

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Tuesday, March 9 marks the deadline for candidate
countries to complete external "validation" of their implementation of
the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI), a voluntary
initiative to increase transparent and accountable management of
natural resource wealth. Of the 22 countries subject to the deadline,
the fact that 20 have not completed validation will further test the
credibility of the EITI process.
While these countries are at various stages of implementation - some
making laudable progress - many have shown a lack of political will to
fully open their books on oil, gas, and mining payments in these
countries, says international aid agency Oxfam.
With more than half of the world's poorest people living in
countries rich in natural resources, the problems associated with oil,
gas, and mining booms - increased corruption, conflict, and
environmental degradation - are pressing concerns for Oxfam and its
partners around the world. Transparency of financial flows is an
important condition needed to unlock billions of dollars in oil and
mining revenues to help fight poverty.
"These industries generate billions of dollars per year in poor
countries. The revenues amount to far more than official aid flows and
could fund health, education, and other essential services, but are too
often squandered or siphoned off by government officials," said Raymond
C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America. "The goal of EITI is to increase accountability and transparency in
those countries where it is most needed. It's disappointing that many
countries haven't yet cleared this hurdle, and it's clear that other
complementary measures focused on company and government disclosure are
urgently needed."
Only two countries - Liberia and Azerbaijan - met the deadline and
were subsequently judged compliant by the EITI board. While several
countries, such as Ghana, Nigeria, Mongolia, and Timor-Leste have
completed draft validation reports, others, such as Mali, Mauritania,
Niger, Equatorial Guinea, and Peru are further behind. According to
EITI's rules, countries that fail to meet the deadline will be "delisted" or dropped from EITI with
the option to reapply for candidate status. Countries have been advised
that they may apply for an extension if they provide evidence of
"exceptional and unforeseen circumstances" outside the country's
control that prevented them from meeting the deadline.
"The validation deadline was an important test of political will for
governments who say that they are implementing EITI. The EITI board
must carry out a fair, transparent process for granting any possible
extensions to ensure that the initiative maintains credibility. In
addition, supporting countries such as Spain should more actively
promote the implementation of EITI within their bilateral and
multilateral relationships," said Laura Ruiz Alvarez, extractive
industries advocacy officer of Intermon Oxfam (Spain).
A lack of transparency in the oil, gas, and mining sectors
- including secret payments, contracts, and opaque government budgets -
is a major contributor to the problems in these countries. Oxfam
affiliates and local partners around the world have pressed for greater
disclosure of information on payments from companies to governments,
contracts, and how revenues are spent.
Despite weak government capacity - as in many resource-rich
countries - Liberia was able to be validated and achieve "compliant
status" in 2009, proving that even very poor, post-conflict countries
can meet the deadline when EITI is strongly supported and promoted at
the highest levels of government. "For those governments truly
interested in implementation, millions of dollars of technical
assistance from donor governments are available. The board should not
accept sluggish government implementation as sufficient reasons for
extensions. If extensions are given, the board should explicitly
disclose the reasons for the extension cited by the country in its
request," said Offenheiser.
Since October 2006, a strong governance structure has been in place for EITI,
including a multi-stakeholder board including company, government, and
civil society representatives as well as a clear process for
implementation and validation. In 2008, the first 22 candidate
countries were given the March 9, 2010 deadline to assess their
progress as input into a board decision as to whether or not they are
fully "compliant" with the rules of the initiative.
The EITI board will consider all extension requests received by the March 9 deadline at its meeting on April 15/16. Oxfam International believes that any extensions given should be based on the existing EITI rules and contain a hard deadline
whereby a country failing to meet the new deadline would be
automatically dropped from the initiative without any further board
discussion.
Oxfam International has been supporting civil society partners
- many part of the global Publish What You Pay coalition - in several
EITI implementing countries who are working to ensure that their
governments faithfully follow through on EITI commitments. In several
EITI implementing countries, civil society activists promoting revenue
transparency have faced harassment, criminal charges, and jail time
merely for exercising their rights to freedom of expression as part of
their anti-corruption campaigning. Unfettered and independent civil
society participation at every step of the EITI process is
non-negotiable. In addition, transparency is needed in other areas to
ensure that citizens receive a fair deal from the development of
extractive industries. This includes disclosure of contracts and easy
access to government budget and expenditure information.
While the burden of implementation is on host governments, EITI does
not require international oil and mining companies to act unless host
governments decide to join the initiative. Given uneven EITI progress
to date, additional disclosure rules for oil, gas and mining companies are needed.
One such measure, The Energy Security through Transparency Act
(ESTT), is a bi-partisan piece of legislation introduced in the United
States Senate in September 2009 by Senators Lugar and Cardin. This
legislation would require all oil, gas, and mining companies to
disclose payments to host countries and extend transparency as a truly
global standard for company operations. The ESTT Act would apply not
only to US companies, but to all companies registered with the US
Securities and Exchange Commission. This includes European companies,
such as Shell and BP, as well as those in emerging markets like China,
India, and Brazil. In addition to the US passage of this law, other
financial jurisdictions in Europe and elsewhere should pass similar
legislation.
"Those countries that are the headquarters for the global mining industry including Australia, Canada, and the US should also lead by example
by committing to become EITI countries themselves. They should also
emphasize the importance of EITI implementation in their bilateral
relations with resource-rich countries" said Serena Lillywhite of Oxfam
Australia.
"The decisions made by the EITI board following this deadline are
crucial for real progress in the global movement for oil, gas, and
mining industry transparency. Faithful implementation of the EITI,
complemented by other disclosure requirements, such as the Energy
Security through Transparency Act, will create a new global standard
for transparency and help citizens hold their governments accountable
for directing revenues to essential services like health and
education," said Offenheiser.
Oxfam International is a global movement of people who are fighting inequality to end poverty and injustice. We are working across regions in about 70 countries, with thousands of partners, and allies, supporting communities to build better lives for themselves, grow resilience and protect lives and livelihoods also in times of crisis.
"Trump has turned Venezuela into an effective US colony," said one critic.
Some critics of the Trump administration are reacting with horror to revelations that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been serving as the de facto ruler of Venezuela.
According to a Saturday report in The New York Times, Rubio for the last several months has been acting informally as the "viceroy" of Venezuela ever since its recognized president, Nicolás Maduro, was abducted by the American military in January and brought to the US to face charges related to "narco-terrorism."
The Times' sources revealed that Rubio "effectively controls Venezuela’s finances, the distribution of its natural resources, and its government" and "is deeply involved in the country’s day-to-day operations," while maintaining regular contact with acting Venezuelan President Delcy Rodríguez.
Under current arrangements, the US Treasury Department takes in revenue from Venezuela's exports, including its petroleum, and then disperses the money back to the country through its private banks with strict conditions set by Rubio over what it can be spent on.
In explaining the system, the Times likened it to "parents handing out allowances to children," adding that it gives Rubio "immense leverage over... Rodríguez, who depends on the money to pay workers and prop up the national currency."
Elizabeth Saunders, professor of political science at Columbia University, described Rubio's power over Venezuela as "insane," as well as "derelict, unconscionable, and impeachable."
"The secretary of state's time is scarce, valuable, and not outsourcable," Saunders emphasized.
Orlando J. Pérez, professor of Political Science at the University of North Texas at Dallas, said the Times report made a mockery of Rubio's professed claims to want to bring democracy back to Venezuela.
"It appears Rubio has transformed from democracy promotion warrior," Pérez commented, "to transactional realpolitik operative!"
Kenneth Roth, former executive director at Human Rights Watch, wrote that US control over Venezuela appeared similar to the kind of imperial power wielded by European nations in the 19th Century.
"Trump has turned Venezuela into an effective US colony," said Roth, "with Marco Rubio as the viceroy and Washington controlling the country’s oil revenue and dictating major foreign and domestic policies. Democracy has been relegated to the distant future."
Bradley Simpson, historian at the University of Connecticut, also saw the current US arrangement with Venezuela as a return to overt imperialism.
"We are literally back in the Dollar Diplomacy days of the 1910s," Simpson wrote, "when the United States invaded countries and took over their financial systems and ran them as effective colonies. Flagrantly illegal, enormously corrupt. Where is the organization of American states or UN in denouncing this?"
"These hoodlums come in with machine guns—M4, an American-made machine gun—and they detain us. They block off the road."
Rep. Ro Khanna this week was detained by a group of Israeli settlers whom he described as "hoodlums... with machine guns" while making a visit to a Palestinian village in the occupied West Bank.
In an interview with Reuters published on Saturday, Khanna (D-Calif.) said he and his tour group were surrounded by armed settlers as they were traveling through the West Bank on Wednesday.
"We were at a village that Israeli settlers had destroyed, they had destroyed the school, they had destroyed that village, and we were just looking at it," said Khanna. "And these hoodlums come in with machine guns—M4, an American-made machine gun—and they detain us. They block off the road."
The California Democrat said that the settlers called in members of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to help them deal with him and his group.
"The IDF is on their side," Khanna remarked, "not on the side of the Americans."
Cameron Kasky, an aide to Khanna, told Reuters that the group was held for over an hour before officials whom he believed to be police intervened and secured their release.
The IDF told Reuters that both military troops and police officers dispersed the settlers who had set up a roadblock near the small Palestinian village of Khirbet Zanuta.
Khanna wasn't the only American to have a run-in with Israeli settlers this week, as CNN reported that four settlers attacked groups of journalists, including CNN reporters and crew, who were traveling through an area north of the Palestinian city of Ramallah on Saturday.
As the journalists were driving, four settlers blocked off the road with their cars and began attacking the reporters' vehicles with wooden clubs and metal rods.
"The settlers then began to jump on the vehicle behind CNN's—carrying another group of journalists—and smashed the windshield of that vehicle," the network reported. "Another group of settlers tried to block a separate exit route before chasing the journalists towards the town of Sinjil."
Israeli police arrived on the scene and arrested four settlers who were allegedly responsible for the attacks, CNN reported.
"The Israel Police and the IDF view any manifestation of violence or causing damage to property very seriously," the Israeli officers said after the arrests, "especially when it concerns media personnel performing their work."
Israeli settlers for years have carried out violent attacks on Palestinians living in the West Bank, and witnesses have regularly described IDF soldiers at the scene either standing by as the attacks occur or even actively helping the attackers.
In an interview with CNN on Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that claims about settler violence have been "blown up beyond belief," describing attacks as being carried out by a small number of "juvenile delinquents."
"This brazen act should be seen as nothing more than an attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is happening in their country by intimidating journalists from doing their jobs."
The Trump administration on Friday escalated its war with the press by subpoenaing several reporters at The New York Times days after the paper published a story on Wednesday that detailed security concerns about the luxury jet the Qatari government gave to President Donald Trump.
According to the Times, the subpoenas are attempting to force reporters to testify before a federal grand jury in Manhattan on Wednesday next week, a move that the paper describes as an "extraordinary escalation in President Trump’s efforts to threaten and intimidate independent news organizations."
The issued subpoenas do not specifically name the Times' reporting on the Qatari jet as the reason for the grand jury probe, although they were given to all four journalists—Tyler Pager, Julian Barnes, Eric Schmitt, and Eric Lipton—who reported the story.
Additionally, the Times noted, a senior official at the FBI had asked the paper to hold off publishing its story on the jet before it came out on Wednesday, citing unspecified national security concerns about its content.
David McCraw, the top attorney representing the Times' newsroom, denounced the subpoenas as an attack on the freedom of the press.
"The appearance of federal law enforcement agents on the doorstep of news reporters should shock the conscience of any American who believes in the Constitution and the press freedom it protects," said McGraw. “This brazen act should be seen as nothing more than an attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is happening in their country by intimidating journalists from doing their jobs."
It is highly uncommon for government investigators to subpoena journalists when they are probing national security leaks, as such actions are generally seen as having a chilling effect on reporters’ ability to gather information.
Rick Stengel, former under secretary of state for President Barack Obama, said that the Times' reporting on the Qatari jet, whose security upgrades are being financed with US tax dollars, is completely within the scope of constitutional protections for press freedom.
"The reporting that the Times journalists have been subpoenaed for is exactly the kind of journalism the First Amendment is designed to protect: matters involving national security and taxpayer dollars," wrote Stengel in a Saturday social media post. "Reporting that embarrasses a president is protected speech."
Fox News chief national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin also denounced the Trump administration for trying to drag reporters into a grand jury investigation.
"This action by the US government to subpoena reporters for reporting legitimate news on security concerns about Air Force One should alarm every American," Griffin wrote.
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, accused the Trump administration of abusing government power not to defend national security, but to protect the president from personal humiliation.
"We've long said that when the government claims it needs to investigate journalists to protect national security, it really means its own reputational security," said Stern. "This is as clear an example as you can get. The administration's embarrassment that it reportedly charged taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to retrofit a flying bribe that still isn't secure enough for hostile times does not supersede the need for a free and independent press."
This is the second time in recent weeks that the Trump administration has tried to subpoena reporters to compel their testimony in grand jury investigations.
In June, the US Department of Justice issued subpoenas for national security reporters at The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal related to national security leaks.
Subpoenas against both news organizations were withdrawn after they issued legal challenges in sealed filings.