The Pentagon's Image Problem in Latin America and Africa

 This is a must-read article for any Latin American and foreign policy enthusiast.  Indeed, Latin America is against U.S. interests and may not be safe for Americans to visit because of Pentagon activities. 

War Is Boring: The Pentagon's Image Problem in Latin America and Africa

David Axe - World Politics Review, October 15, 2008

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=2776

The U.S.S. Kearsarge amphibious assault ship set sail from Norfolk, Va., in August, on a mission to provide free medical care to six Latin American countries. But five days into her four-month cruise, on Aug. 11, Kearsarge made an important detour, swinging within helicopter range of Miami to receive visitors. The roughly 20 people who clambered aboard from the hulking Marine Corps choppers represented a mix of U.S. military brass, civilian aid workers, local Miami elected officials and Spanish-language media.

"Our multinational team is dedicated to recommit and fortify our relationships in South America," Capt. Frank Ponds, ranking U.S. officer on Kearsarge, told the assembled VIPs in one of the 1,000-foot-long vessel's staterooms. He was specifically referring to the ship's current medical mission, but his words could also apply more generally to the July launch of the U.S. Fourth Fleet, a new headquarters for Latin American naval operations that is intended to boost U.S. military presence in what one analyst has called a traditionally "forgotten" part of the world. Kearsarge's cruise represented one of Fourth Fleet's first deployments.

Later, Ponds explained to the embarked reporters accompanying the vessel on her tour that ceremonies like the one on Aug. 11 were a key facet of Kearsarge's mission. Treating a few tens of thousands of patients in Latin America would not be enough: The Navy also needed to explain what it was doing, and why, to the hundreds of millions of people in the region who would not be receiving medical care. Ponds said this "strategic communications" was vital to "influencing generations to come."

But according to some experts, Ponds' efforts were too little, too late. Public opinion in Latin America has already turned against the Pentagon's reinvigorated activities in the region -- and against the United States in general. America's image has "eroded" in six Latin American countries surveyed in a recent Pew poll, according to the Associated Press. Meanwhile, a Chilean polling organization ranked President George W. Bush as the least popular world leader in the opinions of Latin Americans.

The United States has a major perception problem in the two world regions where the Pentagon has decided to focus greater effort. Latin America and Africa represent new frontiers for a military that in recent decades has mostly concerned itself with Western Europe, the Middle East and the Pacific. In addition to Fourth Fleet's recent launch, in October the Pentagon formally stood up Africa Command, a new headquarters overseeing all of Africa, save Egypt. The so-called AFRICOM has proved deeply unpopular among everyday Africans -- so much so that only one country, Liberia, offered to host the command's facilities. Rather than risk further alienating Africans, AFRICOM instead chose to keep its facilities in Germany.

Similarly, in the Southern Hemisphere, Fourth Fleet has been a magnet for criticism. Upon hearing of the Pentagon's intention to stand up the new headquarters, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez accused the U.S. of deliberately provoking a new "Cold War" in Latin America. Chávez followed up his accusation by inviting the Russian navy to conduct exercises off the Venezuelan coast. Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa supported the invitation. "The U.S. Fourth Fleet can come to Latin America but a Russian fleet can't?" Correa said.

Anti-U.S. rhetoric might be expected from the region's most hardline leftist regimes, but even current and former U.S. allies have protested renewed U.S. military interest in Latin America. The same day Kearsarge began delivering aid to impoverished eastern Nicaragua, that country's president, Daniel Ortega, accused the vessel of carrying spies. Chile, perhaps the staunchest U.S. ally in Latin America, lately has been skeptical of the Pentagon's intentions in the region. And Brazil, which sent doctors to help out aboard Kearsarge, nevertheless cited Fourth Fleet as a potential military rival. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said Brazil's navy must protect the nation's newly discovered "subsalt" offshore oil reserves "because the men of Fourth Fleet are almost there on top of the subsalt areas."

This despite Fourth Fleet's largely humanitarian focus, perfectly reflected in the Kearsarge cruise. "Adm. Jim Stavridis, who is the commander of SOUTHCOM, speaks very eloquently about these missions of peace," says Bob Work, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Of Fourth Fleet's five stated mission areas, three are humanitarian in nature. Nos. 4 and 5 are multinational naval training and counternarcotics. "Kinetic" combat doesn't even make the list.

But the Pentagon failed early on to impress upon Latin American leaders its essentially peaceful intentions in forming the new headquarters. According to Mark Schneider, an analyst with International Crisis Group, the U.S. government did not effectively consult with the region's governments before announcing Fourth Fleet. "If it had been done in a different way, it might have been accepted," Schneider says. "It needed to have been done in a collaborative way." The Pentagon should perhaps have expected a certain wariness among Latin Americans, especially considering the U.S. military's history in the region. "We know of many historical cases of U.S. intervention in Latin American countries," said Leonid Golubev, Russian ambassador to Bolivia. Indeed, the airstrip in eastern Nicaragua where Kearsarge landed her first batch of medical supplies in August was the same strip built by the U.S. as a base for the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion targeting Cuba.

AFRICOM's problems are similar in nature. Unlike Central Command, which has as its primary mission prosecuting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, AFRICOM is mostly a training and humanitarian organization, with only a few thousand combat troops (those assigned to a Special Forces base in Djibouti). "This is not a kinetic environment," said AFRICOM boss Gen. Kip Ward. "We are there to help our partner nations build their capacity, working in totality with the overall U.S. government program in a particular country."

"Not focused on war fighting," is how Theresa Whalen, the Pentagon's top Africa official, characterized the new command.

That may be so, but in failing to clearly communicate this focus to the continent's leaders and to everyday Africans, the Pentagon didn't take into account the lingering fear of colonialism that is widespread in Africa. "U.S. AFRICOM project has a hidden agenda," one Nigerian commenter wrote in a post on the command's official Web site. "Washington should understand that Africa does not need AFRICOM to solve her problems, many of which have foreign coloration."

Soon after AFRICOM was announced in late 2006, stories circulated in the African press claiming that the U.S. planned to build permanent bases on the continent, and already operated a secret airbase in Botswana. "We could just not kill that rumor," Whalen said. She said African reporting on AFRICOM, dominated by Nigerian, South African and Kenyan news organizations, was "not particularly sophisticated." And even today, two years later, there's a "great deal of speculation, misinformation," according to Jerry Lanier, a State Department adviser to AFRICOM.

The Pentagon is at least partly to blame, says Jose de Arimateia da Cruz, a professor at Armstrong Atlantic State University in Georgia. "Two years into AFRICOM planning and launch, there is still very little dissemination of information."

As for Latin America, press conferences aboard U.S.S. Kearsarge cannot undo the long months of relative silence that preceded Fourth Fleet's launch, and which have undermined the new headquarters' "mission of peace."

David Axe is an independent correspondent, a World Politics Review contributing editor, and the author of "War Bots." He blogs at War is Boring. His WPR column, "War is Boring," appears every two weeks.

Petroecuador Gets Revenue From Old Occidental Petroleum Company Fields

Look at this report, because it shows just how much of an impact the seisure of Occidential Petroleum oil production facilities had on Petroecuador's overall revenues.  Moreover, one has to ask how the company is maintaining those facilities given its past failures. 

Dow Jones International News, October 15, 2008

QUITO (Dow Jones)--Petroecuador reported Tuesday oil export revenue of $526.33 million in September, a 20% decrease from the $656.12 million registered in the previous month.

According to Petroecuador data, the company exported 5.91 million barrels of crude oil in September, down 10% from 6.56 million barrels registered in August.

Petroecuador's exports include Napo crude from former Occidental Petroleum Company fields that were seized May 15, 2006. Ecuador claims Occidental broke the terms of its operating contract.

Exports of Oriente crude in September were 4.47 million barrels, while exports of Napo crude were 1.44 million barrels.

The average price of Oriente in September fell 11% to $90.24 a barrel from $100.86 in August. The price of Napo crude was $85.15 per barrel, a 13% decrease against $97.68 registered one month before.

Figures have been rounded.

Petroecuador is Ecuador's state oil company.

Chevron v. Ecuador - Chevron Files Response To "Fraudulent" Court Report

I'm just updating you on news related to the ongoing legal battle between Chevron and Ecuador:

California-based oil major Chevron (NYSE: CVX) has filed a written response to a court-ordered report in a trial related to alleged environmental damage in Ecuador.

The superior court in Nueva Loja, Ecuador, asked Richard Cabrera to write the report after the plaintiffs aborted a judicial inspection process of the alleged pollution in Ecuador, Chevron said in a statement.

"The findings of the Cabrera report are clearly fraudulent and intended to cause damage to this US company and its shareholders," Chevron general counsel Charles James told reporters in a conference call.

"This report would not withstand scrutiny - be it technical, scientific or legal - in any responsible independent court anywhere in the world," he said.

Chevron believes Cabrera, helped by the plaintiffs, "manipulated" findings to justify false conclusions. Cabrera failed to present evidence for a number of claims and did not look at drinking water samples to prove contamination, according to the Chevron statement.

"It is hard to read Mr Cabrera's report and find a single table, page, assertion or data point that we wouldn't take issue with," James said when asked whether there was any truth to the Cabrera report. "He did put his name on the report and I presume that's correct."

The Cabrera report estimates damages of US$7bn-16bn - a "reasonable" amount that actually "underestimated the number of deaths from cancer due to the oil contamination," the Amazon Defense Coalition, a NGO that supports the plaintiffs, said in a statement.

In fact, plaintiffs have submitted papers to the court asking Cabrera to calculate how much it would cost to remediate groundwater and surface water not included in the assessment.

"There is significant evidence of groundwater and surface water contamination in the record yet no damages to remediate the impacts," Pablo Fajardo, the Ecuadorian lawyer for "dozens" of Amazon communities and five indigenous groups suing Chevron, said in the NGO's statement.

The trial stems back decades, when Ecuador's state oil company Petroecuador led an E&P project with partner Texaco Petroleum (Texpet), which years later merged into Chevron. The Petroecuador-Texpet partnership resulted in total crude production of 1.7Mb, with Texpet - which stopped operating in the country in 1992 - taking 5% of the financial proceeds, according to Chevron figures.

Ecuador's government in 1999 enacted a new environmental statute that allows any Ecuadorian resident to file a collective suit for environmental reparations. As a result, plaintiffs filed suit against Chevron in 2003, alleging environmental damage under the Texpet project.

Although Texpet had a minority stake in the project, plaintiffs allege it did substandard work and made major decisions about project technology and methodology.

Chevron denies the allegations and says it performed a US$40mn remediation project that gave it final immunity from claims resulting from its participation in the consortium.

Chevron v. Ecuador - Can Chevron Get A Fair Trial? Appellate Court Screws Up

As some of you know, we've been following the Chevron - Ecuador story for some time now.  To recap, the problem is that in the 1960s Texaco produced oil out of that country and through 1990 and in partnership with the Country of Ecuador .  During that time, there were oil spills and economic damage due to oil production.  Texaco spent $40 million in "environmental remediation" which is another term for carrying out a cleanup program.  


Chevron purchased Texaco in 2001 for 46.3 billion, thus assuming Texaco's work and responsibilities in Ecuador.  By that time, Ecuador's then-new state-owned petroleum organization Petroecuador assumed responsibility for the oil wells that were once the product of the partnership.  But the problem is that since that time and through today, oil spills and environmental damage have continued, but Petroecuador has done nothing to either prevent the occurrence of or clean up what was done.  


Meanwhile, the Country of Ecuador has moved to work on three fronts: 


1) Nationalize the oil industry via Petroecuador
2) Kick out American oil companies like Occidental Petroleum and take over their production facilities.
3. Sued Chevron Texaco to get money to pay for environmental damage that their own state-owned oil company, Petroecuador, caused



The third point is the focus of my blog.  Ecuador's suing Chevron to have them pay the afforementioned damange.  To that end, they were assisted by a lawyer by the name of Steve Donziger, who had been working on the case as an "American Legal Advisor",  but who has also admitted his own financial ambitions as he could gain $5 billion from a victory .  The lawsuit -- valued at $16.5 billion by one estimate -- has been the focus of much legal movement.  The latest action by Chevron had it file an appeal to have Ecuador enter into arbitration discussions regarding the level of liability each party is responsible for.  But there's one large problem. 


The appellate court doesn't understand the contractual relationships. It calls Chevron a "third party."  


What!?!


When Chevron purchased Texaco it essentially became Texaco, with all of its obligations and problems. Thus, it's not a third party.  But even with this fact, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York took the step of ignoring Chevron's claims of being able to pursue arbitration by seeing it as a "third party" when it's not.


The result of this failure means that Chevron now must seek other legal tools to get Ecuador to pay its fair share, but the other problem is more sinister: Ecuador's rich continue to cover-up their behavior and irresponsibility toward that country's poorest people.  Making it look like it was just Chevron's fault does not erase the fact that Ecuador has been harming its poorest people.


The bottom line here is that just because a firm's an oil company does not mean it should be treated unfairly, especially when the lives of the poor of Ecuador are at stake.  Chevron / Texaco has paid and does its share; the Country of Ecuador, which by the way will never give Chevron a fair trial, has not done so. 

Ecuador Lawyer Pablo Fajardo Says Chevron Ecuador Case Could End In 2011

This is new and extraordinary news, considering that both sides expected a ruling this year. Well, someone's going to have to finance Steve Donziger for another three years!

By Mercedes Alvaro - Dow Jones Newswires, September 16, 2008: 5:47 PM

QUITO - (Dow Jones)- A five-year-old environmental-damage trial in Ecuador against U.S. oil company Chevron Corp. (CVX) could take at least two or three more years, lawyers said Tuesday.

The delay is expected after objections to an April report from a court- appointed expert were received by a court in Lago Agrio.

The report prepared by Richard Cabrera, a geologist and environmental consultant, recommended that Chevron pay at least $8.3 billion, and maybe as much as $16 billion, in compensation for environmental damage in Ecuador.

Chevron is facing the lawsuit in Ecuador for alleged contamination by its Texaco unit in the Amazon region of Lago Agrio. The company is accused of having used out-of-date technology that led to environmental damage.

The complaint was launched in 1993 in a lawsuit in New York courts, which ruled that the case should be tried in Ecuador. In May 2003, several indigenous groups filed a lawsuit against the company in Lago Agrio (Nueva Loja).

The judge is expected to give Cabrera a reasonable timeframe to answer the objections from both Chevron and the plaintiffs.

Pablo Fajardo, one of the plaintiffs lawyers, told Dow Jones Newswires that he expects a final decision in 2011.

Chevron on Monday submitted its objections to Cabrera's report, saying that it contains "fabricated and erroneous evidence," exaggerated claims for damages and "was developed in collusion with the plaintiffs and their attorneys."

The company urged the court to reject Cabrera's report and accused him of manipulating and altering findings to justify false conclusions, including backdating photos.

The aim, said the company, is to make Chevron liable for all the environmental impact caused solely by Ecuadorian state oil company Petroecuador during 18-plus years of operation of the concession.

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs submitted their objections on Tuesday.

Fajardo said the plaintiffs are asking Cabrera to calculate the amount of damage to water supplies, and other damages.

Chevron has said several times that it has met all the requirements for environmental cleanup that were agreed upon with Petroecuador.

Chevron also has said that in 1998 Petroecuador released the U.S.-based company from any liabilities regarding cleanup efforts.

The plaintiffs said that this release isn't from individual claims and that the so-called "cleaned up" pits remain contaminated.

Ecuador Lawyer Pablo Fajardo Says Chevron Ecuador Case Could End In 2011

This is new and extraordinary news, considering that both sides expected a ruling this year. Well, someone's going to have to finance Steve Donziger for another three years!

By Mercedes Alvaro - Dow Jones Newswires, September 16, 2008: 5:47 PM

QUITO - (Dow Jones)- A five-year-old environmental-damage trial in Ecuador against U.S. oil company Chevron Corp. (CVX) could take at least two or three more years, lawyers said Tuesday.

The delay is expected after objections to an April report from a court- appointed expert were received by a court in Lago Agrio.

The report prepared by Richard Cabrera, a geologist and environmental consultant, recommended that Chevron pay at least $8.3 billion, and maybe as much as $16 billion, in compensation for environmental damage in Ecuador.

Chevron is facing the lawsuit in Ecuador for alleged contamination by its Texaco unit in the Amazon region of Lago Agrio. The company is accused of having used out-of-date technology that led to environmental damage.

The complaint was launched in 1993 in a lawsuit in New York courts, which ruled that the case should be tried in Ecuador. In May 2003, several indigenous groups filed a lawsuit against the company in Lago Agrio (Nueva Loja).

The judge is expected to give Cabrera a reasonable timeframe to answer the objections from both Chevron and the plaintiffs.

Pablo Fajardo, one of the plaintiffs lawyers, told Dow Jones Newswires that he expects a final decision in 2011.

Chevron on Monday submitted its objections to Cabrera's report, saying that it contains "fabricated and erroneous evidence," exaggerated claims for damages and "was developed in collusion with the plaintiffs and their attorneys."

The company urged the court to reject Cabrera's report and accused him of manipulating and altering findings to justify false conclusions, including backdating photos.

The aim, said the company, is to make Chevron liable for all the environmental impact caused solely by Ecuadorian state oil company Petroecuador during 18-plus years of operation of the concession.

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs submitted their objections on Tuesday.

Fajardo said the plaintiffs are asking Cabrera to calculate the amount of damage to water supplies, and other damages.

Chevron has said several times that it has met all the requirements for environmental cleanup that were agreed upon with Petroecuador.

Chevron also has said that in 1998 Petroecuador released the U.S.-based company from any liabilities regarding cleanup efforts.

The plaintiffs said that this release isn't from individual claims and that the so-called "cleaned up" pits remain contaminated.

Steve Donziger Wants Billions From Chevron Not For Ecuador

Steve Donziger Wants Billions From Chevron Not For Ecuador

Steve Donziger, the lawyer representing Ecuador against Chevron in a $16 billion lawsuit, where Chevron is not the actual party at fault, stands to gain over $5 billion, making him one of the richest people in the World -- if he wins.

If the truth prevails, the company Donziger should be suing is Petroecuador, owned by the Country of Ecuador. That firm has been responsible for explosions and oil spills since 1990. If Donziger wins, Petroecudor litterally gets away with murder.

..More to come.

CNN / YouTube Debate Question - The U.S and Hugo Chavez

This CNN YouTube Presidential Debate question stems from comments made by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez last year. The video of President Chavez was a rare find and appears in this question clip.