Post #226,666
9/27/05 10:54:57 AM
|
Venezuela moves against some oil companies
[link|http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050927/IBCHAVEZ27/TPBusiness/International|Globe and Mail] Venezuela, the world's fifth-largest oil producer, may take over fields operated by private companies if they don't convert operating contracts to joint ventures by a Dec. 31 deadline, Energy Minister Rafael Ramirez said yesterday.
State-run Petroleos de Venezuela SA plans to end all such operating contracts by the end of the year and will make no exceptions, Mr. Ramirez said. The company will hold as much as 80 per cent of the shares of the ventures, said Mr. Ramirez, who also is president of Petroleos de Venezuela. I wonder about the legality of this action, but from Venezuela's perspective something had to be done. Some of the oil fields are operated by companies with contracts that predate Chavez and are badly rigged in the companies favor. On the other hand, Chavez can't simply break a contract because he doesn't like it and the new deals seem heavily weighed in the states favor. Jay
|
Post #226,685
9/27/05 12:22:16 PM
|
Why can't he break the contracts?
He was not in power when the contracts were written. But this does sort of highlight the reason why we (unofficially for now at least) want him dead, doesn't it? Nationalizing the business of one of our ruling corporations is a sure fire way to get you on the government's hit list. Personally, I hope none of them comply and Venezuela takes over all of them. About time at least some of our corporate fascisti got their comeuppance.
bcnu,
Mikem
It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
|
Post #226,690
9/27/05 12:43:12 PM
|
Contract? Treaty? What's the diff?
If it's okay for him to break the contracts on the basis that they were negotiated before he came to power, what's to prevent any U.S. president from nullifying every agreement reached before his term?
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #226,694
9/27/05 12:44:51 PM
|
There's usually consequences 4 violating a contract
"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
Post #226,704
9/27/05 1:07:12 PM
|
Nothing
They are free to do that, and such things have been done, even recently (cf- latest decision on softwood lumber dispute). The final appeal tribunal in the Free Trade Agreement (I'm talking the one signed with Reagan and Mulroney in the eighties) was put in at the request of the US as Yet Another Appeal Layer, and when it ruled against the US, your administration promptly ignored it.
I'm not seeing a great deal of difference here, except p'raps for the fact that the White House is in the hands of Oil Men instead of Lumber Barons.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #226,710
9/27/05 1:26:41 PM
|
It's a new country, dude.
The old one doesn't exist. Or should we expect the former republics of the Soviet Union to abide by the treaties it signed on their behalf? Hugo Ch\ufffdvez, a former paratroop lieutenant-colonel who led an unsuccessful coup d'\ufffdtat in 1992, was elected President in December 1998 on a platform that called for the creation of a "Fifth Republic", a new constitution, a new name ("the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela"), and a new set of social relations between socioeconomic classes. In 1999, voters approved a referendum on a new constitution, and in 2000, re-elected Ch\ufffdvez, also placing many members of his Movement for the Fifth Republic political party in the National Assembly. Supporters of Ch\ufffdvez call the process symbolised by him the Bolivarian Revolution, and organise themselves in open, local, participatory assemblies called Bolivarian Circles.
...
In August, 2004, Ch\ufffdvez faced a recall referendum, but 59% of the voters voted to allow Ch\ufffdvez to remain in office. Some elements of the political opposition and certain foreign governments (including the United States of America, Spain, Italy, and the United Kingdom) disputed the fairness of the vote count. Although both the Organization of American States and the Carter Center certified the voting results as representative of the actual votes cast, the voting process itself wasn't certified (although Jimmy Carter did state that in his opinion it was fairer than the voting process in Florida during the 2000 US Presidential election). [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Venezuela|http://en.wikipedia....tory_of_Venezuela] bcnu,
Mikem
It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
|
Post #226,713
9/27/05 1:29:09 PM
|
We don't give back Gitmo when Cuba's government flipped
Although I think we ought to.
"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
Post #226,726
9/27/05 2:22:08 PM
|
The FSU republics do abide by previous treaties.
[link|http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/31/newsid_4582000/4582773.stm|BBC].
Change of government shouldn't negate treaties or contracts, in most circumstances.
Nobody external can stop Chavez if he wants to nationalize the oil companies. If the past is any guide though he'll be cutting his nose off to spite his face. (Venezuela needs outside expertise and investment to keep things going as the fields mature.)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #226,725
9/27/05 2:21:20 PM
|
You mean, like the Kyoto accords?
Just askin'...
jb4
shrub●bish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #226,727
9/27/05 2:22:34 PM
|
Wasn't ratified by the Senate.
|
Post #226,712
9/27/05 1:28:04 PM
|
I see it as some place inbetween
On the one hand some of the contracts for the oil fields where written in a way that heavily favored the oil companies, to the point that the country was actually losing money on some of them. On the other hand, nobody should be able to get out of a contract simply because they don't like it anymore.
What I would like to see is Chavez waiting till the contracts are up to renegotiate. But it wouldn't surprise me if the worse ones are signed for a very long period of time.
It's partially the Chavez makes me nervous. He seems to want to use a sledgehammer when a screwdriver would be a better solution. It also worries me that too many on the left idolize him simply because the US government wants to get rid of him. I'm worried they are going to get burned down the road they same way they got burned on the "communist" dictators.
Jay
|
Post #226,716
9/27/05 1:37:47 PM
9/27/05 1:38:52 PM
|
Losing on "some"? Try 1/2 of them.
It also worries me that too many on the left idolize him simply because the US government wants to get rid of him.That does a tremendous disservice to leftists everywhere. It is what he has done that makes him the new darling of many on the left. Here's a sample of what many on the Left see and like: Both President George W. Bush and the Democratic challenger, John F. Kerry, have characterized him as an "anti-democratic leader" but considering Hugo's program and achievements in office, one can only wonder what common meaning "democratic" can have to two men who profess to disagree upon so many issues. If, by democratic, they mean a government run by a small plutocracy that controls all of the country's wealth, then I suppose that Chavez is anti-democratic. If they mean leaders who funnel the people's money into the pockets of their friends, then I suppose he is anti-democratic. In fact, if they mean men who identify with the poor to the point of putting programs in place that will lift the entire society in a generation, then Chavez is certainly anti-democratic. It might be nice to live in an anti-democratic country if this is what democratic means in the Alice-in-Wonderland parallel world of American presidential politics.
But if democracy means to be by, for, and of the people, then Hugo Chavez might want to take a turn as U.S. president when he has cleaned up Venezuela. [link|http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0823-13.htm|Much more here.] [Edit: tpyo]
bcnu,
Mikem
It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
Edited by mmoffitt
Sept. 27, 2005, 01:38:52 PM EDT
|
Post #226,728
9/27/05 2:25:09 PM
|
You obviously don't work in IT...
...where cancelling a contract because "you don't like it anymore" is SOP, baby!
jb4
shrub●bish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #226,744
9/27/05 3:01:34 PM
|
He can do what he wants.
Its not generally smiled upon but is perfectly within his power. Nationalizing foreign industry is a long-standing risk of international business.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
