supporting the 550 bases we have in Afghanistan.

In the spirit of “monitoring the construction,” let me lead you on an abbreviated account of my quest to come up with the real costs of occupying planet Earth.

Missing Costs

Although the Overseas Cost Summary initially might seem quite thorough, you’ll soon notice that countries well known to host U.S. bases have gone missing-in-action. In fact, at least 18 countries and foreign territories on the Pentagon’s own list of overseas bases go unnamed.

Particularly surprising is the absence of Kosovo and Bosnia. The military has had large bases and hundreds of troops there for more than a decade, with another Pentagon report showing 2012 costs of $313.8 million. According to that report, the OCS also understates costs for bases in Honduras and Guantánamo Bay by about a third or $85 million.

And then other oddities appear: in places like Australia and Qatar, the Pentagon says it has funds to pay troops but no money for “operations and maintenance” to turn the lights on, feed people, or do regular repairs. Adjusting for these costs adds an estimated $36 million. As a start, I found:

$436 million for missing countries and costs.

That’s not much compared to $22 billion and chump change in the context of the whole Pentagon budget, but it’s just a beginning.

At Congress’s direction, the Pentagon also omits the costs of bases in the oft-forgotten U.S. territories -- Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. This is strange because the Pentagon considers them “overseas.” More important, as economist Dancs says, “The United States retains territories... primarily for the purposes of the military and projecting military power.” Plus, they are, well, literally overseas.

Conservatively, this adds $3 billion in total military spending to the OCS.

However, there are more quasi-U.S. territories in the form of truly forgotten Pacific Ocean island nations in “compacts of free association” with the United States -- the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau. Ever since it controlled these islands as “strategic trust territories” after World War II, the U.S. has enjoyed the right to establish military facilities on them, including the nuclear test site on the Bikini Atoll and the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site elsewhere in the Marshalls.

This comes in exchange for yearly aid payments from the Office of Insular Affairs, adding another $571 million and yielding total costs of:

$3.6 billion for territories and Pacific island nations.

Speaking of the oceans, at Congress’s instruction, the Pentagon excludes the cost of maintaining naval vessels overseas. But Navy and Marine Corps vessels are essentially floating (and submersible) bases used to maintain a powerful military presence on (and under) the seas. A very conservative estimate for these costs adds another $3.8 billion.

Then there are the costs of Navy prepositioned ships at anchor around the world. Think of them as warehouse-bases at sea, stocked with weaponry, war materiel, and other supplies. And don’t forget Army prepositioned stocks. Together, they come to an estimated $604 million a year. In addition, the Pentagon appears to omit some $861 million for overseas “sealift” and “airlift” and “other mobilization” expenses. All told, the bill grows by:

$5.3 billion for Navy vessels and personnel plus seaborne and airborne assets.

Also strangely missing from the Cost Summary is that little matter of health-care costs. Overseas costs for the Defense Health Program and other benefits for personnel abroad add an estimated $11.7 billion yearly. And then there’s $538 million in military and family housing construction that the Pentagon also appears to overlook in its tally.

So too, we can’t forget about shopping on base, because we the taxpayers are subsidizing those iconic Walmart-like PX (Post Exchange) shopping malls on bases worldwide. Although the military is fond of saying that the PX system pays for itself because it helps fund on-base recreation programs, Pentagon leaders neglect to mention that the PXs get free buildings and land, free utilities, and free transportation of goods to overseas locations. They also operate tax-free.

While there’s no estimate for the value of the buildings, land, and utilities that taxpayers provide, the exchanges reported $267 million in various subsidies for 2011. (Foregone federal taxes might add $30 million or more to that figure.) Add in as well postal subsidies of at least $71 million and you have:

$12.6 billion for health care, military and family housing, shopping and postal subsidies.

Another Pentagon exclusion is rent paid to other countries for the land we garrison. Although a few countries like Japan, Kuwait, and South Korea actually pay the United States to subsidize our garrisons -- to the tune of $1.1 billion in 2012 -- far more common, according to base expert Kent Calder, “are the cases where the United States pays nations to host bases.”

Given the secretive nature of basing agreements and the complex economic and political trade-offs involved in base negotiations, precise figures are impossible to find. However, Pentagon-funded research indicates that 18% of total foreign military and economic aid goes toward buying base access. That swells our invoice by around $6.3 billion. Payments to NATO of $1.7 billion “for the acquisition and construction of military facilities and installations” and other purposes, brings us to:

$6.9 billion in net “rent” payments and NATO contributions.

Although the OCS must report the costs of all military operations abroad, the Pentagon omits $550 million for counternarcotics operations and $108 million for humanitarian and civic aid. Both have, as a budget document explains about humanitarian aid, helped “maintain a robust overseas presence,” while the military “obtains access to regions important to U.S. interests.” The Pentagon also spent $24 million on environmental projects abroad to monitor and reduce on-base pollution, dispose of hazardous and other waste, and for “initiatives…in support of global basing/operations.” So the bill now grows by:

$682 million for counternarcotics, humanitarian, and environmental programs.

The Pentagon tally of the price of occupying the planet also ignores the costs of secret bases and classified programs overseas. Out of a total Pentagon classified budget of $51 billion for 2012, I conservatively use only the estimated overseas portion of operations and maintenance spending, which adds $2.4 billion. Then there’s the $15.7 billion Military Intelligence Program. Given that U.S. law generally bars the military from engaging in domestic spying, I estimate that half this spending, $7.9 billion, took place overseas.

Next, we have to add in the CIA’s paramilitary budget, funding activities including secret bases in places like Somalia, Libya, and elsewhere in the Middle East, and its drone assassination program, which has grown precipitously since the onset of the war on terror. With thousands dead (including hundreds of civilians), how can we not consider these military costs? In an email, John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, told me that “possibly a third” of the CIA’s estimated budget of $10 billion may now go to paramilitary costs, yielding:

$13.6 billion for classified programs, military intelligence, and CIA paramilitary activities.

Last but certainly not least comes the real biggie: the costs of the 550 bases the U.S. built in Afghanistan, as well as the last three months of life for our bases in Iraq, which once numbered 505 before the U.S. pullout from that country (that is, the first three months of fiscal year 2012). While the Pentagon and Congress exclude these costs, that’s like calculating the New York Yankees’ payroll while excluding salaries for each year’s huge free agent signings.

Conservatively following the OCS methodology used for other countries, but including costs for health care, military pay in the base budget, rent, and “other programs,” we add an estimated:

$104.9 billion for bases and military presence in Afghanistan and other war zones.

Having started with the OCS figure of $22.1 billion, the grand total now has reached:

$168 billion ($169,963,153,283 to be exact).

That’s nearly an extra $150 billion. Even if you exclude war costs -- and I think the Yankees show why that’s a bad idea -- the total still reaches $65.1 billion, or nearly three times the Pentagon’s calculation.

But don’t for a second think that that’s the end of our garrisoning costs. In addition to spending likely hidden in the nooks and crannies of its budget, there are other irregularities in the Pentagon’s accounting. Costs for 16 countries hosting U.S. bases but left out of the OCS entirely, including Colombia, El Salvador, and Norway, may total more than $350 million. The costs of the military presence in Colombia alone could reach into the tens of millions in the context of more than $8.5 billion in Plan Colombia funding since 2000. The Pentagon also reports costs of less than $5 million each for Yemen, Israel, Uganda, and the Seychelles Islands, which seems unlikely and could add millions more.

When it comes to the general U.S. presence abroad, other costs are too difficult to estimate reliably, including the price of Pentagon offices in the United States, embassies, and other government agencies that support bases and troops overseas. So, too, U.S. training facilities, depots, hospitals, and even cemeteries allow overseas bases to function. Other spending includes currency-exchange costs, attorneys’ fees and damages won in lawsuits against military personnel abroad, short-term “temporary duty assignments,” U.S.-based troops participating in exercises overseas, and perhaps even some of NASA’s military functions, space-based weapons, a percentage of recruiting costs required to staff bases abroad, interest paid on the debt attributable to the past costs of overseas bases, and Veterans Administration costs and other retirement spending for military personnel who served abroad.

Beyond my conservative estimate, the true bill for garrisoning the planet might be closer to $200 billion a year.

“Spillover Costs”

Those, by the way, are just the costs in the U.S. government’s budget. The total economic costs to the U.S. economy are higher still. Consider where the taxpayer-funded salaries of the troops at those bases go when they eat or drink at a local restaurant or bar, shop for clothing, rent a local home, or pay local sales taxes in Germany, Italy, or Japan. These are what economists call “spillover” or “multiplier effects.” When I visited Okinawa in 2010, for example, Marine Corps representatives bragged about how their presence contributes $1.9 billion annually to the local economy through base contracts, jobs, local purchases, and other spending. Although the figures may be overstated, it’s no wonder members of Congress like Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison have called for a new “Build in America” policy to protect “the fiscal health of our nation.”

And the costs are still broader when one considers the trade-offs, or opportunity costs, involved. Military spending creates fewer jobs per million dollars expended than the same million invested in education, health care, or energy efficiency -- barely half as many as investing in schools. Even worse, while military spending clearly provides direct benefits to the Lockheed Martins and KBRs of the military-industrial complex, these investments don’t, as economist James Heintz says, boost the “long-run productivity of the rest of the private sector” the way infrastructure investments do.

To adapt a famous line from President Dwight Eisenhower: every base that is built signifies in the final sense a theft. Indeed, think about what Dal Molin’s half a billion dollars in infrastructure could have done if put to civilian uses. Again echoing Ike, the cost of one modern base is this: 260,000 low-income children getting health care for one year or 65,000 going to a year of Head Start or 65,000 veterans receiving VA care for a year.

A Different Kind of “Spillover”

Bases also create a different “spillover” in the financial and non-financial costs host countries bear. In 2004, for example, on top of direct “burden sharing” payments, host countries made in-kind contributions of $4.3 billion to support U.S. bases. In addition to agreeing to spend billions of dollars to move thousands of U.S. Marines and their families from Okinawa to Guam, the Japanese government has paid nearly $1 billion to soundproof civilian homes near U.S. air bases on Okinawa and millions in damages for successful noise pollution lawsuits. Similarly, as base expert Mark Gillem reports, between 1992 and 2003, the Korean and U.S. governments paid $27.3 million in damages because of crimes committed by U.S. troops stationed in Korea. In a single three-year period, U.S. personnel “committed 1,246 criminal acts, from misdemeanors to felonies.”

As these crimes indicate, costs for local communities extend far beyond the economic. Okinawans have recently been outraged by what appears to be another in a long series of rapes committed by U.S. troops. Which is just one example of how, from Japan to Italy, there are what Anita Dancs calls the “costs of rising hostility” over bases. Environmental damage pushes the financial and non-financial toll even higher. The creation of a base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean sent all of the local Chagossian people into exile.

So, too, U.S. troops and their families bear some of those nonfinancial costs due to frequent moves and separation during unaccompanied tours abroad, along with attendant high rates of divorce, domestic violence, substance abuse, sexual assault, and suicide.

“No one, no one likes it,” a stubbly-faced old man told me as I was leaving the construction site. He remembered the Americans arriving in 1955 and now lives within sight of the Dal Molin base. “If it were for the good of the people, okay, but it’s not for the good of the people.”

“Who pays? Who pays?” he asked. “Noi,” he said. We do.

Indeed, from that $170 billion to the costs we can’t quantify, we all do.

 

David Vine, a Tom Dispatch regular, is assistant professor of anthropology at American University, in Washington, DC. He is the author of Island of Shame: The Secret History of the U.S. Military Base on Diego Garcia (Princeton University Press, 2009). He has written for the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian, and Mother Jones, among other places. He is currently completing a book about the more than 1,000 U.S. military bases located outside the United States. To read a detailed description of the calculations described in this article and view a chart of the costs of the U.S. military presence abroad, visit www.davidvine.net.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter @TomDispatch and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch book, Nick Turse’s The Changing Face of Empire: Special Ops, Drones, Proxy Fighters, Secret Bases, and Cyberwarfare.

Copyright 2012 David Vine

Are Oil Prices Ready to Tank?

Oil Prices Could Drop Substantially: An Interview with Michael Levi

by James Stafford - Oilprice.com

There's been plenty of talk about potentially radical US foreign policy changes as a result of the shale boom. While one shouldn't expect any dramatic US foreign policy move away from the Middle East, factors are influencing a greater focus on Asia. Only one thing is certain in this transforming world: The shale boom is real and the implications are many and difficult to predict.

In an exclusive interview with Oilprice.com publisher James Stafford talks with energy security expert Michael Levi, the David M. Rubenstein Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment and Director of the Program on Energy Security and Climate Change at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

James Stafford: What is the number one threat to energy security today?

Michael Levi: I am not a huge fan of using the word 'energy security' because it means different things to different people, and that makes it very easy for people to talk past each other. What I would say the number one risk to the stability of global oil prices--which can have big economic and security ramifications--is the potential for major conflict in the Middle East and instability in oil-producing countries.

James Stafford: Are there any other regions that have this same destabilizing potential?

Michael Levi: The Middle East is always the place where focus is rightly drawn, because it is the place where you can have outsized disruptions. One of the things that I tend to emphasize is the need to focus and prioritize concerns, and it is very easy to get [drawn into] every 100,000 or 200,000-barrel-a- day change somewhere in the world that might have big consequences for one particular country, but does not necessarily have outsized global consequences or national consequences that policymakers need to think about. If I spend my time trying to think through what policymakers should be paying attention to, my focus, when it comes to disruptions to the oil system, tends to come back to the Middle East.

James Stafford: The UK-based think tank Chatham House has published a new report seeking to demonstrate how the oil and gas industry is under significant pressure that will lead to a transformation. How do you see a potential transformation of the industry taking shape?

Michael Levi: I think it is important to start with a distinction, particularly one that is important in the US: the oil and gas sectors, to some extent, are becoming two genuinely separate sectors, rather than one integrated one.

In the past, most natural gas was produced as associated gas together with oil, and that made oil and gas as a single entity very clear, something that made a lot of sense. Now you have a lot of non-associated gas; gas being produced separately, often by companies that do not engage in much oil production. They really have distinct challenges and opportunities, and as a result, different sets of pressures.

For the natural gas industry, at least in the US, the big challenges are low prices in the glut of gas on the market that is not being matched by demand. A big part of this is certainly idiosyncratic; there are people who are drilling to hold leases and cash flow, and they are doing that en masse, which is a problem for the whole industry.

At the same time, they have not been able to coalesce around the efforts to boost demand.

The oil world is a completely different story and you have pressures from different directions right now. On the one hand, you have a surge in opportunities for development in countries where geopolitical risks are relatively low. In the US, Canada, and Brazil you may need to still worry about regulatory changes, but you are not worried that terrorists will come and capture your workers.

At the same time, for a lot of the companies, that is not enough and they are still looking globally, and they still face challenges from nationalism and unstable regimes. On top of that, they are entering a period in which there is probably more uncertainty in prices than there has been for a long time. You have this collision of growth and supply from outside OPEC, together with potential Iraqi growth and substantial investment from within OPEC that really opens up the possibility of a big, if temporary, price drop in the next five or
so years. That complicates the outlook for companies, on top of everything else.

James Stafford: Really? You believe that prices could drop in the future?

Michael Levi: I think prices could drop substantially. If you look at the most recent IEA report or the most recent OPEC outlook, you see that if all currently planned investment goes ahead, then at prices resembling current ones, supply would greatly outstrip demand.

Either countries will pull back with production and investment in OPEC and allow supply to match demand at relatively high prices--and I think that is the most likely outcome--or they will not be able to decide who has to pull back, and there will be an excess of supply on the market that pushes prices down quickly. That is self-correcting, because low prices cannot sustain the big gains in North American production. But you can still have temporarily low prices that really shake things up for some producers, depending on the properties of their investment.

James Stafford: Speaking of the IEA report, predictions that the US could pass Saudi Arabia to become the world's largest oil producer by 2017 have come under a lot of criticism. What do you think of the IEA's predictive mathematics?

Michael Levi: Predictions are always wrong in one way or another, and I am not going to second-guess those who have thought to a much greater depth in these analyses. There is a range of estimates out there, but the IEA ones are relatively modest.

The bigger issue is: what are the implications? Everyone likes to talk about how their projections show that the world is being reborn anew, and will be fundamentally different from what it was in the past.

There is a temptation to oversell, and I think it is reasonable that people react negatively to efforts to oversell the consequences of the changes going on in energy.

James Stafford: What are your views on the shale boom? Do you believe it can live up to the hype?

Michael Levi: It depends on what hype we are talking about. I think the shale boom is for real. I think that a lot of the criticism that we do not know long-term production rates and so on are important to look at. But even if you assume that returns on wells are substantially lower than most people think they are right now, our projected output is still quite high, because producers' economics are dependent primarily on what happens in first few years after they drill. We know roughly what happens in the first years after producers drill.

The hype that says that this will all replace coal without any government intervention, gas prices will be $3 forever, or that we will be the dominant exporter in the world, are out of contact with reality. We have temporarily depressed prices, they will rise a bit. Hype always has the ability and the tendency to outstrip reality, but in this case, reality is pretty radical itself.

James Stafford: Could the shale boom lead to a change in US foreign policy priorities, away from the Middle East?

Michael Levi: An economic analyst will typically tell you that the US shale boom will fundamentally change US vulnerability to energy events in the Middle East. But not every policymaker listens to their economic advisors.

I do not think that US policymakers will step back and say, 'We need to revisit our strategy in the world, because of this oil boom.' I do think that what is happening will weigh on ongoing
discussions that already exist about future US priorities.

The most obvious one is the discussion from the US Department of Defense over how much to shift from the Middle East to Asia. Within that existing debate, I have no doubt that people who want to see more of a shift will emphasize what is happening in US energy. I think it will have some influence, but ultimately, I do not see a radical change as being likely.

James Stafford: Now that Barack Obama has won a second term, what do you see happening with the Keystone XL Pipeline? Will it go ahead? Is it essential to US energy security?

Michael Levi: I made a prediction once on the Keystone XL Pipeline, so I have lost my license to make future predictions. The Keystone XL Pipeline is non-essential to US energy security; it is also not disastrous to climate change. It has been overblown by both sides in the debate. It is one pipeline that would carry a modest, but non-trivial amount of crude, and that would help create economic incentives to increase production, again, by a modest but not earth-shattering amount.

The more fundamental question is whether the US is going to let economically-rational infrastructure go ahead. I think if you replicate a pattern like the one that some would like to see for Keystone and you start blocking pipelines all over the place, then that becomes a larger economic problem.

In the end, will it make the US more secure in any meaningful way? I doubt it. Prices for Canadian oil rose more during the Libya conflict than the prices for Brent Crude, or WTI. It is hard to say that Canada gives the US potentially more security aside from in extreme circumstances.

James Stafford: One would have thought that the natural gas boom would be good for the environment, but the cheap gas prices have also hit coal prices, and we are seeing Europe sucking up unused US coal. Is this a trend we can expect to continue?

Michael Levi: I think it is a trend we can expect to continue to some extent, particularly if Europe does not make stronger moves away from coal. The state of our knowledge about global coal markets is pathetic. All we can say right now is, directionally, more gas in the US means cheaper coal, which leads to more exports, but we are still far from being able to really put quantitative meat on those bones, and making some meaningful net assessment.

James Stafford: What do you believe is the best way to achieve meaningful results on climate change? How much of an influence will Hurricane Sandy have on this debate?

Michael Levi: I think Hurricane Sandy has put the debates into a prominent place, which is essential to moving it forward.

Ultimately, I still believe that carbon pricing in one form or another is essential to achieving deep cuts in economically-sensible ways. That can come in the form of a tax, resurgent cap and trade, or clean energy standard; there are all sorts of ways to do carbon pricing. In the long haul, I think you come back to that, particularly if you care about doing this is an economically-efficient way.

James Stafford: What changes in public interest on climate change have you noticed over the years? Do you think that at this rate climate change will ever gain the support it needs to be effectively tackled?

Michael Levi: Ever is a long time. I think we are back in a building phase. If you look at the first decade of this century, you had a solid 5 or 6 years that was really about building broad support for action on climate change, about test driving different approaches, and by the time you got to 2008, there was actually pretty broad support, particularly in the Senate for action on climate change. You had 2 presidential candidates competing to see who had the best climate strategy. Then you had the financial crises. You had intense polarization. You had a deep, deep recession, and climate action became a much lower priority.

A lot of people got used to saying in early 2009 that we would come back to climate change when the economy got better. The only mistake that people made in that analysis was thinking that that was only a couple years off. It turns out that it is even further off.

One of the emerging barriers to action on climate change is that doing things to exploit oil and gas have been set up as 100% incompatible with serious efforts to deal with climate change. That stark choice makes it very difficult to build coalitions that will move anything forward. We have actually moved in the last couple of years into a considerably more difficult situation than we were even 4 years ago, when a candidate like John McCain could say, 'I support oil and gas production, and I support a strong cap and trade system.' The president talks about things like that today, but gets considerably weaker support for it, and that ultimately needs to change.

James Stafford: How can this change?

Michael Levi: I have a book out next spring, talking about this. The first step is for each side to recognize that accepting a lot of what his opponents want will not fatally undermine what it wants. Oil and gas will need to understand that serious action on climate change will not fundamentally undermine what they want to accomplish in the next decade or two. People who want to take action on climate change need to fundamentally understand that expanding access to US oil and gas production will not fatally undermine their own goals. Compromise is not an oxymoron.

The second thing that needs to happen is there needs to be some rebuilding of trust. That is difficult; you do not just do it by hanging out more at the bar. You need to do small deals that show that you can work together.

You can think of all sorts of ideas; you could tie royalties from increased oil and gas production to financial support for renewable energy. You could provide support for carbon capture and storage demonstrations that support enhanced oil recovery. You can work to improve environmental permitting so it is easier to build pipelines and power lines that take renewable energy to places where they can be used.

There are a host of things that are small (but not trivial) win-wins that might help rebuild confidence. Ultimately, both sides need to accept that a political deal is better than trying to go for an outright win.

James Stafford: What role do you see renewable energy playing in the future?


Michael Levi: In the near future, renewable is cost-competitive in niches, but it is still not broadly competitive in the US economy. It has a potential to be.

Renewables have cost and intermittency challenges. There is important progress that is being made in renewable energy. I think a lot of that story has been buried in the oil and gas discussion in the last couple of years, but we are seeing record-low prices across the board, and we are seeing record-high deployments. It is important to remember that we still need government support in all these areas if you actually want to see costs come down meaningfully.

James Stafford: How do you define the ‘near future'?


Michael Levi: I do not see a radical change in the relative price of renewable energy and fossil fuels in the next 5 years. Ten years is more difficult to predict, but I would be skeptical. When you start to look ahead one or two decades, particularly when you add in policy uncertainty, it is very difficult to predict what will happen.

James Stafford: Can the US afford to turn its back on nuclear energy?

Michael Levi: If you mean by turning its back, you mean a phasing-out of nuclear energy, I do not think that is sensible to do. Nuclear energy provides 20% of our electricity, and the marginal cost of production is extremely low for existing power plants. The real question is can the US afford to turn its back on nuclear in the future as a source of zero-carbon energy growth? The answer is: we do not know, because we do not know what the alternatives will be, or if there will be significant alternatives. So you want to keep nuclear alive as an option; that means trying to figure out ways to bring down costs, particularly financing costs. It means looking for ways to resolve, or at least partly resolve the waste questions, and it means looking for ways to potentially innovate on small modular reactors to provide a different economic model and a different construction model for nuclear power.


Source: http://oilprice.com/Interviews/Falling-Oil-Prices-and-the-Shale-Boom-An-Interview-with-Michael-Levi.html