Truth Terrorists in London

Truth Terrorists in London

A few years ago, when the FBI detained me at the airport and asked me “are you a terrorist,” I told them no, I was working to expose the real terrorists.

But it all depends on how you define terrorism, doesn’t it?

If terrorism is “politically-inspired dissemination of fear,” then those who terrified the population with the phony “war on terror” are the second-biggest terrorists ever.

Then who are the biggest terrorists?

Us. The truth-tellers.

The lies about the horrific dangers of radical Islamic terrorism may be terrifying. But the truth — that the whole thing is a hoax, and that our own leaders are the real terrorists, meaning the real killers and bombers and purveyors of pain and death — is far more terrifying.

I would have explained this to the customs agent at Heathrow had she asked me. Instead, she just asked what I would be doing in London. I said I was participating in a symposium entitled “Debunking the War on Terror.” She smiled and waved me through with no luggage check.

Had British customs checked my luggage, they would have found some of the most fearsome weapons of truth terrorism ever devised: DVDs and brochures fromArchitects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and copies of my book Questioning the War on Terror.

So here I am in London, getting ready for next Thursday’s symposium. My fellow speaker and truth terrorist, Ken O’Keefe, has just published a real bombshell, An American Terrorist in London.

Meanwhile symposium participant Gilad Atzmon passes on the news that CNN editor Octavia Nasr was fired because she expressed respect for the late Grand Ayatollah Mohaamed Hussein Fadlallah in a tweet.

I would like to make it plain to the British authorities, who have me as well as the rest of the 60 million people in England under surveillance, that I also respect the late Ayatollah.

And if expressing that simple truth makes me a terrorist, just wait till you hear some of the other truths I came here to tell.

Kevin Barrett
Author, Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters: http://www.questioningthewaronterror.com

Japanese Democracy–vs–Another Base for the Empire

Weakened Kan Faces Okinawa Deadlines

By DAISUKE WAKABAYASHI And YUKA HAYASHI

TOKYO—After getting badly bruised in a tough national election, Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan soon has to turn to the politically charged issue of a U.S. military base on Okinawa, a complex matter that forced the resignation of his predecessor just over a month ago.

While the base wasn’t a prominent factor in the campaign, Sunday’s results could make it harder for the weakened Mr. Kan to keep the promises the Japanese government made to the Obama administration. Mr. Kan told the U.S. government that he would move forward on the plan aimed at keeping a large Marine presence on the southern island.

The first test comes at the end of August, the deadline the last Japanese Prime Minister, Yukio Hatoyama, promised Washington that he would meet to reach agreement over details of the controversial base location plan, including configuration and construction methods. Mr. Kan has pledged to follow Mr. Hatoyama’s commitments on the matter. In the following months, local elections in Okinawa could further lock local politicians into opposing Tokyo’s attempts to move the American base to a new community.

The tensions revolve around a 2006 agreement reached between the two countries to reshuffle U.S. troops in Okinawa to make them more politically acceptable to the local population. The agreement calls on the U.S. to move 8,000 Marines to Guam by 2014 and shift part of an existing Okinawa helicopter facility from a densely populated area to a rural part of the island. The idea is to diminish local hostility to the Marine presence on the island, stoke by a rape case and a helicopter crash.

While the deal does reduce the number of Marines on Okinawa, it leaves thousands of Marines on Okinawa, and it doesn’t go far enough for many Okinawans, who want the base moved off the island entirely. The ruling Democratic Party of Japan had last year endorsed that view and promised Okinawan base opponents it would support their cause. But Mr. Hatoyama changed his position under pressure from the U.S.

The issue didn’t get much attention in an election campaign largely dominated by domestic issues, such as Mr. Kan’s pledge to raise the national sales tax to help cut the national debt. The political parties that Mr. Kan is likely to invite into a new ruling coalition have either endorsed the U.S. plan, or haven’t made an issue of opposing it.

In that sense, Mr. Kan may be more free than Mr. Hatoyama to move forward in implementing the U.S. agreement. Mr. Hatoyama’s coalition included the left-leaning Social Democratic Party of Japan, which strongly opposes the U.S. military presence in Okinawa—and which left the coalition when Mr. Hatoyama reversed course.

But even with support from coalition partners, the issue requires a strong leader to push implantation over powerful local opposition. And Mr. Kan’s political capital appears to have been badly sapped by the vote that saw his party lose seats.

Looking to smooth ties frayed with Washington under Mr. Hatoyama, Mr. Kan pledged at the very outset of his administration that he plans to abide by the latest bilateral agreement and called the decades-old security alliance the linchpin of his foreign policy. But the challenge he now faces is demonstrating a commitment to implementing the base relocation and repairing relations with the U.S., while working to shift public sentiment on the issue in Okinawa where the pact is so deeply unpopular that the DPJ chose not to run its own candidate on the southern island.

Sheila Smith, a senior fellow for Japan at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the sense of betrayal and anger by Okinawans toward the central government is so strong that changing sentiment will be very difficult.

“The situation is probably the worst it has ever been in terms of political sensitivity,” said Ms. Smith, who has followed the Okinawa issue closely.

In a Friday statement asking Japan and the U.S. to review the base-relocation agreement, the Okinawa prefectural assembly said the pact went “over the heads” of the locals and ignored the protests of the people who want the base moved off the island.

On July 2, the mayor of Ginowan City, the current home to the Marine base, said his city was considering suing the Japanese government for neglecting to remove the danger posed on its citizens from the air base. The city also plans to seek financial compensation for the damage it says has been suffered by its residents.

The mayor, Yoichi Iha, has become a national figure with his eloquent opposition to the base. He is among the potential candidates for a November race to choose a new governor of Okinawa, an important role since that person must approve the start of construction for a new facility.

Along with the gubernatorial election, Nago, the coastal city where the proposed base would go, is holding an election on Sept. 27 for its assembly council. If both elections are dominated by vocal opponents of the base relocation, it could undermine the agreement.

For his part, Mr. Kan has sought to ease tensions. Last month, he traveled to Okinawa and apologized to the people of the island during a ceremony at a peace memorial: “From here on forth, I promise to work harder in order to ease Okinawa’s burden and eliminate the danger of hosting the base.”

Mr. Kan tempered his remarks by saying that the U.S. military presence on the island has helped to foster peace and stability in the region. At every turn, Mr. Kan has continued to emphasize the importance for the U.S.-Japan alliance.

“Kan has been very careful not to say anything in public that indicates any daylight between his position and the U.S. position,” said Daniel Sneider, associate director for research at the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center at Stanford University. Mr. Sneider sees Washington also making a more concerted effort to address the local opposition with more diplomatic efforts.

Also, both leaders seem eager to improve communication channels. President Barack Obama invited Mr. Kan to the White House for a visit if he chooses to address the United Nations General Assembly in September and Mr. Obama is scheduled to come to Japan for November’s Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Yokohama.

Write to Daisuke Wakabayashi at Daisuke.Wakabayashi@wsj.com

Iran, India Resume Talks on Gas Pipeline Project

Iran, India Resume Talks on Gas Pipeline Project

TEHRAN (FNA)- Iranian and Indian officials have resumed talks over an underwater gas pipeline project to export Iran’s rich reserves to the South Asian nation, sources said.

Sources said that the two countries’ officials have discussed the underwater pipeline project during a two-day meeting of the two countries’ joint economic cooperation commission in New Delhi on Thursday and Friday.

“This was among the issues discussed. It will be followed by more discussions between technical groups,” an Indian state official said, referring to the agenda of talks between the two delegations in the 16th Iran-India joint economic cooperation commission meeting chaired by Iranian Economy Minister Shamsheddin Hosseini and Indian Foreign Minister S. M. Krishna.

While technical groups in the past few months have been exploring the possibility of such a pipeline, which will help India bypass Pakistan, this is the first time in recent times that the issue has been discussed at this level.

India’s interest is being attributed to a pro-active approach by Krishna himself to keep Iran, a country of immense strategic significance for India, engaged despite the recent setbacks in relationship over Tehran’s nuclear program.

The project proposal had earlier been dismissed as highly expensive, but New Delhi officials now say that whether or not an underwater pipeline is economically viable, India’s interest in it would also help New Delhi counter Islamabad’s claim that India had backed out of the IPI pipeline under pressure from the US.

However, pointing to high costs involved in such a pipeline, Iran had insisted that India should not abandon the IPI pipeline project.

While denying that India had dumped the land pipeline which passes through Pakistan, Krishna pointed out to India’s concerns about security and pricing that have delayed India’s participation.

The land pipeline project was initially due to supply Iran’s gas to India via Pakistan, but New Delhi. In June 2008, Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi and Indian Oil Minister Murli Deora said that the two sides have resolved all bilateral issues.

There was a breakthrough in the talks in April 2008 when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Pakistan and India. Ahmadinejad had said after a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2008 that the two sides had decided to address the issue in 45 days.

Indian and Pakistani officials also announced last year that they had resolved almost all bilateral issues including transit fee which saw New Delhi boycotting IPI pipeline talks for about a year.

India had also announced that it has more or less agreed to give Pakistan a transit fee of $200 million per year, which is equivalent to $0.60 per million British thermal unit for allowing passage of the pipeline through that country.

According to the project proposal, the pipeline will begin from Iran’s Assalouyeh Energy Zone in the south and stretch over 1,100 km through Iran. In Pakistan, it will pass through Baluchistan and Sindh but officials now say the route may be changed if China agrees to the project.

The gas will be supplied from the South Pars field. The initial capacity of the pipeline will be 22 billion cubic meter of natural gas per annum, which is expected to be later raised to 55 billion cubic meter. It is expected to cost $7.4 billion.

According to Indian ministry sources, the IPI gas pipeline is quite crucial for New Delhi as after signing of the agreement, 60 million standard cubic meters per day (mmscmd) of gas is expected to be supplied in phase-I, which will be shared equally between India and Pakistan.

In phase-II, 90 mmscmd of gas will be supplied to India and Pakistan. So far six meetings of the trilateral joint working group (JWG) of the participating countries have been held with the last meeting being held in New Delhi on June 28-29, 2007.

India, Asia’s third-largest economy, can produce only half the gas it needs to generate electricity, causing blackouts and curbing economic growth. Demand may more than double to 400 million cubic meters a day by 2025 if the economy grows at the projected rate of 7 to 8 percent a year, according to the Indian oil ministry.

Iran plans to start exporting gas to Pakistan in 2011. Iran has completed half the pipeline, which can carry 110 million cubic meters of gas a day, National Iranian Gas Company (NIOC) said in April. India uses about 108 million cubic meters of gas a day, according to a BP Plc report.

Iran and Pakistan initiated a Gas Sales Purchase Agreement in 2008.

In a major breakthrough on March 20, 2009, the Pakistani government approved Iran’s proposed pricing formula for gas supplies to the South Asian nation.

Subsequently, Tehran and Islamabad signed a final agreement to launch implementation of the project.

Tehran and Islamabad also sealed a final contract for the start of Iran’s gas exports to Pakistan through the multi-billion-dollar pipeline in spring 2014.

The last annex of the agreement for export of Iran’s gas to Pakistan was signed on June 13 by Iranian Oil Minister Masoud Mir-Kazzemi and Managing Director of Pakistan’s Inter-State Gas Company Naeem Sharafat in a meeting also attended by the Iranian oil ministry’s representative in gas talks with Pakistan Seyed Reza Kassayeezadeh.

Tribal Interests and Pipeline Profits

“Certain people and special interests will never want to move ahead and shouldn’t be able to manipulate the system when everyone else suffers”

BY DIANE FRANCIS, FINANCIAL POST
Inuit leader Nellie Cournoyea says the Mackenzie pipeline should have happened already, but keeps being delayed by different interest groups.
Inuit leader Nellie Cournoyea says the Mackenzie pipeline should have happened already, but keeps being delayed by different interest groups.

Inuit leader Nellie Cournoyea says the Mackenzie pipeline should have happened already, but keeps being delayed by different interest groups.

Photograph by: Leah Hennel, Canwest News Service

Nellie Cournoyea is chairwoman and chief executive of the $300-million Inuvialuit Regional Corp., which has investments in construction, pipelines, trucking, airlines and real estate. She is the former premier of the Northwest Territories and also an ardent and passionate spokeswoman for her region.

She spoke to the Financial Post’s editor-at-large Diane Francis recently at the 10th Inuvik Petroleum Show about the frustration felt by residents of the Western Arctic. She is one of 3,000 Inuit who have special rights to Crown lands in the Inuvaluit Settlement Region along the Beaufort Sea, which is bigger in size than Nova Scotia and contains a treasure trove of natural gas.

That resource has been trapped underground for 25 years due to endless wrangles, but this fall, the National Energy Board is expected to approve the 1,200-kilometre Mackenzie pipeline to get it out. Next, Ottawa (the ultimate landlord) is being asked to provide loan guarantees to help oil companies finance the $16.2-billion pipeline.

Q Why has this pipeline been delayed for so long?

A We are a pawn in a game. The federal government has the power to just stop all this delay, which has made lawyers and consultants rich, but is hurting innocent people of the North. The game is that the DehCho [a First Nation band along the proposed pipeline route] will never settle [land claims]. They don’t want to. Every time they complain, the federal government throws money at them for studies and consultants. The Berger Pipeline Inquiry [1974-77] took years and imposed a 10-year moratorium. Then gas prices were lousy. Then a joint panel review extended the process years more. The panel has been fearful and [has] not taken responsibility.

The Government of Canada has a perfect right to approve a right of way and take the land. Certain people and special interests will never want to move ahead and shouldn’t be able to manipulate the system when everyone else suffers. The government has been frightened and the same processes have been repeated year after year.

Q What about the environmentalists?

A They should want this pipeline because gas is cleaner and should be considered to be more valuable. The only people who make money are consultants and lawyers and people who sit on boards that keep this game going. Then there are the special-interest guys who want us to save the polar bear and politicians who want us, as a country, to look like we’re doing something. We’re caught in a vicious cycle. It’s demoralizing.

Q Is Alaska ahead on a pipeline and if it goes first, does that ruin the Mackenzie’s chances of finding gas markets?

A Both can happen, but they cannot be built at the same time. The state of Alaska is offering a lot to support a gas pipeline or the LNG [liquefied natural gas] option.

Q Will the Gulf of Mexico catastrophe affect the future of northern development?

A The natural gas is onshore. The offshore is where the oil is and is riskier. Imperial and BP had been having consultations with us to assure us that their blowout preventers are effective and will never fail. We have had two years of this. We never got a comfort level. Then this happened. We now want companies to bring us more assurance that the drilling is going to be safe, that they have methods to clean up on ice.

Q What’s the status of the pipeline partnership now?

A We [the Aboriginal Pipeline Group, with 33.3%] are partners with Imperial Oil/Exxon Mobil [39.6%], ConocoPhillips Canada [15.7%] and Shell Canada Ltd. [11.4%]. They’re saying the pipeline has got to be economic and we need a high rating on money that is borrowed or a loan guarantee. But the federal Conservatives are in a minority situation, so that is a possible problem.

The federal government will get royalties from this pipeline, so why would they want to give up those royalties? There are too many bureaucrats and it’s a very sad story. We have survived a lot of things — the whaling disappeared, the ban on seal hunting, epidemics and a lot of false starts on this project. We are ready to go, take the risk, put up our own money, do the work and do what’s necessary. We desperately need economic development in our region and this is an environmentally safe project. The feds should have the guts to make the decision to get this going. It had better happen.

Financial Post


US Professors Raise Doubts About Report on South Korean Ship Sinking

[Western professors, scientists and other intellectuals are taking steps that will blow the Empire’s plans out of the water, if they are followed to their obvious conclusions (SEE: Scientists propose big experiment to study Gulf oil spill).  Intellectual truth movements can undermine the official lies that cover-up the greatest war crimes of the new century.]

US Professors Raise Doubts About Report on South Korean Ship Sinking

Akiko Fujita | Tokyo

South Korean Internet-savvy citizens, such as bloggers, Twitter users and online media reporters, who are invited by the Defense Ministry, visit the wreckage of a warship that the government claims was sunk by a North Korean torpedo in March.

Photo: AP

South Korean Internet-savvy citizens, such as bloggers, Twitter users and online media reporters, who are invited by the Defense Ministry, visit the wreckage of a warship that the government claims was sunk by a North Korean torpedo in March, at the Second Fleet Command of Navy in Pyeongtaek, south of Seoul, South Korea, 08 Jul 2010.

A new study by U.S. researchers raises questions about the investigation into the sinking of a South Korean navy ship. International investigators blamed a North Korean torpedo, raising tensions on the Korean peninsula.

Researchers J.J. Suh and Seung-Hun Lee say the South Korean Joint Investigation Group made a weak case when it concluded that North Korea was responsible for sinking the Cheonan.

Speaking in Tokyo Friday, the two said the investigation was riddled with inconsistencies and cast “profound doubt” on the integrity of the investigation.  “The only conclusion one can draw on the basis of the evidence is that there was no outside explosion,” Suh said. “The JIG completely failed to produce evidence that backs up its claims that there was an outside explosion.”

Suh is an associate professor in international relations at Johns Hopkins University in the United States, where he runs the Korean studies program.

International investigators said in May that an external explosion caused the South Korean ship to sink last March, killing 46 sailors. The report said a North Korean-made torpedo caused the explosion.

Suh and Lee the cracked portion of the bottom of the ship does not show the signs of a large shock that are usually associated with outside explosions. They add that all the ship’s internal parts remained intact and few fragments were recovered outside the ship.

“Almost all parts and fragments should’ve been recovered within about three to six meters within where the torpedo part was discovered,” Lee says, “The fact that only the propeller and the propulsion part was discovered doesn’t make any sense to me.”

Lee is a professor of physics at the University of Virginia in the United States. Lee also points to a blue mark on a fragment of the torpedo to question the validity of the study. South Korean scientists say that part of the torpedo was marked “number one” in Korean, with a blue marker.

Suh and Lee say the writing would not have survived the intense heat of an explosion.  “This can not be taken as evidence. Because any Korean, North and South, can write this mark,” Suh said. “Also, it does not make sense that this blue ink mark could survive so freshly when the paint all around was all burned at the explosion.”

Both researchers say their findings do not prove that North Korea did not sink the Cheonan. But they say it is irresponsible for the South Korean government to reach its conclusions based on an inconclusive study.

They are calling for a new international investigation to re-examine the Cheonan’s sinking. They also want the United Nations Security Council to pressure the South Korean government and request an “objective and scientific” report before the council deliberates on the incident.

The Georgian Dilemma–Pariahdom for Profits

Are Tbilisi and Baku good friends?

6333.jpeg

6333.jpegRelations between republics of South Caucasus play an important geopolitical role for Russia given that this near-border region is ethnically close to citizens of Russia’s south and is highly integrated into Russia’s economy. On one hand, establishment of new states in the territory of Soviet republics drastically changed relations between them making it possible for the West to set up a base to put pressure on Russia’s south. We considered Georgian-Turkish relations and it is much more important how Georgia and Azerbaijan, two close neighbors, communicate.

Traditionally, Georgia and Azerbaijan have been considered allies and partners. These are important links for oil extraction and transportation as well as military transit. Besides it’s the region that the West may take advantage of to put pressure on Teheran and Moscow which brought together the USA, Great Britain, Georgia and Azerbaijan.

The idyll was supplemented by another element – oil, or a pipe, to be more exact. Since 2005 Tbilisi and Baku have been facing serious contradictions started with the end of construction of two crucial supply facilities: Baku-Tbilisi-Jeykhan oil pipeline and Transcaucasian gas pipeline Shakhdeniz – Erzurum  plus old  Baku-Supsa oil pipeline forming the main system of energy communications in South Caucasus that connect Azerbaijan and Georgia.

Despite Azerbaijan’s considerable concessions over distribution of profit from operation of the facilities above, the regional effect from these energy supply systems was absolutely different to the sides. Azerbaijan’s incomes that depend on functioning of the said supply pipelines are tenfold higher than Georgia’s gain as a transit territory in overall energy complex of Caucasus.

If at the design stage the projected income Georgia was supposed to have seemed much higher now this is just a small part of the country’s state treasury. If in 2002 Georgia’s state budget was not more than USD 370 mln – today it is not more than USD 100 mln at maximum transit capacity!

However, as estimated by the International Monetary Fund Azerbaijan will earn USD 175 bn in coming 20 years.

These incommensurable figures were particularly irritating to Georgia that incurred serious economic loss staring severe confrontation with Russia for the sake of construction of energy facilities and oil transportation westward. The damage can’t be compared to the oil and gas transportation incomes.

We have mentioned political damages already. It would seem Azerbaijan depends on Georgia for the operation of oil and gas pipelines while Georgia depends on Azerbaijan’s transit resources. In reality, both countries depend on their Western partners, main owners of oil deposits and relevant transportation infrastructure – not on each other. This circumstance became “a basis” to raise various issues like the status of Azerbaijani population in Georgia, interstate trade, cultural and historic issues.

Azerbaijan treated Georgia’s problems in power and gas supplies rather egoistically especially when gas supplies from Russia were brought into question because of high prices. Upon completion of Shakhdeniz-Erzurum gas pipeline construction Georgia found itself in rather an awkward position since this large enterprise will not be able to furnish even approximate volume of gas Georgia will need in coming years .

Georgia’s political circles are thinking of reconsideration of tariffs for oil and gas transit since when it was decided to construct the said facilities oil prices were twice lower, and gas prices were 4-5 times lower. Surely, this does not sound convincing to reconsider tariffs. But all is fair in making the country’s treasury fatter.

Eventually these steps will lead to stronger contradictions between Georgia and Azerbaijan bringing Western companies and governments into play. Besides, Georgia feels danger to fall under a strong influence of Turkey-Azerbaijan alliance but has to go in this direction having no other way to solve economic and energy issues: Georgia can’t become a transit country of interregional importance otherwise.

Influence from Turkey and Azerbaijan as well as necessity to get extra income accounted for the search of alternative directions of economic partnership in the region. It turns out that despite powerful political and economic presence the Atlantic empires fail to solve problems of the regional states that are on tense terms with neighbors, particularly with much bigger neighbors.

Against this political background Georgian politicians are particularly concerned over strengthening Turkish-Russian relations based not only on geo-economic projects but on mutual interests in opposition to US policies in the Black Sea, Caucasus and Central Asia. Turkish-Russian alliance can be a nasty factor in Georgian politics in long-term perspective.

The transit of oil conflict between Tbilisi and Baku

[Azeri pipelines and gas seem to be the lifeline keeping Georgia from going completely under.  Surely Georgia has something of value to offer the world other than its strategic value as an arena for conflict?]

“Echo”: “The transit of oil conflict between Tbilisi and Baku

“Transit conflict between Tbilisi and Baku
In Georgia, are heating up around the activities of SOCAR, which may cause in Parliament “on the carpet”

In political circles of Georgia discussed the need to revise the rates for the transportation of Azerbaijani oil and gas, since at the time of the decision-making on the construction of these facilities, oil prices were half the current, and gas prices in the region below 4-5 times. This information is circulated newspaper Tbilisi Georgia Times. “Of course, this is not quite sufficient argument to reconsider the tariffs for the transit of energy resources. But in order to replenish the treasury, all means are good, – the newspaper noted. – In the end, such steps will lead to increased conflict between Georgia and Azerbaijan, and this will involve Western companies and governments.

In turn, as the “Echo” Chairman, Centre for Petroleum Research Ilham Shaban, the outcome of this situation depends on the behavior of the government itself. “The last 15 years have shown that, despite all the ongoing processes, and Georgia can be called a more democratic country in the Caucasus, where both in Parliament and elsewhere, there are different opinions.” However, the Government of this country has always conducted himself weighed and respect the international obligations they have signed the documents.

Especially since Georgia and Azerbaijan are traditionally seen as allies and partners. This is an important link in the extraction and transportation of oil, provide military transit, however, our region can be useful to the West to put pressure on Tehran and Moscow. On this basis, and there was a commonality of interests of the United States, Britain, Georgia and Azerbaijan. “But this idyll is interrupted and” woman “- oil, better pipe. Since 2005, between Tbilisi and Baku, there were serious contradictions. The reason was the completion of the construction of two major communications: the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline and the Transcaucasus Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum which together with the reconstructed old Baku-Supsa oil formed the basic system of energy communications for the South Caucasus, linking Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. Azerbaijan at the time went to significant concessions in the allocation of profits from the exploitation of data communications, “- wrote the Georgian newspaper.

As the Georgia Times, if the design phase anticipated income to be received by Georgia, seemed very significant, but now it is just a small portion of the proceeds of its public treasury. “If the 2002 state budget of Georgia was no more than 370 million dollars, today – not more than $ 100 million, making the best use of carriers’ power! But Azerbaijan over the next 20 years, according to the International Monetary Fund, will receive 175 billion dollars profits “, – said the Georgian issue. However, the publication of forgot to mention that oil and gas exports, Azerbaijan, and not Georgia, which has not invested in the project of the BTC and BTE penny gets multimillion-dollar revenues only by providing its territory for transit.

“These disparate values and have become a major irritant for Georgia, in the name of the data structures energokommunikatsy and ensure the transportation of oil to the West came into a tough confrontation with Russia, causing their own country a huge economic losses”, – said Georgia Times. However, the publication must bear in mind that these same confrontation – the result of Georgia itself, rather than pipelines. In addition, Georgia’s economy almost came to the stage of default before the August events. This is the war saved the economy of Georgia, which received nearly $ 5 billion of foreign aid to address the consequences of the conflict.

“Azerbaijan is selfish enough to the concerns of Georgia in the field of electricity and gas supplies, especially when gas supplies from Russia because of high prices had been called into question. Upon completion of construction of the pipeline, the Shah Deniz-Erzurum pipeline, Georgia found itself in a very deprived position because even such a large company would not provide her with gas, in the approximate amount that it needs in the coming years “- indicates publication. However, it should take into account that Azerbaijan Georgia sells gas at a price almost in 2 times cheaper than the market, and in very large quantities. Probably, certain circles in Georgia want to squeeze the maximum possible benefit from the projects where the main role played by Azerbaijan.

Against the background of the information disseminated Georgia Times, there are other messages injected into the Georgian society, negative attitudes towards the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan. Energoombudsmen Georgia accuses a subsidiary of SOCAR in flagrant violation of the rights of consumers. As stated by Valery Pkhakadze in Kakheti, in Lagodekhi region, the company makes new customers pay for natural gas for 12 tetri more than pay the old subscribers, reports the Business of Georgia. This rate, according to his conviction, SOCAR Georgia set arbitrarily. But Pkhakadze also states that the right of arbitrary pricing of the company was back in 2007. According to him, the Minister of Energy issued a decree on the regulation of tariffs of distribution companies. As a result, if the company will build a new network, it assigns itself the right to impose a tariff for accession by subscribers. Already aware that next week energoombudsmen plans to meet with the leadership “SOCAR” to listen to their arguments in connection with the tariff increase.

In addition, according to radio Kommersant, because of higher tariffs to the population of regions, companies may have to give explanations to Parliament. The Deputy Chairman of the Committee of Industrial Economics Temur Tsurtsumia, they need to be listened to arguments from representatives of the company.

However, in the opinion of Shaban, the situation is settled. Since, according to him, from the 12 Tetri Georgian side is unlikely to cause trouble. “For those who advocate the revision of tariffs for transportation of Azerbaijani oil and gas via Georgia, should be invited to be invited into this country,” Gazprom or some kind of Armenian companies. According to him, at one time an American company managed power distribution network in Tbilisi. “As a result of unpaid bills subscribers, the company practically ran out of Georgia.” On the other hand, if consumers stop buying Azerbaijani Georgian drinks, the budget of this country will lose significant funds. For this reason, experts say, there is hardly any reason for the cooling of relations between Azerbaijan and Georgia. “Azerbaijan has put more than a billion dollars of investment in Georgia. Among countries prevail normal relations in all spheres.” According to him, our countries are linked by very strong ties, and are unlikely to some forces can impose on us the deterioration of relations.

Further, according to J. Shaban, the issue of tariffs for transporting oil and gas is reflected in the commercial agreement signed by Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey.”Here in unilaterally any party can not do anything to take.” Any change can occur only with the consent of all parties. “It is important to note that in Ukraine and Belarus transmission infrastructure of the Russian oil and gas sent to Europe, is owned by these countries. While the pipelines passing through Georgia, owned by Azerbaijan, in exactly the same terminal at Ceyhan in Turkey belongs to is not this country, and Azerbaijan. After the period of commercial agreements, these facilities would be owned by the Government of Azerbaijan. Since Georgia is not invested in infrastructure for a penny, but at the same time receives multimillion-dollar revenues plus 5% of the volume of transportation, replenishes the state budget ” .

Unfortunately, yesterday the “echo” unable to learn the opinion of SOCAR on the subject.

However, added chairman of the Center research for sustainable development Nariman Agayev, periodically in the Parliament of Georgia offers some sound revision of tariffs for transportation of fuel from Azerbaijan in the framework of international agreements. “Rising on the agenda of such a question should be based on the relevant articles of international agreements”. All parties, he said, must comply with issues relating to the protection of foreign investments.

Dzh.HALILOV, N. Aliyev
№ 121 (2323) Sat 10 July 2010

Source – Echo