Daily Times
27 June 2009
G8 foreign ministers called on Friday for a freeze on Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories to create a climate conducive to peace, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said.
The Group of Eight reiterated support for the creation of a Palestinian state living peacefully alongside Israel. Frattini told a news conference that a freeze on building Jewish settlements would help “create a climate of confidence conducive to peace negotiations.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this week completed a European tour during which French President Nicolas Sarkozy urged him to impose a “total freeze” on settlements.
Meanwhile, Israeli officials played down reports on Friday that a deal was close with Hamas that would include the release of an Israeli soldier held captive in the Gaza Strip in exchange for Palestinians held in Israeli jails. Israeli and Palestinian political sources and Western diplomats confirmed, however, that Egyptian mediators were still working on a package of measures that could combine exchanges of prisoners, ceasefire agreements, an easing of Israel’s blockade on Gaza and rapprochement between rival Palestinian factions.
A July 7 deadline set by Egypt for Hamas and the US-backed Fatah faction of President Mahmoud Abbas to ease a schism that has divided Gaza from the West Bank, as well as this week’s third anniversary of Hamas’s capture of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, has fuelled speculation of a deal. Responding to Israeli press reports citing European diplomats that Shalit was about to be sent to Egypt, Israeli officials and European diplomats in the region said on Friday they knew of no new concrete developments in negotiations.
Hamas officials have also played down earlier reports. Nonetheless, diplomats said negotiations were in train. The family of Shalit, who also has French citizenship, has stepped up pressure on new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to reach a deal. The government has long baulked at Hamas’s price for Shalit’s release, notably the freeing of leading Hamas members.
Netanyahu is also under pressure from the United States and its European allies to ease a blockade on Gaza that has prevented billions of dollars in foreign reconstruction aid from reaching the enclave. Israel has tied the blockade to the fate of Shalit. An Israeli government official said Netanyahu wanted the international community to pressure Hamas, not Israel: “Hamas has held Gilad Shalit for some three years.
26 June, 2009
Gazprom plans to have 10% of U.K. gas market by 2011 - CEO.
RIA Novosti
26 June 2009
Gazprom plans to occupy 10% of the British energy market by 2011, Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller said on Friday at the Russian energy giant's annual shareholders' meeting.
"Gazprom plans to account for 10% of the British market by 2011," Miller said.
The Russian gas monopoly supplies some 7.55 billion cubic meters of natural gas to the U.K. annually.
Miller said the continuing liberalization of the European gas market was opening up new horizons for Gazprom, while the use of underground gas storage systems across Europe enabled it to make gas exports more flexible and sell more Russian natural gas.
The company has access to 50% of Britain's Humbly Grove underground gas storage facility under a 5-year agreement it signed in 2005 with Switzerland's Vitol.
Gazprom opened its U.K. office in early 1999. Gazprom Marketing & Trading sells wholesale gas with over 60 counterparts throughout Europe and has a strong retail customer base on the U.K. market.
26 June 2009
Gazprom plans to occupy 10% of the British energy market by 2011, Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller said on Friday at the Russian energy giant's annual shareholders' meeting.
"Gazprom plans to account for 10% of the British market by 2011," Miller said.
The Russian gas monopoly supplies some 7.55 billion cubic meters of natural gas to the U.K. annually.
Miller said the continuing liberalization of the European gas market was opening up new horizons for Gazprom, while the use of underground gas storage systems across Europe enabled it to make gas exports more flexible and sell more Russian natural gas.
The company has access to 50% of Britain's Humbly Grove underground gas storage facility under a 5-year agreement it signed in 2005 with Switzerland's Vitol.
Gazprom opened its U.K. office in early 1999. Gazprom Marketing & Trading sells wholesale gas with over 60 counterparts throughout Europe and has a strong retail customer base on the U.K. market.
Russia, U.S. to sign military cooperation deal during Obama trip.
RIA Novosti
26 June 2009
A Russian-U.S. military cooperation agreement will be signed during President Barack Obama's visit to Moscow in early July, the chief of the Russian military's General Staff said on Friday.
Army Gen. Nikolai Makarov said a draft had been finalized with Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, currently on a three-day visit to Russia.
"We discussed a number of very serious and important matters related both to international and regional security. The main emphasis was laid on European security," Makarov said.
Adm. Mullen is to meet with Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, with U.S. missile defense in Europe expected to top the agenda according to media reports.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said last week that any strategic arms cuts would only be possible if the United States eased Russia's concerns over Washington's plans for a missile shield in the Czech Republic and Poland.
The U.S. military has recently reiterated its commitment to missile defense, citing a growing threat from North Korea and Iran, but suggested plans for a European site may change.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has suggested that Russian facilities could be part of the missile defense system, but Moscow has rejected this idea, saying there could be no partnership "in building facilities that are essentially designed to counter Russia's strategic deterrence forces."
Meanwhile, Russia and the U.S. are involved in talks on a new strategic arms reduction deal to replace the START I treaty, which expires in December.
Moscow, which proposed a new arms reduction agreement in 2005, expects Washington to agree on a deal that would restrict not only the numbers of nuclear warheads, but also place limits on all existing kinds of delivery vehicles.
However, Russia has insisted that the deployment of a planned U.S. missile defense system in Europe would greatly impede progress on strategic arms reductions.
26 June 2009
A Russian-U.S. military cooperation agreement will be signed during President Barack Obama's visit to Moscow in early July, the chief of the Russian military's General Staff said on Friday.
Army Gen. Nikolai Makarov said a draft had been finalized with Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, currently on a three-day visit to Russia.
"We discussed a number of very serious and important matters related both to international and regional security. The main emphasis was laid on European security," Makarov said.
Adm. Mullen is to meet with Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, with U.S. missile defense in Europe expected to top the agenda according to media reports.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said last week that any strategic arms cuts would only be possible if the United States eased Russia's concerns over Washington's plans for a missile shield in the Czech Republic and Poland.
The U.S. military has recently reiterated its commitment to missile defense, citing a growing threat from North Korea and Iran, but suggested plans for a European site may change.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has suggested that Russian facilities could be part of the missile defense system, but Moscow has rejected this idea, saying there could be no partnership "in building facilities that are essentially designed to counter Russia's strategic deterrence forces."
Meanwhile, Russia and the U.S. are involved in talks on a new strategic arms reduction deal to replace the START I treaty, which expires in December.
Moscow, which proposed a new arms reduction agreement in 2005, expects Washington to agree on a deal that would restrict not only the numbers of nuclear warheads, but also place limits on all existing kinds of delivery vehicles.
However, Russia has insisted that the deployment of a planned U.S. missile defense system in Europe would greatly impede progress on strategic arms reductions.
Russia to increase investment in large projects in Angola.
RIA Novosti
26 June 2009
Russia plans to increase investment in mining, construction and space communications projects in Angola, a joint statement by the two countries' presidents said following talks.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev invited his Angolan counterpart Jose Eduardo dos Santos to visit Russia during a meeting. The date of the visit will be coordinated later through diplomatic channels.
The sides pledged to strengthen cooperation, coordinate activity on the international arena, and develop trade, scientific, technological and cultural ties.
"The mining industry, power industry, transportation, telecommunications, military and technical cooperation, education and healthcare were chosen as priority areas to focus relations," the joint statement said.
Angola is the final stop on Medvedev's four-country trip to Africa, his first visit to the continent as Russian leader. Medvedev has visited Egypt, Nigeria and Namibia so far this week.
Angola is one of Africa's most resource-rich nations, with oil, gas, diamonds, iron ore, gold and uranium. However, it remains one of the world's poorest countries, with 70% of Angolans living on less than $1 a day.
Russia and Angola spoke out in favor of a common approach to ensuring peace and security, establishing democracy worldwide based on multipolarity, and stressed the superiority of international law, stating their readiness to work with other countries to achieve the goal.
Medvedev and dos Santos also called for improving the United Nations and a new international financial system with the participation of all countries, including dynamically developing African states.
The two countries signed a package of documents, including agreements on air communication and on capital investment protection, and left their signatures under a midterm program of economic, scientific-technological and trade cooperation between the governments for 2009-2013.
They concluded a contract to create the Angosat communications and broadcasting satellite.
Promising areas for economic partnership between the two countries are the exploration of diamond and hydrocarbon deposits, and cooperation in electricity production, Kremlin aide Sergei Prikhodko said earlier.
Moscow and Luanda established diplomatic relations when Angola declared its independence in November 1975. The Angolan president visited Russia in June 1998 and October-November 2006.
26 June 2009
Russia plans to increase investment in mining, construction and space communications projects in Angola, a joint statement by the two countries' presidents said following talks.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev invited his Angolan counterpart Jose Eduardo dos Santos to visit Russia during a meeting. The date of the visit will be coordinated later through diplomatic channels.
The sides pledged to strengthen cooperation, coordinate activity on the international arena, and develop trade, scientific, technological and cultural ties.
"The mining industry, power industry, transportation, telecommunications, military and technical cooperation, education and healthcare were chosen as priority areas to focus relations," the joint statement said.
Angola is the final stop on Medvedev's four-country trip to Africa, his first visit to the continent as Russian leader. Medvedev has visited Egypt, Nigeria and Namibia so far this week.
Angola is one of Africa's most resource-rich nations, with oil, gas, diamonds, iron ore, gold and uranium. However, it remains one of the world's poorest countries, with 70% of Angolans living on less than $1 a day.
Russia and Angola spoke out in favor of a common approach to ensuring peace and security, establishing democracy worldwide based on multipolarity, and stressed the superiority of international law, stating their readiness to work with other countries to achieve the goal.
Medvedev and dos Santos also called for improving the United Nations and a new international financial system with the participation of all countries, including dynamically developing African states.
The two countries signed a package of documents, including agreements on air communication and on capital investment protection, and left their signatures under a midterm program of economic, scientific-technological and trade cooperation between the governments for 2009-2013.
They concluded a contract to create the Angosat communications and broadcasting satellite.
Promising areas for economic partnership between the two countries are the exploration of diamond and hydrocarbon deposits, and cooperation in electricity production, Kremlin aide Sergei Prikhodko said earlier.
Moscow and Luanda established diplomatic relations when Angola declared its independence in November 1975. The Angolan president visited Russia in June 1998 and October-November 2006.
Serbia wants explanation from Bulgaria on Ceku release.
RIA Novosti
26 June 2009
Serbian President Boris Tadic says he is waiting for an explanation from Bulgaria as to why former Kosovo prime minister Agim Ceku, detained on an Interpol wanted list, has been released, Belgrade media reported.
Ceku was arrested following an Interpol warrant initiated by Serbia as he crossed the border from Macedonia into Bulgaria on Wednesday. Ceku is wanted for the deaths of 669 Serbs and 18 other non-Albanians during the war in 1998-1999. Ceku has denied the charges, calling them politically motivated.
"Tadic announced today that the step made by the Bulgarian government will not aid in strengthening good neighborly relations with Bulgaria," according to press reports.
Though Ceku has been released following a court hearing, prosecutors have said he must remain in the country while Bulgaria considers evidence submitted by Serbia, which may take up to 40 days.
Ceku said he took Croatian citizenship, in addition to being a Kosovo passport holder, after the dissolution of Yugoslavia in 1991. Since UN Security Council Resolution 1244 was adopted in June 1999, the territory has been governed by an internationally recognized UN mission in Kosovo.
Ceku also said that Bulgaria has officially recognized Kosovo's independence and that he had entered the country with a Bulgarian visa in his Kosovo passport, claiming that his extradition to Serbia would damage ethnic relations in Kosovo.
Bulgaria is one of 60 countries that recognize Kosovo's independence.
Gezim Kasapolli, a spokesman for Ceku's Social Democratic Party of Kosovo, said earlier that Ceku had been on a business trip to Sofia for talks with Bulgarian officials and expected Ceku's immediate release.
Ceku has been arrested and released twice, in Slovenia in 2003 and Hungary in 2004. On May 9, Ceku was deported from Colombia.
Ceku was Kosovo's prime minister in 2006-2007.
26 June 2009
Serbian President Boris Tadic says he is waiting for an explanation from Bulgaria as to why former Kosovo prime minister Agim Ceku, detained on an Interpol wanted list, has been released, Belgrade media reported.
Ceku was arrested following an Interpol warrant initiated by Serbia as he crossed the border from Macedonia into Bulgaria on Wednesday. Ceku is wanted for the deaths of 669 Serbs and 18 other non-Albanians during the war in 1998-1999. Ceku has denied the charges, calling them politically motivated.
"Tadic announced today that the step made by the Bulgarian government will not aid in strengthening good neighborly relations with Bulgaria," according to press reports.
Though Ceku has been released following a court hearing, prosecutors have said he must remain in the country while Bulgaria considers evidence submitted by Serbia, which may take up to 40 days.
Ceku said he took Croatian citizenship, in addition to being a Kosovo passport holder, after the dissolution of Yugoslavia in 1991. Since UN Security Council Resolution 1244 was adopted in June 1999, the territory has been governed by an internationally recognized UN mission in Kosovo.
Ceku also said that Bulgaria has officially recognized Kosovo's independence and that he had entered the country with a Bulgarian visa in his Kosovo passport, claiming that his extradition to Serbia would damage ethnic relations in Kosovo.
Bulgaria is one of 60 countries that recognize Kosovo's independence.
Gezim Kasapolli, a spokesman for Ceku's Social Democratic Party of Kosovo, said earlier that Ceku had been on a business trip to Sofia for talks with Bulgarian officials and expected Ceku's immediate release.
Ceku has been arrested and released twice, in Slovenia in 2003 and Hungary in 2004. On May 9, Ceku was deported from Colombia.
Ceku was Kosovo's prime minister in 2006-2007.
Medvedev heads to Angola.
AP
26 June 2009
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is spending only a few hours in Angola, but has a lot on his agenda in the oil- and diamond-rich southern African country that has long had close ties to Moscow.
Medvedev, ending an African tour that has underlined Russia's economic interests on the continent, is expected to go into talks with President Jose Eduardo Dos Santos soon after arriving from Namibia on Friday.
The official Angolan news agency has stressed the importance of three accords Medvedev and dos Santos are to sign. One is on co-operation between Angola's state oil company Sonangol and Russia's Lukoil. Another is between Sonangol and the Russian gas company Gazprom. The third is between Angolan diamond company Endiama and Russia's Alrosa diamond monopoly.
26 June 2009
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is spending only a few hours in Angola, but has a lot on his agenda in the oil- and diamond-rich southern African country that has long had close ties to Moscow.
Medvedev, ending an African tour that has underlined Russia's economic interests on the continent, is expected to go into talks with President Jose Eduardo Dos Santos soon after arriving from Namibia on Friday.
The official Angolan news agency has stressed the importance of three accords Medvedev and dos Santos are to sign. One is on co-operation between Angola's state oil company Sonangol and Russia's Lukoil. Another is between Sonangol and the Russian gas company Gazprom. The third is between Angolan diamond company Endiama and Russia's Alrosa diamond monopoly.
Bulgaria frees former Kosovo PM.
BBC News
26 June 2009
A Bulgarian court has released a former prime minister of Kosovo, Agim Ceku, who was detained on a Serbian arrest warrant two days ago.
Mr Ceku is wanted in Serbia on war crimes charges relating to his command of Kosovo Albanian guerrillas during the 1998-1999 war against Serb forces.
He has been asked to stay in Bulgaria pending a possible appeal. Serbia has urged Bulgaria to extradite him.
He was detained on Tuesday at Kyustendil, near the Macedonian border.
Serbia's Justice Minister Snezana Malovic condemned the Bulgarian decision, saying that "this time again, when speaking of Ceku, politics won over justice".
Meanwhile, Mr Ceku dismissed Serbia's arrest warrant as unjustified and said Belgrade had no right to seek his extradition.
Last month Mr Ceku was expelled from Colombia after Serbia urged his arrest, but he later transited France en route to the Balkans.
He had previously been detained briefly in 2006 in Slovenia and Hungary.
Speaking on Thursday, Mr Ceku claimed international experts had examined his case and he said "no charges were raised against me".
26 June 2009
A Bulgarian court has released a former prime minister of Kosovo, Agim Ceku, who was detained on a Serbian arrest warrant two days ago.
Mr Ceku is wanted in Serbia on war crimes charges relating to his command of Kosovo Albanian guerrillas during the 1998-1999 war against Serb forces.
He has been asked to stay in Bulgaria pending a possible appeal. Serbia has urged Bulgaria to extradite him.
He was detained on Tuesday at Kyustendil, near the Macedonian border.
Serbia's Justice Minister Snezana Malovic condemned the Bulgarian decision, saying that "this time again, when speaking of Ceku, politics won over justice".
Meanwhile, Mr Ceku dismissed Serbia's arrest warrant as unjustified and said Belgrade had no right to seek his extradition.
Last month Mr Ceku was expelled from Colombia after Serbia urged his arrest, but he later transited France en route to the Balkans.
He had previously been detained briefly in 2006 in Slovenia and Hungary.
Speaking on Thursday, Mr Ceku claimed international experts had examined his case and he said "no charges were raised against me".
FBI Interrogation Docs Say Saddam had No WMDs, no Ties to Al-Qaeda, Feared Iran.
By James Gordon Meek
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
June 24th 2009
Saddam Hussein feared Iran's arsenal more than a U.S. attack, and even considered asking ex-President George W. Bush "to protect" Iraq from its neighbor, once secret FBI files show.
The FBI interrogations of the toppled tyrant - codename "Desert Spider" - were declassified after a Freedom of Information Act request.
The records show Saddam happily boasted of duping the world about stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and he consistently denied cooperating with Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda.
Of all his enemies, Iraq's ex-president - who insisted he still held office during captivity - hated Iran most.
Asked how he would have faced "fanatic" Iranian ayatollahs if Iraq had been proven toothless by UN weapons inspectors in 2003, Saddam said he would have cut a deal with Bush.
"Hussein replied Iraq would have been extremely vulnerable to attack from Iran and would have sought a security agreement with the U.S. to protect it from threats in the region," according to a 2004 FBI report among the declassified files.
Without Bush's help, "Iraq would have done what was necessary," he told FBI Agent George Piro in his Baghdad International Airport cell.
That didn't mean an alliance of evil with Al Qaeda, he insisted months into what he called a "dialogue" with Piro.
The interrogations unfolded in 2004 after his capture the previous December at the same farm where he said he'd hidden after orchestrating a failed 1959 coup plot.
Saddam denied ever laying eyes on the "zealot" Bin Laden, bent on striking the U.S.
He said he "did not have the same belief of vision" as the terror kingpin.
Saddam never sought Al Qaeda assistance because he feared the terror group would turn on him. To protect his country, the more likely ally "would have been North Korea."
Saddam also said the U.S. "used the 9/11 attack as a justification to attack Iraq" and "lost sight of the cause of 9/11."
The U.S. "was not Iraq's enemy," just its policies, Saddam explained.
Asked about WMDs, Saddam insisted: "We destroyed them. We told you."
"By God, if I had such weapons, I would have used them in the fight against the U.S," he added.
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
June 24th 2009
Saddam Hussein feared Iran's arsenal more than a U.S. attack, and even considered asking ex-President George W. Bush "to protect" Iraq from its neighbor, once secret FBI files show.
The FBI interrogations of the toppled tyrant - codename "Desert Spider" - were declassified after a Freedom of Information Act request.
The records show Saddam happily boasted of duping the world about stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and he consistently denied cooperating with Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda.
Of all his enemies, Iraq's ex-president - who insisted he still held office during captivity - hated Iran most.
Asked how he would have faced "fanatic" Iranian ayatollahs if Iraq had been proven toothless by UN weapons inspectors in 2003, Saddam said he would have cut a deal with Bush.
"Hussein replied Iraq would have been extremely vulnerable to attack from Iran and would have sought a security agreement with the U.S. to protect it from threats in the region," according to a 2004 FBI report among the declassified files.
Without Bush's help, "Iraq would have done what was necessary," he told FBI Agent George Piro in his Baghdad International Airport cell.
That didn't mean an alliance of evil with Al Qaeda, he insisted months into what he called a "dialogue" with Piro.
The interrogations unfolded in 2004 after his capture the previous December at the same farm where he said he'd hidden after orchestrating a failed 1959 coup plot.
Saddam denied ever laying eyes on the "zealot" Bin Laden, bent on striking the U.S.
He said he "did not have the same belief of vision" as the terror kingpin.
Saddam never sought Al Qaeda assistance because he feared the terror group would turn on him. To protect his country, the more likely ally "would have been North Korea."
Saddam also said the U.S. "used the 9/11 attack as a justification to attack Iraq" and "lost sight of the cause of 9/11."
The U.S. "was not Iraq's enemy," just its policies, Saddam explained.
Asked about WMDs, Saddam insisted: "We destroyed them. We told you."
"By God, if I had such weapons, I would have used them in the fight against the U.S," he added.
RWE Expects International Nabucco Agreement Signed in July.
Dow Jones Newswire
25 June 2009
By Jan Hromadko
German utility RWE AG expects an intergovernmental agreement between the five transit countries of the Nabucco natural gas pipeline project will be signed in July.
"We're very confident the intergovernmental agreement will be signed in July," Neil McMillan, RWE's head of Nabucco political liaisons & strategies, told Dow Jones Newswires in an interview Wednesday.
RWE is part of the consortium that plans to build the 3,300 kilometer-long Nabucco pipeline, which aims to ship natural gas to Europe from Central Asia via Turkey and Austria. The Nabucco consortium comprises RWE, OMV AG of Austria, MOL Nyrt of Hungary, Transgaz of Romania, Bulgargaz of Bulgaria and Botas of Turkey. Each of the shareholders own a 16.67% stake in the consortium.
McMillan said the four European Union member states that are transit countries -- Austria, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria -- are already willing to sign the agreement.
"We are hopeful that Turkey will be ready for the signing in the course of next month," McMillan said. Turkey is the only non-E.U. member transit country.
McMillan's comments were echoed Thursday by Turkey's minister for E.U. affairs, Egemen Bagis, who said in Brussels that Turkey will sign the agreement in mid-July.
RWE's McMillan said the consortium is optimistic it can resolved the "few remaining issues."
"We know that Turkey sees Nabucco as also in its interests," he said, adding that the pipeline will help bring down gas prices in Turkey and increase security of supply.
"Nabucco is also a project that will encourage significant further energy infrastructure investment in Turkey," he added.
The pipeline would provide incentives for follow-up investment in the Turkish gas and electricity market and help to further develop the country's wholesale market.
RWE, for instance, has already announced plans to invest in the Turkish power market, McMillan said.
However, the intergovernmental agreement needs to be signed quickly to make sure that Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, who are the primary suppliers for Nabucco first two construction phases, will commit their gas to the project, he said.
The Nabucco pipeline is considered crucial to secure Europe's growing demand for natural gas as domestic supply is steadily falling. The pipeline, with a planned capacity of up to 31 billion cubic meters of gas a year, would further diversify Europe's supply sources, bypassing traditional pipeline routes for Russian gas.
The estimated costs for the Nabucco project have previously been raised to EUR7.9 billion from EUR4.4 billion.
After the signing of the intergovernmental agreement, the Nabucco consortium plans to launch an open-season process at end-2009 to gauge demand for the pipeline and its capacity, said McMillan.
"A final investment decision for Nabucco is expected to be made in 2010. Construction could then begin in 2011," he said.
25 June 2009
By Jan Hromadko
German utility RWE AG expects an intergovernmental agreement between the five transit countries of the Nabucco natural gas pipeline project will be signed in July.
"We're very confident the intergovernmental agreement will be signed in July," Neil McMillan, RWE's head of Nabucco political liaisons & strategies, told Dow Jones Newswires in an interview Wednesday.
RWE is part of the consortium that plans to build the 3,300 kilometer-long Nabucco pipeline, which aims to ship natural gas to Europe from Central Asia via Turkey and Austria. The Nabucco consortium comprises RWE, OMV AG of Austria, MOL Nyrt of Hungary, Transgaz of Romania, Bulgargaz of Bulgaria and Botas of Turkey. Each of the shareholders own a 16.67% stake in the consortium.
McMillan said the four European Union member states that are transit countries -- Austria, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria -- are already willing to sign the agreement.
"We are hopeful that Turkey will be ready for the signing in the course of next month," McMillan said. Turkey is the only non-E.U. member transit country.
McMillan's comments were echoed Thursday by Turkey's minister for E.U. affairs, Egemen Bagis, who said in Brussels that Turkey will sign the agreement in mid-July.
RWE's McMillan said the consortium is optimistic it can resolved the "few remaining issues."
"We know that Turkey sees Nabucco as also in its interests," he said, adding that the pipeline will help bring down gas prices in Turkey and increase security of supply.
"Nabucco is also a project that will encourage significant further energy infrastructure investment in Turkey," he added.
The pipeline would provide incentives for follow-up investment in the Turkish gas and electricity market and help to further develop the country's wholesale market.
RWE, for instance, has already announced plans to invest in the Turkish power market, McMillan said.
However, the intergovernmental agreement needs to be signed quickly to make sure that Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, who are the primary suppliers for Nabucco first two construction phases, will commit their gas to the project, he said.
The Nabucco pipeline is considered crucial to secure Europe's growing demand for natural gas as domestic supply is steadily falling. The pipeline, with a planned capacity of up to 31 billion cubic meters of gas a year, would further diversify Europe's supply sources, bypassing traditional pipeline routes for Russian gas.
The estimated costs for the Nabucco project have previously been raised to EUR7.9 billion from EUR4.4 billion.
After the signing of the intergovernmental agreement, the Nabucco consortium plans to launch an open-season process at end-2009 to gauge demand for the pipeline and its capacity, said McMillan.
"A final investment decision for Nabucco is expected to be made in 2010. Construction could then begin in 2011," he said.
India's Oil Cos Propose $5B Investment in Iranian Gas Block.
Rigzone
by Rigzone Staff
6/25/2009
URL: http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=77633
India's state-controlled oil companies are proposing to invest some $5 billion in a gas discovery located in Iran's 3,500 sq km Farsi Block, reported the Press Trust of India on Thursday, citing an unnamed source.
Approved for commercial development in September 2008 by the Iranian government, the Farzad gas field is estimated to hold reserves of as much as 21.68 trillion cubic feet of gas, of which recoverable reserves could total 12.8 trillion cubic feet, according to the local media outlet.
ONGC Videsh and Indian Oil Corp. both hold a 40% stake in the Farsi offshore block, which was awarded to the consortium in 2002; Oil India holds the remaining 20%.
by Rigzone Staff
6/25/2009
URL: http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=77633
India's state-controlled oil companies are proposing to invest some $5 billion in a gas discovery located in Iran's 3,500 sq km Farsi Block, reported the Press Trust of India on Thursday, citing an unnamed source.
Approved for commercial development in September 2008 by the Iranian government, the Farzad gas field is estimated to hold reserves of as much as 21.68 trillion cubic feet of gas, of which recoverable reserves could total 12.8 trillion cubic feet, according to the local media outlet.
ONGC Videsh and Indian Oil Corp. both hold a 40% stake in the Farsi offshore block, which was awarded to the consortium in 2002; Oil India holds the remaining 20%.
Medvedev heads to Angola for energy, space talks.
RIA Novosti
25 June 2009
The Russian president will arrive in Angola on Friday to discuss bilateral cooperation in energy resource exploration, economic ties, and building a communications satellite, the Kremlin said.
Angola is the final stop on Dmitry Medvedev's four-country trip to Africa, his first visit to the continent as Russian leader. Medvedev has visited Egypt, Nigeria and Namibia so far this week.
Angola is one of Africa's most resource-rich nations, with oil, gas, diamonds, iron ore, gold and uranium. However, it remains one of the world's poorest countries, with 70% Angolans living on less than $1 a day.
During the visit, at the invitation of Angolan President Jose Eduardo Dos Santos, Medvedev will discuss bilateral trade, as well as scientific and cultural contacts, including in education, Kremlin aide Sergei Prikhodko said.
Several deals such as contracts on creating the Angosat satellite, and documents including a memorandum on technological cooperation in the sphere of natural resources, are expected to be signed.
Promising areas of economic partnership between the two countries are exploration of diamond and hydrocarbon deposits, and cooperation in electricity production, Prikhodko said.
The sides will also exchange views on dealing with the consequences of the global financial crisis and setting up an effective international system of managing economic processes.
"Special attention will be paid to discussing topical international problems, with a focus on further strengthening cooperation in foreign policy between Russia and Angola," he said.
Moscow and Luanda established diplomatic relations when Angola declared its independence in November 1975. The Angolan president visited Russia in June 1998 and October-November 2006.
25 June 2009
The Russian president will arrive in Angola on Friday to discuss bilateral cooperation in energy resource exploration, economic ties, and building a communications satellite, the Kremlin said.
Angola is the final stop on Dmitry Medvedev's four-country trip to Africa, his first visit to the continent as Russian leader. Medvedev has visited Egypt, Nigeria and Namibia so far this week.
Angola is one of Africa's most resource-rich nations, with oil, gas, diamonds, iron ore, gold and uranium. However, it remains one of the world's poorest countries, with 70% Angolans living on less than $1 a day.
During the visit, at the invitation of Angolan President Jose Eduardo Dos Santos, Medvedev will discuss bilateral trade, as well as scientific and cultural contacts, including in education, Kremlin aide Sergei Prikhodko said.
Several deals such as contracts on creating the Angosat satellite, and documents including a memorandum on technological cooperation in the sphere of natural resources, are expected to be signed.
Promising areas of economic partnership between the two countries are exploration of diamond and hydrocarbon deposits, and cooperation in electricity production, Prikhodko said.
The sides will also exchange views on dealing with the consequences of the global financial crisis and setting up an effective international system of managing economic processes.
"Special attention will be paid to discussing topical international problems, with a focus on further strengthening cooperation in foreign policy between Russia and Angola," he said.
Moscow and Luanda established diplomatic relations when Angola declared its independence in November 1975. The Angolan president visited Russia in June 1998 and October-November 2006.
25 June, 2009
Ghana: What the U.S. Wants.
Pambakuza News
By Asare Otchere-Darko
Opinion
11 June 2009
An understanding of US interests is crucial for Ghana if it is to capitalise on the immense opportunity provided by the President Obama's July visit, writes Asare Otchere-Darko. Following a deepwater oil find in 2007, Ghana's pending oil-rich status has made it the subject of strategic US energy and military interests, and raising the stakes of Ghana-US relations, Otchere-Darko argues.
As the US's preferred physical location for the US African Command (AFRICOM) headquarters and with the superpower concerned not to cede strategic ground to China in the region, Ghana has an unprecedented hand to play in this round of international diplomacy. The task of Ghanaians, says Otchere-Darko, is to ensure that Ghana comes away with concrete deliverables that help meet its own strategic goals, rather than simply being the honoured recipients of President Obama's first visit to Africa.
Not since the inauguration of Nelson Mandela as president of a free South Africa has the election of a national leader generated so much global interest and excitement as that of Barack Obama last November. It was therefore predictable that the announcement of President Obama's trip to Ghana from 10-11 July would attract extensive media coverage as the first state visit by the first 'black' president of the United States to any African state.
While cool heads maintain it is a result of Ghana's enviable role as a beacon of hope in the continent, proving that multiparty democracy can work in Africa, others have added a partisan spin to the visit, alleging it is because President Mills has shown a greater commitment to fighting the drug barons, which has led to cocaine being in short supply.
The US government itself states the purpose of the visit is: 'Strengthening the US relationship with one of our most trusted partners in sub-Saharan Africa, and to highlight the critical role that sound governance and civil society play in promoting lasting development.'
But who is talking about what is in it for America?
US-GHANA RELATIONS
In the past Ghana has enjoyed a strong relationship with the US ever since the first American Peace Corps volunteers came to Ghana in 1961, the same year that President John F. Kennedy created the US Agency for International Development (USAID) to assist the developing world (aside from a blip in the mid-1980s during the Soussoudis spy affair). Indeed, the setting up of the US Department of State's Bureau of African Affairs in 1958 was largely informed by Ghana becoming the first black African nation to gain independence the previous year. But for the next three decades, Africa was little more than a geo-political lebensraum for proxy campaigns of the Cold War. It was not until March 1978 that sub-Saharan Africa witnessed its first ever state visit by an American president, Jimmy Carter, who first met President Olusegun Obasanjo in Lagos, Nigeria, and then President William Tolbert in Monrovia, Liberia, a country the United States established diplomatic relations with 147 years ago for obvious reasons.
Bill Clinton's visit to sub-Saharan Africa in March 1998 was the first by a US president in 20 years. His successor, President George W. Bush, visited the continent twice in eight years and it was even said that Africa was the place where he felt most comfortable and welcome. He returned this by pushing for the implementation of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which was passed just a year before his predecessor handed over to him. This was followed by initiatives of his own for Africa that earned him respect in the eyes of millions of Africans, including the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) in 2003 and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which has thirty-two African countries on its development assistance radar. Under President Bush's watch American assistance to Africa quadrupled since 2001.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF JULY'S VISIT
Against this backdrop, July's US state visit is significant for various reasons. It will be President Obama's first to Africa - a continent that has not only personal significance for Obama the man, but growing political significance for Obama the president - and one that has significant expectations of the first black president to sit in the Oval Office.
For Ghana, Obama will be the third successive American president to have visited in the space of 11 years, confirming the significant position Ghana has assumed as a role model for the continent. That Obama's first visit is to one of Africa's unquestioned success stories rather than one of its examples of stalled development or conflict zones, will draw attention to the fact that there is proof right here in Africa that freedom can serve as the means to development and multi-party democracy can work. Ghana's extraordinarily consistent economic growth pattern for the past seven years (registering a GDP of 7.3 per cent in 2008) offers the best evidential advertisement for the new development paradigm, which seeks to show that not only can freedom and development go hand in hand, but that the former provides a helping hand to the latter.
WHY GHANA?
But we must not ignore America's interest. After all, whatever his connection to the African continent, Obama is president of America - and acts in the interest of its people at home above all else. So what can Americans hope to gain from President Obama's trip to Ghana?
First, this trip offers a very compelling platform for America to reaffirm to a significant mass of the world the triumph of its values of liberal democracy, rule of law and freedom. With the US's failure to impose these in the Middle East, and China's irksome demonstration that economic progress can be achieved without them, Ghana helps bolster the US's argument about the centrality of these values to the development process.
But the decision to embark on this trip was also made on the basis of some tangible and concrete opportunities for America in the region.
Top on the list is the United States' military and energy security agenda. Before the 9/11 bombing in 2001, conventional thinking in Washington perceived no vital strategic interests for the US in sub-Saharan Africa. But this has changed. Today we can see a significant shift away from America's traditional geopolitical calculations regarding oil production and supply. The US's National Intelligence Council (NIC) estimates that by 2015, 25 per cent of American oil imports will come from West Africa, compared to 16 per cent today - an estimate even considered as too conservative in some quarters. Already West Africa supplies as much oil to the US as Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, our oil is light and sweet, making it easier and cheaper to refine than Persian oil. Plus its offshore location reduces transportation costs and minimises risk of political violence and terrorist attacks.
This shift in global energy patterns to the Gulf of Guinea has led to a significant re-evaluation of foreign policy focus and global alliances, resulting in a multi-layered engagement with countries such as Ghana, that encompasses military and energy security, and development aid. This trip is thus at the heart of Washington's strategy of working with its regional allies in West Africa to develop relationships that will secure its energy security in the long term.
The United States, in typical Dick Cheney oilthink, sees the Gulf of Guinea as offering the opportunity to break with the old politics which saw the US at the mercy of the geostrategic pressure of unstable or unfriendly oil-producing states in the 'old' Gulf (Persian Gulf) and Venezuela.
The way forward is a pro-active policy to build a new Gulf of energy security and prosperity in a part of the world that is relatively receptive to American presence. With significant discoveries being made in the Gulf of Guinea oil basin, off the coast of Ghana, Equatorial Guinea, Congo and Cote d'Ivoire, according to the Energy Information Administration of the US Department of Energy, the United States will be importing in the year 2020 over 770 million barrels of African oil a year. And Ghana with its stability, notable responsiveness to America, deepening multiparty democracy and promising investment climate is seen as the perfect epicentre for the growth and fulfilment of this interest. In the eyes of America, geography, geology and ideology all favour Ghana as the gem in the crown of this new policy.
WHAT ABOUT CHINA?
But the US is not alone in seeing Africa as a better bet to provide a secure source of energy. There is a new scramble for Africa's raw materials, especially energy resources, brought on by China's astonishing industrial growth and its deepening influence in the global economy. It is the second largest consumer of oil in the world behind the United States. Consistently high economic growth rates saw Asia's formerly largest oil exporter switch to become a net importer of oil since 1993. The International Energy Agency projects China's net oil imports will jump from 3.5 million barrels per day in 2006 to 13.1 million barrels per day by 2030.
In 2006, 9 per cent of Africa's oil exports went to China (with 60 per cent of Sudan's oil export China-bound). The US received 33 per cent. Already, China has sped past Britain and France to become Africa's second-highest trading partner behind the United States.
Though Angola, the second largest oil producer in sub-Saharan Africa, supplies the US with approximately twice as much oil as it does China, China has outpaced the United States in partnering Angola's rapid development with its multi-billion dollar investment support in the country's infrastructure. For example, in 2006, Sinopec, China's state-owned energy company, bid US$2.2 billion for two deep-water blocks off the Angolan coast. Two years earlier, Beijing softened the ground with a US$2 billion package of loans and aid to Angola, which has Chinese companies building telecommunications infrastructure, roads, railways, bridges, buildings, schools and hospitals.
However, in 2007, Erica Strecker Downs of the Brookings Institute think tank made some headway in calming American anxiety over China and African oil. She wrote that contrary to public opinion, China's NOCs are not 'locking up' the lion's share of African oil as part of a centralised quest for energy. But while China, with a mere 3 per cent of its FDI in Africa and controlling under 2 per cent of oil reserves on the continent, may not be winning the race for oil exploration and production in Africa, there is no question that China is winning more and more of the oil supply produced in Africa.
If the US wants to out-muscle China in the 21st century scramble for Africa, then it will have to show more aggression in investing in the development of infrastructure on the continent, as China is doing. Even if American money comes with job for American companies, Africans are not likely to complain so long as it ends in the brick and mortar of the continent's infrastructural development. Africans believe they are increasingly feeling more and more the positive might of Beijing in their quest for advancement. Chinese investment deserves a big part of the credit for Africa's highest ever economic growth rate, 5.8 per cent in 2007. Furthermore, China has cancelled US$10 billion in bilateral debt owed to it by African countries.
Outside of Ghana's oil exploration and production zone, the US and China's involvement in Ghana's development has been most obvious in two major infrastructural projects in the energy sector. The first, the West African Gas Pipeline (WAGP), is 59 per cent owned by Chevron, the US-based oil multinational company and Royal Dutch Shell. This US$700 million onshore-offshore pipeline will run 681 kilometres from the Western Niger Delta of Nigeria via Benin and Togo to Ghana, and was cooperatively underwritten by the World Bank in 2004. The bank, however, refused to underwrite the Bui Dam project designed to generate 400MW of electricity for Ghanaians. It took a 2006 visit to President Hu Jintao of China by President J A Kufuor to secure Chinese support for the dam's construction (by Sino-Hydro) and funding (Exim Bank) at an estimated cost of US$600 million.
These two projects highlight the masterful diplomacy that the Mills' administration will need to deploy in the coming years in order to secure optimal benefit for Ghana from its new oil-rich status.
HOW GHANA MUST UTILISE ITS NEW STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE
With the discovery of significant oil potential offshore, Ghana has not only new international importance - we also have cause for greater confidence and strength in our global interactions. The increased interest of both China and the United States in Ghana can add extraordinary oomph to Ghana's development - but this can only happen if we become smarter, more strategic and more assertive in our dealings with these two powerful nations.
The Obama trip reinforces the extent of US strategic interest in the country. Ghana has become an object of international desire between the two super powers of the 21st century - America and China - and the Americans are in no mood to lose its 'trusted partner' to the Chinese.
The Americans know what they want from Ghana. But does Ghana know what it wants from America? The question is: Has the Ghanaian government taken a considered, sober decision on the price to be paid and the prize to be gained for being considered as the serene oasis at the heart of the 'New Gulf'? President Obama came into office with the strategic objective of 'investing in a shared humanity' with regards to US policy in Africa, listing his three thematic policy areas of focus as:
i. To accelerate Africa's integration into the global economy
ii. To enhance the peace and security of African states
iii. To strengthen relationships with those governments, institutions and civil society organisations committed to deepening democracy, accountability and reducing poverty in Africa.
He may well be the president who can make a bold resourceful contribution to see the realisation of the dream of an African nation breaking though the stigma of underdevelopment to act as a trailblazer for the others. Ghana has the potential to serve as this model - but it will require a wholesale adoption of a new attitude of assertiveness based on a well-founded confidence in what we bring to the table, and a permanent shift from the outdated and counterproductive assumption amongst Ghanaians that our country is simply a geographical mass of humanitarian concerns or a charity case.
But has the mindset of the Ghanaian leadership gravitated towards this new reality?
GLOBAL ECONOMIC POSITIONING
As Ken Ofori-Atta of Databank stated at Chatham House recently, 'We have not seen such massive destruction of wealth in the history of modern civilisation and I might add also such rapid recreation of capital in the past year. Africa is truly astounded at how quickly the West can mobilise to save their companies when a fraction of those amounts could reinstate the impressive growth trajectory which Africa had achieved.' The rich economies are prepared to spend $2 trillion to rescue their financial infrastructure. For nearly a decade now, Africans have been demanding extra funding to the tune of $60 billion a year to accelerate its development - a mere three per cent of what is being pumped into the western financial systems today to maintain socio-corporate standards there.
The UN under-secretary general and executive secretary of the Economic Commission for Africa, Abdoulie Janneh, said the current economic downturn could cost Africa US$251 billion in 2009 and US$277 billion in 2010 in export earnings, despite earlier predictions that the continent would not be hard hit. So whatever is on offer to countries like Ghana by the IMF and World Bank only follows the old pattern of development assistance never matching what is taken out from Africa.
Unfortunately, once again, (a little over a year after Ghana issued its first sovereign bond on the international capital market) we have been forced by exogenous circumstances to make a u-turn to over-dependence on the Bretton Wood institutions for our development spending. And we are being told to adopt a kind of fiscal discipline which the developed world is also finding to be fundamentally contradictory to their programme for stimulating their economies today.
Much noise has been made both in Ghana and elsewhere about Ghana's 'extraordinarily huge' 2008 budget deficit of 11.5 per cent of GDP. Indeed, the Ghanaian government has allowed it to serve as a roadblock in the way of maintaining, let alone increasing, the momentum of development Ghana has experienced in the last seven years. It is worth noting that in America the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the US budget deficit will reach US$1.85 trillion this year, 13.1 per cent of GDP. Furthermore, they project deficits averaging over US$1 trillion a year for the next 10 years, which will raise the US public debt-to-GDP ratio to over 80 per cent by 2019. Ghana's total public debt stood at US$7,742.4 million in May 2009, representing a debt-to-GDP ratio of 49.2%. Both huge budget deficits were necessary responses to national crisis and imperatives. In Ghana's case the energy crisis of 2007 and the urgency with which Ghana needs to invest in its infrastructure and respond to a rising cost of living contributed to our unusually high deficit.
In July 2005, when heads of the world's leading industrialised countries (the G8) pledged to step up development aid by US$50 billion by 2010, with half of the increase going to Africa, African leaders hailed it as a significant high-gear shift in development aid from the developed world. Barely four years later, what we know today is that a lot more money can be found for productive investment to push millions of Africans out of poverty. US development assistance to Ghana in 2007 - about US$55 million - was nowhere near that befitting a nation carrying the kind of strategic weight that contemporary Pentagon thinking suggests.
In real terms it is little improvement on the 1994 assistance of US$38 million, plus US$16 million in food aid. President Bush contributed an extra US$547 million support from the Millennium Challenge Account. But this was given when America's strategic flirtation with Ghana was purely based on its interests in Ghana as a geographical location for AFRICOM rather than the additional oil value it has today.
What has all this to do with Obama's trip?
Negotiations are not held in a vacuum. A nation that sits around the table without prior knowledge and appreciation of its own strengths and weaknesses in its counterpart's mind has provided gaping holes in its negotiation armoury and is bound to come out with a bad deal. A good deal depends on both an understanding of the cards in your hands and your opponent's, and the skilful and strategic play of these cards. The first of these cards that the Ghanaian government must not fail to appreciate is the fact that Superpower America now sees West Africa as a zone of strategic importance - it is no longer a question of just us needing them, but they now also need us.
Our trump card is of course oil. But if we are to prevent ourselves being played by the US, we must deploy this to maximum benefit: Ultimately it is up to Africans to selfishly see our oil as means to provide energy security to others in exchange for support for more rapid African economic development.
In the words of US Congressman William Jefferson, 'The strategic question is which countries we depend on for this oil. The suggestion that comes out of all of these discussions is our best partners are in West Africa for many of the reasons I've mentioned: the commitment to democracy. Though there may be strivings and failings, nonetheless there is a commitment. West Africa is closer, making it easier to move product from there to here; the resources are, in most cases, not landlocked. Things usually work fairly well if you're out in deep water.'
Since 2007, Washington has become more convinced that the Gulf of Guinea is an area of 'Vital Interest' and Ghana is in prime position to serve as its hub, a point reinforced by the seemingly smooth transition from one democratically elected government to another of a different party.
AFRICOM
Furthermore, the US is, understandably, bent on establishing a regional command for Africa, similar to US Forces Korea, with a homeport situated on the African continent to protect their interests. West Africa is its natural home, given the need to protect energy interests in the Gulf of Guinea. Liberia has offered but simply cannot match the kind of convenience available in Ghana. It can be a win-win situation.
AFRICOM can protect US investments in our region. But, those investments (regardless of our percentage share of ownership) are also fundamentally our investments - and thus the assistance in their protection will be a welcome boon. US military presence can also help improve the level of military professionalism of our already well-respected troops. It is interesting to note that in the six decades since World War II in which America has maintained a military presence in other sovereign nations, none of the host nations has suffered instability or military takeovers, as the presence of US troops helps entrench the subordination of soldiers to civil leadership. Moreover the presence of U.S. troops boosts social and economic activities in the host countries, too.
The loudest argument against Ghana hosting AFRICOM when the possibility first arose was that it would make us a target for anti-American terrorists. But a global examination of the number and location of American military bases overseas vis-Ã -vis the geographical targets of terrorist attacks, shows that this argument has far greater emotive value than evidential corroboration.
At the moment the Americans say they are happy to keep the US Africa Command headquarters in Germany, to coordinate all US military and security interests throughout the African continent. But any reasonable assessment must conclude that this can be nothing but a temporary address and arrangement. Ghana should welcome that it is thus the target of America's desire - and we should make the most of this, using it for our own advantage. After all, the process has already started.
The US and Ghanaian militaries have cooperated in numerous joint training exercises, including the African Crisis Response Initiative, an international activity in which the US facilitates the development of an interoperable peacekeeping capacity among African nations. And the head of AFRICOM has already reaffirmed Washington's commitment to assisting the Ghana Armed Forces 'to become more robust'.
There is also the African Contingency Operations Training and Assistance program. Beyond that, Ghana and the US have an active bilateral International Military Education and Training program.
In 2007, Kwesi Pratt Jnr, the managing editor of The Insight newspaper and the energy behind the pressure group Socialist Forum, warned Ghanaians against what he saw to be the looming danger of a US military base in Ghana. He cited, inter alia, the erection of the huge American Embassy complex in Cantonments as evidence of this. Meanwhile, in August 2007 Major-General Ward, who was later confirmed as AFRICOM's first commander, visited Accra. He held discussions with President Kufuor on 'ways of strengthening military cooperation.' His high-powered secret meetings with the president, minister of defence and the chief of defence staff triggered huge speculation. Much was made of Maj Gen J B Danquah's public statement about the visit when he said Maj Gen Ward had 'done enough to resolve' Ghana's concerns about AFRICOM, adding, 'I have had the chance to hear [Ward] explain what is the reasoning behind the command, and it's all about partnership.'
General T. Hobbins, head of the US Air Forces Europe, has held discussions with his counterparts here on the possibility of establishing 'lily pads', landing and rapid airlift facilities in otherwise deserted terrain in certain strategic sites in Africa. Tamale Airport has come up as one of the 'forward operating sites' targeted. That airport is said to have a runway capacity of accommodating massive US C-3 cargo planes and troop transports.
Ghana is also already the site of a US-European Command-funded Exercise Reception Facility that was established to facilitate troop deployments for exercises or crisis response within the region. The direct link to our oil is only too apparent: The Facility came out of Ghana's partnership with the United States on what is termed a Fuel Hub Initiative. It may sound like a mere gas station for the troops. But the choice of stable, imminently oil-rich Ghana as a Fuel Hub reflects a greater strategic interest in the country than as merely a filling station.
The Americans have not been shy in establishing a clear economic link alongside their military cooperation. Ghana is one of the few African nations, mainly those with oil, selected for the State Partnership Program to promote greater economic ties with US institutions, including the National Guard. Expanding this to deepen our cooperation with the Drugs Enforcement Agency is one other area that President Mills should focus attention on.
GHANA THE 'NATURAL' ALLY
This all points to the fact that the United States sees Ghana as having all the vital statistics and morphological features of a 'natural' ally. We have the oil reserves, we are in the stable centre of the 'New Gulf' and we have the military discipline and stable atmosphere to make us the perfect hosts for America's first major military migration to our continent. America is strategically placed to maintain and deepen its stronger footing here, ensuring it rather than China becomes our dominant ally. As one analyst confirmed, Washington has no interest in seeing China's presence in Africa extended to Ghana. The fact, however, is that China is already here and the recent dealings between the Mills administration and the ruling Chinese Communist Party means the US needs to act sooner rather than later.
Obama's chief policy adviser assured Africans two months before the 2008 presidential race, 'Barack Obama understands Africa, and understands its importance to the United States. Today, in this new century, he understands that to strengthen our common security, we must invest in our common humanity and, in this way, restore American leadership in the world.' Now is the chance for him to seek and effect the real change that will finally show the world that Africans are capable of more than managing their own affairs - but, crucially, Ghana must take up the opportunity provided by the state visit and the US's burgeoning strategic interest in us, to be the nation that demonstrates this.
By Asare Otchere-Darko
Opinion
11 June 2009
An understanding of US interests is crucial for Ghana if it is to capitalise on the immense opportunity provided by the President Obama's July visit, writes Asare Otchere-Darko. Following a deepwater oil find in 2007, Ghana's pending oil-rich status has made it the subject of strategic US energy and military interests, and raising the stakes of Ghana-US relations, Otchere-Darko argues.
As the US's preferred physical location for the US African Command (AFRICOM) headquarters and with the superpower concerned not to cede strategic ground to China in the region, Ghana has an unprecedented hand to play in this round of international diplomacy. The task of Ghanaians, says Otchere-Darko, is to ensure that Ghana comes away with concrete deliverables that help meet its own strategic goals, rather than simply being the honoured recipients of President Obama's first visit to Africa.
Not since the inauguration of Nelson Mandela as president of a free South Africa has the election of a national leader generated so much global interest and excitement as that of Barack Obama last November. It was therefore predictable that the announcement of President Obama's trip to Ghana from 10-11 July would attract extensive media coverage as the first state visit by the first 'black' president of the United States to any African state.
While cool heads maintain it is a result of Ghana's enviable role as a beacon of hope in the continent, proving that multiparty democracy can work in Africa, others have added a partisan spin to the visit, alleging it is because President Mills has shown a greater commitment to fighting the drug barons, which has led to cocaine being in short supply.
The US government itself states the purpose of the visit is: 'Strengthening the US relationship with one of our most trusted partners in sub-Saharan Africa, and to highlight the critical role that sound governance and civil society play in promoting lasting development.'
But who is talking about what is in it for America?
US-GHANA RELATIONS
In the past Ghana has enjoyed a strong relationship with the US ever since the first American Peace Corps volunteers came to Ghana in 1961, the same year that President John F. Kennedy created the US Agency for International Development (USAID) to assist the developing world (aside from a blip in the mid-1980s during the Soussoudis spy affair). Indeed, the setting up of the US Department of State's Bureau of African Affairs in 1958 was largely informed by Ghana becoming the first black African nation to gain independence the previous year. But for the next three decades, Africa was little more than a geo-political lebensraum for proxy campaigns of the Cold War. It was not until March 1978 that sub-Saharan Africa witnessed its first ever state visit by an American president, Jimmy Carter, who first met President Olusegun Obasanjo in Lagos, Nigeria, and then President William Tolbert in Monrovia, Liberia, a country the United States established diplomatic relations with 147 years ago for obvious reasons.
Bill Clinton's visit to sub-Saharan Africa in March 1998 was the first by a US president in 20 years. His successor, President George W. Bush, visited the continent twice in eight years and it was even said that Africa was the place where he felt most comfortable and welcome. He returned this by pushing for the implementation of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which was passed just a year before his predecessor handed over to him. This was followed by initiatives of his own for Africa that earned him respect in the eyes of millions of Africans, including the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) in 2003 and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which has thirty-two African countries on its development assistance radar. Under President Bush's watch American assistance to Africa quadrupled since 2001.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF JULY'S VISIT
Against this backdrop, July's US state visit is significant for various reasons. It will be President Obama's first to Africa - a continent that has not only personal significance for Obama the man, but growing political significance for Obama the president - and one that has significant expectations of the first black president to sit in the Oval Office.
For Ghana, Obama will be the third successive American president to have visited in the space of 11 years, confirming the significant position Ghana has assumed as a role model for the continent. That Obama's first visit is to one of Africa's unquestioned success stories rather than one of its examples of stalled development or conflict zones, will draw attention to the fact that there is proof right here in Africa that freedom can serve as the means to development and multi-party democracy can work. Ghana's extraordinarily consistent economic growth pattern for the past seven years (registering a GDP of 7.3 per cent in 2008) offers the best evidential advertisement for the new development paradigm, which seeks to show that not only can freedom and development go hand in hand, but that the former provides a helping hand to the latter.
WHY GHANA?
But we must not ignore America's interest. After all, whatever his connection to the African continent, Obama is president of America - and acts in the interest of its people at home above all else. So what can Americans hope to gain from President Obama's trip to Ghana?
First, this trip offers a very compelling platform for America to reaffirm to a significant mass of the world the triumph of its values of liberal democracy, rule of law and freedom. With the US's failure to impose these in the Middle East, and China's irksome demonstration that economic progress can be achieved without them, Ghana helps bolster the US's argument about the centrality of these values to the development process.
But the decision to embark on this trip was also made on the basis of some tangible and concrete opportunities for America in the region.
Top on the list is the United States' military and energy security agenda. Before the 9/11 bombing in 2001, conventional thinking in Washington perceived no vital strategic interests for the US in sub-Saharan Africa. But this has changed. Today we can see a significant shift away from America's traditional geopolitical calculations regarding oil production and supply. The US's National Intelligence Council (NIC) estimates that by 2015, 25 per cent of American oil imports will come from West Africa, compared to 16 per cent today - an estimate even considered as too conservative in some quarters. Already West Africa supplies as much oil to the US as Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, our oil is light and sweet, making it easier and cheaper to refine than Persian oil. Plus its offshore location reduces transportation costs and minimises risk of political violence and terrorist attacks.
This shift in global energy patterns to the Gulf of Guinea has led to a significant re-evaluation of foreign policy focus and global alliances, resulting in a multi-layered engagement with countries such as Ghana, that encompasses military and energy security, and development aid. This trip is thus at the heart of Washington's strategy of working with its regional allies in West Africa to develop relationships that will secure its energy security in the long term.
The United States, in typical Dick Cheney oilthink, sees the Gulf of Guinea as offering the opportunity to break with the old politics which saw the US at the mercy of the geostrategic pressure of unstable or unfriendly oil-producing states in the 'old' Gulf (Persian Gulf) and Venezuela.
The way forward is a pro-active policy to build a new Gulf of energy security and prosperity in a part of the world that is relatively receptive to American presence. With significant discoveries being made in the Gulf of Guinea oil basin, off the coast of Ghana, Equatorial Guinea, Congo and Cote d'Ivoire, according to the Energy Information Administration of the US Department of Energy, the United States will be importing in the year 2020 over 770 million barrels of African oil a year. And Ghana with its stability, notable responsiveness to America, deepening multiparty democracy and promising investment climate is seen as the perfect epicentre for the growth and fulfilment of this interest. In the eyes of America, geography, geology and ideology all favour Ghana as the gem in the crown of this new policy.
WHAT ABOUT CHINA?
But the US is not alone in seeing Africa as a better bet to provide a secure source of energy. There is a new scramble for Africa's raw materials, especially energy resources, brought on by China's astonishing industrial growth and its deepening influence in the global economy. It is the second largest consumer of oil in the world behind the United States. Consistently high economic growth rates saw Asia's formerly largest oil exporter switch to become a net importer of oil since 1993. The International Energy Agency projects China's net oil imports will jump from 3.5 million barrels per day in 2006 to 13.1 million barrels per day by 2030.
In 2006, 9 per cent of Africa's oil exports went to China (with 60 per cent of Sudan's oil export China-bound). The US received 33 per cent. Already, China has sped past Britain and France to become Africa's second-highest trading partner behind the United States.
Though Angola, the second largest oil producer in sub-Saharan Africa, supplies the US with approximately twice as much oil as it does China, China has outpaced the United States in partnering Angola's rapid development with its multi-billion dollar investment support in the country's infrastructure. For example, in 2006, Sinopec, China's state-owned energy company, bid US$2.2 billion for two deep-water blocks off the Angolan coast. Two years earlier, Beijing softened the ground with a US$2 billion package of loans and aid to Angola, which has Chinese companies building telecommunications infrastructure, roads, railways, bridges, buildings, schools and hospitals.
However, in 2007, Erica Strecker Downs of the Brookings Institute think tank made some headway in calming American anxiety over China and African oil. She wrote that contrary to public opinion, China's NOCs are not 'locking up' the lion's share of African oil as part of a centralised quest for energy. But while China, with a mere 3 per cent of its FDI in Africa and controlling under 2 per cent of oil reserves on the continent, may not be winning the race for oil exploration and production in Africa, there is no question that China is winning more and more of the oil supply produced in Africa.
If the US wants to out-muscle China in the 21st century scramble for Africa, then it will have to show more aggression in investing in the development of infrastructure on the continent, as China is doing. Even if American money comes with job for American companies, Africans are not likely to complain so long as it ends in the brick and mortar of the continent's infrastructural development. Africans believe they are increasingly feeling more and more the positive might of Beijing in their quest for advancement. Chinese investment deserves a big part of the credit for Africa's highest ever economic growth rate, 5.8 per cent in 2007. Furthermore, China has cancelled US$10 billion in bilateral debt owed to it by African countries.
Outside of Ghana's oil exploration and production zone, the US and China's involvement in Ghana's development has been most obvious in two major infrastructural projects in the energy sector. The first, the West African Gas Pipeline (WAGP), is 59 per cent owned by Chevron, the US-based oil multinational company and Royal Dutch Shell. This US$700 million onshore-offshore pipeline will run 681 kilometres from the Western Niger Delta of Nigeria via Benin and Togo to Ghana, and was cooperatively underwritten by the World Bank in 2004. The bank, however, refused to underwrite the Bui Dam project designed to generate 400MW of electricity for Ghanaians. It took a 2006 visit to President Hu Jintao of China by President J A Kufuor to secure Chinese support for the dam's construction (by Sino-Hydro) and funding (Exim Bank) at an estimated cost of US$600 million.
These two projects highlight the masterful diplomacy that the Mills' administration will need to deploy in the coming years in order to secure optimal benefit for Ghana from its new oil-rich status.
HOW GHANA MUST UTILISE ITS NEW STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE
With the discovery of significant oil potential offshore, Ghana has not only new international importance - we also have cause for greater confidence and strength in our global interactions. The increased interest of both China and the United States in Ghana can add extraordinary oomph to Ghana's development - but this can only happen if we become smarter, more strategic and more assertive in our dealings with these two powerful nations.
The Obama trip reinforces the extent of US strategic interest in the country. Ghana has become an object of international desire between the two super powers of the 21st century - America and China - and the Americans are in no mood to lose its 'trusted partner' to the Chinese.
The Americans know what they want from Ghana. But does Ghana know what it wants from America? The question is: Has the Ghanaian government taken a considered, sober decision on the price to be paid and the prize to be gained for being considered as the serene oasis at the heart of the 'New Gulf'? President Obama came into office with the strategic objective of 'investing in a shared humanity' with regards to US policy in Africa, listing his three thematic policy areas of focus as:
i. To accelerate Africa's integration into the global economy
ii. To enhance the peace and security of African states
iii. To strengthen relationships with those governments, institutions and civil society organisations committed to deepening democracy, accountability and reducing poverty in Africa.
He may well be the president who can make a bold resourceful contribution to see the realisation of the dream of an African nation breaking though the stigma of underdevelopment to act as a trailblazer for the others. Ghana has the potential to serve as this model - but it will require a wholesale adoption of a new attitude of assertiveness based on a well-founded confidence in what we bring to the table, and a permanent shift from the outdated and counterproductive assumption amongst Ghanaians that our country is simply a geographical mass of humanitarian concerns or a charity case.
But has the mindset of the Ghanaian leadership gravitated towards this new reality?
GLOBAL ECONOMIC POSITIONING
As Ken Ofori-Atta of Databank stated at Chatham House recently, 'We have not seen such massive destruction of wealth in the history of modern civilisation and I might add also such rapid recreation of capital in the past year. Africa is truly astounded at how quickly the West can mobilise to save their companies when a fraction of those amounts could reinstate the impressive growth trajectory which Africa had achieved.' The rich economies are prepared to spend $2 trillion to rescue their financial infrastructure. For nearly a decade now, Africans have been demanding extra funding to the tune of $60 billion a year to accelerate its development - a mere three per cent of what is being pumped into the western financial systems today to maintain socio-corporate standards there.
The UN under-secretary general and executive secretary of the Economic Commission for Africa, Abdoulie Janneh, said the current economic downturn could cost Africa US$251 billion in 2009 and US$277 billion in 2010 in export earnings, despite earlier predictions that the continent would not be hard hit. So whatever is on offer to countries like Ghana by the IMF and World Bank only follows the old pattern of development assistance never matching what is taken out from Africa.
Unfortunately, once again, (a little over a year after Ghana issued its first sovereign bond on the international capital market) we have been forced by exogenous circumstances to make a u-turn to over-dependence on the Bretton Wood institutions for our development spending. And we are being told to adopt a kind of fiscal discipline which the developed world is also finding to be fundamentally contradictory to their programme for stimulating their economies today.
Much noise has been made both in Ghana and elsewhere about Ghana's 'extraordinarily huge' 2008 budget deficit of 11.5 per cent of GDP. Indeed, the Ghanaian government has allowed it to serve as a roadblock in the way of maintaining, let alone increasing, the momentum of development Ghana has experienced in the last seven years. It is worth noting that in America the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the US budget deficit will reach US$1.85 trillion this year, 13.1 per cent of GDP. Furthermore, they project deficits averaging over US$1 trillion a year for the next 10 years, which will raise the US public debt-to-GDP ratio to over 80 per cent by 2019. Ghana's total public debt stood at US$7,742.4 million in May 2009, representing a debt-to-GDP ratio of 49.2%. Both huge budget deficits were necessary responses to national crisis and imperatives. In Ghana's case the energy crisis of 2007 and the urgency with which Ghana needs to invest in its infrastructure and respond to a rising cost of living contributed to our unusually high deficit.
In July 2005, when heads of the world's leading industrialised countries (the G8) pledged to step up development aid by US$50 billion by 2010, with half of the increase going to Africa, African leaders hailed it as a significant high-gear shift in development aid from the developed world. Barely four years later, what we know today is that a lot more money can be found for productive investment to push millions of Africans out of poverty. US development assistance to Ghana in 2007 - about US$55 million - was nowhere near that befitting a nation carrying the kind of strategic weight that contemporary Pentagon thinking suggests.
In real terms it is little improvement on the 1994 assistance of US$38 million, plus US$16 million in food aid. President Bush contributed an extra US$547 million support from the Millennium Challenge Account. But this was given when America's strategic flirtation with Ghana was purely based on its interests in Ghana as a geographical location for AFRICOM rather than the additional oil value it has today.
What has all this to do with Obama's trip?
Negotiations are not held in a vacuum. A nation that sits around the table without prior knowledge and appreciation of its own strengths and weaknesses in its counterpart's mind has provided gaping holes in its negotiation armoury and is bound to come out with a bad deal. A good deal depends on both an understanding of the cards in your hands and your opponent's, and the skilful and strategic play of these cards. The first of these cards that the Ghanaian government must not fail to appreciate is the fact that Superpower America now sees West Africa as a zone of strategic importance - it is no longer a question of just us needing them, but they now also need us.
Our trump card is of course oil. But if we are to prevent ourselves being played by the US, we must deploy this to maximum benefit: Ultimately it is up to Africans to selfishly see our oil as means to provide energy security to others in exchange for support for more rapid African economic development.
In the words of US Congressman William Jefferson, 'The strategic question is which countries we depend on for this oil. The suggestion that comes out of all of these discussions is our best partners are in West Africa for many of the reasons I've mentioned: the commitment to democracy. Though there may be strivings and failings, nonetheless there is a commitment. West Africa is closer, making it easier to move product from there to here; the resources are, in most cases, not landlocked. Things usually work fairly well if you're out in deep water.'
Since 2007, Washington has become more convinced that the Gulf of Guinea is an area of 'Vital Interest' and Ghana is in prime position to serve as its hub, a point reinforced by the seemingly smooth transition from one democratically elected government to another of a different party.
AFRICOM
Furthermore, the US is, understandably, bent on establishing a regional command for Africa, similar to US Forces Korea, with a homeport situated on the African continent to protect their interests. West Africa is its natural home, given the need to protect energy interests in the Gulf of Guinea. Liberia has offered but simply cannot match the kind of convenience available in Ghana. It can be a win-win situation.
AFRICOM can protect US investments in our region. But, those investments (regardless of our percentage share of ownership) are also fundamentally our investments - and thus the assistance in their protection will be a welcome boon. US military presence can also help improve the level of military professionalism of our already well-respected troops. It is interesting to note that in the six decades since World War II in which America has maintained a military presence in other sovereign nations, none of the host nations has suffered instability or military takeovers, as the presence of US troops helps entrench the subordination of soldiers to civil leadership. Moreover the presence of U.S. troops boosts social and economic activities in the host countries, too.
The loudest argument against Ghana hosting AFRICOM when the possibility first arose was that it would make us a target for anti-American terrorists. But a global examination of the number and location of American military bases overseas vis-Ã -vis the geographical targets of terrorist attacks, shows that this argument has far greater emotive value than evidential corroboration.
At the moment the Americans say they are happy to keep the US Africa Command headquarters in Germany, to coordinate all US military and security interests throughout the African continent. But any reasonable assessment must conclude that this can be nothing but a temporary address and arrangement. Ghana should welcome that it is thus the target of America's desire - and we should make the most of this, using it for our own advantage. After all, the process has already started.
The US and Ghanaian militaries have cooperated in numerous joint training exercises, including the African Crisis Response Initiative, an international activity in which the US facilitates the development of an interoperable peacekeeping capacity among African nations. And the head of AFRICOM has already reaffirmed Washington's commitment to assisting the Ghana Armed Forces 'to become more robust'.
There is also the African Contingency Operations Training and Assistance program. Beyond that, Ghana and the US have an active bilateral International Military Education and Training program.
In 2007, Kwesi Pratt Jnr, the managing editor of The Insight newspaper and the energy behind the pressure group Socialist Forum, warned Ghanaians against what he saw to be the looming danger of a US military base in Ghana. He cited, inter alia, the erection of the huge American Embassy complex in Cantonments as evidence of this. Meanwhile, in August 2007 Major-General Ward, who was later confirmed as AFRICOM's first commander, visited Accra. He held discussions with President Kufuor on 'ways of strengthening military cooperation.' His high-powered secret meetings with the president, minister of defence and the chief of defence staff triggered huge speculation. Much was made of Maj Gen J B Danquah's public statement about the visit when he said Maj Gen Ward had 'done enough to resolve' Ghana's concerns about AFRICOM, adding, 'I have had the chance to hear [Ward] explain what is the reasoning behind the command, and it's all about partnership.'
General T. Hobbins, head of the US Air Forces Europe, has held discussions with his counterparts here on the possibility of establishing 'lily pads', landing and rapid airlift facilities in otherwise deserted terrain in certain strategic sites in Africa. Tamale Airport has come up as one of the 'forward operating sites' targeted. That airport is said to have a runway capacity of accommodating massive US C-3 cargo planes and troop transports.
Ghana is also already the site of a US-European Command-funded Exercise Reception Facility that was established to facilitate troop deployments for exercises or crisis response within the region. The direct link to our oil is only too apparent: The Facility came out of Ghana's partnership with the United States on what is termed a Fuel Hub Initiative. It may sound like a mere gas station for the troops. But the choice of stable, imminently oil-rich Ghana as a Fuel Hub reflects a greater strategic interest in the country than as merely a filling station.
The Americans have not been shy in establishing a clear economic link alongside their military cooperation. Ghana is one of the few African nations, mainly those with oil, selected for the State Partnership Program to promote greater economic ties with US institutions, including the National Guard. Expanding this to deepen our cooperation with the Drugs Enforcement Agency is one other area that President Mills should focus attention on.
GHANA THE 'NATURAL' ALLY
This all points to the fact that the United States sees Ghana as having all the vital statistics and morphological features of a 'natural' ally. We have the oil reserves, we are in the stable centre of the 'New Gulf' and we have the military discipline and stable atmosphere to make us the perfect hosts for America's first major military migration to our continent. America is strategically placed to maintain and deepen its stronger footing here, ensuring it rather than China becomes our dominant ally. As one analyst confirmed, Washington has no interest in seeing China's presence in Africa extended to Ghana. The fact, however, is that China is already here and the recent dealings between the Mills administration and the ruling Chinese Communist Party means the US needs to act sooner rather than later.
Obama's chief policy adviser assured Africans two months before the 2008 presidential race, 'Barack Obama understands Africa, and understands its importance to the United States. Today, in this new century, he understands that to strengthen our common security, we must invest in our common humanity and, in this way, restore American leadership in the world.' Now is the chance for him to seek and effect the real change that will finally show the world that Africans are capable of more than managing their own affairs - but, crucially, Ghana must take up the opportunity provided by the state visit and the US's burgeoning strategic interest in us, to be the nation that demonstrates this.
AFRICOM building research center.
By John Vandiver
Stars and Stripes, European edition
June 15, 2009
A social science research center is under development at U.S. Africa Command headquarters, where researchers from the academic world are being recruited to help map the complicated human terrain on the African continent.
The research center, which falls under AFRICOM’s knowledge development division, will be designed to focus on the long-term with an eye toward forecasting potential flashpoints and preventing them from developing into conflicts.
But mixing military and social science has long been a source of controversy, going all the way back to the Vietnam era when information collected by researchers was used for targeting people.
More recently, the Army’s Human Terrain System, used in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been met with resistance from groups such as the Network of Concerned Anthropologists, made up of social scientists opposed to the mingling of academia and the military.
Though defenders of the Human Terrain System argue that social scientists are providing information to commanders that potentially can reduce levels of violence, opponents say human terrain mapping benefits the U.S. military, not local populations.
As AFRICOM sets out to recruit and build its staff of social scientists, word is beginning to spread about the latest effort, and some professors are already expressing similar concerns.
"There is a contradiction between anthropology and AFRICOM or the U.S. military," said David Hughes, an environmental anthropologist from Rutgers University’s Center for African Studies.
Hughes, who participated in an interview for a position on the AFRICOM team — a position Hughes said he was never interested in but wanted to learn more about — contends that academic researchers shouldn’t accept employment with the Defense Department.
While pursuing national security interests is the military’s objective, "Our concern is to take the concerns of the subject first and foremost. It would be difficult to negotiate that conflict," he said.
For example, researching the degree of pro or anti-American sentiment in a given area and turning over those findings to the military could open to door to selective targeting of individuals, according to Hughes.
"Then I might immediately endanger my subjects. This is the sort of thing we don’t want to be involved in and facilitate," said Hughes, whose department has issued a statement vowing that it would not collaborate with the military’s efforts in Africa.
AFRICOM officials, however, say fears about militarizing social science are misplaced. So are comparisons between AFRICOM’s research center and the Human Terrain System, which embeds academics on the battlefield to provide cultural advice to commanders in support of their missions, officials said.
"We have no combat mission in Africa," said Col. Dean Bland, who is heading up AFRICOM’s research center effort and insists the social scientists would have no role in targeting people.
Rather, the academics will fill in gaps in knowledge and help commanders craft more effective programs, he said. For example, as military training initiatives are developed, having an awareness of the ethnic mixes and traditions in a given area would be valuable information, he said. Knowing when there’s a disenfranchised minority sub-group in a region also would be valuable as the military tries to anticipate flashpoints and prevent conflict, he said.
"You have to understand how societies tick to make better decisions," Bland said.
Examining the relationship between geography and environment, culture and politics, and how these factors can come together to create instability is a new approach to intelligence-gathering, Bland said.
The research center will deal largely in the unclassified realm. The intent is to work together with other think tanks, non-governmental organizations and release reports into the public domain, Bland said. Papers will be peer-reviewed and the work will be available for others working on the continent, he said.
Despite some early criticism in academia, recruiting hasn’t been a problem, Bland said.
Currently, about a dozen staffers are on board. Within six months, the knowledge development team is expected to be fully manned with 25 to 30 members. The majority will be based in Stuttgart. A team of about six people will be stationed at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, where they will work closely with AFRICOM’s Combined Joined Task Force-Horn of Africa.
At times, the Germany-based members could deploy to the continent for short research missions.
The need for a research center, Bland said, boils down to the fact that there’s a lot the military doesn’t know regarding Africa — a continent of 53 countries, hundreds of languages, tribes and cultures.
Indeed, Africa is a place Americans generally know little about and tend to regard as one big country instead of a diverse continent of nearly one billion people, AFRICOM officials say.
Could AFRICOM’s social scientists help leaders anticipate events, such as the violence that followed last year’s elections in Kenya? Could they advise commanders on the potential destabilizing effects of global warming and desertification in certain regions? Could the next genocide be prevented?
That’s the goal, though measuring effectiveness will be difficult, Bland said.
"We’ll never know if we are successful, because if we do our job right, flashpoints will go away," Bland said.
Stars and Stripes, European edition
June 15, 2009
A social science research center is under development at U.S. Africa Command headquarters, where researchers from the academic world are being recruited to help map the complicated human terrain on the African continent.
The research center, which falls under AFRICOM’s knowledge development division, will be designed to focus on the long-term with an eye toward forecasting potential flashpoints and preventing them from developing into conflicts.
But mixing military and social science has long been a source of controversy, going all the way back to the Vietnam era when information collected by researchers was used for targeting people.
More recently, the Army’s Human Terrain System, used in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been met with resistance from groups such as the Network of Concerned Anthropologists, made up of social scientists opposed to the mingling of academia and the military.
Though defenders of the Human Terrain System argue that social scientists are providing information to commanders that potentially can reduce levels of violence, opponents say human terrain mapping benefits the U.S. military, not local populations.
As AFRICOM sets out to recruit and build its staff of social scientists, word is beginning to spread about the latest effort, and some professors are already expressing similar concerns.
"There is a contradiction between anthropology and AFRICOM or the U.S. military," said David Hughes, an environmental anthropologist from Rutgers University’s Center for African Studies.
Hughes, who participated in an interview for a position on the AFRICOM team — a position Hughes said he was never interested in but wanted to learn more about — contends that academic researchers shouldn’t accept employment with the Defense Department.
While pursuing national security interests is the military’s objective, "Our concern is to take the concerns of the subject first and foremost. It would be difficult to negotiate that conflict," he said.
For example, researching the degree of pro or anti-American sentiment in a given area and turning over those findings to the military could open to door to selective targeting of individuals, according to Hughes.
"Then I might immediately endanger my subjects. This is the sort of thing we don’t want to be involved in and facilitate," said Hughes, whose department has issued a statement vowing that it would not collaborate with the military’s efforts in Africa.
AFRICOM officials, however, say fears about militarizing social science are misplaced. So are comparisons between AFRICOM’s research center and the Human Terrain System, which embeds academics on the battlefield to provide cultural advice to commanders in support of their missions, officials said.
"We have no combat mission in Africa," said Col. Dean Bland, who is heading up AFRICOM’s research center effort and insists the social scientists would have no role in targeting people.
Rather, the academics will fill in gaps in knowledge and help commanders craft more effective programs, he said. For example, as military training initiatives are developed, having an awareness of the ethnic mixes and traditions in a given area would be valuable information, he said. Knowing when there’s a disenfranchised minority sub-group in a region also would be valuable as the military tries to anticipate flashpoints and prevent conflict, he said.
"You have to understand how societies tick to make better decisions," Bland said.
Examining the relationship between geography and environment, culture and politics, and how these factors can come together to create instability is a new approach to intelligence-gathering, Bland said.
The research center will deal largely in the unclassified realm. The intent is to work together with other think tanks, non-governmental organizations and release reports into the public domain, Bland said. Papers will be peer-reviewed and the work will be available for others working on the continent, he said.
Despite some early criticism in academia, recruiting hasn’t been a problem, Bland said.
Currently, about a dozen staffers are on board. Within six months, the knowledge development team is expected to be fully manned with 25 to 30 members. The majority will be based in Stuttgart. A team of about six people will be stationed at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, where they will work closely with AFRICOM’s Combined Joined Task Force-Horn of Africa.
At times, the Germany-based members could deploy to the continent for short research missions.
The need for a research center, Bland said, boils down to the fact that there’s a lot the military doesn’t know regarding Africa — a continent of 53 countries, hundreds of languages, tribes and cultures.
Indeed, Africa is a place Americans generally know little about and tend to regard as one big country instead of a diverse continent of nearly one billion people, AFRICOM officials say.
Could AFRICOM’s social scientists help leaders anticipate events, such as the violence that followed last year’s elections in Kenya? Could they advise commanders on the potential destabilizing effects of global warming and desertification in certain regions? Could the next genocide be prevented?
That’s the goal, though measuring effectiveness will be difficult, Bland said.
"We’ll never know if we are successful, because if we do our job right, flashpoints will go away," Bland said.
Camp Lemonier Fast Tracks $34 Million in Airfield Expansion Projects.
Story Number: NNS090617-14
6/17/2009
By Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Michelle Terrell, Navy Region Europe, Africa, Southwest Asia Public Affairs
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic Division (NAVFAC LANT) has embarked on an airfield improvement project at Camp Lemonier, Djibouti, performing more than $33 million in expansion projects to be completed within fiscal year 2009.
As part of the Global Contingency Construction Multiple Award Contract NAVFAC has with the URS Corporation, multiple taxiway sections connecting to the Djibouti International Airport runway, which the Camp utilizes, will be expanded, including a new partial-length parallel taxiway and an aircraft parking apron. These airfield projects are part of a fast-tracked design/build schedule that will see all development, planning, design and construction started and completed from January-September 2009.
The design and construction of C-5 Galaxy and C-17 Globemaster III capable taxiways are required in order to support the expanding missions of United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa (CJTF HOA) and Combined Task Force 151 as well as to meet the future requirements of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and U.S. Navy.
A $13.5 million dollar hangar project is also currently underway and should be complete sometime in fiscal year 2010.
Camp Lemonier, Djibouti, is located in the Horn of Africa and is the only U.S. military infrastructure located in Africa providing a base of operations for support services. The camp has approximately 2,500 U.S., joint and allied military forces, civilian personnel, DoD contractors and 1,200 local and third country nation workers. The camp is the primary base of operations for AFRICOM in the Horn of Africa and supports more than 23 tenant commands, including CJTF HOA, U.S. Army 218th Field Artillery Regiment and Naval Mobile Construction Battalion detachments.
6/17/2009
By Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Michelle Terrell, Navy Region Europe, Africa, Southwest Asia Public Affairs
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic Division (NAVFAC LANT) has embarked on an airfield improvement project at Camp Lemonier, Djibouti, performing more than $33 million in expansion projects to be completed within fiscal year 2009.
As part of the Global Contingency Construction Multiple Award Contract NAVFAC has with the URS Corporation, multiple taxiway sections connecting to the Djibouti International Airport runway, which the Camp utilizes, will be expanded, including a new partial-length parallel taxiway and an aircraft parking apron. These airfield projects are part of a fast-tracked design/build schedule that will see all development, planning, design and construction started and completed from January-September 2009.
The design and construction of C-5 Galaxy and C-17 Globemaster III capable taxiways are required in order to support the expanding missions of United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa (CJTF HOA) and Combined Task Force 151 as well as to meet the future requirements of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and U.S. Navy.
A $13.5 million dollar hangar project is also currently underway and should be complete sometime in fiscal year 2010.
Camp Lemonier, Djibouti, is located in the Horn of Africa and is the only U.S. military infrastructure located in Africa providing a base of operations for support services. The camp has approximately 2,500 U.S., joint and allied military forces, civilian personnel, DoD contractors and 1,200 local and third country nation workers. The camp is the primary base of operations for AFRICOM in the Horn of Africa and supports more than 23 tenant commands, including CJTF HOA, U.S. Army 218th Field Artillery Regiment and Naval Mobile Construction Battalion detachments.
AFRICOM Commander visits Senegal.
Afrique en Ligne
23 June 2009
General William Ward, commander of the US Command for Africa (AFRICOM), will begin a three-day visit to Senegal from Thursday, the US Embassy informed PANA here on Tuesday.
According to the Embassy, General Ward will hold talks with Senegalese military authorities on various issues regarding bilateral cooperation, maritime security and the fight against drug trafficking.
He will also address a press conference on the military and security cooperation between the US and Africa, the fight against terrorism, and peacekeeping operations.
General Ward became AFRICOM's first commander since formation on 1 October 2007.
AFRICOM was set up to partner the 53 African states in areas of security and stability.
Based in Stuttgart, Germany, AFRICOM is one of the six outposts of the US Defence Department around the world.
23 June 2009
General William Ward, commander of the US Command for Africa (AFRICOM), will begin a three-day visit to Senegal from Thursday, the US Embassy informed PANA here on Tuesday.
According to the Embassy, General Ward will hold talks with Senegalese military authorities on various issues regarding bilateral cooperation, maritime security and the fight against drug trafficking.
He will also address a press conference on the military and security cooperation between the US and Africa, the fight against terrorism, and peacekeeping operations.
General Ward became AFRICOM's first commander since formation on 1 October 2007.
AFRICOM was set up to partner the 53 African states in areas of security and stability.
Based in Stuttgart, Germany, AFRICOM is one of the six outposts of the US Defence Department around the world.
Somali Pirates Allegedly Delay Seacom Undersea Cable.
Daily Nation
By Joseph Bonyo
24 June 2009
Increased pirate activity has caused a change in Seacom's fibre optic cable's due installation date. The cable, initially planned to debut this weekend, will now have to wait for another month till July 23.
In a statement to newsrooms on Wednesday, Seaom chief executive Brian Herlihy said the planned route required the ship to transit an area of increased pirate activity where ships had been attacked or seized.
"Due to sensitivities around piracy issues, their impact on the project timeline was only fully established recently and whilst I am personally truly disappointed by the delay, it was imperative that strong measures be put in place to guarantee the successful completion of the cable system and the safety of the ship and its crews," he said.
Threatened
However, the cable deployment in the troublesome waters has since been completed and splicing to connect the section of cable from Mumbai to Africa is expected shortly.
Testing of the larger cable system will be finalised shortly thereafter according to Mr Herlihy. Two weeks ago, President Kibaki launched the government-sponsored TEAMS project which is expected to go live in three months.
By Joseph Bonyo
24 June 2009
Increased pirate activity has caused a change in Seacom's fibre optic cable's due installation date. The cable, initially planned to debut this weekend, will now have to wait for another month till July 23.
In a statement to newsrooms on Wednesday, Seaom chief executive Brian Herlihy said the planned route required the ship to transit an area of increased pirate activity where ships had been attacked or seized.
"Due to sensitivities around piracy issues, their impact on the project timeline was only fully established recently and whilst I am personally truly disappointed by the delay, it was imperative that strong measures be put in place to guarantee the successful completion of the cable system and the safety of the ship and its crews," he said.
Threatened
However, the cable deployment in the troublesome waters has since been completed and splicing to connect the section of cable from Mumbai to Africa is expected shortly.
Testing of the larger cable system will be finalised shortly thereafter according to Mr Herlihy. Two weeks ago, President Kibaki launched the government-sponsored TEAMS project which is expected to go live in three months.
Package of documents signed during President of Russia’s visit to Nigeria.
Office of the President of Russia
25 June 2009
Dmitry Medvedev and Umaru Yar’Adua signed a joint communique. A package of bilateral documents was also signed at the meeting.
In particular, agreements were made on cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy, as well as on encouraging and mutually defending capital investments. A memorandum of understanding regarding questions of cooperation in research and the peaceful use of outer space was signed.
Gazprom and the Nigerian national petroleum corporation signed constitutive documents on creating a joint undertaking.
25 June 2009
Dmitry Medvedev and Umaru Yar’Adua signed a joint communique. A package of bilateral documents was also signed at the meeting.
In particular, agreements were made on cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy, as well as on encouraging and mutually defending capital investments. A memorandum of understanding regarding questions of cooperation in research and the peaceful use of outer space was signed.
Gazprom and the Nigerian national petroleum corporation signed constitutive documents on creating a joint undertaking.
24 June, 2009
Novatek, Total set for $1bln gas field project in Siberia.
RIA Novosti
24 June 2009
French Total and Russian independent gas producer Novatek are expected to implement a $1 billion project to develop a gas condensate project in northwest Siberia, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday.
The project will establish a joint venture to develop the Thermokarst gas field on the Yamal Peninsula, Putin said at a meeting with the heads of both companies.
Investment in the initial stage will total $20 million, the premier said, adding that the government would back Total's participation in the project.
"The very fact that we are meeting here suggests that we'll be supporting such projects," Putin told Total's chief executive, Christophe de Margerie.
24 June 2009
French Total and Russian independent gas producer Novatek are expected to implement a $1 billion project to develop a gas condensate project in northwest Siberia, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday.
The project will establish a joint venture to develop the Thermokarst gas field on the Yamal Peninsula, Putin said at a meeting with the heads of both companies.
Investment in the initial stage will total $20 million, the premier said, adding that the government would back Total's participation in the project.
"The very fact that we are meeting here suggests that we'll be supporting such projects," Putin told Total's chief executive, Christophe de Margerie.
Gazprom to End Gas Flaring in Nigeria.
Xinhua News Agency
6/24/2009
The coming of the world 's gas giant Gazprom to Africa's biggest oil producer Nigeria would put an end to gas flaring, Alexander Polyakov, the Russian ambassador to Nigeria, said on Tuesday.
Polyakov made the remarks in the Nigerian capital Abuja ahead of a visit by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to Nigeria on Wednesday.
Medredev will be the first Kremlin leader to visit Nigeria since both countries established diplomatic ties almost 50 years ago.
The envoy said the highlight of the visit would be the signing of an agreement between Gazprom and the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation.
He said Gazprom, as the world biggest gas company, is eager to come to Nigeria to build up a long lasting mutual beneficial partnership. The Russian company will enhance the development of the gas industry in Nigeria, build new pipelines, develop infrastructure and put an end to gas flaring, the envoy pledged.
"Gazprom is ready to adjust its activities in Nigeria to the guidelines of the National Gas Master plan that has been approved by President Umaru Yar'Adua," he said.
According to the envoy, key agreements to be signed also include the Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement and the Treaty on the Transfer of Prisoners.
Others are the Agreement of Cooperation in the Fields of Atomic Energy for peaceful purposes and the memorandum of understanding ( MoU) between the Russian Space Agency and Nigeria's National Space Research and Development Agency (NASRDA).
Polyakov said the MoU signed in Moscow on March 18 during the visit of Nigeria's Foreign Minister Ojo Maduekwe was the first step to atomic energy cooperation between the two countries, reiterating that the agreement is for peaceful purposes. "This will be the second step and now hopefully, the agreement to creating and building atomic power energy plant in Nigeria," he added.
The envoy said the plant had no connection with the intention of militarizing Nigeria. This is strictly within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency, he declared.
Polyakov said the cooperation between the Russian Space Agency and the NASRDA was very promising. Nigeria has very ambitious plan to launch the first outer space craft between 2015 and 2018, he said, adding that Russia could provide capacity building for the personnel. On the volume of bilateral trade between Russia and Nigeria, Polyakov said it stood at US $1.5 billion in 2008.
6/24/2009
The coming of the world 's gas giant Gazprom to Africa's biggest oil producer Nigeria would put an end to gas flaring, Alexander Polyakov, the Russian ambassador to Nigeria, said on Tuesday.
Polyakov made the remarks in the Nigerian capital Abuja ahead of a visit by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to Nigeria on Wednesday.
Medredev will be the first Kremlin leader to visit Nigeria since both countries established diplomatic ties almost 50 years ago.
The envoy said the highlight of the visit would be the signing of an agreement between Gazprom and the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation.
He said Gazprom, as the world biggest gas company, is eager to come to Nigeria to build up a long lasting mutual beneficial partnership. The Russian company will enhance the development of the gas industry in Nigeria, build new pipelines, develop infrastructure and put an end to gas flaring, the envoy pledged.
"Gazprom is ready to adjust its activities in Nigeria to the guidelines of the National Gas Master plan that has been approved by President Umaru Yar'Adua," he said.
According to the envoy, key agreements to be signed also include the Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement and the Treaty on the Transfer of Prisoners.
Others are the Agreement of Cooperation in the Fields of Atomic Energy for peaceful purposes and the memorandum of understanding ( MoU) between the Russian Space Agency and Nigeria's National Space Research and Development Agency (NASRDA).
Polyakov said the MoU signed in Moscow on March 18 during the visit of Nigeria's Foreign Minister Ojo Maduekwe was the first step to atomic energy cooperation between the two countries, reiterating that the agreement is for peaceful purposes. "This will be the second step and now hopefully, the agreement to creating and building atomic power energy plant in Nigeria," he added.
The envoy said the plant had no connection with the intention of militarizing Nigeria. This is strictly within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency, he declared.
Polyakov said the cooperation between the Russian Space Agency and the NASRDA was very promising. Nigeria has very ambitious plan to launch the first outer space craft between 2015 and 2018, he said, adding that Russia could provide capacity building for the personnel. On the volume of bilateral trade between Russia and Nigeria, Polyakov said it stood at US $1.5 billion in 2008.
CNPC, BP Hold Talks on Bid to Develop Iraqi Oil Field.
by David Winning and Wan Xu
Dow Jones Newswires 6/24/2009
URL: http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=77598
China National Petroleum Corp. has held talks with U.K. oil major BP PLC about a joint offer to develop Iraq's Rumaila field, ahead of the country's first bidding round in 30 years, a person familiar with the matter said Wednesday.
China's state-owned CNPC is also working on two more bids in the auction, due to take place June 29-30, including one with Chinese rival Cnooc Ltd. and Malaysia's Petroliam Nasional Bhd, or Petronas.
The talks with BP focused on CNPC coming in as a minority partner for a service contract to develop the Rumaila field, which is the largest in the round in terms of output, said the person, declining to be named. He didn't say whether the discussions were ongoing.
Rumaila's current output capacity is around 1 million barrels a day, but the Iraqi government hopes foreign expertise can lift production to 1.75 million barrels a day, according to consultancy IHS Global Insight.
CNPC's spokesman, Liu Weijiang, couldn't immediately be reached for comment. Toby Odone, the BP spokesman, said BP was one of the companies shortlisted to bid in Iraq and was still finalizing its plans.
CNPC is working with Royal Dutch Shell PLC and China Petrochemical Corp., known as Sinopec, on a bid to develop the Kirkuk oil field after agreeing on shareholdings in a consortium, the person said.
In April, Jeroen van der Veer, Shell's chief executive, confirmed the Anglo-Dutch oil major was in talks with Chinese firms to be a part of the consortium bidding for an Iraqi oil field.
The third bid will involve a consortium of CNPC, Cnooc and Petronas for one of the smaller oil fields included in the round, the person said.
CNPC will operate the oil field, either Missan in southern Iraq or Bai Hassan in the country's north, if the bid succeeds, the person said.
Azman Ibrahim, a spokesman for Petronas, said Malaysia's state oil company "is bidding for some acreage in Iraq, on our own and with partners," but refused to give details.
Xiao Zongwei, the joint board secretary of Hong Kong-listed Cnooc, declined to comment.
CNPC has already built a relationship with the Iraqi government. In March, it secured the first major oil development deal with Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. The $3 billion project was to develop al-Ahdab oil field in Wasit Governorate, south of Baghdad.
Iraq is the world's third-largest oil producer and is seeking to boost production and renew an industry that has been shackled by years of war and sanctions.
Current production is around 2.4 million barrels a day, but Baghdad hopes foreign investment will lift this output to 4 million barrels a day over 20 years.
The oil ministry is offering foreign companies a total of eight oil and gas fields, containing combined reserves of 43 billion barrels of oil equivalent, or 37.3% of the country's total.
Some 32 international companies, including oil majors such as Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., and Total SA, are expected to take part in the bidding process, to be held in Baghdad.
The country's oil ministry had pre-qualified 35 international companies for the first bidding round announced a year ago.
Dow Jones Newswires 6/24/2009
URL: http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=77598
China National Petroleum Corp. has held talks with U.K. oil major BP PLC about a joint offer to develop Iraq's Rumaila field, ahead of the country's first bidding round in 30 years, a person familiar with the matter said Wednesday.
China's state-owned CNPC is also working on two more bids in the auction, due to take place June 29-30, including one with Chinese rival Cnooc Ltd. and Malaysia's Petroliam Nasional Bhd, or Petronas.
The talks with BP focused on CNPC coming in as a minority partner for a service contract to develop the Rumaila field, which is the largest in the round in terms of output, said the person, declining to be named. He didn't say whether the discussions were ongoing.
Rumaila's current output capacity is around 1 million barrels a day, but the Iraqi government hopes foreign expertise can lift production to 1.75 million barrels a day, according to consultancy IHS Global Insight.
CNPC's spokesman, Liu Weijiang, couldn't immediately be reached for comment. Toby Odone, the BP spokesman, said BP was one of the companies shortlisted to bid in Iraq and was still finalizing its plans.
CNPC is working with Royal Dutch Shell PLC and China Petrochemical Corp., known as Sinopec, on a bid to develop the Kirkuk oil field after agreeing on shareholdings in a consortium, the person said.
In April, Jeroen van der Veer, Shell's chief executive, confirmed the Anglo-Dutch oil major was in talks with Chinese firms to be a part of the consortium bidding for an Iraqi oil field.
The third bid will involve a consortium of CNPC, Cnooc and Petronas for one of the smaller oil fields included in the round, the person said.
CNPC will operate the oil field, either Missan in southern Iraq or Bai Hassan in the country's north, if the bid succeeds, the person said.
Azman Ibrahim, a spokesman for Petronas, said Malaysia's state oil company "is bidding for some acreage in Iraq, on our own and with partners," but refused to give details.
Xiao Zongwei, the joint board secretary of Hong Kong-listed Cnooc, declined to comment.
CNPC has already built a relationship with the Iraqi government. In March, it secured the first major oil development deal with Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. The $3 billion project was to develop al-Ahdab oil field in Wasit Governorate, south of Baghdad.
Iraq is the world's third-largest oil producer and is seeking to boost production and renew an industry that has been shackled by years of war and sanctions.
Current production is around 2.4 million barrels a day, but Baghdad hopes foreign investment will lift this output to 4 million barrels a day over 20 years.
The oil ministry is offering foreign companies a total of eight oil and gas fields, containing combined reserves of 43 billion barrels of oil equivalent, or 37.3% of the country's total.
Some 32 international companies, including oil majors such as Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., and Total SA, are expected to take part in the bidding process, to be held in Baghdad.
The country's oil ministry had pre-qualified 35 international companies for the first bidding round announced a year ago.
China to receive 40 bcm of Turkmen gas annually.
RIA Novosti
24 June 2009
Turkmenistan will supply up to 40 billion cubic meters of natural gas to China for 30 years as soon as it commissions a pipeline at the end of 2009, the ex-Soviet republic's president said on Wednesday.
"The project is a strategic one for both countries - it meets the long-term interests of both Turkmenistan and China and also corresponds to the logic of global economic development in which energy supplies have been playing an ever increasing role," Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov said, as quoted by national media, after talks with Executive Deputy Premier of the Chinese State Council Li Keqiang.
The parties also signed a range of documents, including an agreement for a Chinese $4 billion loan to the Turkmengaz state-run gas corporation.
24 June 2009
Turkmenistan will supply up to 40 billion cubic meters of natural gas to China for 30 years as soon as it commissions a pipeline at the end of 2009, the ex-Soviet republic's president said on Wednesday.
"The project is a strategic one for both countries - it meets the long-term interests of both Turkmenistan and China and also corresponds to the logic of global economic development in which energy supplies have been playing an ever increasing role," Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov said, as quoted by national media, after talks with Executive Deputy Premier of the Chinese State Council Li Keqiang.
The parties also signed a range of documents, including an agreement for a Chinese $4 billion loan to the Turkmengaz state-run gas corporation.
Russia, Nigeria sign gas, space cooperation agreements.
RIA Novosti
24 June 2009
Russia and Nigeria signed six agreements on cooperation, including in the natural gas and space spheres, following talks between the two countries' presidents, Dmitry Medvedev and Umaru Yar'Adua, on Wednesday.
Russian energy giant Gazprom and the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) agreed to set up a joint venture, and deals on capital investment protection, extradition, and nuclear power were signed.
Vladimir Ilyanin, managing director at Gazprom Nigeria, said earlier the Russian gas monopoly could invest some $2.5 billion in the joint venture.
Nigeria is the second stop on Medvedev's African tour, following a trip to Egypt.
Russia is Nigeria's tenth largest trade partner, with trade of around $300 million per year.
The nuclear deal will allow Russia to take part in tenders for the construction of nuclear reactors in Nigeria.
Nigeria, which has recoverable uranium reserves, plans to build its first nuclear power plant in 2017, with generation capacity of between 1-4 GW.
Nigeria is rich in natural resources, including tin, columbite, iron ore and coal. It has 35 billion barrels of explored oil reserves and 4.1 trillion cubic meters of natural gas. The country is ranked among the world's top 10 crude exporters, and started exporting liquefied natural gas (LNG) in 1999.
24 June 2009
Russia and Nigeria signed six agreements on cooperation, including in the natural gas and space spheres, following talks between the two countries' presidents, Dmitry Medvedev and Umaru Yar'Adua, on Wednesday.
Russian energy giant Gazprom and the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) agreed to set up a joint venture, and deals on capital investment protection, extradition, and nuclear power were signed.
Vladimir Ilyanin, managing director at Gazprom Nigeria, said earlier the Russian gas monopoly could invest some $2.5 billion in the joint venture.
Nigeria is the second stop on Medvedev's African tour, following a trip to Egypt.
Russia is Nigeria's tenth largest trade partner, with trade of around $300 million per year.
The nuclear deal will allow Russia to take part in tenders for the construction of nuclear reactors in Nigeria.
Nigeria, which has recoverable uranium reserves, plans to build its first nuclear power plant in 2017, with generation capacity of between 1-4 GW.
Nigeria is rich in natural resources, including tin, columbite, iron ore and coal. It has 35 billion barrels of explored oil reserves and 4.1 trillion cubic meters of natural gas. The country is ranked among the world's top 10 crude exporters, and started exporting liquefied natural gas (LNG) in 1999.
Ex-Kosovo PM arrested by Bulgaria on Serbian warrant.
Reuters
23 June 2009
Former Kosovo Prime Minister Agim Ceku was arrested by Bulgarian authorities on Tuesday on an old Interpol arrest warrant issued by Serbia, a party spokesperson told Reuters.
"He was arrested at the Macedonian-Bulgarian border. We expect him to be released soon but we don't know if that will happen tonight or tomorrow," Gezim Kasapolli a spokesperson from Ceku's party said.
The Kosovo government has asked Interpol and other countries to ignore Serbia's request.
Last month Ceku had left Colombia following an expulsion order from the local security agency after Serbia authorities asked their Colombian counterparts to arrest him.
This is the fourth time Ceku has been stopped, but the authorities in Slovenia and Hungary on those occasions never handed him over to Belgrade authorities.
(Reporting by Fatos Bytyci, editing by Matthew Jones)
23 June 2009
Former Kosovo Prime Minister Agim Ceku was arrested by Bulgarian authorities on Tuesday on an old Interpol arrest warrant issued by Serbia, a party spokesperson told Reuters.
"He was arrested at the Macedonian-Bulgarian border. We expect him to be released soon but we don't know if that will happen tonight or tomorrow," Gezim Kasapolli a spokesperson from Ceku's party said.
The Kosovo government has asked Interpol and other countries to ignore Serbia's request.
Last month Ceku had left Colombia following an expulsion order from the local security agency after Serbia authorities asked their Colombian counterparts to arrest him.
This is the fourth time Ceku has been stopped, but the authorities in Slovenia and Hungary on those occasions never handed him over to Belgrade authorities.
(Reporting by Fatos Bytyci, editing by Matthew Jones)
Reports - Ugandan Army Officers Grabbing Amuru Oil Land
Daily Monitor
24 June 2009
By Affa Collins
High ranking army officers are forcefully grabbing land in the oil rich belt of Amuru District, the security coordinator in-charge of oil exploration in the area, Lt. Col. David Kagoyo, has said.
"I have reliable information from some sources that some army officers are forcefully grabbing people's land in Amuru," Lt. Col. Kagoyo said during Nebbi District's oil exploration stakeholders meeting last week.
Amuru lies in the oil belt licenced to Heritage Gas company stretching from south of Panyimur to North of Wadlai along the Nile river.
The LC5 Chairman Nebbi, Mr John Pascal Wapokra, was non-committal on the land grabbing question, saying the matter is before court.
Lt. Col. Kagoyo demanded that before anything is done, the land ownership issue should be settled first before the oil drilling takes place since it could jeopardise the gains that the government and development partners have made.
The discovery of the oil wells in Amuru, which was created out of Gulu District, has created anxiety over land ownership in the area.
Area residents who spoke to this newspaper said the incident has created fear that they might lose their land.
Similarly, due to its oil potential, land grabbing is at a high level in Buliisa District.
24 June 2009
By Affa Collins
High ranking army officers are forcefully grabbing land in the oil rich belt of Amuru District, the security coordinator in-charge of oil exploration in the area, Lt. Col. David Kagoyo, has said.
"I have reliable information from some sources that some army officers are forcefully grabbing people's land in Amuru," Lt. Col. Kagoyo said during Nebbi District's oil exploration stakeholders meeting last week.
Amuru lies in the oil belt licenced to Heritage Gas company stretching from south of Panyimur to North of Wadlai along the Nile river.
The LC5 Chairman Nebbi, Mr John Pascal Wapokra, was non-committal on the land grabbing question, saying the matter is before court.
Lt. Col. Kagoyo demanded that before anything is done, the land ownership issue should be settled first before the oil drilling takes place since it could jeopardise the gains that the government and development partners have made.
The discovery of the oil wells in Amuru, which was created out of Gulu District, has created anxiety over land ownership in the area.
Area residents who spoke to this newspaper said the incident has created fear that they might lose their land.
Similarly, due to its oil potential, land grabbing is at a high level in Buliisa District.
23 June, 2009
U.S., Kyrgyzstan agree on airbase deal.
USA Today
23 June 2009
The United States has agreed to more than triple the rent it pays for use of a key air base in Kyrgyzstan to ship non-lethal military supplies to Afghanistan under a deal approved Tuesday by a Kyrgyz parliamentary committee.
The accord to use the Manas base as a "center of transit shipments" comes four months after the Central Asian nation ordered the eviction of U.S. troops. It falls short of U.S. hopes of maintaining the base as a full-fledged military facility.
But it would provide a much-needed logistical support base as the U.S.-led coalition ramps up operations against increasingly bold Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan.
Kyrgyz Foreign Minister Kadyrbek Sarbayev told lawmakers that under the new one-year deal, rent will increase to $60 million per year from the current $17.4 million.
Washington will also pay $37 million to build new aircraft parking slots and storage areas, plus another $30 million for new navigation systems.
23 June 2009
The United States has agreed to more than triple the rent it pays for use of a key air base in Kyrgyzstan to ship non-lethal military supplies to Afghanistan under a deal approved Tuesday by a Kyrgyz parliamentary committee.
The accord to use the Manas base as a "center of transit shipments" comes four months after the Central Asian nation ordered the eviction of U.S. troops. It falls short of U.S. hopes of maintaining the base as a full-fledged military facility.
But it would provide a much-needed logistical support base as the U.S.-led coalition ramps up operations against increasingly bold Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan.
Kyrgyz Foreign Minister Kadyrbek Sarbayev told lawmakers that under the new one-year deal, rent will increase to $60 million per year from the current $17.4 million.
Washington will also pay $37 million to build new aircraft parking slots and storage areas, plus another $30 million for new navigation systems.
21 June, 2009
Blair demanded: Hold Iraq inquiry in secret.
The Independent
By Jane Merrick and James Hanning
Sunday, 21 June 2009
The row over the decision to hold the Iraq war inquiry behind closed doors escalated last night as it emerged that Tony Blair pressed Gordon Brown to keep it private.
In a move that will deepen the outrage of families of British soldiers killed in Iraq, the former prime minister, one of the architects of the controversial war, wanted the hearings to be held in secret to avoid a public and media circus.
A public appearance by Mr Blair before the Chilcot inquiry would also damage his ambitions of becoming EU president, a role that needs the support of European countries that opposed the war.
Last Monday the Prime Minister announced the long-awaited inquiry into the war in an attempt to shore up his premiership and appease Labour backbenchers. But he immediately caused anger by revealing that the inquiry, led by Sir John Chilcot and a panel of other privy councillors, would be held in private.
In the face of anger from generals and bereaved families, Mr Brown performed a partial U-turn on Thursday by agreeing to some public sessions, although the hearings will be mainly behind closed doors.
Now, in a fresh twist, it has emerged that Mr Blair intervened to influence the PM's decision.
It is understood that Mr Blair did not ask Mr Brown directly but through intermediaries, who asked Sir Gus O'Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, to urge the Prime Minister to hold a secret inquiry.
Downing Street sources were quoted last week as saying the Prime Minister had considered holding it in public, and Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary and a close ally of Mr Brown, said he backed a more "open" inquiry.
The revelation will raise further questions over Mr Brown's authority and suggests how keen he is not to upset Mr Blair and his allies. It came as Mr Brown told The Guardian yesterday that he could "walk away from all of this tomorrow", in a sign of the intense pressure he is under.
Supporters of Mr Blair, meanwhile, said there was a fear that the former prime minister being hauled before a public court would end up with him falling victim to "mob justice".
The shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague, said last night: "If this is true, it only adds to the case for the inquiry to be open to the public whenever possible. The terms of the inquiry should not be set by the former prime minister whose policies and actions will be most under scrutiny. Mr Brown should have the courage to make his own decisions."
Asked if Mr Blair had, through third parties, asked for the inquiry to be private, a spokesman for the former PM said only: "It is a decision for the current Prime Minister."
A Downing Street spokesman said: "We have always been clear that we consulted a number of people before announcing the commencement of the inquiry, including former government figures. We are not going to get into the nature of those discussions. Sir John Chilcot will make recommendations on how he believes the inquiry would be conducted effectively."
As members of the Privy Council, Sir John and his panel will have full access to government documents. Mr Blair and a number of former ministers, army commanders and generals are expected to give evidence.
When he announced the scope of the inquiry in Parliament, Mr Brown said issues of national security prevented it from being fully open. But this was immediately rebuffed by a several generals.
Despite No 10's insistence that a "number of people" were consulted, the head of the Army, Sir Richard Dannatt, last week revealed he had not been consulted on the format of the inquiry and said he saw "a lot of merit" in holding some hearings in public.
His predecessor, General Sir Mike Jackson, head of the Army at the time of the 2003 invasion, said he would have "no problem at all" in giving his evidence in public. Private hearings would only serve to fuel a climate of "suspicion and scepticism".
Meanwhile, the former Conservative prime minister Sir John Major warned of a "whitewash" unless there was full disclosure.
This week a motion tabled by the Conservatives and put to the House, says: "The proceedings of the committee of inquiry should whenever possible be held in public."
Writing on his blog, Mr Blair's former spin doctor Alastair Campbell, who is likely to be called to give evidence at the inquiry, denied being involved in playing a key part in persuading the PM to hold it in private.
He said it was "not an open-and-shut case that the inquiry should be held in public", adding: "I can see the arguments for both sides – openness and transparency favours a public inquiry; but it may well be that the inquiry will do a better job freed from the frenzy of 24-hour media."
He said he found out about the inquiry when he read about it in the newspapers before the weekend.
In a letter to Sir John Chilcot last Wednesday, Mr Brown began backtracking by suggesting that there could be some public sessions.
He added: " I am fully committed to a thorough and independent inquiry. I have written to all relevant current and former ministers to underline the importance of their full co-operation. And the Cabinet Secretary is writing to departments to underline the need for full transparency.
"It is essential that all those appearing before the inquiry do so with the greatest possible candour and openness, and the inquiry itself proceeds as efficiently as possible, while maintaining full public confidence in the integrity of the process."
By Jane Merrick and James Hanning
Sunday, 21 June 2009
The row over the decision to hold the Iraq war inquiry behind closed doors escalated last night as it emerged that Tony Blair pressed Gordon Brown to keep it private.
In a move that will deepen the outrage of families of British soldiers killed in Iraq, the former prime minister, one of the architects of the controversial war, wanted the hearings to be held in secret to avoid a public and media circus.
A public appearance by Mr Blair before the Chilcot inquiry would also damage his ambitions of becoming EU president, a role that needs the support of European countries that opposed the war.
Last Monday the Prime Minister announced the long-awaited inquiry into the war in an attempt to shore up his premiership and appease Labour backbenchers. But he immediately caused anger by revealing that the inquiry, led by Sir John Chilcot and a panel of other privy councillors, would be held in private.
In the face of anger from generals and bereaved families, Mr Brown performed a partial U-turn on Thursday by agreeing to some public sessions, although the hearings will be mainly behind closed doors.
Now, in a fresh twist, it has emerged that Mr Blair intervened to influence the PM's decision.
It is understood that Mr Blair did not ask Mr Brown directly but through intermediaries, who asked Sir Gus O'Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, to urge the Prime Minister to hold a secret inquiry.
Downing Street sources were quoted last week as saying the Prime Minister had considered holding it in public, and Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary and a close ally of Mr Brown, said he backed a more "open" inquiry.
The revelation will raise further questions over Mr Brown's authority and suggests how keen he is not to upset Mr Blair and his allies. It came as Mr Brown told The Guardian yesterday that he could "walk away from all of this tomorrow", in a sign of the intense pressure he is under.
Supporters of Mr Blair, meanwhile, said there was a fear that the former prime minister being hauled before a public court would end up with him falling victim to "mob justice".
The shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague, said last night: "If this is true, it only adds to the case for the inquiry to be open to the public whenever possible. The terms of the inquiry should not be set by the former prime minister whose policies and actions will be most under scrutiny. Mr Brown should have the courage to make his own decisions."
Asked if Mr Blair had, through third parties, asked for the inquiry to be private, a spokesman for the former PM said only: "It is a decision for the current Prime Minister."
A Downing Street spokesman said: "We have always been clear that we consulted a number of people before announcing the commencement of the inquiry, including former government figures. We are not going to get into the nature of those discussions. Sir John Chilcot will make recommendations on how he believes the inquiry would be conducted effectively."
As members of the Privy Council, Sir John and his panel will have full access to government documents. Mr Blair and a number of former ministers, army commanders and generals are expected to give evidence.
When he announced the scope of the inquiry in Parliament, Mr Brown said issues of national security prevented it from being fully open. But this was immediately rebuffed by a several generals.
Despite No 10's insistence that a "number of people" were consulted, the head of the Army, Sir Richard Dannatt, last week revealed he had not been consulted on the format of the inquiry and said he saw "a lot of merit" in holding some hearings in public.
His predecessor, General Sir Mike Jackson, head of the Army at the time of the 2003 invasion, said he would have "no problem at all" in giving his evidence in public. Private hearings would only serve to fuel a climate of "suspicion and scepticism".
Meanwhile, the former Conservative prime minister Sir John Major warned of a "whitewash" unless there was full disclosure.
This week a motion tabled by the Conservatives and put to the House, says: "The proceedings of the committee of inquiry should whenever possible be held in public."
Writing on his blog, Mr Blair's former spin doctor Alastair Campbell, who is likely to be called to give evidence at the inquiry, denied being involved in playing a key part in persuading the PM to hold it in private.
He said it was "not an open-and-shut case that the inquiry should be held in public", adding: "I can see the arguments for both sides – openness and transparency favours a public inquiry; but it may well be that the inquiry will do a better job freed from the frenzy of 24-hour media."
He said he found out about the inquiry when he read about it in the newspapers before the weekend.
In a letter to Sir John Chilcot last Wednesday, Mr Brown began backtracking by suggesting that there could be some public sessions.
He added: " I am fully committed to a thorough and independent inquiry. I have written to all relevant current and former ministers to underline the importance of their full co-operation. And the Cabinet Secretary is writing to departments to underline the need for full transparency.
"It is essential that all those appearing before the inquiry do so with the greatest possible candour and openness, and the inquiry itself proceeds as efficiently as possible, while maintaining full public confidence in the integrity of the process."
Confidential memo reveals US plan to provoke an invasion of Iraq.
By Jamie Doward, Gaby Hinsliff and Mark Townsend
The Observer
21 June 2009
A confidential record of a meeting between President Bush and Tony Blair before the invasion of Iraq, outlining their intention to go to war without a second United Nations resolution, will be an explosive issue for the official inquiry into the UK's role in toppling Saddam Hussein.
The memo, written on 31 January 2003, almost two months before the invasion and seen by the Observer, confirms that as the two men became increasingly aware UN inspectors would fail to find weapons of mass destruction (WMD) they had to contemplate alternative scenarios that might trigger a second resolution legitimising military action.
Bush told Blair the US had drawn up a provocative plan "to fly U2 reconnaissance aircraft painted in UN colours over Iraq with fighter cover". Bush said that if Saddam fired at the planes this would put the Iraqi leader in breach of UN resolutions.
The president expressed hopes that an Iraqi defector would be "brought out" to give a public presentation on Saddam's WMD or that someone might assassinate the Iraqi leader. However, Bush confirmed even without a second resolution, the US was prepared for military action. The memo said Blair told Bush he was "solidly with the president".
The five-page document, written by Blair's foreign policy adviser, Sir David Manning, and copied to Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the UK ambassador to the UN, Jonathan Powell, Blair's chief of staff, the chief of the defence staff, Admiral Lord Boyce, and the UK's ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer, outlines how Bush told Blair he had decided on a start date for the war.
Paraphrasing Bush's comments at the meeting, Manning, noted: "The start date for the military campaign was now pencilled in for 10 March. This was when the bombing would begin."
Last night an expert on international law who is familar with the memo's contents said it provided vital evidence into the two men's frames of mind as they considered the invasion and its aftermath and must be presented to the Chilcott inquiry established by Gordon Brown to examine the causes, conduct and consequences of the Iraq war.
Philippe Sands, QC, a professor of law at University College London who is expected to give evidence to the inquiry, said confidential material such as the memo was of national importance, making it vital that the inquiry is not held in private, as Brown originally envisioned.
In today's Observer, Sands writes: "Documents like this raise issues of national embarrassment, not national security. The restoration of public confidence requires this new inquiry to be transparent. Contentious matters should not be kept out of the public domain, even in the run-up to an election."
The memo notes there had been a shift in the two men's thinking on Iraq by late January 2003 and that preparing for war was now their priority. "Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," Manning writes. This was despite the fact Blair that had yet to receive advice on the legality of the war from the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, which did not arrive until 7 March 2003 - 13 days before the bombing campaign started.
In his article today, Sands says the memo raises questions about the selection of the chair of the inquiry. Sir John Chilcott sat on the 2004 Butler inquiry, which examined the reliability of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war, and would have been privy to the document's contents - and the doubts about WMD running to the highest levels of the US and UK governments.
Many senior legal experts have expressed dismay that Chilcott has been selected to chair the inquiry as he is considered to be close to the security services after his time spent as a civil servant in Northern Ireland.
Brown had believed that allowing the Chilcott inquiry to hold private hearings would allow witnesses to be candid. But after bereaved families and antiwar campaigners expressed outrage, the prime minister wrote to Chilcott to say that if the panel can show witnesses and national security issues will not be compromised by public hearings, he will change his stance.
Lord Guthrie, a former chief of the defence staff under Blair, described the memo as "quite shocking". He said that it underscored why the Chilcott inquiry must be seen to be a robust investigation: "It's important that the inquiry is not a whitewash as these inquiries often are."
This year, the Dutch government launched its own inquiry into its support for the war. Significantly, the inquiry will see all the intelligence shared with the Dutch intelligence services by MI5 and MI6. The inquiry intends to publish its report in November - suggesting that confidential information about the role played by the UK and the US could become public before Chilcott's inquiry reports next year.
The Observer
21 June 2009
A confidential record of a meeting between President Bush and Tony Blair before the invasion of Iraq, outlining their intention to go to war without a second United Nations resolution, will be an explosive issue for the official inquiry into the UK's role in toppling Saddam Hussein.
The memo, written on 31 January 2003, almost two months before the invasion and seen by the Observer, confirms that as the two men became increasingly aware UN inspectors would fail to find weapons of mass destruction (WMD) they had to contemplate alternative scenarios that might trigger a second resolution legitimising military action.
Bush told Blair the US had drawn up a provocative plan "to fly U2 reconnaissance aircraft painted in UN colours over Iraq with fighter cover". Bush said that if Saddam fired at the planes this would put the Iraqi leader in breach of UN resolutions.
The president expressed hopes that an Iraqi defector would be "brought out" to give a public presentation on Saddam's WMD or that someone might assassinate the Iraqi leader. However, Bush confirmed even without a second resolution, the US was prepared for military action. The memo said Blair told Bush he was "solidly with the president".
The five-page document, written by Blair's foreign policy adviser, Sir David Manning, and copied to Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the UK ambassador to the UN, Jonathan Powell, Blair's chief of staff, the chief of the defence staff, Admiral Lord Boyce, and the UK's ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer, outlines how Bush told Blair he had decided on a start date for the war.
Paraphrasing Bush's comments at the meeting, Manning, noted: "The start date for the military campaign was now pencilled in for 10 March. This was when the bombing would begin."
Last night an expert on international law who is familar with the memo's contents said it provided vital evidence into the two men's frames of mind as they considered the invasion and its aftermath and must be presented to the Chilcott inquiry established by Gordon Brown to examine the causes, conduct and consequences of the Iraq war.
Philippe Sands, QC, a professor of law at University College London who is expected to give evidence to the inquiry, said confidential material such as the memo was of national importance, making it vital that the inquiry is not held in private, as Brown originally envisioned.
In today's Observer, Sands writes: "Documents like this raise issues of national embarrassment, not national security. The restoration of public confidence requires this new inquiry to be transparent. Contentious matters should not be kept out of the public domain, even in the run-up to an election."
The memo notes there had been a shift in the two men's thinking on Iraq by late January 2003 and that preparing for war was now their priority. "Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," Manning writes. This was despite the fact Blair that had yet to receive advice on the legality of the war from the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, which did not arrive until 7 March 2003 - 13 days before the bombing campaign started.
In his article today, Sands says the memo raises questions about the selection of the chair of the inquiry. Sir John Chilcott sat on the 2004 Butler inquiry, which examined the reliability of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war, and would have been privy to the document's contents - and the doubts about WMD running to the highest levels of the US and UK governments.
Many senior legal experts have expressed dismay that Chilcott has been selected to chair the inquiry as he is considered to be close to the security services after his time spent as a civil servant in Northern Ireland.
Brown had believed that allowing the Chilcott inquiry to hold private hearings would allow witnesses to be candid. But after bereaved families and antiwar campaigners expressed outrage, the prime minister wrote to Chilcott to say that if the panel can show witnesses and national security issues will not be compromised by public hearings, he will change his stance.
Lord Guthrie, a former chief of the defence staff under Blair, described the memo as "quite shocking". He said that it underscored why the Chilcott inquiry must be seen to be a robust investigation: "It's important that the inquiry is not a whitewash as these inquiries often are."
This year, the Dutch government launched its own inquiry into its support for the war. Significantly, the inquiry will see all the intelligence shared with the Dutch intelligence services by MI5 and MI6. The inquiry intends to publish its report in November - suggesting that confidential information about the role played by the UK and the US could become public before Chilcott's inquiry reports next year.
Communique of an Extraordinary Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Southern African Development Community.
1. The Extraordinary Summit of SADC Heads of State and Government met in Sandton, Republic of South Africa, on 20 June 2009 to consider the political and security situation in Madagascar.
2. The meeting was chaired by H.E. Jacob G. Zuma, Chairperson of SADC and President of the Republic of South Africa.
3. The Extraordinary Summit was attended by the following Heads of State and Government or their representatives:
Swaziland: His Majesty, King Mswati III
Namibia: H.E. President Hifikepunye Pohamba
South Africa: H.E. President Jacob G. Zuma
United Republic of Tanzania: H.E. President Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete
Zimbabwe: H.E. President Robert G. Mugabe
Zambia: H.E. Vice President George Kunda
Lesotho: Hon Deputy Prime Minister Archibald Lesao Lehohla
DRC: Hon. Raymond Tshibanda, Minister of International and Regional Cooperation
Mozambique: Hon. Oldemiro Baloi, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation
Angola: Hon. Assunção A. dos Anjos, Minister of External Relations
Botswana: Hon. Dikgakgamatso Seretse, Minister of Defence, Justice and Security
Mauritius: Dr. the Hon. Arvin Boolell, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade
Malawi: H.E. Mrs Agrina Mussa, High Commissioner to South Africa
Seychelles: H.E. Noellie Alexander, High Commissioner to South Africa
4. The Extraordinary Summit expressed a special welcome and gratitude to H.E. Jacob Zuma, SADC Chairperson and President of South Africa who participated at the Summit for the first time as Head of State.
5. The Extraordinary Summit congratulated H.E. Bingu wa Mutharika for winning the presidential elections in March 2009.
6. The Extraordinary Summit, based on the observation contained in the report of the SADC Special Envoy in particular the recommendations on the need for the inclusive dialogue among the Malagasy political actors, underscored the urgency of implementing the decisions of its meetings held on 30 March 2009 at Lozitha Royal Palace, Kingdom of Swaziland. To this effect, the Extraordinary Summit decided to expedite its efforts aimed at restoring constitutional order in Madagascar in consultation with AU, UN and other interested stakeholders.
7. The Extraordinary Summit expressed serious concern on the deteriorating political situation in Madagascar mainly characterized by exacerbating hostility among the different political groups in Madagascar and noted the slow progress experienced so far in the dialogue among the parties.
8. The Extraordinary Summit recalled and reiterated its decisions of March 2009 on the urgent need to restore constitutional order in Madagascar.
9. The Extraordinary Summit considered the Reports of different assessment missions, in particular the SADC Special Envoy to Madagascar and of the Ministerial Troika of the Organ on the political situation in the country and:
(i) noted with appreciation progress made in all-party negotiations facilitated by AU, UN and International Organisation of Francophone. The Summit decided that SADC will be proactively promoting and facilitating dialogue;
(ii) appointed H.E. Joaquim A. Chissano, former President of Mozambique, assisted by a high level team of mediators to lead and coordinate the all party dialogue in Madagascar;
(iii) decided to work closely and coordinate with AU, UN, International Organization of the Francophone and other stakeholders;
(iv) urged the Malagasy people through their main political structures and representatives to be encouraged to take active ownership of the inclusive dialogue and refrain from any forms of exclusion in the process; and
(v) noted that a conducive environment for a productive and successful dialogue should be created by, among others, identifying a venue which is acceptable to all parties, within the SADC Region.
10. The Extraordinary Summit urged all stakeholders to commit themselves to peaceful negotiated settlement through dialogue and desist from any violent solutions and inflammatory statements which may jeopardize and undermine current efforts in bringing constitutional normalcy.
11. The Extraordinary Summit noted with appreciation the efforts of AU and UN in returning Madagascar to constitutional normalcy and decided that SADC will continue to coordinate its mediation efforts in Madagascar with the AU and UN.
12. The Extraordinary Summit urged the Malagasy parties to fully cooperate with the SADC coordinated political dialogue aimed at restoring the constitutional order, peace and stability in Madagascar.
13. The Extraordinary Summit underscored that the ownership of the political dialogue in Madagascar must lie with the Malagasy people themselves.
14. The Extraordinary Summit decided that the Ordinary Summit will be held in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo in the first week of September 2009.
15. The Extraordinary Summit expressed its gratitude to His Excellency Jacob Zuma, the Government and the people of South Africa for the warm hospitality and the excellent conditions they provided to the delegates.
Sandton, Republic of South Africa
2. The meeting was chaired by H.E. Jacob G. Zuma, Chairperson of SADC and President of the Republic of South Africa.
3. The Extraordinary Summit was attended by the following Heads of State and Government or their representatives:
Swaziland: His Majesty, King Mswati III
Namibia: H.E. President Hifikepunye Pohamba
South Africa: H.E. President Jacob G. Zuma
United Republic of Tanzania: H.E. President Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete
Zimbabwe: H.E. President Robert G. Mugabe
Zambia: H.E. Vice President George Kunda
Lesotho: Hon Deputy Prime Minister Archibald Lesao Lehohla
DRC: Hon. Raymond Tshibanda, Minister of International and Regional Cooperation
Mozambique: Hon. Oldemiro Baloi, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation
Angola: Hon. Assunção A. dos Anjos, Minister of External Relations
Botswana: Hon. Dikgakgamatso Seretse, Minister of Defence, Justice and Security
Mauritius: Dr. the Hon. Arvin Boolell, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade
Malawi: H.E. Mrs Agrina Mussa, High Commissioner to South Africa
Seychelles: H.E. Noellie Alexander, High Commissioner to South Africa
4. The Extraordinary Summit expressed a special welcome and gratitude to H.E. Jacob Zuma, SADC Chairperson and President of South Africa who participated at the Summit for the first time as Head of State.
5. The Extraordinary Summit congratulated H.E. Bingu wa Mutharika for winning the presidential elections in March 2009.
6. The Extraordinary Summit, based on the observation contained in the report of the SADC Special Envoy in particular the recommendations on the need for the inclusive dialogue among the Malagasy political actors, underscored the urgency of implementing the decisions of its meetings held on 30 March 2009 at Lozitha Royal Palace, Kingdom of Swaziland. To this effect, the Extraordinary Summit decided to expedite its efforts aimed at restoring constitutional order in Madagascar in consultation with AU, UN and other interested stakeholders.
7. The Extraordinary Summit expressed serious concern on the deteriorating political situation in Madagascar mainly characterized by exacerbating hostility among the different political groups in Madagascar and noted the slow progress experienced so far in the dialogue among the parties.
8. The Extraordinary Summit recalled and reiterated its decisions of March 2009 on the urgent need to restore constitutional order in Madagascar.
9. The Extraordinary Summit considered the Reports of different assessment missions, in particular the SADC Special Envoy to Madagascar and of the Ministerial Troika of the Organ on the political situation in the country and:
(i) noted with appreciation progress made in all-party negotiations facilitated by AU, UN and International Organisation of Francophone. The Summit decided that SADC will be proactively promoting and facilitating dialogue;
(ii) appointed H.E. Joaquim A. Chissano, former President of Mozambique, assisted by a high level team of mediators to lead and coordinate the all party dialogue in Madagascar;
(iii) decided to work closely and coordinate with AU, UN, International Organization of the Francophone and other stakeholders;
(iv) urged the Malagasy people through their main political structures and representatives to be encouraged to take active ownership of the inclusive dialogue and refrain from any forms of exclusion in the process; and
(v) noted that a conducive environment for a productive and successful dialogue should be created by, among others, identifying a venue which is acceptable to all parties, within the SADC Region.
10. The Extraordinary Summit urged all stakeholders to commit themselves to peaceful negotiated settlement through dialogue and desist from any violent solutions and inflammatory statements which may jeopardize and undermine current efforts in bringing constitutional normalcy.
11. The Extraordinary Summit noted with appreciation the efforts of AU and UN in returning Madagascar to constitutional normalcy and decided that SADC will continue to coordinate its mediation efforts in Madagascar with the AU and UN.
12. The Extraordinary Summit urged the Malagasy parties to fully cooperate with the SADC coordinated political dialogue aimed at restoring the constitutional order, peace and stability in Madagascar.
13. The Extraordinary Summit underscored that the ownership of the political dialogue in Madagascar must lie with the Malagasy people themselves.
14. The Extraordinary Summit decided that the Ordinary Summit will be held in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo in the first week of September 2009.
15. The Extraordinary Summit expressed its gratitude to His Excellency Jacob Zuma, the Government and the people of South Africa for the warm hospitality and the excellent conditions they provided to the delegates.
Sandton, Republic of South Africa
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
