SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mephisto who wrote (1459)12/13/2001 10:18:39 PM
From: Mephisto  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 15516
 
Bush advisers cashed in on Saudi gravy train

"Big Saudi money also makes its way back to Texas and the Bush family. The family
of Saudi Arabia's longtime U.S. ambassador, Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz,
gave $1 million to the Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas."


by Maggie Mulvihill, Jack Meyers and Jonathan Wells
………….. Boston Herald
Tuesday, December 11, 2001

Second of two parts.

…………. AMERICA'S NEW WAR

Many of the same American corporate executives who have reaped millions of
dollars from arms and oil deals with the Saudi monarchy have served or
currently serve at the highest levels of U.S. government, public records show.

Those lucrative financial relationships call into question the ability of
America's political elite to make tough foreign policy decisions about the
kingdom that produced Osama bin Laden and is perhaps the biggest
incubator for anti-Western Islamic terrorists.

Nowhere is the revolving U.S.-Saudi money wheel more evident than within
President Bush's own coterie of foreign policy advisers, starting with the
president's father, George H.W. Bush.

At the same time that the elder Bush counsels his son on the ongoing war on
terrorism, the former president remains a senior adviser to the Washington
D.C.-based Carlyle Group. That influential investment bank has deep
connections to the Saudi royal family as well as financial interests in U.S.
defense firms hired by the kingdom to equip and train the Saudi military.


Last year, former President Bush visited Saudi Arabia's King Fahd bin Abdul
Aziz Al-Saud, but a Carlyle spokesman said the two did not discuss Carlyle
business as previously reported. The elder Bush is reportedly paid between
$80,000 and $100,000 for each Carlyle speech he makes. The company
declined comment on the former president's pay.

The Carlyle Group has also served as a paid adviser to the Saudi monarchy
on the so-called ``Economic Offset Program,'' an arrangement that effectively
requires U.S. arms manufacturers selling weapons to Saudi Arabia to give
back a portion of their revenues in the form of contracts to Saudi businesses,
most of whom are connected to the royal family. A company spokesman said
yesterday that arrangement was ended ``a few months ago,'' but said he did
not know whether it was terminated before or after the Sept. 11 attacks.

A spokesman for former President Bush, reached yesterday, had no
immediate comment on his work for the Carlyle Group.

These intricate personal and financial links have led to virtual silence in the
administration on Saudi Arabia's failings in dealing with terrorists like bin Laden, said Charles Lewis, executive
director of the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington, D.C.-based government watchdog group.

``It's good old fashioned `I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine.' You have former U.S. officials, former presidents,
aides to the current president, a long line of people who are tight with the Saudis, people who are the pillars of
American society and officialdom,'' said Lewis.

``So for that and other reasons no one wants to alienate the Saudis, and we are willing to basically ignore
inconvenient truths that might otherwise cause our blood to boil. We basically look away,'' he said. ``Folks don't like
to stop the gravy train.''

Some foreign policy observers said as long as American power brokers in lucrative business deals with the
Saudis do not simultaneously craft U.S. foreign policy, there is no conflict of interest.

``To have Bush Sr. on the board of Carlyle is not necessarily a significant problem because Carlyle has interests
all over the world,'' said Vincent Cannistraro, a former counter-intelligence chief for the Central Intelligence Agency.

Companies regularly entice powerful political figures to work for them, he said.

``It's kind of business as usual. Where it really affects things is when someone with a financial interest in a
company also has a policy position in the administration,'' Cannistraro said.

Insiders trading

A significant portion of the millions of dollars U.S. companies and their politically influential executives have earned
in deals with the Saudis has been through military contracts.

The Carlyle Group had a major stake in the large defense contractor B.D.M., which has multimillion-dollar contracts
through its subsidiaries to train and manage the Saudi National Guard and the Saudi air force, U.S. Department of
Defense records show. In 1998, Carlyle sold its controlling interest in B.D.M. to defense giant TRW International.

Meanwhile, the boards of directors of the Carlyle Group, B.D.M. and TRW are all stocked with high-level Republican
policy makers.

Frank C. Carlucci, a former secretary of defense under President REAGAN, was chairman of B.D.M. for most of the
1990s. Carlucci, who also served as Reagan's national security adviser and a deputy director of the CIA, now
heads the Carlyle Group.

Along with former President Bush, other officials from past Republican administrations now at the Carlyle Group
include: former Secretary of State James A. Baker III; ex-budget chief Richard Darman; and former Securities and
Exchange Commission chairman Arthur Levitt.

President Bush is himself linked to the Carlyle group: He was a director of one of its subsidiaries, an airline food
services company called Caterair, until 1994. Six years later, when Bush was governor of Texas, the board of
directors of the Texas teachers' pension fund - some of whom were his appointees - voted to invest $100 million
with the Carlyle Group.

The president of B.D.M. is Philip A. Odeen, a former high-level Pentagon official in the Nixon administration. During
the Clinton administration, Odeen chaired the Pentagon task force that planned the restructuring of the U.S. military
for the 21st century. Currently, he is the vice-chair of the Defense Science Board, which advises the Pentagon on
emerging threats.

TRW, the new owner of B.D.M., has its own noteworthy board members, including former CIA director Robert M.
Gates and Michael H. Armacost, who served as undersecretary of state under President Reagan and as
ambassador to Japan for former President Bush.

Big Saudi money also makes its way back to Texas and the Bush family. The family of Saudi Arabia's longtime U.S.
ambassador, Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, gave $1 million to the Bush Presidential Library in College
Station, Texas.

The revolving door

Another example of the complex web connecting U.S. and Saudi powerbrokers is Dick CHENEY, who moved from
the Pentagon to the international oil business and back as vice president last year.

After serving as the elder Bush's secretary of defense, Cheney was hired to run oil-services giant Halliburton Co.,
where he worked until he resigned last year to campaign with the younger Bush. In 2000, his last year with
Halliburton, Cheney received $34 million when he cashed out from the company.

Not surprisingly, Halliburton's links to Cheney and other Washington power brokers appear to have helped the
company's business prospects in the Middle East.

Just last month, Halliburton was awarded a $140 million contract to develop an oil field in Saudi Arabia by the
kingdom's state-owned petroleum firm, Saudi Aramco, and a Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg Brown & Root, along
with two Japanese firms, was hired by the Saudis to build a $40 million ethylene plant.

Cheney isn't the only member of President Bush's inner circle whose work for firms connected to the Saudis has
paid big dividends.

The current national security adviser, Condoleezza RICE, is a former longtime member of the board of directors of
another giant oil conglomerate with business in the Saudi desert, Chevron, which merged with Texaco this year.
Rice even has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.

Substantial profits received by U.S. leaders in private sector deals with the Saudis have helped to squelch criticism
of the royal family's refusal to address the role its country has played in fueling Islamic terrorism, Lewis said.

``There's a disconnect there,'' Lewis said. ``I'm fascinated that we don't lay this at Saudi Arabia's doorstep. But the
chances to cash in and the amount you can cash in for are starting to become absolutely astronomical. Who wants
to look like the Boy Scout complaining about it and potentially jeopardize their own post-employment prospects?''

Former advisers to the president's father also hold key positions with U.S. firms which have teamed up with the
Saudis on major oil deals.

Former Bush Secretary of the Treasury Nicholas Brady and a former Bush assistant, Edith E. Holiday, are both on
the board of directors of Amerada Hess, an American petroleum firm currently teaming up with several powerful
Saudi families to develop oil fields in Azerbaijan.

Another company that has done business with wealthy Saudis is international energy firm Frontera Resources
Corp. based in Houston. Until recently, Frontera was a 30 percent investor in a $900 million project to develop
oilfields in Azerbajian. Also investing in the project were Azerbaijan's state-run oil company and Delta-Hess, a
joint-venture created by the Saudis' Delta Oil and Amerada Hess.

Randy Theilig, a Frontera spokesman, said the company relinquished its interest in the project in July because it
was no longer ``economically viable,'' and has no current business dealings with the Saudis or in Azerbajian.

Members of Frontera's board of advisers, which includes former CIA director John Deutch and former Secretary of
the Treasury and U.S. Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, have been active financial supporters of the Democratic Party.

Shining a bright light on the web of financial connections between the power elite in the U.S. and Saudi Arabia is
critical, Middle Eastern foreign policy experts said.

``I think the fact that they have these connections makes it important for this information to be made public,'' said
Henry Siegman, a senior fellow on the Middle East at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, D.C., a non-partisan group that
examines money and politics, said the Bush-Carlyle connection is a concern.

``It is well known that the father is a close adviser to his son and therefore it does raise concerns,'' Noble said ``It's
not necessarily that the father has been compromised, but the danger is that it leads people to question George W.
Bush. The public has a right to feel their leaders are making independent judgments without the influence of
private interests.''



bostonherald.com



To: Mephisto who wrote (1459)12/16/2001 1:52:29 AM
From: Mephisto  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 15516
 
As the War Shifts Alliances, Oil Deals Follow

December 15, 2001

BUSINESS

By NEELA BANERJEE with SABRINA TAVERNISE
The New York Times
December 15, 2001

There is no oil in Afghanistan, but there are oil
politics, and Washington is subtly tending to
them, using the promise of energy investments in
Central Asia to nurture a budding set of political
alliances in the region with Russia, Kazakhstan and,
to some extent, Uzbekistan.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the United States has
lauded the region as a stable oil supplier, in a tacit
comparison with the Persian Gulf states that have
been viewed lately as less cooperative. The State
Department is exploring the potential for
post-Taliban energy projects in the region, which has more than 6 percent of the world's proven oil reserves
and almost 40 percent of its gas reserves.

The United States government cannot compel investment, but it can clear away diplomatic and bureaucratic
obstacles. Western oil companies say warming relations with regional powers could yield small openings.
Better ties between Russia and the United States, for example, have accelerated a thaw that began more than
a year ago over pipeline routes from the Caspian Sea to the West.

"The sharp edges are off that discussion, and things are seen as less of a threat," said Martijn Minderhoud, a
senior regional vice president for Royal Dutch/Shell.

But any payoff remains distant. The entrenched problems that hobbled oil
investment in Russia and Central Asia before September still exist. Oil
companies and regional experts wonder whether significant new oil and gas
reservoirs will be opened to foreign investment, whether onerous laws and
tax codes will be reworked and whether persistent corruption can be
reduced.

"This is a period of reassessments among oil companies, and a time of
cautious optimism," said Scott Horton, a partner at the law firm of Patterson,
Belknap Webb & Tyler in Manhattan. "But all have been badly burned in the
former Soviet Union before."

Skeptics, especially in the Islamic world, contend that oil interests lie at the
heart of the West's war in Afghanistan. "The Pipeline of Greed," read the
headline on a recent article in the Pakistani newspaper Dawn about the
American-led attacks on the Taliban and Al Qaeda. "The war on terrorism
may well be a war for resources," it said.

The Bush administration says that its war goals have been clear - and do
not involve oil. "There is no such hidden agenda," said an administration
official. "Operation Enduring Freedom is meant to get rid of terrorism in
Afghanistan, Central Asia and the surrounding areas."

Still, the administration lately has discreetly overlooked the pitfalls of doing
business in the former Soviet Union. During a visit a week ago to
Kazakhstan, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said he was "particularly
impressed" with the money that American oil companies were investing there.
He estimated that $200 billion could flow into Kazakhstan during the next 5 to 10 years.

Two weeks earlier, on a visit to Russia, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham championed the cause of
increased foreign investment in Russia's oil industry. On the same trip, David J. O'Reilly, the chairman of
ChevronTexaco (news/quote), said his company was reviewing possible projects in the Russian Far East.

Pipelines are the clearest realm of progress. For years the United States and Russia clashed over routes to
transport oil and gas from the Caspian Sea region to lucrative Western markets - and the political and
economic power that control of those networks conferred.

Russia wanted pipelines built on its territory, and some were. The United States backed a pipeline from Baku,
Azerbaijan, to the Turkish Mediterranean port of Ceyhan, bypassing Russia entirely. The pipeline consortium
is led by BP and represented by Baker & Botts, the law firm of James A. Baker III, a Bush family confidant
and former secretary of state.

Over the last year, Russia's opposition to that route has subsided, and in October, the oil ministry invited BP
to make a presentation about it to domestic oil companies. Industry analysts said that meeting would have
been unthinkable if ties between the United States and Russia had not improved. Russia's largest oil company,
Lukoil, confirmed that it was seriously looking into investing in the project.

The arc of countries in Central Asia where Western oil companies work grazes Afghanistan. But the value of
Afghanistan itself, if any, might be as a pipeline route.

Four years ago, the Unocal Corp. - with the State Department's backing - negotiated with
the Taliban to build a pipeline through Afghanistan linking Turkmenistan, which is rich in natural gas but
landlocked, to Pakistan. Although Pakistan has called for reviving the pipeline, industry experts say oil
companies are so far not interested.

But the plan could be dusted off.

"Once we bomb the hell out of Afghanistan, we will have to cough up some projects there, and this pipeline is
one of them," said Matthew J. Sagers of Cambridge Energy (news/quote) Research Associates, a research
and consulting group. "Can oil companies be persuaded by the United States? It has happened before. Look
at Baku-Ceyhan."

That project exemplifies how Washington fosters oil investment. The White House began advocating the
Baku-Ceyhan route about five years ago, but oil companies in the Caspian argued that it made little economic
sense. At that time, there was little oil from the Caspian Sea. But there was plenty of natural gas, and
companies needed a pipeline for it.

They agreed to develop the Baku- Ceyhan oil pipeline if they could get the American government's help to
build a parallel gas pipeline, a person close to the Baku-Ceyhan consortium said. The presence of an Iranian
company, OIEC, as a 10 percent shareholder in the gas pipeline consortium might have prompted the United
States to block the project. But it did not, and both pipelines are now proceeding.

This fall, the antiterrorism campaign raised oil companies' hopes that relations between Iran and the United
States might improve. The industry's favored export route for Caspian oil is through Iran. But while the Bush
administration confirms that Iran is sharing intelligence about Afghanistan with the United States, the president
is maintaining Washington's longstanding policy against doing business with Tehran.

Western oil companies, showing a bit more faith than before in Central Asia and Russia, are gingerly looking
for investment opportunities, industry consultants said. But the barriers are significant.

Through the 1990's, the United States fostered good relations with Kazakhstan to circumvent Moscow. But
the relationship cooled when the Justice Department last year began investigating accusations of high-level
corruption in oil projects there.

That investigation continues, but Kazakhstan - which holds about 88 percent of Central Asia's oil wealth -
has offered the United States use of its airspace and military bases for the war. Its president, Nursultan
Nazarbayev, is due in Washington next Friday to meet with President Bush and then will travel to Texas to
mingle with oil executives.

Russia would seem the most attractive candidate for investment, given its warming relations with the United
States - missile defense aside - and its relatively extensive economic changes.

But Russia is hard to figure. Its recent decision to acquiesce to OPEC's demand to cut exports has been
interpreted in differing ways. Moscow might have come under American pressure to go along with the Middle
East to protect oil prices, and so ensure political stability among the United States' Arab allies. Or the cut,
which went against the official position of the United States, might have defied Washington.

Either way, Western oil companies understand, Russia's underlying motivation is the same: the Russians
pursue their interests, which occasionally coincide with America's.

Those Russian interests still preclude serious involvement by Western oil companies in developing most
Russian fields, except for complex offshore projects. Russia has tarried in developing tax laws and a
production-sharing agreement for foreign oil concerns. Russian politicians fear surrendering oil to foreigners.
After years of courting their wealthier and more-experienced Western counterparts, Russian oil companies,
made richer by high oil prices, mostly want to go it alone.

"In the last year, the attitude of Russian oil companies to Western ones has changed," said Yevgeny
Khartukov, general director of the International Center for Petroleum Business Studies, a nonprofit research
and consulting group in Moscow. "Now they don't need them."

nytimes.com