Sorry Somalians, you are sitting on top of our Oil wells!

[Nur]

eNuri Digest

 

The war in Somalia is part of a global war for Energy,( Oil & Uranium) by the American Oil Companies who have a concession contract of oil exploration in all of Somalia. Islam (aka Terrorism) is the sacrificial lamb to throw for the naive, but over all, "War on Terror", is a camouflage for "War For Oil"

 

Oil Barons don't care about any faith, but will do anything to remove any faith that is on their way to get oil, the following article written five years ago, predicted the American Proxy Invasion of Somalia for Oil, you need to read every letter, to get the full picture of the puzzle that puts poor Somalia on the list of " War on Terror"

 

The Author's Projections at the end of this long document reads:

 

 

"It is very likely that Somalia will be targeted soon"

 

 

The Good News is that there is substantial Oil Reserves & Uranium Deposits in Somalia.

 

The Bad News, is that resurgent Islam is on the way, thus, a merciless Proxy war will claim many lives to satisfy the Oil Dracula's appetite, when we see blood, they see Oil, just a matter of different perspectives, the new pricing index for oil will be, Pints of Blood Per Gallon of crude ( Pint/Gal)

 

Which leads to the conclusion that:

 

All the Anarchy that took place in Somalia and the destruction of the Nation State rendering it a failed nation was improvised very well as predicted by Cag Bakeyle and company, that the current TFG Government

on the Political Platform were "handled" by the Oil interest group with stake on oil in Somalia, hence footing the bill for the Proxy war and the 16 years of destruction as satirically described by eNuri Anarchist Magazine. The Oil Moguls want to empty Somalia from its people, so that Oil rigs can begin the Oil business, and if necessary creating Brunei type tribal enclaves with puppet Sultan's or warlords who will sign the national wealth off to the oil companies.

 

 

The article:

What Will Be the Next Target of the Oil Coup?

 

 

by Dale Allen Pfeiffer

 

FTW, January 29, 2002 -- If it is true that an oil coup has taken control in this country and is seeking to consolidate its power throughout the world, based on the fact that world oil and natural gas production are set to go into decline, then what does this hold for the future? Using this as our hypothesis, we should be able to predict future military actions by comparing production profiles for various oil producing countries with the political climate within these same countries. For this purpose, we are using production profiles developed by Richard C. Duncan and Walter Youngquist through the use of their World Oil Forecasting Program in 1998.1 The data has changed very little since that time, except for a slight upgrade in projected Caspian Sea oil reserves and a slightly higher than projected oil demand. In addition to oil production there are also other factors which need to be taken into account, such as other resource deposits, demand, and population. Not all of these factors are as well documented as oil production, and so we will use this as our focal point, adding in other information where available.

 

Finally, we have to wonder not only about the motives of this supposed oil coup, but we also need to speculate on whether the perpetrators fully understand the implications of energy depletion. In other words, will they be able to hold on to their power in the face of the breakdown of civilization? And what might they do if they thought they were losing control?

 

First let us look at the situation in North America, as reported by Duncan and Youngquist.

 

North American Oil Production

 

 

 

The United States was the first country to peak in its oil production, back in 1970. The United States exploited its oil to provide the standard of living enjoyed today. However, after 1970 the continuation of this standard of living has depended upon increasing imports of oil. Notice the slight raising and leveling off of the production curve in the early 1980s as oil from Prudhoe Bay, Alaska was brought on line. The Prudhoe Bay fields peaked in 1985 and have been in decline since. At one time, the USA had abundant, easily exploited oil reserves -- production peaked at over 4 billion barrels per year -- but those days are behind us now. Even the Alaska National Wildlife Arctic Reserves (ANWAR) will make little difference to this picture.

 

Not long after the United States peak, resources in Mexico and Canada came on line, providing some salvation in the regional picture. However, the resources of both countries taken at their peaks do not equal the peak production of the United States. Mexico peaked a year ago, while Canada is not expected to peak for another 10 years.

 

In the overall regional picture, you can see the United States peak in 1970, followed by a short decline and then a recovery. As a region, North America peaked in 1985. After a slight secondary peak taking place right now, North American oil production is expected to plummet. The only untapped reserves left in this region are in ANWAR, and their affect would be negligible on this graph. Tar sands and shale deposits in Canada may contain the equivalent of more than 150 billion barrels of oil which could theoretically become economical to produce once conventional deposits are in decline. However, it is unlikely that production can be brought on line quickly enough to offset the shock of conventional oil depletion.2 Beyond this, there are grave environmental problems associated with the exploitation of these deposits. Namely, the tar sands and oil shales can only be harvested through massive strip mining. And, once the oil has been extracted, there will be literally thousands of tons of sand and shale slag to be dealt with, not to mention other more harmful wastes.

 

Where are We to Turn?

 

Contrary to what you might think, the United States does not receive the bulk of its oil imports from the Middle East. Thus far, our oil imports have come from South and Central America, chiefly Venezuela and Colombia. Venezuela alone accounts for more than 53% of the oil in this region.3 However, Venezuelan oil production already appears to be peaking a little sooner than Duncan and Youngquist's program predicted.

 

Venezuela also holds what is perhaps the world's greatest deposit of unconventional oil: the Orinoco oil belt, which contains an estimated 1.2 trillion barrels of the sludge known as heavy oil. This is a great resource; however, it is known as heavy sludge because it is highly contaminated by sulfur and heavy metals. The removal and disposal of these elements would have to be attained without destroying the economic viability of the deposits. And, as with the Canadian oil sands, such a project is unlikely to be brought on line in time to offset the shock of declining oil production.

 

 

Colombia's oil deposits are predicted to peak around 2010. Unfortunately, they are unlikely to produce more than one third of a billion barrels per day at peak. There is currently a lot of speculation about a major oil strike in the southeastern foothills of Colombia's Andes. Geologists in the area have made some interesting discoveries, but nothing has been confirmed as of yet. It has long been suspected that a major field must exist somewhere between the Venezuelan oil fields and the oil shales of the Peruvian Andes. Yet, with all our modern probing, this field has failed to turn up. This author suspects that exploration in Colombia will turn up no new, major oil fields -- though it may turn up minor deposits. This author suspects that the mother lode of South American hydrocarbon deposits has already been found, in the form of the Orinoco heavy oil sludge.

 

In any case, it is quite plain the United States needs the oil of this region. And production of these oil resources is threatened by political instabilities. Colombia is a divided country rocked by over 50 years of civil war. And Venezuela has also become increasingly unstable in just the past year. President Hugo Chavez has been bucking US imperialism and oil interests for some time now. A new Hydrocarbons Law, which took effect at the beginning of 2002, will require that state-owned Petroleos de Venezuela SA hold a minimum 51% stake in future joint ventures involving exploration and exploitation. And the law will impose the world's highest royalty rates on companies operating in Venezuela's oil fields. President Chavez insists that such a move is necessary to rescue the Venezuelan economy and to help ease poverty in the country. Similar moves toward nationalization in the past led to US backed coups in Guatemala and Iran, to site just two examples.4 Early in November 2001, the National Security Agency, the Pentagon and the US State Department held a two-day meeting on US policy toward Venezuela. This meeting was supposedly held in response to a Chavez statement that the US was fighting "terrorism with terrorism." It is quite likely that among the options discussed at this meeting was a coup against Chavez.5 Elsewhere in South America, Ecuador almost fell a year ago to a grassroots coalition of peasants and Indians. Farther south, Bolivia has been destabilized by a peasants' revolt sparked by privatization of their water supply. Even farther south, in Argentina, the economy has crashed and the government has dissolved. People are rioting and looting grocery stores. Brazil has been economically shaken by the fall of Argentina and by the growing strength of the MST -- the landless peasant movement. In fact, it would be difficult to find a truly stable government anywhere in South America at this time.

 

Under Clinton and Bush II, the United States has poured billions worth of military aid into Colombia, ostensibly to fight the drug war, though our support has gone to military and paramilitary units rife with drug trafficking. The US is currently sponsoring a massive defoliation program in Colombia, and we are increasing the number of US military advisors in the country. FARC, the rebel force which controls half of the country, has pledged to target US personnel. And there is word from the state department, since September 11th, that we will consider rebel forces in Colombia to be international terrorists. This author looks for a terrorist/drug war in Colombia which will probably spill over into Venezuela and Ecuador, maybe even Peru. A war in this region will be long and bloody, and may make Vietnam look like a Sunday picnic.

 

The Former Soviet Union

 

All lumped together under the title Former Soviet Union, we have not only Russia proper, but also Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and the Caspian Sea region. This graph is probably the least accurate of Duncan and Youngquist's predictions, due to lack of data at the time they modeled this graph and also due to exigencies of politics and economics. Duncan and Youngquist did under-assess the Caspian Sea resources, though the correct figures make little difference in their overall world predictions. Most importantly, they did not figure on Russia opening up oil production and exportation to the extent that it has at present, purely due to economic factors.

 

The oil coup has already moved in this region -- the attack on Afghanistan only being the most visible evidence of this. Perhaps more importantly for their interests, the Central Asian states of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan have opened their countries to the presence of NATO forces. Bases have already been established in all of these countries. It is certain that deals have also been hammered out with these countries for the exploitation of their oil and natural gas resources.

 

It is also very likely that the oil coup has its eyes on Russia itself. In this case, Russia's nuclear might precludes an overt attack. Through the 1990s, western financiers looted the Russian economy until there was hardly anything left. At present, Putin has no choice but to open up oil exports just to keep his government solvent. Russian President Vladimir Putin has placed himself as a vassal to the oil coup; however, he is not entirely happy with the actions of the western states. Bush's rush for a missile defense system would negate Russia's last claim to superpower. We can only hope that the oil coup is not foolish enough to provoke a nuclear war with Russia.

 

The Middle East

 

It is in the Middle East that the real grab for world power will be played out. According to Duncan and Youngquist's model, by 2007 the Middle East will dominate the world in oil production. This will be the last region where oil production will peak, according to Duncan and Youngquist's model, sometime around 2011. And the oil of the Middle East lies largely in the provinces of five countries: Iran, Iraq, The United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.

 

 

All but two of these countries are closely tied to the United States and are likely to be players in the oil coup. The exceptions are Iraq and Iran. Iraq's ability to export oil has been severely restricted since the first Gulf War. Likewise, Iran faced stiff embargoes following the fall of the Shah in the 1970's. However, in neither of these countries does the oil coup have clear control over oil resources. Likewise, both countries are targeted as terrorist states. Right now, Israel and powers in the United States are lobbying strongly to make Iraq the next target in the "War Against Terrorism." Rumor has it that this war is slated to begin early in 2002. This author would suggest that, after finishing off Saddam Hussein, the oil coup will then set its sites on Iran. We can say with certainty that the oil coup will want to have both these countries firmly in control before the OPEC crossover event.

 

But how stable are the governments of the other three major Arab states? The Saudi royals sit very uneasily on their throne. The hundreds of princes which make up the house of Fahd are extremely unpopular due to their own corruption„both economic and moral. National Security Agency electronic intercepts demonstrate that the Saudi princes routinely pay protection money to Islamic extremists, including Hamas and Al Qa'ida. NSA and CIA analysts have noted that it would not take much for an Islamic fundamentalist coup to overthrow the royals. Likewise, a secret CIA study put together in the mid-1980s concludes that terrorists with only a handful of explosives could take the Saudi oil fields off line for two years.

 

‡The oil producing Arab states, led by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, have all seen large population increases since they began pumping oil. In a couple of generations, they have gone from being simple nomadic peoples to sophisticated urbanites. All of these countries have highly developed welfare states financed by oil money. Unfortunately for them, the rate of population growth has exceeded their ability to financially support the population. It is for this reason that the Arab countries were exceeding their oil quotas throughout the late-1990s, in an effort to cover the expenses of their welfare systems. And let us not forget that these are all desert nations. By the year 2020, all of these countries will have passed peak oil production and be in decline. By that time, none of them will be able to support their populations.6 The result will be starvation, economic disaster and civil unrest. How will the oil coup hope to hold this ship together?

 

Projections

 

Based on the analysis presented above, we believe that the most likely targets in the "War on Terrorism" will be Iraq, Iran, Colombia, Venezuela, and possibly (though hopefully not) Russia. That there will be actions in other theaters is certain. It is very likely that Somalia will be targeted soon. And, as they hold the world's richest deposit of uranium, Somalia is not without valuable resources. Other Middle Eastern or Central Asian nations not mentioned here could also be targeted for a number of reasons, energy resources among them. Likewise Indonesia, if that country became too unstable. Then there are actions which could be strictly political, or which could be viewed as vendettas. North Korea, the Philippines, and Cuba could fall into this category. Yet, it is FTW's belief that the main targets for military action in the years to come will be those stated in the first sentence of this paragraph.

 

Will the oil coup be successful? That is to be doubted. Just as the Middle Eastern countries can expect problems because their population will surpass their ability to care for them, so will the rest of the world. The entire civilization is apt to break down chaotically, in ways that no one can foresee. Possibly the greatest single problem resulting from all this will be the failure of modern agriculture. Without petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides, experts predict that world agriculture will only be able to comfortably support a population of two billion.7 The current world population is over six billion.

 

What will the members of the oil coup do when they realize they are losing control? If faced with starving, angry masses throughout the world„in the first world as well as the third world -- what would be the response of the oil coup? Would they roll over and die, or would they strike back with everything available? It is truly to be hoped that they do not foresee this contingency, or they may decide to unleash biological warfare on the population of the entire world.

[Fabregas]

The Great Game in Somalia

 

The recent upsurge in fighting between the various factions in Somalia is a typical example of wars being fought throughout the African continent where the real benefactor is neither the people nor local governments, but major powers.

 

 

By Abid Mustafa

 

 

 

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

 

Somalia is another country that has been caught up in a vicious struggle between great powers competing against each other to control the Horn of Africa.

 

The reason for this interference in Somalia’s internal affairs is simple. Somalia is replete with abundance of natural resources. Uranium deposits, oil and natural gas can be found in Somalia. Oil seeps were discovered in the colonial era by both British and Italian geologists. Later, French and American oil companies competed with British and Italian oil companies for concession rights to the exploration of oil. In the years to follow Somalia became a battle ground between Europe and America for the right to control Somalia’s oil wealth. Europe led by Britain fought America through supporting local militias and surrogate countries like Kenya, Uganda and Djibouti, while America supported her militiamen through countries like Ethiopia and Sudan. The power struggle between Europe and America contributed to decades of civil war, secessionist movements and break away states.

 

 

In the late 80s, under the leadership of Somalia's pro-U.S. President Mohamed Siad Barre nearly two-thirds of Somalia was allocated to the American oil giants Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips. Siad Barre was inconveniently deposed just as Conoco reportedly hit black gold with nine exploratory wells, confirmed by World Bank geologists at the time. During the coup, US envoy to Somalia, Robert Oakley took refuge at Conco headquarters. The removal of Baree prompted Bush senior to dispatch 20,000 US troops in 1992 to restore US rule and thereby secure valuable oil concessions granted to US oil companies. The military intervention was touted as a humanitarian intervention designed to save the starving Somalian souls from famine. The military action resulted in defeat for the US as she was unable to accomplish her mission and pulled out.

 

Nonetheless, America made sure that her retreat would not encourage the Europeans to exert control, and a bitter struggle ensued between these powers via their agents in Somalia and the neighbouring countries. These powers did not allow any stable government to form and encouraged a number of secessionist states such as Puntland, Somaliland and Jubaland to cede from Somalia or at least demand greater autonomy.

 

Despite the civil war, foreign countries were able to oil sign treaties with the transitional Somalia government. Oil companies from France, the UK, the UAE, and China attained exploration rights granted by the Transitional National Government, the Somaliland government, and the Puntland government respectively. TotalFinaElf, which has been operating in the port of Berbera throughout the civil war, signed an exploration deal with the TNG in early 2001 off the Somali coast during which the government would provide security for TotalFinalElf employees. Rovagold of the UK, Dubai-based Zarara, and two Chinese firms signed exploration deals with the Somaliland government. Chinese firms are reportedly conducting exploration activities in Puntland.

 

It was not until the events of September 11 that America began take a renewed interest in Somalia. This time America used the pretext of fighting terrorism to pursue her oil interests in the country. Somalia, like other energy rich countries features heavily as part of America’s grand plan to control the energy reserves of the world for the next fifty years. However, due to her awful occupation of Iraq, America was unable to give due attention to Somalia until now.

 

But this time America is supporting both the warlords and the Islamists to manufacture a pretext to invade the country. A top US diplomat in Africa, Jendayi Frazer, acknowledged that the White House would work with those who can help "prevent Somalia becoming a safe haven for terrorists". The statement was in reference to assisting the warlords against the Islamists.

 

America has been equipping the warlords with weapons. These are the very same warlords who have been accommodated in Yusuf’s government as part of a power sharing agreement. These warlords include those who hold the portfolios of security, trade, religion, disarmament and reconstruction. Furthermore the US has also subverted any attempt to interrupt the supply of weapons to both sides. A United Nations report called for a tighter arms embargo on Somalia but this was rejected by the Security Council. The report stated that an unnamed country had been flouting the weapons ban to help local groups fight the Islamic militants. It said that Ethiopia was supplying weapons to Mr Yusuf's interim government, while Eritrea was arming the Islamists

 

The American plan is to fragment the country into regions and then encourage the energy laden areas to cede and fall in line with US interests. This bears strong resemblance to America’s plan to divide Sudan.

 

The chances of US success depend upon how she is able to counter threats from other powers. In Sudan countries like France, Britain, China and Russia have made it complicated for America to realise her goal and in Somalia this too may prove to be difficult.

 

Abid Mustafa is a political commentator who specialises in Muslim affairs

 

http://www.hiiraan.com/op/2006/jun/Abid-Mustafa040606.aspx

[Nur]

The Hidden War for Oil

 

Carl Bloice elucidates the failure or unwillingness of the Western media to accurately report the invasion and occupation of Somalia by a US backed Ethiopian government. He asserts that behind the US-Ethiopian political alliance lies a strategic move to secure positioning in this oil region.

 

By Carl Bloice

 

05/11/07 "All Africa" -- -- The US bombing of Somalia took place while the World Social Forum was underway in Kenya, three days before a large anti-war action in Washington on 27 January 2007.

 

Nunu Kidane, network coordinator for Priority Africa Network (PAN), was present in Nairobi. After returning home, she asked: how 'to explain the silence of the US peace movement on Somalia?'

 

Writing in the San Francisco community newspaper Bay View, Kidane suggested one valid reason: 'Perhaps US-based organizations don't have the proper analytical framework to understand the significance of the Horn of Africa region. Perhaps it is because Somalia is largely seen as a country with no government and in perpetual chaos; with "fundamental Islamic" forces, not deserving of defense against the military attacks by US in search of "terrorists".'

 

To that it may be added the role of the major US media in the lead up to the invasion and the suffering now taking place in the Horn of Africa.

 

'The carnage and suffering in Somalia may be the worst in more than a decade - but you'd hardly know it from your nightly news', wrote Andrew Cawthorne for Reuters from Nairobi last week.

 

Amy Goodman's Democracy Now recently examined the coverage of ABC, NBC and CBS on Somalia in the evening newscasts since the invasion.

 

ABC and NBC had not mentioned the war at all. CBS mentioned the war once, dedicating three whole sentences to it. Despite the fact that there have been more casualties in this war than in the recent fighting in Lebanon.

 

While the major US print media have not completely ignored the conflict, their reporting is even more shallow than prior to the invasion of Iraq.

 

As recently as last week, Reuters was still maintaining that Ethiopian troops had invaded its neighbour with the 'tacit' support of the United States.

 

At least The New York Times has taken to describing it as 'covert American support'. Both characterisations obscure the truth.

 

The attack on Somalia was pre-planned. It would never have taken place without the approval of the White House.

 

We now know that the Bush administration gave the Ethiopian government the go ahead to ignore its own imposed ban on weapons purchases from North Korea, in order to gear up for the battle ahead. US military forces took part in the assault.

 

'The US political and military alliance with Ethiopia - which openly violated international law in its aggression towards Somalia, is destabilizing the Horn region and begins a new shift in the way the US plans to have permanent and active military presence in Africa', wrote Kadane.

 

Planning for the invasion actually began last summer when the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) took control of the Somali government.

 

The US-Ethiopian version of shock and awe was to swiftly bring about the desired regime change, installing the Washington-favoured, government-in-exile of President Abdullahi Yusuf.

 

Only a few days after their troops entered the country, Ethiopian officials said their forces lacked the resources to stay in Somalia, and that they would be leaving soon.

 

At one point, the Ethiopian prime minister Meles Zenawi declared - Bush-like - that the invaders' mission had been successfully accomplished and that two-thirds of his troops were returning home.

 

That turned out not to be true. Three months later, the Ethiopians are still in Somalia committing what numerous observers are calling horrendous war crimes.

 

'The obviously indiscriminate use of heavy artillery in the capital has killed and wounded hundreds of civilians, and forced over 200,000 more to flee for their lives', Walter Lindner, German ambassador to Somalia, wrote to the country's acting president last week.

 

Displaced persons are 'at great risk of being subjected to looting, extortion and rape - including by uniformed troops' at a various "checkpoints". Cholera - endemic to the region during the rainy season - is beginning to cut a swathe through the displaced', he continued. Adding that attempts by international groups to offer assistance to the victims are being obstructed by militias who are stealing supplies, demanding 'taxes', and threatening relief workers.

 

On 3 April, Associated Press reported that a senior European Union security official had sent an email to the head of the EU delegation for Somalia warning that:

 

'Ethiopian and Somali military forces there may have committed war crimes...donor countries could be considered complicit if they do nothing to stop them. I need to advise you that there are strong grounds to believe that the Ethiopian government and the transitional federal government of Somalia and the African Union (peacekeeping) Force Commander, possibly also including the African Union Head of Mission and other African Union officials have, through commission or omission, violated the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.'

 

In the meantime, the Bush administration has worked hard to raise troops from nearby cooperative states to take over the job. Promises were made, but with one exception, remain unfulfilled.

 

In a telephone conversation with Bush, Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni promised to provide between 1,000-2,000 troops to protect Somalia's transitional government and train its troops.

 

The Ugandans arrived. But they are said to have been largely confined to their quarters, refraining from taking part in the effort to crush the opposition.

 

Meanwhile, the 'transitional government' and Ethiopian forces have been reported shelling civilian areas in the capital from the government compound they are supposedly guarding.

 

None of the reporters on the scene appear to have explored the question of why the other African governments have failed to send troops. But I think the answer is obvious.

 

They would be called 'peacekeepers' but would be called upon to inject themselves into a civil conflict on the side of an unpopular puppet government, something they are loath to do.

 

Three months ago, I wrote:

 

'If the unfolding events in Iraq are any indication, what started out as a swift invasion and occupation could turn out to be a long and widening war.'

 

That was an understatement. At the time of writing, about 1,300 people are reported to have perished in the fighting. Over 4,300 wounded, and nearly 400,000 have fled their homes. Refugees trying to cross the Red Sea are reportedly drowning off the Somali coast.

 

'There is a massive tragedy unfolding in Mogadishu, but from the world's silence, you would think it's Christmas', the head of a Mogadishu political think-tank told Cawthorne. 'Somalis, caught up in Mogadishu's worst violence for 16 years, are painfully aware of their place on the global agenda.'

 

'Nobody cares about Somalia, even if we die in our millions', Cawthorne was told by Abdirahman Ali, a 29 year-old father-of-two, who works as a security guard in Mogadishu.

 

And, just as in Iraq, US supported forces - the small army of the enthroned and very unpopular government and the invaders - are caught up in a civil war, set in motion by invasion and occupation.

 

Additional to the forces loyal to the overthrown Islamist government, the regime in power is opposed by the ******, one of the country's largest clans.

 

A spokesman for the clan recently called upon 'the Somali people, wherever it exists, to unity in the fight against the Ethiopians. The war is not between Ethiopia and our tribe, it is between Ethiopia and all Somali people', he said.

 

'For the major [world] leaders, there is a tremendous embarrassment over Somalia', Michael Weinstein, a US expert on Somalia at Purdue University told Reuters.

 

'They have committed themselves to supporting the interim government - a government that has no broad legitimacy, a failing government. This is the heart of the problem. But Western leaders can't back out now, so of course they have 100% no interest in bringing global attention to Somalia. There is no doubt that Somalia has been shoved aside by major media outlets and global leaders, and the Somali Diaspora is left crying in the wilderness.'

 

Last week, during what was described as a lull in the fighting, Ethiopian soldiers were moving from house to house in the capital Mogadishu, taking hundreds of men away by the truckload to an uncertain fate.

 

Meanwhile, the traumatised residents of the rubble strewn city were reported gathering up bodies, many of them rotting, for burial.

 

'Most of the displaced civilians are encamped on Mogadishu's outskirts, where the scenes are medieval', reported The Economist last week.

 

On 26 April, Martin Fletcher wrote in The (London) Times about five days he spent in Mogadishu, during which he canvassed many ordinary Somalis:

 

'People lack water, food and shelter. Cholera has broken out. The sick sometimes have to pay rent even to sit in the shade of trees. Things will get worse with the rains, which have started. Aid agencies say people will soon start dying in large numbers. Some reckon Somalia is facing its biggest humanitarian crisis, worse than in the early 1990s, when the state collapsed amid famine and slaughter. Overwhelmingly, they loathed a government they consider a puppet of the hated Ethiopians.'

 

Last week the Washington Post reported that interviews it conducted in Ethiopia and testimony given to diplomats and human rights groups 'paint a picture of a nation that jails its citizens without reason or trial, and tortures many of them - despite government claims to the contrary'.

 

The paper commented that such cases are especially troubling because the US government, a key Ethiopian ally, has acknowledged interrogating terrorism suspects in Ethiopian prisons, where some detainees were sent after being arrested in connection with Ethiopia's invasion of Somalia in December.

 

The following day the paper reported: 'More than 200 FBI and CIA agents have set up camp in the Sheraton Hotel here in Ethiopia's capital and have been interrogating dozens of detainees -- including a US citizen picked up in Somalia and held without charge and without attorneys in a secret prison somewhere in this city, according to Ethiopian and U.S. officials who say the interrogations are lawful.'

 

History will probably record the Ethiopian government's decision to team up with the US administration for regime change in Somalia as the height of folly. The country has enough problems at home, brought into sharp relief on 24 April, when forces of an ethnic-Somali separatist group, the ****** National Liberation Front, raided an oil exploration facility, killing 74 people, including nine employees of a Chinese oil company.

 

'As much as China's - and indeed America's - ally Meles Zenawi, the Ethiopian prime minister, might like to be on top of security across the Horn, he is not always able to deliver. His army is the region's most powerful conventional force. But under his rule, Ethiopia is fraying again around the edges', said the Financial Times editorial on 26 April.

 

Armed separatist groups are now changing tactics. Unable to match the army on the battlefield, the ****** National Liberation Front has chosen the spectacular to draw attention to its cause.

 

Only recently, a separatist group in the north tried something similar, by kidnapping a group of British diplomats. Both horrific events can be attributed partly to fallout from Ethiopia's messy intervention in neighboring Somalia.

 

Initial battles last December were decisively in Ethiopia's favour. But like the Americans in Iraq, the Ethiopians in Somalia were ill prepared for the aftermath. A growing insurgency has delayed the withdrawal of their troops, exposing the government to attacks at home. It has also inflamed tension among ethnic Somalis in Ethiopia. And ironically, the Chinese workers killed near Ethiopia's border with Somalia may have been victims more of Washington's policy in the region than of Beijing's.

 

The US has actively backed Meles Zenawi's Somali adventure. In doing so it has undermined multilateral efforts to bring about peace. 'There are two main questions that Colonel Yusuf's and Ethiopia's Western backers should now ask themselves', said The (London) Guardian 26 April 26.

 

First, what was gained by encouraging the Ethiopian army to topple the Islamic Courts? The US allowed Ethiopia to arm itself with North Korean weapons and also participated in the turkey shoot by using gunships against suspected insurgents hiding in villages near the Kenyan border.

 

Second, Washington was convinced that the Islamic Courts were sheltering foreign terror suspects: 'But how many did they get and what price have Somalis paid?'

 

'America can be more heavily criticised for subordinating Somali interests to its own desire to catch a handful of al-Qaeda men who may (or may not)have been hiding in Mogadishu', said The Economist.

 

Chatham House, a British think tank of the independent Royal Institute of International Affairs, has concluded:

 

'None has been caught, many innocents have died in air strikes, and anti-American feeling has deepened. Western, especially European, diplomats watching Somalia from Nairobi, the capital of Kenya to the south, have sounded the alarm. Their governments have done little.

 

In an uncomfortably familiar pattern, genuine multilateral concern to support the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Somalia has been hijacked by unilateral actions of other international actors - especially Ethiopia and the United States following their own foreign policy agendas.'

 

Actually, there is no more reason to believe the Bush administration promoted this war, in clear violation of international law and the UN Charter, 'to catch a handful of al-Qaeda men', than that the invasion of Iraq was to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. What has unfolded over the past three months flows from much larger strategic calculations in Washington.

 

The invasion and occupation of Somalia coincided with the Pentagon's now operational plan to build a new 'Africa Command' to deal with what the Christian Science Monitor dubbed 'strife, oil, and Al Qaeda'.

 

When I first visited this subject shortly after the invasion, I quoted 10 per cent as the figure which is the proportion of our country's petroleum from Africa; and noted that some experts were saying the US would need to up that to 25 per cent by 2010. Wrong again.

 

Last week came the news that the US now imports more oil from Africa than from the Middle East; with Nigeria, Angola and Algeria providing nearly one-fifth of it - more than from Saudi Arabia.

 

The rulers in Addis Ababa claim the invasion was a pre-emptive attack on a threatening Somalia. The Bush administration says giving a wink and a nod to the attack was merely a chance to capture a few terrorist holed up in Somalia. But for most of the media and diplomatic observers outside the US, this was another strategic move to secure positioning in a region where there is a lot of oil.

 

On file are plans - put on hold amid continuing conflicts - for nearly two-thirds of Somalia's oil fields to be allocated to the US oil companies Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips.

 

It was recently reported that the US-backed prime minister of Somalia has proposed enactment of a new oil law to encourage the return of foreign oil companies to the country.

 

Salim Lone, spokesperson for the UN mission in Iraq in 2003, now a columnist for The Daily Nation in Kenya, recently told Democracy Now:

 

'The prime minister's attempt to lure Western oil companies is on a par with his crying wolf about al-Qaeda at every turn. Every time you interview a Somalia official, the first thing you hear is al-Qaeda and terrorists. They're using that. No one believes it. No one believes it at all, because all independent reports say the contrary.'

 

I spoke with Kidane last week and she conceded that the situation in Somalia might seem complex to many in the peace and social justice movements.

 

However, she said, it is impossible to overlook the parallel with the situation in the Iraq: 'It's aggression, that is undeniable, and the same language is being used to justify it.'

 

Kidane is spot on to insist that the movements for peace and justice in the US - and elsewhere - must take up the issue. The unlawful US- Ethiopian invasion and occupation of that country and the accompanying human suffering and human rights abuses constitute a new - and still mostly hidden - war, which is in many ways is similar to that in Iraq. And, waged for the same reason.

 

Carl Bloice is a writer based in San Francisco. He is a member of the National Coordinating Committee of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. He is on the editorial board of Black Commentator where a version of this article was originally published on 2 May 2007.

 

Copyright © 2007 Fahamu.

[Nur]

More Blood For Oil

 

 

Forget about all that stuff about Ethiopia having a 'tacit' o.k. from Washington to invade Somalia. The decision was made at the White House and the attack had military support from the Pentagon. The governments are too much in sync and the Ethiopians too dependent on the U.S. to think otherwise.

 

And, it didn't just suddenly happen. Ethiopian troops, trained and equipped by the U.S. began infiltrating into Somali territory last summer as part of a plan that began to evolve the previous June when the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) took control of the government. In November, the head of the U.S. Central Command, General John Abizaid (until last week he ran the U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq) was in Addis Ababa. After that, Ghanaian journalist Cameron Duodu has written, Ethiopia 'moved from proving the Somali government with 'military advice' to open armed intervention.'

 

And not without help. U.S Supplied satellite surveillance data aided in the bombardment of the Somali capital, Mogadishu and pinpointing the location of UIC forces resulting, in the words of New York Times reporter Jeffrey Gettleman, in 'a string of back-to- back military loses in which more than 1,000 fighters, mostly teenage boys, were quickly mowed down by the better-trained and equipped Ethiopian-backed forces.'

 

As with the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the immediate question is why was this proxy attack undertaken, in clear violation of international law and the UN Charter? And again, there is the official line, the excuse and the underlying impetus. The official line from Addis Ababa is that it was a defensive act in the face of a threat of attack from Somalia. There's nothing to support the claim and a lot of evidence to the contrary. As far as the Bush Administration is concerned, it was a chance to strike back at 'Islamists' as part of the on-going 'war on terror.' For progressive observers in the region and much of the media outside the U.S., the conflict smells of petroleum.

 

'As with Iraq in 2003, the United States has cast this as a war to curtail terrorism, but its real goal is to obtain a direct foothold in a highly strategic region by establishing a client regime there.,' wrote Salim Lone, spokesperson for the United Nation mission in Iraq in 2003, and now a columnist for The Daily Nation in Kenya. 'The Horn of Africa is newly oil-rich, and lies just miles from Saudi Arabia, overlooking the daily passage of large numbers of oil tankers and warships through the Red Sea.'

 

In a television interview broadcast on the day of the full-fledged Ethiopian assault, Marine General James Jones (who ironically, like Abizaid, recently lost his position), then-Nato's military commander and head of the US military's European army, expressed his concern that the size of the U.S. army in Europe had 'perhaps gone too low.' Jones went on to tell the CSpan interviewer the US needed troops in Europe partly so that they could be quickly deployed in trouble-spots in Africa and elsewhere.

 

'I think the emergence of Africa as a strategic reality is inevitable and we're going to need forward-based troops, special operations, marines, soldiers, airmen and sailors to be in the right proportion,' said Jones.

 

'Pentagon to train sharper eye on Africa,' read the headline over a January 5 report by Richard Whittle in the Christian Science Monitor. 'Strife, oil, and Al Qaeda are leading the US to create a new Africa Command.'

 

'Africa, long beset by war, famine, disease, and ethnic tensions, has generally taken a backseat in Pentagon planning - but US officials say that is about to change,' wrote Whittle, who went on to report that one of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's last acts before being dismissed from that position was to convince President Bush to create a new Africa military Africa command, something the White House is expected to announce later this year. The creation of the new body, he quoted one expert as saying, reflects the Administration concern about 'Al Qaeda's known presence in Africa,' China's developing relations with the continent with regards to oil supplies and the fact that 'Islamists took over Somalia last June and ruled until this week, when Ethiopian troops drove them out of power.'

 

Currently, the US gets about 10 percent of its oil from Africa, but, the Monitor story said but 'some experts say it may need to rely on the continent for as much as 25 percent by 2010.' Reportedly, nearly two-thirds of Somalia's oil fields were allocated to the U.S. oil companies Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips before Somalia's pro-U.S. President Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown in January, 1991.

 

Lt. Cmdr. Joe Carpenter, a Pentagon spokesman, said the division for African military operations "causes some difficulty in trying to ... execute a more streamlined and comprehensive strategy when it comes to Africa." According to the plan, the Central Command will retain responsibility for the Horn of Africa for about 18 months while the Africa Command gets set up. The Pentagon's present Horn of Africa joint task force, headquartered in Djibouti, includes about 1,500 troops.

 

African countries won't see much difference in the US military presence on the ground under the new command, Herman Cohen, assistant secretary of State for African affairs under the first President Bush, is quoted as saying. "They're already getting a lot of attention from the US military.' The Defense Intelligence Agency "has built up its offices throughout Africa in US embassies. Right after the cold war, they reduced a lot, but they've built back up."

 

"When the Cold War ended, so too did the interest of the USA in Africa...for a while. Particularly following September 11, 2001, the interest of the Bush administration in Africa increased several fold,' says Bill Fletcher, Jr., visiting professor at Brooklyn College-CUNY, former president of TransAfrica Forum. 'Their interest was, first, in direct relationship to the amount of oil in the ground. Second, it was in relationship to a country's attitude toward the so- called "war against terrorism." Irrespective of the character of a regime, if they were prepared to provide the USA with oil and/or support the war against terrorism, the USA would turn a blind eye toward any practices going on.'

 

"The second piece of this puzzle, however, is that the new interest in Africa was accompanied by a new military approach toward Africa,' says Fletcher. 'This included both the development of the so-called Trans Sahel project, which supposedly concerns training countries to fight terrorism, as well as the deployment of military bases and personnel to Africa. Specifically, and beginning around the time of the initiation of the Iraq war, US military planners began discussing relocating US forces from Europe into Africa, and specifically into the Gulf of Guinea region, a region rich in oil reserves.

 

"It is clear, once again, that in all of this, the character of any regime is secondary to the regime's compliance with the interests of the Bush administration and their economic/strategic priorities. The net effect of this could be the introduction of US military personnel into extremely complicated internal struggles not only in the Gulf of Guinea region, but in other locations, e.g., Somalia, allegedly in the interest of fighting terrorism and protecting strategic oil reserves."

 

Describing the Trans Sahel project, which covers a swath of North Africa, Foreign Policy in Focus commentator Conn Hallinan wrote recently, 'The Bush Administration claims the target of this program, called the Trans-Sahara Counter-Terrorism Initiative is the growing presence of al-Qaeda influenced organizations in the region. Critics, however, charge that the enterprise has more to do with oil than with Osama bin Laden, and that stepped up military aid to Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia will most likely end up being used against internal opposition groups in those countries, not 'terrorists' hiding out in the desert.'

 

An apt example of how the charge of terrorism becomes cover for suppression of local democratic or leftist dissent is Nigeria. A major focus of U.S. oil interest is in that country and the Gulf of Guinea region. There, activists reflecting popular demand for retaining more oil revenues for local development and an end to environmental chaos, have been labeled 'terrorist' and are being brutally suppressed by a U.S. trained and equipped military.

 

Southern Africa scholar George Wright observes that the development of military ties to government and 'rebel' groups in Africa, in pursuit of U.S. geo-strategic objectives, is long standing but has accelerating over recent years. Between 1990 and 2000, military arrangements were concluded between governments or opposition groups in 39 countries on the continent. These involved weapons supplies, military training, shared intelligence and surveillance. The aim, he says, has always been to secure neo-colonial relations with African countries. However, since 9/11, Wright says, the process has been accelerated and taken on an increasingly militarist character 'under the guise of fighting terrorism.'

 

Fighting proxy war is credible as long as there is a chance of holding sway but history has repeatedly demonstrated when that doesn't work out, the end is often direct involvement. That explains why the 2007 U.S. military sets funding for Special Forces to increase by 15 percent. According to the 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review, these Special Forces 'will have the capacity to operate in dozens of countries simultaneously - relying on a combination of direct (visible) and indirect (clandestine) approaches.'

 

The Ethiopian government has said it does not have the resources for an extended stay in Somalia even though the projection is that it will take many months to 'stabilize' the situation in the invaded country. As of this writing, the Bush Administration was having difficulty raising troops from nearby cooperative states to take over the job. Only Uganda seemed a sure bet. Assistant U.S. Secretary of State for Africa, Ms Jendayi Frazer, told journalists: "Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni promised U.S. President George Bush in a recent phone call that he could supply between 1,000-2,000 troops to protect Somalia's transitional government and train its troops. We hope to have the Ugandans deployed before the end of January.'

 

Shortly after the invasion, Frazer told reporters there had been no request for U.S. troops or military assistance so far, but she did not rule out that it could be requested and supplied later if necessary. Later came quickly. On Sunday, U.S. AC-130 gunships began bombarding sites within Somalia and Hawkeye reconnaissance planes took to the air pinpointing locations for attacks by jet aircraft. Although the announced purpose of the bombing was alleged al-Qaeda personnel, media reports indicated the target were 'Islamic fighters', meaning troops of the UIC government. "The US has sided with one Somali faction against another, this could be the beginning of a new civil war ... I fear once again they have gone for a quick fix based on false information, one 'highly respected regional analyst' told the Times of London. 'If they pull it off, however, it could be a turning point. The stakes are very high indeed, now. I fear they are repeating the mistakes of the past, not only in Somalia but in Afghanistan and Iraq and will end up creating a new insurgency which could destabilize this entire region.'

 

 

BC Editorial Board member Carl Bloice is a writer in San Francisco, a member of the National Coordinating Committee of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism and formerly worked for a healthcare union.

 

 

by Carl Bloise, Black Commentator

 

January 16, 2007

[Nur]

Bush-Led 'Disaster Capitalism'

 

Exploits Worldwide Misery to Make a Buck

 

By Naomi Klein

 

04/07/08 "The Nation" -- Once oil passed $140 a barrel, even the most rabidly right-wing media hosts had to prove their populist cred by devoting a portion of every show to bashing Big Oil. Some have gone so far as to invite me on for a friendly chat about an insidious new phenomenon: “disaster capitalism.” It usually goes well — until it doesn’t.

 

For instance, “independent conservative” radio host Jerry Doyle and I were having a perfectly amiable conversation about sleazy insurance companies and inept politicians when this happened: “I think I have a quick way to bring the prices down,” Doyle announced. “We’ve invested $650 billion to liberate a nation of 25 million people. Shouldn’t we just demand that they give us oil? There should be tankers after tankers backed up like a traffic jam getting into the Lincoln Tunnel, the Stinkin’ Lincoln, at rush hour with thank-you notes from the Iraqi government … . Why don’t we just take the oil? We’ve invested it liberating a country. I can have the problem solved of gas prices coming down in ten days, not ten years.”

 

There were a couple of problems with Doyle’s plan, of course. The first was that he was describing the biggest stickup in world history. The second, that he was too late: “We” are already heisting Iraq’s oil, or at least are on the cusp of doing so.

 

It’s been ten months since the publication of my book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, in which I argue that today’s preferred method of reshaping the world in the interest of multinational corporations is to systematically exploit the state of fear and disorientation that accompanies moments of great shock and crisis. With the globe being rocked by multiple shocks, this seems like a good time to see how and where the strategy is being applied.

 

And the disaster capitalists have been busy — from private firefighters already on the scene in Northern California’s wildfires, to land grabs in cyclone-hit Burma, to the housing bill making its way through Congress. The bill contains little in the way of affordable housing, shifts the burden of mortgage default to taxpayers and makes sure that the banks that made bad loans get some payouts. No wonder it is known in the hallways of Congress as “The Credit Suisse Plan,” after one of the banks that generously proposed it.

 

Iraq Disaster: We Broke It, We (Just) Bought It

 

But these cases of disaster capitalism are amateurish compared with what is unfolding at Iraq’s oil ministry. It started with no-bid service contracts announced for ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP and Total (they have yet to be signed but are still on course). Paying multinationals for their technical expertise is not unusual. What is odd is that such contracts almost invariably go to oil service companies — not to the oil majors, whose work is exploring, producing and owning carbon wealth. As London-based oil expert Greg Muttitt points out, the contracts make sense only in the context of reports that the oil majors have insisted on the right of first refusal on subsequent contracts handed out to manage and produce Iraq’s oil fields. In other words, other companies will be free to bid on those future contracts, but these companies will win.

 

One week after the no-bid service deals were announced, the world caught its first glimpse of the real prize. After years of back-room arm-twisting, Iraq is officially flinging open six of its major oil fields, accounting for around half of its known reserves, to foreign investors. According to Iraq’s oil minister, the long-term contracts will be signed within a year. While ostensibly under control of the Iraq National Oil Company, foreign firms will keep 75 percent of the value of the contracts, leaving just 25 percent for their Iraqi partners.

 

That kind of ratio is unheard of in oil-rich Arab and Persian states, where achieving majority national control over oil was the defining victory of anticolonial struggles. According to Muttitt, the assumption until now was that foreign multinationals would be brought in to develop brand-new fields in Iraq — not to take over ones that are already in production and therefore require minimal technical support. “The policy was always to allocate these fields to the Iraq National Oil Company,” he told me. This is a total reversal of that policy, giving INOC a mere 25 percent instead of the planned 100 percent.

 

So what makes such lousy deals possible in Iraq, which has already suffered so much? Ironically, it is Iraq’s suffering — its never-ending crisis — that is the rationale for an arrangement that threatens to drain its treasury of its main source of revenue. The logic goes like this: Iraq’s oil industry needs foreign expertise because years of punishing sanctions starved it of new technology and the invasion and continuing violence degraded it further. And Iraq urgently needs to start producing more oil. Why? Again because of the war. The country is shattered, and the billions handed out in no-bid contracts to Western firms have failed to rebuild the country. And that’s where the new no-bid contracts come in: they will raise more money, but Iraq has become such a treacherous place that the oil majors must be induced to take the risk of investing. Thus the invasion of Iraq neatly creates the argument for its subsequent pillage.

 

Several of the architects of the Iraq War no longer even bother to deny that oil was a major motivator. On National Public Radio’s To the Point, Fadhil Chalabi, one of the primary Iraqi advisers to the Bush Administration in the lead-up to the invasion, recently described the war as “a strategic move on the part of the United States of America and the UK to have a military presence in the Gulf in order to secure [oil] supplies in the future.” Chalabi, who served as Iraq’s oil under secretary and met with the oil majors before the invasion, described this as “a primary objective.”

 

Invading countries to seize their natural resources is illegal under the Geneva Conventions. That means that the huge task of rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure — including its oil infrastructure — is the financial responsibility of Iraq’s invaders. They should be forced to pay reparations. (Recall that Saddam Hussein’s regime paid $9 billion to Kuwait in reparations for its 1990 invasion.) Instead, Iraq is being forced to sell 75 percent of its national patrimony to pay the bills for its own illegal invasion and occupation.

 

Oil Price Shock: Give Us the Arctic or Never Drive Again

 

Iraq isn’t the only country in the midst of an oil-related stickup. The Bush Administration is busily using a related crisis — the soaring price of fuel — to revive its dream of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). And of drilling offshore. And in the rock-solid shale of the Green River Basin. “Congress must face a hard reality,” said George W. Bush on June 18. “Unless members are willing to accept gas prices at today’s painful levels — or even higher — our nation must produce more oil.”

 

This is the President as Extortionist in Chief, with gas nozzle pointed to the head of his hostage — which happens to be the entire country. Give me ANWR, or everyone has to spend their summer vacations in the backyard. A final stickup from the cowboy President.

 

Despite the Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less bumper stickers, drilling in ANWR would have little discernible impact on actual global oil supplies, as its advocates well know. The argument that it could nonetheless bring down oil prices is based not on hard economics but on market psychoanalysis: drilling would “send a message” to the oil traders that more oil is on the way, which would cause them to start betting down the price.

 

Two points follow from this approach. First, trying to psych out hyperactive commodity traders is what passes for governing in the Bush era, even in the midst of a national emergency. Second, it will never work. If there is one thing we can predict from the oil market’s recent behavior, it is that the price is going to keep going up regardless of what new supplies are announced.

 

Take the massive oil boom under way in Alberta’s notorious tar sands. The tar sands (sometimes called the oil sands) have the same things going for them as Bush’s proposed drill sites: they are nearby and perfectly secure, since the North American Free Trade Agreement contains a provision barring Canada from cutting off supply to the United States. And with little fanfare, oil from this largely untapped source has been pouring into the market, so much so that Canada is now the largest supplier of oil to the United States, surpassing Saudi Arabia. Between 2005 and 2007, Canada increased its exports to the States by almost 100 million barrels. Yet despite this significant increase in secure supplies, oil prices have been going up the entire time.

 

What is driving the ANWR push is not facts but pure shock doctrine strategy — the oil crisis has created the conditions in which it is possible to sell a previously unsellable (but highly profitable) policy.

 

Food Price Shock: Genetic Modification or Starvation

 

Intimately connected to the price of oil is the global food crisis. Not only do high gas prices drive up food costs but the boom in agrofuels has blurred the line between food and fuel, pushing food growers off their land and encouraging rampant speculation. Several Latin American countries have been pushing to re-examine the push for agrofuels and to have food recognized as a human right, not a mere commodity. United States Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte has other ideas. In the same speech touting the US commitment to emergency food aid, he called on countries to lower their “export restrictions and high tariffs” and eliminate “barriers to use of innovative plant and animal production technologies, including biotechnology.” This was an admittedly more subtle stickup, but the message was clear: impoverished countries had better crack open their agricultural markets to American products and genetically modified seeds, or they could risk having their aid cut off.

 

Genetically modified crops have emerged as the cureall for the food crisis, at least according to the World Bank, the European Commission president (time to “bite the bullet”) and Prime Minister of Britain Gordon Brown. And, of course, the agribusiness companies. “You cannot today feed the world without genetically modified organisms,” Peter Brabeck, chairman of Nestlé, told the Financial Times recently. The problem with this argument, at least for now, is that there is no evidence that GMOs increase crop yields, and they often decrease them.

 

But even if there was a simple key to solving the global food crisis, would we really want it in the hands of the Nestlés and Monsantos? What would it cost us to use it? In recent months Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF have been frenetically buying up patents on so-called “climate ready” seeds — plants that can grow in earth parched from drought and salinated from flooding.

 

In other words, plants built to survive a future of climate chaos. We already know the lengths Monsanto will go to protect its intellectual property, spying on and suing farmers who dare to save their seeds from one year to the next. We have seen patented AIDS medications fail to treat millions in sub-Saharan Africa. Why would patented “climate ready” crops be any different?

 

Meanwhile, amid all the talk of exciting new genetic and drilling technologies, the Bush Administration announced a moratorium of up to two years on new solar energy projects on federal lands — due, apparently, to environmental concerns. This is the final frontier for disaster capitalism. Our leaders are failing to invest in technology that will actually prevent a future of climate chaos, choosing instead to work hand in hand with those plotting innovative schemes to profit from the mayhem.

 

Privatizing Iraq’s oil, ensuring global dominance for genetically modified crops, lowering the last of the trade barriers and opening the last of the wildlife refuges … Not so long ago, those goals were pursued through polite trade agreements, under the benign pseudonym “globalization.” Now this discredited agenda is forced to ride on the backs of serial crises, selling itself as lifesaving medicine for a world in pain

[Nur]

The mask of altruism disguising a colonial war

 

Oil will be the driving factor for military intervention in Sudan

 

By John Laughland

 

09/08/07 "The Guardian" -- - If proof were needed that Tony Blair is off the hook over Iraq, it came not during the Commons debate on the Butler report on July 21, but rather at his monthly press conference the following morning. Asked about the crisis in Sudan, Mr Blair replied: "I believe we have a moral responsibility to deal with this and to deal with it by any means that we can." This last phrase means that troops might be sent - as General Sir Mike Jackson, the chief of the general staff, immediately confirmed - and yet the reaction from the usual anti-war campaigners was silence.

 

Mr Blair has invoked moral necessity for every one of the five wars he has fought in this, surely one of the most bellicose premierships in history. The bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998, the 74-day bombardment of Yugoslavia in 1999, the intervention in Sierra Leone in the spring of 2000, the attack on Afghanistan in October 2001, and the Iraq war last March were all justified with the bright certainties which shone from the prime minister's eyes. Blair even defended Bill Clinton's attack on the al-Shifa pharmaceuticals factory in Sudan in August 1998, on the entirely bogus grounds that it was really manufacturing anthrax instead of aspirin.

 

Although in each case the pretext for war has been proved false or the war aims have been unfulfilled, a stubborn belief persists in the morality and the effectiveness of attacking other countries. The Milosevic trial has shown that genocide never occurred in Kosovo - although Blair told us that the events there were worse than anything that had happened since the second world war, even the political activists who staff the prosecutor's office at the international criminal tribunal in The Hague never included genocide in their Kosovo indictment. And two years of prosecution have failed to produce one single witness to testify that the former Yugoslav president ordered any attacks on Albanian civilians in the province. Indeed, army documents produced from Belgrade show the contrary.

 

Like the Kosovo genocide, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, as we now know, existed only in the fevered imaginings of spooks and politicians in London and Washington. But Downing Street was also recently forced to admit that even Blair's claims about mass graves in Iraq were false. The prime minister has repeatedly said that 300,000 or 400,000 bodies have been found there, but the truth is that almost no bodies have been exhumed in Iraq, and consequently the total number of such bodies, still less the cause of their deaths, is simply unknown.

 

In 2001, we attacked Afghanistan to capture Osama bin Laden and to prevent the Taliban from allegedly flooding the world with heroin. Yet Bin Laden remains free, while the heroin ban imposed by the Taliban has been replaced by its very opposite, a surge in opium production, fostered by the warlords who rule the country. As for Sierra Leone, the United Nations human development report for 2004, published on July 15, which measures overall living standards around the world, puts that beneficiary of western intervention in 177th place out of 177, an august position it has continued to occupy ever since our boys went in: Sierra Leone is literally the most miserable place on earth. So much for Blair's promise of a "new era for Africa".

 

The absence of anti-war scepticism about the prospect of sending troops into Sudan is especially odd in view of the fact that Darfur has oil. For two years, campaigners have chanted that there should be "no blood for oil" in Iraq, yet they seem not to have noticed that there are huge untapped reserves in both southern Sudan and southern Darfur. As oil pipelines continue to be blown up in Iraq, the west not only has a clear motive for establishing control over alternative sources of energy, it has also officially adopted the policy that our armies should be used to do precisely this. Oddly enough, the oil concession in southern Darfur is currently in the hands of the China National Petroleum Company. China is Sudan's biggest foreign investor.

 

We ought, therefore, to treat with scepticism the US Congress declaration of genocide in the region. No one, not even the government of Sudan, questions that there is a civil war in Darfur, or that it has caused an immense number of refugees. Even the government admits that nearly a million people have left for camps outside Darfur's main towns to escape marauding paramilitary groups. The country is awash with guns, thanks to the various wars going on in Sudan's neighbouring countries. Tensions have risen between nomads and herders, as the former are forced south in search of new pastures by the expansion of the Sahara desert. Paramilitary groups have practised widespread highway robbery, and each tribe has its own private army. That is why the government of Sudan imposed a state of emergency in 1999.

 

But our media have taken this complex picture and projected on to it a simple morality tale of ethnic cleansing and genocide. They gloss over the fact that the Janjaweed militia come from the same ethnic group and religion as the people they are allegedly persecuting - everyone in Darfur is black, African, Arabic-speaking and Muslim. Campaigners for intervention have accused the Sudanese government of supporting this group, without mentioning that the Sudanese defence minister condemned the Janjaweed as "bandits" in a speech to the country's parliament in March. On July 19, moreover, a court in Khartoum sentenced six Janjaweed soldiers to horrible punishments, including the amputation of their hands and legs. And why do we never hear about the rebel groups which the Janjaweed are fighting, or about any atrocities that they may have committed?

 

It is far from clear that the sudden media attention devoted to Sudan has been provoked by any real escalation of the crisis - a peace agreement was signed with the rebels in April, and it is holding. The pictures on our TV screens could have been shown last year. And we should treat with scepticism the claims made for the numbers of deaths - 30,000 or 50,000 are the figures being bandied about - when we know that similar statistics proved very wrong in Kosovo and Iraq. The Sudanese government says that the death toll in Darfur, since the beginning of the conflict in 2003, is not greater than 1,200 on all sides. And why is such attention devoted to Sudan when, in neighbouring Congo, the death rate from the war there is estimated to be some 2 or 3 million, a tragedy equalled only by the silence with which it is treated in our media?

 

We are shown starving babies now, but no TV station will show the limbless or the dead that we cause if we attack Sudan. Humanitarian aid should be what the Red Cross always said it must be - politically neutral. Anything else is just an old-fashioned colonial war - the reality of killing, and the escalation of violence, disguised with the hypocritical mask of altruism. If Iraq has not taught us that, then we are incapable of ever learning anything.

 

· John Laughland is an associate of Sanders Research Associates

[Nur]

Nomads

 

Our New expanded "Parliament" is in a hurry to sign the Oil and Gas Law which the last parliament failed to deliver in time.

 

As long as foreign interests are driving the form of government Somalia should have, the Horn of Africa is assured a long night, with no sunrise nor hope, hard choices are ahead, and depending on the worldview, and the people's aspirations, some will support any form of government as long as there is money, and some will always spend their money and souls to preserve their principles. Coming days are pregnant with conflicting scenarios!

 

 

Nur

[Nur]

US seeks rifts among Somali rebels after blasts

 

 

The US is studying ways to foment division among Somali rebels behind bombings in Uganda, without inflaming anti-foreigner feelings that could cause a closing of ranks, a US official said on Monday.

 

The double blasts, claimed by al Shabaab Islamists, killed 73 people watching the FIFA World Cup final on July 11. The group had threatened to strike Uganda to punish it for its contribution to Amisom, the African Union peacekeeping force in Somalia.

 

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, added that allies of Somalia's interim government were discussing the possibility of allowing African peacekeeping troops to go on the offensive against the rebels in the wake of the explosions. At present they may use force only when attacked.

 

Asked what strategies the US was using against extremist armed Islamist groups in Somalia, the official replied Washington would seek to divide them, although the task was delicate due to Somali sensitivities about foreign involvement.

 

"We know nothing galvanises Somalis like an outside influence...if we do something in an imprudent manner," the official said in a briefing for reporters in London.

 

"We are trying to figure out the best way to exploit any divisions. At the same time, to do that in an incorrect manner runs the risk of the exact opposite, which is to unite them."

 

Aside from its differences with other Islamist armed groups, al Shabaab itself is a patchwork of networks including foreigners who favour al Qaeda-style global attacks and more nationalistic Somalis, some analysts have said.

 

"Are they (al Shabaab) truly a Somali group at this point, or are they a puppet of an outside extremist group? It's a question we're looking at very closely," the official said.

 

 

"OFFENSIVE POSTURE"

 

 

There were increasing signs that al Shabaab was adopting an international al Qaeda-type approach and it was important to try to prevent senior foreign militants from promoting this thinking among a middle tier of fighters.

 

The official said that the estimated 1,5-million Somalis living overseas, who send home about $1-billion in remittances annually, were in a position to use their influence to deepen existing public antipathy to the rebels inside Somalia.

 

There was a "great possibility" this would happen because Somalis in the West were likely to experience more police scrutiny of their businesses after the attacks in Uganda and they were likely to blame al Shabaab for this.

 

"For them not to be able to function and do their business outside of Somalia would be a blow ... And if al Shabaab endangers those remittances, I think that's going to further alienate them from the Somali people," the official said.

 

The official added that the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) was fighting for its survival against al Shabaab and was dependent on Amisom, which he said numbered about 5 800 troops.

 

The official said there was "vigorous discussion" among Somalia's allies about possibly widening the rules of engagement to enable the force to go on the offensive.

 

"Many folks think that's the way to go, change the mandate from peacekeeping to an offensive posture," the official said.

[Nur]

The Conoco - Somalia Declassification Project

 

College of DuPage - Geography Department - Prof. Keith Yearman

 

 

Introduction: Michael Parenti on Somalia and Operation Restore Hope

 

"Just days before he left office in January 1993, President Bush sent troops to Somalia supposedly to safeguard food distribution to its hungry people. Here seemed to be another worthy humanitarian cause. But why would Bush, who spent an entire career in public office untroubled by poverty and hunger at home and abroad, suddenly be so moved to fight famine in Somalia? Why not any of the other African countries in which famine raged? And why such an elaborate military undertaking for humanitarian 'famine relief'?" ("Against Empire." San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1995, p. 122).

 

Perhaps the following declassified documents will help explain why Somalia was the chosen country. The following documents have been obtained using the Freedom of Information Act, and are posted online for the first time.

 

As of now, no documents concerning the initial contact between Conoco and the US government concerning Operation Restore Hope have been made available. This initial contact came in at least 1991, as is demonstrated in "Mogadishu Assessment Mission, Oct. 17-20: Preliminary Report" (22 October 1991) below.

Document Collection

 

Conoco: "This goose laying golden eggs"

 

"Petroleum Exploration: Conoco Searches for Oil in Somalia." Cable from US Embassy in Mogadishu to State Department Headquarters. 21 March 1990. Cable Number: Mogadishu 02844. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2006-01-286) to Keith Yearman.

 

"The largest and most purposeful enterprise going on in Somalia at the present time is Conoco's quest for oil...Conoco is investing in oil exploration in Somalia on a scale unmatched by its rivals, building roads and airstrips, chartering one of the national airline's three planes full time, and sending seismic survey teams to the edge of [somaliland National Movement]-controlled territory... The benefits to all if Conoco finds oil, and the immediate benefits to the economy of Conoco's spending, whether oil is found or not, are so apparent that no one has tried to kill this goose laying golden eggs...

 

"The most important part of the 'whole story,' perhaps, is that even if Conoco finds oil in significant amounts, there will have to be additional steps and much more investment before Somalia can benefit. The first prerequisite will be that Somalia achieve internal peace. [President of Conoco Somalia Raymond] Marchand explains to [somali government] officials that if there is no peace, then neither Conoco nor anyone else will be able to get the oil out. A pipeline, pumping station and terminal would cost in the neighborhood of UDS 500 to 800 million..."

 

The Kott Delegation

 

The U.S. Embassy in Mogadishu was closed on January 5, 1991, due to the security situation in Somalia. The former embassy building was heavily damaged in the following months. Somali diplomatic affairs were, in the interim, run out of the US Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya. In October 1991, a State Department team headed by Bob Kott (of the African Affairs Bureau) was dispatched to Somalia to explore the possibility of opening a new, scaled-down embassy. Of particular importance are two documents concerning this delegation. In the first, "Mogadishu Assessment Mission," Conoco assured the State Department of the delegation's security. This drew a sharp rebuke from the Deputy Chief of Mission in Nairobi, Robert Southwick. The second document, "Mogadishu Assessment Mission, Oct. 17-20: Preliminary Report," stresses the role the US government should play in supporting US corporations in Somalia, "especially in the oil sector."

 

1. "Travel of Mogadishu Assessment Team." Cable from State Department Headquarters to US Embassy in Nairobi. 10 October 1991. Cable Number: State 336658. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2005-05-361) to Keith Yearman. The State Department announces Bob Kott will lead a delegation to Mogadishu to "assess the feasibility of re-opening a small embassy in Mogadishu.

 

2. "Mogadishu Assessment Mission." Cable from US Embassy in Nairobi to State Department Headquarters. 11 October 1991. Cable Number: Nairobi 24866. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2005-05-183) to Keith Yearman. John Fox, Political Officer at the Embassy in Nairobi, spoke with a source (likely Marchand) to "assess the situation in Mogadishu as it regards the safety of the [state Department] assessment mission scheduled to arrive there next week.

 

"Conoco, a non-[uS government] entity, has basically given the 'green light' for this mission. It is not Conoco's call to do so. Conoco's security is excellent. Their guards are well-paid and well-armed and the company's security zone is adjacent to the K-7 compound, the focal point of interest for this assessment team. In all likelihood, team members, under the Conoco umbrella, will encounter no security problems on the ground, do their business and go home. Then again, the security situation could change suddenly and dramatically (it already has numerous times since the fall of the Barre gover nment) and someone could get hurt. If the latter be the case, Conoco, which has no legal responsibility to protect USG personnel, will say 'we tried our best' and the USG is faced with both an embarrassing political and legal dilemma. A mission of this importance may warrant the use of US military or [Diplomatic Security Service] assets."

 

3. "Mogadishu Assessment Mission, Oct. 17-20: Preliminary Report." Cable from US Embassy in Nairobi to State Department Headquarters. 22 October 1991. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2004-04-554) to Keith Yearman. This is a report on the Kott delegation. The purpose was to "evaluate the political and security situations and to examine available properties, in order to give the department the information required to make a decision regarding the re-opening of a small diplomatic mission in Mogadishu."

 

"There are, at present, few American citizens in Somalia. Conoco (Somalia), Ltd., however, anticipates re-commencing oil exploration work in southern Somalia within the next several months. According to Conoco, this would involve the introduction of 50-60 Amcit employees into Somalia. If the security situation does not deteriorate, it would be realistic to project a total presence of around 100 Amcits in southern Somalia by the middle of 1992. Such a community would justify a consular presence in Mogadishu."

 

"There are, at present, only two US firms (Conoco and Turnkey) operating in Somalia. Others, especially in the oil sector, are considering resuming operations. These firms will sometimes require the type of diplomatic support best provided by a permanent diplomatic mission.

 

Pursuing Black Gold in Somalia

 

The following cables demonstrate how the oil companies were pursuing Somali crude, and some of the difficulties they encountered along the way.

 

1. "Chevron Drilling Site in Northern Somalia." Cable from US Embassy in Djibouti to State Department Headquarters. 31 March 1988. Cable Number: Djibouti 0711. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2006-01-288) to Keith Yearman. This cable refers to Chevron's operations in Somalia. "Chevron Oil has begun exploratory drilling at the first of two sites in northern Somalia...Another Chevron employee, a Somali-born US citizen...believes the [somaliland National Movement] has taken a firm descision not [repeat] not to harass the oil operation in any way. The SNM believes the oil (which Somalis and Djiboutians apparently are convinces is present in major quantities) should be exploited for the benefit of the Somali people, particularly in the north. From a technical standpoint, that can only take place in the 1990's, when Siad Barre - and presumably his government - is gone...He believes many of the alleged terrorist incidents in northern Somalia were really the work of the soldiers themselves. Ill-fed and frequently unpaid because of the corruption...these soldiers often exaggerate and sometimes create, boming incidents and firefights in order to be able to justify more support from Mogadishu."

 

2. "FY-88 Security Assistance Funding Trips Up Military Review Committee (MRC) Meeting." Cable from US Embassy in Mogadishu to State Department Headquarters. 2 February 1988. Cable Number: Mogadishu 01297. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2006-01-288) to Keith Yearman. This cable is an overview of US-Somali military cooperation. While important militarily, the last page mentions "the capture of 2 dissidents [and the pursuit of] 3 others whose objective had been to sabotage U.S. oil drilling activities. [somali Defense Minister Aden Abdullahi Nur] attributed their training and support to Ethiopia and claimed the goal was to close down the exploratory drilling by Conoco along the Gulf of Oman. Embassy will attempt to corroborate this report."

 

3. "Conversation with Outgoing Japanese Ambassador." Cable from US Embassy in Mogadishu to State Department Headquarters. 6 February 1989. Cable Number: Mogadishu 01519. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2006-01-288) to Keith Yearman. This short cable provides an overview of Japan's relationship with Somalia, from rehabbing Somali radio stations to opening a new embassy. Of note, "Nippon Mining (Kyoto) has invested in shares of the Conoco Oil exploration project in northern Somalia, on a strictly financial basis."

 

4. "Travel Restrictions." Cable from US Embassy in Mogadishu to State Department Headquarters. 11 March 1990. Cable Number: Mogadishu 02441. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2006-01-288) to Keith Yearman. Ambassador Frank Crigler's travel had been restricted by the Somali government. During a March 7, 1990 telephone conversation, the Prime Minister guaranteed Crigler free travel. Crigler chose to "test" this policy by visiting Conoco's site at Las Anod.

 

5. "Winds of Peace Blowing Even in Northwest Somalia." Cable from US Embassy in Mogadishu to State Department Headquarters. 15 March 1990. Cable Number: Modgadishu 02658. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2006-01-288) to Keith Yearman. Crigler's report on his trip to the Conoco site. Most of the cable is dedicated to security issues, however Crigler noted: "Northwest Somalia's ace-in-the-hole may be oil. Conoco has spent dols. 16 million drilling near Las Anod, with no results so far (at 9800 feet) but they remain optimistic."

6. "Somalia Summary, Number 10 of 1990." Cable from US Embassy in Mogadishu to State Department Headquarters. 12 April 1990. Cable Number: Mogadishu 03595. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2006-01-288) to Keith Yearman. This overview of Somali events mentions Conoco's abandonment of its first well near Las Anod. "After repeated difficulties they managed to reach a depth of 10,750 feet before losing a portion of the drill string down the hole. Conoco Somalia President Raymond Marchand and his colleagues are disappointed that they were not able to explore potential source rock to a depth of 14,300 feet."

 

7. "Official Informal No. 021. Minister of Minerals and Water Resources Memcon." Cable from US Embassy in Mogadishu to State Department Headquarters. 9 October 1990. Cable Number: Mogadishu 08737. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2006-01-288) to Keith Yearman. This cable reports on Ambassador James K. Bishop's meetng with Abdirizak A. Elmi, Minister of Minerals and Water Resources. "The Minister indicated that he enjoys doing business with the American companies searching for petroleum in Somalia. He spoke favorably of several of their local representatives. Due to depart for meetings with the [international Bank for Reconstruction and Development] in a few days, the Minister plans to visit Houston, where he has appointments with Conoco and Pectin. Noting the bullish attitude of the American companies, Elmi said they all want the Hargesia exploration concession, as their geologists have concluded that it is the most likely site for a substantial find."

 

A Temporary Withdrawal - Security Concerns

 

1. "Update of Threat Assessment - Somalia." Cable from US Embassy in Mogadishu to State Department Headquarters. 7 September 1989. Cable Number: Mogadishu 09512. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2006-01-288) to Keith Yearman. "Somalia remains in a medium to high threat category with a potential for becoming critical with little or no warning..." Conoco "has not reported any incidents."

 

2. "[Excised] Security in Northern Somalia." Cable from State Department Headquarters to US Embassy in Mogadishu. 19 July 1990. Cable Number: State 236961. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2006-01-288) to Keith Yearman. "Amoco, Conoco, Phillips, and Pecten have all contacted us recently about the security situation. Amoco said it may take out dependents permanently and expats temporarily until the drill site in Brava is ready. The expats will probably return if, as Amoco expects, the Somali government agrees to let them fly directly between Brava and Kenya."

 

3. "Oil Companies are Worried." Cable from State Department Headquarters to US Embassy in Mogadishu. 30 July 1990. Cable Number: State 249168. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2005-05-183) to Keith Yearman. Conoco told representatives of State's African/Near Eastern Affairs Bureau that they were "suspending operations in Somalia as of today (7/27) because of deteriorating security in Mogadishu and upcountry...The Somali government gave Conoco a letter releasing Conoco of obligations to continue exploration at this time...Amoco tells us American oil companies will meet in Houston the middle of next week to discuss the situation in Somalia."

 

4. "Conoco Shutting Down." Cable from US Embassy in Mogadishu to State Department Headquarters. 1 August 1990. Cable Number: Mogadishu 06900. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2005-05-183) to Keith Yearman. In this heavily-excised cable, Deputy Chief of Mission Joseph J. Borich reports on Conoco's suspension of operations "following the apparent assassination of their security detachment commander and the killing of a truck driver." Of possible importance, note the distribution list of this cable - it went to the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Central Command, MacDill Air Force Base, as well as the Defense Intelligence Agency.

 

Conoco and State - A Cozy Relationship

 

1. "Private Courier Service." Cable from US Embassy in Mogadishu to State Department Headquarters. 10 December 1989. Cable Number: Mogadishu 13536. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2006-01-288) to Keith Yearman. In this cable, Ambassador Frank Crigler describes how dependents of State Department personnel provided courier services for Amoco, Chevron and Conoco. An anonymous complaint brought an investigation by the Inspector General, which "found no wrongdoing."

 

2. "Conoco on How to Pay Our Employees." Cable from US Embassy in Nairobi to State Department Headquarters. 21 May 1991. Cable Number: Nairobi 12692. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2005-05-183) to Keith Yearman. With the embassy in Somalia closed, the State Department was concerned with paying its Foreign Service Nationals in Somalia. A consultation was held with Conoco (apparently Marchand), in which he advised State on how to proceed - from setting up accounts with the Central Bank to the amount of time State Department personnel should expect to spend. Of importance in this cable - "Two [uS government] employees would travel to Mogadishu several days after Conoco re-occupies its offices on June 4..USG employees would be welcome to stay with Conoco and would be protected throughout their stay by Conoco's private guard service...USG employees could travel to Mogadishu either on the [Red Cross] aircraft...or by the Conoco aircraft...Conoco would probably not charge us for taking one of its regular flights...A final note: In addition to being helpful to us in every other way possible, Conoco has been giving rice, spaghetti, and powdered milk to out FSN's when they come to the Conoco office. Conoco refuses to accept payment from us for this service." [Note: See cables from May 20, 1992 and June 3, 1992 for further details on paying State Department's Somali employees].

 

3. "Mogadishu Security Assessment." Cable from US Embassy in Nairobi to State Department Headquarters. 9 October 1991. Cable Number: Nairobi 24780. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2005-05-183) to Keith Yearman. "Embassy is in daily contact with Conoco (Somalia), Ltd...During four visits by [uS government] officials to Mogadishu over the past several months, Conoco (Somalia), Ltd. has provided the following security: USG officials are met at the airport by armed guards and escorted via convoy to the Conoco residence. This residence lies in the center of a blocked-off, two square-block security zone...This zone is controlled by Conoco and is heavily fortified. USG officials move about Mogadishu as little as necessary. When they do, they are provided with armed guards. USG officials sleep and take their meals at the Conoco compound. When they leave Mogadishu, they are again escorted to the airport via convoy under armed guard. The aircraft, leased from 'Rent-A-Plane,' is in constant contact with the Conoco compound while in flight, which further facilitates security during take-offs and landings and allows last-minute changes in plan, if necessary."

 

4. "Conoco Phasing Out Mogadishu Office, Will Work From Garoe." Cable from US Embassy in Nairobi to State Department Headquarters. 18 February 1992. Cable Number: Nairobi 03944. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2004-04-554) to Keith Yearman. Conoco "has ceased staffing its Mogadishu office with expatriates, according to Raymond Marchand, president of Conoco (Somalia)...Conoco, the only U.S. firm that kept its Mogadishu office open during the turbulent past year, finally despaired of stability and government returning to the capital anytime soon...All USG employees travelling to Mogadishu in the past year have stayed with and been protected by Conoco." This is was also released as Document R01, from the Department of State's Bureau of African Affairs.

 

5. "Request for Travel to Mogadishu to Pay FSN Employees." Cable from US Embassy in Nairobi to State Department Headquarters. 20 May 1992. Cable Number: Nairobi 11635. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2004-04-554) to Keith Yearman. Discusses efforts of State Department to pay Somali nationals who were employed by the US government. The political officer, John Fox, "would travel into Mogadishu aboard either a Conoco aircraft or a relief flight. He would stay at the well-guarded compound of Conoco (Somalia), Ltd." See "Approval on Fox Travel to Mogadishu to Pay FSNs" (3 June 1992) for response.

 

6. "Approval on Fox Travel to Mogadishu to Pay FSNs." Cable from State Department Headquarters to US Embassy in Nairobi. 3 June 1992. Cable Number: State 175303. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2004-04-554) to Keith Yearman. Washington approves Fox's travel to Mogadishu for June 8-11, 1992. See "Request for Travel to Mogadishu to Pay FSN Employees" (20 May 1992) for initial request.

 

7. "Former FSNs Paid in Mogadishu." Cable from US Embassy in Nairobi to State Department Headquarters. 12 June 1992. Cable Number: Nairobi 13356. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2004-04-554) to Keith Yearman. Discusses Fox's trip to Mogadishu, describes Osman Atto at being "most helpful." See London 00133 ( "TFS001: More on Somali Perceptions vs. the Facts of Operation Restore Hope," 5 January 1993) for more on Atto.

 

8. "Somalia Security Assessment." Cable from US Embassy in Nairobi to State Department Headquarters. 2 October 1992. Cable Number: Nairobi 22214. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2004-04-554) to Keith Yearman. Discusses debriefing of Fox conducted 28 September. Fox "observed no anti-American sentiment...U.S. personnel have the ability to communicta (sic) via satelite telephones provided by Conoco...There is some thought being given in the department to opening an office in Mogadishu for the coordination of U.S. relief efforts. The office would probably be leased from Conoco."

 

9. "Opening of U.S. Liaison Office in Somalia." Cable from U.S. Embassy in Nairobi (Regional Information Management Center) to State Department Headquarters. 4 December 1992. Cable Number: Nairobi 26851. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2004-04-554) to Keith Yearman. Announces creation of a U.S. liaison office in Mogadishu, and that a "temporary office may be established at the Conoco compound if possible." [The US leased the Conoco compound, a villa, and had interest in an apartment complex known as K-7.]

 

10. "Somalia: Deployment Instructions for Ambassador Oakley." Cable from State Department Headquarters. 8 December 1992. Cable Number: State 390758. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2004-04-554) to Keith Yearman. Copy of cable originally sent 4 December 1992 to US Embassy, Addis Ababa. Gives orders to Robert Oakley to "proceed immediately to Mogadishu to establish yourself as the chief United States government representative in Somalia. Your establishment will be called the United States Liaison Office." Also note, "Department is working with Conoco. Rene Marchand, to secure their compound for your use. Conoco is willing but there may be some difficulties in actually getting set up right way." This cable was forwarded to U.S. Central Command Headquarters at MacDill Air Force Base.

 

11. "Financial Support for Mogadishu - Update No. 1." Cable from State Department Headquarters to U.S. Embassy in Nairobi. 11 December 1992. Cable Number: State 399037. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2004-04-554) to Keith Yearman. "Our initial thought is to establish a contract with Conoco at some fixed amount per person for lodging and food."

 

12. "FBO Funding for Mogadishu - 2562." Cable from US Embassy in Nairobi to State Department Headquarters. 24 December 1992. Cable Number: Nairobi 28472. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2004-04-554) to Keith Yearman. "Administrative officer in Mogadishu has neotiated a lease for the Conoco compound for six months at dols 41,260." A villa was also leased for $36,000.

 

Raymond Marchand, President of Conoco Somalia

 

1. "Views of an Old Africa Hand." Cable from US Embassy in Mogadishu to State Department Headquarters. 30 September 1990. Cable Number: Mogadishu 08487. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2006-01-288) to Keith Yearman. Conoco Somalia's President, Raymond Marchand, met with Ambassador James K. Bishop to discuss the security situation in Somalia. "[He] took his family out of Somalia in August because he decided the Siad regime could not last much longer and that its demise probably would be chaotic. [He] closed down Conoco's field operations in northern Somalia at the same time, because insurgent activity in the country side [sic] made it impossible to transport necessary supplies to the site where the company was preparing to drill its third well...He feels the current government will be overthrown by the end of the year."

 

2. "Your Meeting with Raymond Marchand, President of CONOCO Somalia, April 2, at 2:30 p.m." Letter from Martin L. Cheses, Bureau of African and Near Eastern Affairs, to Herman J. Cohen. 31 March 1992. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2004-04-554) to Keith Yearman. This letter is a briefing for a meeting between Raymond Marchand and Cohen. "...Marchand, in contrast to almost everyone else, has some optimistic thoughts about Somalia."

 

3. "TSF001 - Letter to Conoco." Cable from US Liaison Office Mogadishu to State Department Headquarters. 15 December 1992. Cable Number: Mogadishu 000004. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2004-04-554) to Keith Yearman. Oakley writes to Brandon Grove, leader of an interagency task force on Somalia, to "arrange a letter of appreciation from President Bush to the president of Conoco for the tremendous support that Conoco as a corporation and Raymond Marchand as an individual have provided here." This document was forwarded to the United States Delegation as State 403689 on 16 December 1992.

 

4. "Situation in Somalia: Conoco Ready to Return." Cable from US Embassy in Djibouti to State Department Headquarters. 14 April 1991. Cable Number: Djibouti 00976. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2005-05-183) to Keith Yearman. Entitled "Situation in Somalia: Conoco Ready to Return," Conoco personnel noted a "stable" security situation in northern Somalia. In an apparent reference to Conoco Somalia's President Raymond Marchand, "he would be happy to take Djibouti [embassy officers], Mogadishu [political officer] John Fox, or other American officials with him on his next trip to Berbera." In this briefing of Djibouti embassy officials, Marchand described a recent trip to northern Somalia. In Berbera, "the SNM has succeeded to a great degree in disarming the population and has established a rudimentary justice system which sounds like something from the Old West: Murder, armed robbery and certain other 'weapons offenses' are capital crimes, and several executions have occurred. The frontier justice system seems to be working..."

 

5. "Condition of IPAC Facilities in Berbera." Cable from US Embassy in Nairobi to State Department Headquarters. 15 April 1991. Cable Number: Nairobi 09509. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2005-05-183) to Keith Yearman. The Navy and IPAC had previously been quite active in the city of Berbera. Marchand, upon returning from his trip to Berbera, informed the State Department that the US government residences in Berbera had "been looted of all furniture and are in need of a thorough cleaning..[but he] gave no information on the condition of the fuel storage and pumping equipment in Berbera."

 

6. "TFS001: ETA - Admoff Swenson." Cable from US Liaison Office Mogadishu to State Department Headquarters. 26 December 1992. Cable Number: Mogadishu 000068. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2004-04-554) to Keith Yearman. Oakley describes Conoco representative Raymand Marchand as "one of our major supporters to our reentry into Mogadishu." Also, "this would be an ideal opportunity to work out future arrangements in continuing to occupy Conoco's compound and its resources."

 

Conoco's Role in Reconcilliation

 

1. "SNM to Propose Federation." Cable from US Embassy in Nairobi to State Department Headquarters. 18 June 1991. Cable Number: Nairobi 14987. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2005-05-183) to Keith Yearman. The Somaliland National Movement was preparing a proposal to form a federation with the Ali Mahdi government in Mogadishu. The source of this information apparently came from within Conoco. Cable from US Embassy in Nairobi to State Department Headquarters. 19 June 1991. Cable Number: Nairobi 15103. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2005-05-183) to Keith Yearman. A source (a Conoco employee) reported fighting in Mogadishu on June 16 and 17. The fighting "involved some heavy guns" and "was serious enough to force the closure of the Ministry of Mineral Resources on June 17 and to scare bus traffic off the streets...[The political officer] was able to hear sounds of automatic weapons firing over the telephone."

 

2. "Somali National Reconciliation Conference: An Organizer's Views on Next Steps." Cable from US Embassy in Djibouti to State Department Headquarters. 20 June 1991. Cable Number: Djibouti 01559. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2005-05-183) to Keith Yearman. This cable discusses reconciliation conferences. The US government was asked to "play a greater role in the reconciliation process." Conferees sent a message to the Europeans. As Ambassador Barrett reported, "One element of this message is said to be a reference to a possible future request for international military intervention for the purpose of disarming tribal militias and restoring order..."

 

Concerning Conoco, Barrett's source "claims to have seen an internal document of Conoco (Somalia), which states that sites in the Garoe-Las Anod area are capable of producing 300,000 barrels of oil per day. Conoco's drilling rig near Garoe is, we understand, technically outside the boundaries of former British Somaliland. However, if the presence of large quantities of oil is confirmed, the bulk of the Somali oilfield will probably lie under soil controlled by the SNM. A confirmed strike could pre-empt moves toward reconciliation by making it appear more likely to northerners that the 'Somaliland Republic' is a viable economic entity. It could also set off battles between clans for control of land where drilling is expected."

 

Miscellaneous Documents

 

1. "[Excised] Security in Northern Somalia." Cable from US Embassy in Djibouti to State Department Headquarters. 13 April 1991. Cable Number: Djibouti 00967. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2005-05-183) to Keith Yearman. Ambassador Robert S. Barrett reported on a visit by Conoco personnel to the Somali cities of Berbera, Hargeisa and Garoe. The Somaliland National Movement were reportedly "anxious to have 'visitors from the State Department,' and that any Americans traveling to northern Somalia would be met 'with open arms.'"

 

2. "Somalia Weekly Wrap-Up No. 15." Cable from US Embassy in Nairobi to State Department Headquarters. 13 June 1991. Cable Number: Nairobi 14783. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2005-05-183) to Keith Yearman. A weekly overview of the situation in Somalia; apparently a source in the redacted portions of the document was connected to Conoco.

 

3. "Mogadishu Daily Report for 9/30/9L." Cable from US Embassy in Nairobi to State Department Headquarters. 1 October 1991. Cable Number: Nairobi 23995. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2005-05-183) to Keith Yearman. "Conoco (Somalia), Ltd. expatriate employees returned to Somalia today. After visiting their rig site in Garoe and stopping for one day in Hargeisa, they will re-open their offices in Mogadishu."

 

4. "Guidance for Personnel Travelling to Mogadishu" [sic]. Cable from US Liaison Office Mogadishu to State Department Headquarters. 20 December 1992. Cable Number: Mogadishu 000029. Source: Freedom of Information Act release (2004-04-554) to Keith Yearman. This cable provides a travel guide for incoming personnel regarding food and vaccinations.

 

 

Source