<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; Billy Hallowell</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/author/billy-hallowell/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 07:56:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>The Next Nuclear Nightmare</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/billy-hallowell/the-next-nuclear-nightmare/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-next-nuclear-nightmare</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/billy-hallowell/the-next-nuclear-nightmare/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Aug 2010 04:01:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Billy Hallowell]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=67959</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Meet Burma, the world's next international menace.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/aaaaadogs.gif"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-67961" title="aaaaadogs" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/aaaaadogs.gif" alt="" width="375" height="274" /></a></p>
<p>As the U.S. and the international community enact additional sanctions against Iran, another rogue nation&#8217;s potential nuclear ambitions are raising increased global concern. For much of the past decade, intelligence officials have been warning that Burma (also referred to as Myanmar) may be actively seeking nuclear capabilities. While this is troubling, equally disturbing is the isolated nation&#8217;s entrenched military relationship with North Korea. This kinship, combined with substandard living conditions that the inefficient and secretive Burmese junta has created for its 55 million residents, makes Burma the next big international menace.</p>
<p>Just a few decades ago, according to Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Scot Marciel, Burma was “one of the richest and most open countries” in the world. Today, transparency is alien to Burma&#8217;s military government. The nation’s political health has vastly deteriorated, with secrecy preventing outsiders from understanding exactly what is occurring within the regime.  This is creating international angst, as the West cannot properly assess the existence of or the motives behind the alleged nuclear program.</p>
<p>With these questions left unanswered and with a volatile North Korea involved, some wonder if domestic and, perhaps, international safety is at stake. <em>FOX News&#8217; </em>Ed Barnes has been one voice, among many, reporting that Burma may be working in secret to become the world&#8217;s next “rogue nuclear power.” While some caution that Burma&#8217;s closed nature makes it difficult to assess its nuclear ambitions, others seem certain that the Southeast Asian nation is ramping up its atomic capabilities. <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/19/intelligence-agencies-warn-burma-budding-rogue-nuclear-state/">According to Barnes</a>,</p>
<blockquote><p>“Because of the nature of Burma&#8217;s paranoid and repressive ruling military junta, there is tremendous fear that, if it acquires a nuclear capability, it will set off an arms race that could change the political dynamics of Southeast Asia.”</p></blockquote>
<p>Aside from a potential arms race, which would surely be a detriment to international security and would take substantial efforts from world leaders to halt, a nuclear Burma presents other issues of concern.  The Irrawaddy recently reported that some believe Burma’s government is looking to built long-range missiles.  If this is true, these missiles would be within reach of Thailand, among other nearby nations, clearly posing a direct threat to the region.  Additionally, the concern over secrecy and arms sales to terrorists must also be considered, as the reining secrecy in Burma provides no insight into how such a program would be managed.</p>
<p>While many Americans are hearing about these concerns for the first time, experts have been warning about Burmese nuclear ambitions for years. In July 2006, <em>The Australian</em> reported on the nation&#8217;s attempt to purchase nuclear technology from North Korea, <a href="http://www.tai4freedom.info/articles/nuke2.html">calling the arrangement</a> “&#8230;a frightening new threat to regional security.” According to reports, the U.S. issued warnings to Burma in an effort to show dissatisfaction with the military government&#8217;s efforts to engage North Korea. Burma has also sought out Russia to discuss nuclear options, though the Russians allegedly have been unresponsive to these requests; no work has commenced on projects that the two parties agreed to partake in.</p>
<p>While Burma may be seeking nuclear capabilities, some experts have theorized what may be driving the nation&#8217;s quest for atomic superiority.  According to analysts and news reports, an unfounded paranoia that the U.S. will attack may be at the center of Burma&#8217;s ambitions.  According to <a href="http://www.irrawaddy.org/highlight.php?art_id=18622">a recent Al-Jazeera news documentary</a>, Burma’s military regime has built a countrywide network of underground tunnels.  The documentary reported that North Korea assisted in building these tunnels at an estimated cost of $3 billion and that they are believed to be shelters that would house military members in the event of an attack on the nation.</p>
<p>A Nov. 2007 piece in <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/unconventional-wisdom-on-burma/story-e6frg76f-1111114789764">The Australian </a>quotes Michael Green, a former Bush administration advisor on Asia and Derek Mitchell, the Director for Asia Strategy at The Center for Strategic and International Studies.  Green and Mitchell covered the many issues Burma faces, including human rights violations, poor health care, heroin production, and the spread of HIV/AIDS among the nation’s illegal immigrant population.  Among these issues covered was the “erratic” nature of Burma’s governing regime.  With such constraints on the nation’s internal progress and with a secretive and potentially desperate government at the helm, the thought of a nuclear capable Burma is concerning.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/billy-hallowell/the-next-nuclear-nightmare/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>BP&#8217;s Other Oil Crisis</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/billy-hallowell/bps-other-oil-crisis/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bps-other-oil-crisis</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/billy-hallowell/bps-other-oil-crisis/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jun 2010 04:04:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Billy Hallowell]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[catastrophic spill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chief Executive John Browne]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[company]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[doing business with iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[energy giant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence that iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gulf Coast]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[integrity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international allies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iranian oil exports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iraqi insurgents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear ambitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OIL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oil embargo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TIME]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vice President Dick Cheney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street Journal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=61938</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why is the scourge of the Gulf Coast still doing business in Iran?]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/bp.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-medium wp-image-61941" title="bp" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/bp-300x225.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="225" /></a></p>
<p>In light of the catastrophic spill off the Gulf  Coast, BP has become one of the world’s most abhorred companies. While the most recent calamity may be an isolated lapse in judgment and preparedness, this is not the first time that BP has found itself in a high-profile scandal. From the current eco-crisis to disregard for international security, foes accuse BP of placing revenue above all potential cost factors. Following in the footsteps of past offenders like General Electric (GE) and Halliburton, BP is actively engaged in business and trade with Iran, despite the impending threats the nation poses to international peace and stability.</p>
<p>BP’s continued support for Iran adds the energy giant to the ranks of international companies that have defied the international community’s efforts to hold the nuclear-seeking mullahs to account by continuing to do business in the country.</p>
<p>To be sure, doing business with Iran is not necessarily illegal. Current and proposed sanctions do not prevent companies from engaging in oil sales. But with business practices not officially restricted, energy companies like BP continue what some government officials and policy experts see as morally-bankrupt business practices. The company chooses its current policy of Iranian engagement amid the country’s non-compliance with requests by the United Nations and Western powers to contain nuclear ambitions, not to mention increasing evidence that Iran has heavily assisted Iraqi insurgents. Despite these issues, BP appears unwilling to sever its contracts with Iran.</p>
<p>Such lax regulations have some wondering why the United   States and international allies refrain from more restrictive sanctions. According to the <em>Wall Street Journal</em>, sanctions on Iranian oil exports would likely increase world-wide costs, which, in turn, would potentially lead to an increase in U.S. gasoline prices well beyond their currently elevated status. Furthermore, officials suspect that an oil embargo would create economic instability for U.S. allies who are already experiencing fiscal woes. As a result, the WSJ reports that “…companies like Shell and <a href="http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&amp;symbol=BP">BP</a> PLC continue to do a brisk business buying Iranian oil products.”</p>
<p>When asked about companies engaging in business with Iran, Mark Ware of Vitol Group (energy-training company) <a href="http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html">said</a>, “Everyone buys from the Iranians—governments, states, other companies. It’s not subject to any legislation,” serving as yet another prime example of the “because we can” mentality that is likely driving BP’s current policy. Predictably, representatives from BP have been unwilling to speak to the press about the company’s Iranian business connections.</p>
<p>Despite very obvious ethical contradictions, BP <a href="http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9003494&amp;contentId=7006600">claims to embrace honesty and integrity</a>. According to the company’s web site, “As one of the world’s leading companies, we have a responsibility to set high standards: to be, and be seen to be, a business which is committed to integrity.” BP <a href="http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9002630&amp;contentId=7005204">goes on to state</a> that it can best be characterized by four key words – progressive, responsible, innovative and performance-driven. Ironically, recent developments show BP at a loss in each key area, as gallons of oil continue to siphon into Gulf waters. Furthermore, ongoing business relations with a rogue nation do little to validate BP’s self-professed zeal for incorruptibility.</p>
<p>When it comes to choosing whether to engage in Iranian business interests, the ethical answer is explicit, yet BP has been inconsistent and indecisive in its approach. In 2005, BP’s Chief Executive John Browne <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&amp;sid=aQ1w0QuXpOkk&amp;refer=uk-redirectoldpage">said the following</a> regarding the company’s business relations with Iran: “To do business with Iran at the moment would be offensive to the United States, and therefore against BP&#8217;s interests. We&#8217;re very heavily influenced by our American position.&#8221; While this stance appears firmly solidified, Browne took a very different tone in 2001. According to <em>Business Week</em>, at that time Browne was growing impatient with the U.S. government’s strained relations with Iran. According to <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_24/b3736091.htm">the article</a>, “Sources close to BP say Browne recently told Vice-President Dick Cheney, who was reviewing U.S. energy policy, that BP had been more than generous in waiting for the situation between the U.S. and Iran to improve.”</p>
<p>According to a 2005 <em>Guardian</em> article, prior to the 9/11 attacks BP was looking to invest in Iran. However, the attacks made such a venture less viable, as Browne said, &#8220;Right now it is impractical for BP because 40% of BP is in the US and we are the largest producer of oil and gas in the US. Politically Iran is not a flyer. One day I hope it is.” Here again, the concern is rooted in politics and the explanation is devoid of any allegiance to the nations in which BP primarily operates. Nowhere does BP’s rhetoric match the company’s penchant for truth and integrity. The focus was on BP’s bottom line.</p>
<p>In 2010, <em>The New York Times</em> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03/06/world/iran-sanctions.html">reported on 74 companies</a> who have done business with Iran, while receiving monies from the U.S. government. BP is listed as an “active” Iranian business partner, admitting to providing Iran with gasoline until 2008 – just three years after the company made public claims about its plans to cease working with Iran.  During this time, BP also admits to “…operating two fields and a pipeline” outside the rogue nation; the National Iranian Oil Company had a stake in this property. Currently, the company purchases “small quantities of crude oil” from Iran.</p>
<p>While BP is not necessarily violating the law by economically engaging Iran, U.S. leaders and policy experts fear that companies who ignore Iranian noncompliance with the UN and Western powers are only emboldening the nation’s leaders. Between the Gulf oil spill, which will likely have lasting environmental impact, and BP’s current Iranian policy, the company will likely remain under fire for months to come.</p>
<p><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/billy-hallowell/bps-other-oil-crisis/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>America Unprepared</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/billy-hallowell/america-unprepared/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=america-unprepared</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/billy-hallowell/america-unprepared/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 2010 04:10:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Billy Hallowell]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[atomic energy organization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[behzad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[document]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fars]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fars news agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iranian leaders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[memo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[memorandum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mideast nation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national security advisor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear ambitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[page memorandum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robert Gates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secretary of defense robert gates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TIME]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=58619</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A leaked memo shows that the U.S. has no long-term strategy against Iran. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/irannukeprotestberlinweb4mb.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-58621" title="irannukeprotestberlinweb4mb" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/irannukeprotestberlinweb4mb.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="333" /></a></p>
<p>This weekend, <em>The New York Times</em> <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/the-sunday-word-nuclear-warnings/">reported</a> on a secret, three-page memorandum that was composed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and sent to President Obama’s national security advisor this past January.  The document highlights Gates&#8217;s fear that the United  States is not adequately prepared for a nuclear Iran, while calling for effective long-term strategies in dealing with the defiant Mideast nation.  This unintended admission showcases the American government&#8217;s lack of long-range preparedness in the face of an aggressive and resistant Iran, while leaving many to wonder how the administration will confront Iran’s ever-increasing volatility.</p>
<p>The recent memo, written just three months ago, is startling in its own regard, as it appears to warn the White House that the U.S. is ill-prepared for the potential nuclear fruits of Iran’s defiance.  While this memo does, indeed, provide new internal insight, experts have been aware of the horrific dangers of a nuclear Iran for years.  On Mon., <em><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63J04H20100420?feedType=RSS&amp;feedName=topNews">Reuters reported</a></em> that, with “sufficient foreign assistance,” Iran may have the capability to strike the U.S. with a missile by 2015.  This, teamed with Iran’s very obvious nuclear ambitions and a plethora of “what ifs” should sanctions fail, has many experts worried about what is to come.  As time progresses, Iranian leaders are making it clear that, regardless of Western pressures, nuclear plans are forging onward.</p>
<p>Over the past two weeks the Iran/U.S. saga has intensified.  Just days prior to the memo&#8217;s release, <a href="http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Gates-No-Iranian-Nuclear-Weapon-for-At-Least-a-Year-90785969.html">Gates told reporters</a> that he does not anticipate Iranian ability to produce nuclear weapons for at least another year.  While this may seem like a settling piece of information, one year is hardly enough time to make viable headway with a nation that shows no signs of yielding. Gates vocalized this timeline in response to recent statements from Behzad Soltani, the head of Iran&#8217;s Atomic Energy Organization.  According to <em><a href="http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Gates-No-Iranian-Nuclear-Weapon-for-At-Least-a-Year-90785969.html">Voice of America</a></em>,</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Iran&#8217;s Fars news agency quotes the deputy head of Iran&#8217;s Atomic Energy Organization as saying &#8220;no country would even think about attacking Iran&#8221; after it joins the nuclear club.  Fars also quotes the official, Behzad Soltani, as saying Iran plans to expand nuclear technology for &#8220;purposes other than energy and fuel production.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>This exchange of sorts occurred around the same time last week that President Obama met with 47 world leaders to discuss global nuclear security.  As <em><a href="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1982962,00.html">Time Magazine reports</a></em>, the event was an attempt by Obama to build support for international sanctions against Iran.   In warding off U.S. pressures, <em><a href="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1982962,00.html">Time reports</a></em> that “…Iran has relied on its commercial relations — especially with Russia and China — to thwart U.S. efforts to isolate Iran.”  Coincidently, Iran was not invited to Obama’s conference, so the nation held its own “summit” to counteract the U.S.-led event.  In sum, 60 nations were in attendance (13 more than attended the U.S. conference), including representatives from both Russia and China.</p>
<p>Following the wake of the memo’s release, Gates seems to be downplaying the concerns that the document has sparked.  However, the Jan. 2010 memorandum exposed appropriate urgency in a matter that can no longer be ignored.  In the original memo, Gates plainly stated that the U.S. “&#8230;does not have an effective long-range policy for dealing with Iran’s steady progress toward nuclear capability.”  In an effort to put the Jan. 2010 memo into context, Gates attempted to explain why he issued what some see as a “jolt to action” for the Obama administration.  Gates said,</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;The memo was not intended as a &#8216;wake up call&#8217; or received as such by the President&#8217;s national security team.  Rather, it presented a number of questions and proposals intended to contribute to an orderly and timely decision making process.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>In the end, regardless of the PR game administration officials are likely playing, the main story here is that the U.S. lacks long-term strategy in dealing with a dangerous and volatile rogue nation – a nation that is doing little to nothing to comply with international requests that it stop utilizing nuclear materials.  Regardless of what Gates intended, or believes for that matter, the lack of a solidified plan is more than evident.  So, the natural question is: Where do we go from here?</p>
<p>Obama’s nuclear summit was likely a starting point for what is to come.  On April 14, just four days before the now-infamous memo leaked, <em>The Los Angeles Times</em> quoted Gates as saying that a broad, international agreement is extremely important if the U.S. plans to make headway with Iran.  In fact, the Obama administration is pushing so hard for <em>something</em> viable that officials are willing to adopt weaker sanctions than they would like, so long as the United Nations and the international community join forces in furthering Iranian isolation.   According to the <em><a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-iran-sanctions15-20100414,0,6942156.story">Times</a></em>,</p>
<blockquote><p>[Gates] said a Security Council resolution &#8220;provides a new legal platform&#8221; for individual nations or groups such as the European Union to take more stringent action. In that way, the UN resolution acts as a &#8220;launching pad&#8221; for economic strictures that are much tougher than those adopted by the world organization, [Gates]  said.</p></blockquote>
<p>This indicates that the Obama administration is settling for whatever compromise its international colleagues are willing to make.  As a result of pushback from other nations, the U.S. has abandoned a push for a <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-iran-sanctions15-20100414,0,6942156.story">ban on petroleum</a> heading to and coming from Iran.   With Turkey, China and Russia serving as potential blockades to Security Council action (the latter two have recently joined talks), U.N. sanctions may be weak at best.  Still, the <em>Times</em> notes that insiders believe that U.N. agreement, regardless of strength in tone, makes a statement to Iran and is essential to the formulation of smaller contingencies of nations that, under U.S. leadership, may embrace stricter sanctions.  While only time will tell how the scenario will play out, swift and stringent U.S. policy is surely due.</p>
<p><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/billy-hallowell/america-unprepared/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>GE&#8217;s Big Brother</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/billy-hallowell/ges-big-brother/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ges-big-brother</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/billy-hallowell/ges-big-brother/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Apr 2010 04:15:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Billy Hallowell]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bailout]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Board]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brady Dennis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CEO Jeff Immelt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[critical coverage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Czech Republic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[engine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[favorable treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[general]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[industry giants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islamic  Republic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jeff Gerth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jeff immelt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[L.A. Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[large corporations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media connections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Megan Stack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Moscow]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MSNBC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Poland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prime Minister Vladimir Putin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[program]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robert Gates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scrutiny]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secretary of State Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Timothy Carney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vanity Fair]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington Examiner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=58172</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why Americans should worry about the alliance between the Obama administration and the energy giant.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/obama20ge20logo1.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-58173" title="obama20ge20logo" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/obama20ge20logo1.jpg" alt="" width="280" height="280" /></a>The Obama administration has come under scrutiny for its ties to several large corporations, including the auto industry giants General Motors and Chrysler, whose bailout it engineered last spring. But one corporate connection has not received similar scrutiny. Since 2008, General Electric has been cozying up to the Obama administration. The relationship is sure to result in financial gain for GE, while likely granting the company greater access and influence. The arrangements set forth are legal, but the potential impact the interconnections may have – and the blatant kickbacks that have been offered – should alarm Americans.</p>
<p>In a <em>Washington Examiner</em> op-ed, journalist Timothy Carney <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-helps-strengthen-General-Electric-Putin-ties-59644627.html">points out</a> the eyebrow-raising ties between President Barack Obama&#8217;s team and GE&#8217;s leadership. According to Carney, “GE CEO Jeff Immelt sits on Obama&#8217;s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, and GE owns MSNBC, the network famously friendly to Obama.”</p>
<p>Immelts’s place on the board is concerning for a number of reasons. First and foremost, GE has been the recipient of bailout funds and stands to benefit from current and future contracts with the U.S. government. This may partly explain MSNBC’s highly favorable treatment of the Obama administration. With GE’s CEO sitting on Obama’s economic panel, it is no surprise that MSNBC rarely provides critical coverage of the administration. Furthermore, GE’s environmental business interests may explain why NBC recently <a href="http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/sright/2009/11/17/nbcs-obamavision-green-week-and-lousy-writing/">joined Hollywood</a> in inserting environmentally-friendly messaging into network programming. Furthermore, NBC promotes two annual campaigns &#8212; “Green Week” and “Earth Week” &#8212; that focus on environmentalism.</p>
<p>Media connections are just the tip of the iceberg. GE’s increased permeation into other sectors will have a more profound impact on policy and, in turn, Americans’ lives. A December 2009 <em>Vanity Fair </em><a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2009/12/windolf-200912?currentPage=2">article</a> points to what it calls suspicious “GE-friendly developments” that were spearheaded by the Obama administration. Following Immelt’s placement on Obama’s board, GE found a loophole and became the biggest benefactor of the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, a federal bailout initiative. According to Jeff Gerth and Brady Dennis of ProPublica, GE <a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/how-a-loophole-benefits-general-electric-628">appealed</a> behind the scenes to secure the company’s ability to participate. Coincidently, Immelt was quoted in a November 2009 <em>Wall Street Journal </em>article boasting about $192 million that GE plans to secure in government-sponsored projects – an interesting development considering his close relationship with President Obama and the work being conducted through the Economic Recovery Advisory Board.</p>
<p>Additionally, <em>Vanity Fair</em> <a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2009/12/windolf-200912?currentPage=2">reports</a> that after months of the Obama administration claiming that the government would not allocate $1 billion for the Joint Strike Fighters program (a fighter engine in which GE is one of two main benefactors), Obama included the plan in the 2010 Defense Authorization Bill. One wonders what caused Obama to change course, considering his previous opposition to GE’s engine. In fact, Defense Secretary Robert Gates threatened to recommend a veto should funding for the engine be included in the bill. Somehow, perceptions changed quite fluidly.</p>
<p>As reported by <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSB688381">Reuters</a>, back in September 2009, President Obama decided to cancel plans to install “inceptor missiles” in Poland and a “radar complex” in the Czech  Republic. Both of these security elements were intended to ward off missiles coming from rogue states. Perhaps most concerning was Russia’s <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSB688381">response</a> that immediately followed Obama’s announcement: “Shortly after the pullback on the shield program was announced, Russia&#8217;s government said Prime Minister Vladimir Putin would meet several U.S. executives…from firms including General Electric, Morgan Stanley…”</p>
<p>As Megan Stack of the <em>L.A. Times </em>has <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-clinton-russia19-2010mar19,0,5456929.story">noted</a>, the U.S. needs Russian support to ensure that more viable action be taken against Iran. As a result, U.S. leaders have been pushing Moscow to take a tougher stance. On a recent trip to Russia, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made clear U.S. opposition to a nuclear power plant that Russia is building and fueling in Iran – a plant that Clinton says the rogue nation is not entitled to until it can prove peaceful intent. Obama’s decision to change course on the missile program appeases Russia, while opening the door for GE and other U.S. businesses to more readily operate there.</p>
<p>While this may have some strategic benefits, the cost of abandoning security goals also poses its dangers. Obama’s decision to appease Russia may only embolden its government; this would be potentially dangerous to harmony and security in the region. Furthermore, given GE’s history of dealings with Iran, one has to wonder about GE’s willingness to work intensely with a nation that has such integral financial and energy sector connections with the Islamic Republic. Ultimately, the push to secure business for GE and other U.S.-based companies could imperil important security measures against rogue states like Iran.</p>
<p>If compromising media coverage, national security and economic interests were not enough, the energy sector is also at play. GE is looking to partner with the U.S. government in an effort to manage greenhouse gas credits. Tim Carney <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obamas-hidden-bailout-of-General-Electric_03_04-40686707.html">points out</a> that GE has created a new “joint venture” called Greenhouse Gas Services (GGS).  GGS invests in and seeks to manage greenhouse gas credits, and without the government stepping in to restrict greenhouse gases, GGS cannot turn a profit.  Obama has <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obamas-hidden-bailout-of-General-Electric_03_04-40686707.html">answered this call</a> by promising to create a greenhouse gas industry by 2012, providing yet another potentially lucrative opportunity for GE.</p>
<p>With new business on the horizon, Carney points out the potential ramifications of GE’s quest for greenhouse dominance. These potential downsides include: increased electricity and heating costs, increased manufactured and shipping goods costs and environmental costs as a result of Ethanol usage. Carney concludes: “When the lobbying fingerprints of GE and other well-connected firms are considered, it’s not hard to conclude that the policy that will finally emerge won’t be the one that is best for the planet and least bad for the economy, but the one that is best for General Electric.”</p>
<p>The buck does not stop there. Health care, an industry Obama has spent a substantial portion of the past 15 months pledging to reform, is also an area of interest for GE.  According to BNET’s <a href="http://industry.bnet.com/healthcare/1000623/ge-plans-broad-push-in-healthcare/">Ken Terry</a>, as the federal government began pushing for health care reform back in 2009, GE announced its own intent to invest $6 billion in a new “Healthymagination Initiative.” The overall goal, as Terry notes, is to increase GE’s standing in the health care industry. Perhaps most intriguing was Immelt’s pledge to influence consumers in their health behaviors as well as NBC and MSNBC’s commitment to begin airing more health-related stories and programming. It will become increasingly necessary to monitor and understand the role that GE will play once health care reform is more solidified. If recent history is any indication, GE will also have a major stake in the nation’s health care sector.</p>
<p>The U.S. government has always been, as Carney notes, a viable GE partner, but the changing political landscape is paving the way for the company to receive transformational benefits and control. Immelt realizes this, which is likely one reason that Obama was the top recipient of GE contributions during the 2008 presidential campaign (after all, Immelt is a Republican and a former McCain supporter who has no other reason apart from profits to partner with Obama). With such extensive reach into sectors that impact the daily lives of Americans and with international policy at stake, it is in the public’s best interest that close attention be paid to the alliance between GE and the Obama administration.</p>
<p><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/billy-hallowell/ges-big-brother/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>34</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Contracting with the Enemy</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/billy-hallowell/contracting-with-the-enemy/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=contracting-with-the-enemy</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/billy-hallowell/contracting-with-the-enemy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 2010 04:17:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Billy Hallowell]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CBS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cbs news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CEO Jeff Immelt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chip Cummins]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[close relationships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[company]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Electric]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gary Sheffer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[general]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iraqi insurgents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal loopholes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Libya]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lybia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.J.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[part]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recognizable brands]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rogue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rogue nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sen. Frank Lautenberg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state sponsor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Syria]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Thompson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TIME]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[treacherous nature]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. State]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[William Thompson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[work]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=58072</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How General Electric defied the international community to do business with Iran.
]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"><em><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/22ge.xlarge1.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-58074" title="22ge.xlarge1" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/22ge.xlarge1.jpg" alt="" width="480" height="280" /></a></em></p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><em>[The Editors: This is the first of a two-part FrontPage investigative series on General Electric and its troubling business practices. The first part explores the company’s ties to rogue nations like Iran. The second part will examine GE’s connections to the Obama administration and the benefits it has derived from high-level access to the White House.]</em></p>
<p><em>“We don’t run a charity at GE. We’re in business to make money for our investors.&#8221; &#8211; General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt</em></p>
<p>Being called a “state sponsor of terror” would seem to be bad for business. Yet the label has traditionally done little to deter one of the world’s largest companies, General Electric, from pursuing business relations with rogue nations. In fact, GE, like a number of other U.S. companies, has a history of exploiting legal loopholes during times of U.S. and U.N. sanctions in order to continue generating revenues from dangerous regimes – despite full knowledge of the treacherous nature of their clientele. A prime example is GE&#8217;s former relationship with Iran amidst allegations that the fundamentalist nation was assisting Iraqi insurgents in their efforts to kill U.S. troops.</p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"> </span></p>
<p>Like most viable industrial companies, GE is in a constant state of looking for new business. As one of the world’s largest companies and one of the most recognizable brands in existence, this is only natural. However, GE&#8217;s once-troubling close relationships to Iran, Syria and Lybia make an exploration of its past history paramount.</p>
<p>It was not long ago that GE’s ties to rogue nations like Iran and Syria took center stage. In 2004, <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/22/60minutes/main595214.shtml">CBS News</a>, among other outlets, reported on a loophole that allowed GE and related companies to circumvent U.S. sanctions in order to conduct business in countries like Iran and Syria. According to CBS, so long as foreign or offshore subsidiaries were run by non-Americans, legal restrictions on business services to rogue nations did not apply. At the time, former NYC comptroller William Thompson accused GE and its cohorts of helping to “underwrite and support terrorism” by operating in Iran. Thompson said that revenues earned from projects that companies like GE worked on were being allocated for terror-related activities. Additionally, he claimed that GE “violated the spirit of the law.”</p>
<p>In response, GE called CBS’s coverage “shallow and one-sided.” However, as criticism and public angst rose, the company changed course and decided to stop seeking new business in Iran. On Feb. 2, 2005, General Electric spokesman Gary Sheffer <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/manufacturing/2005-02-02-ge-iran_x.htm">said</a>,</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Because of uncertain conditions related to Iran, including concerns about meeting future customer commitments, we will not accept any new orders for business…this moratorium on new orders will be re-evaluated as conditions relating to Iran change.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Pressures from Thompson and other prominent figures, like Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who made very public claims that GE, Halliburton and other companies were collecting “blood money” in their dealings with rogue nations, led to this alteration of corporate policy. Still, this reversal did not apply to the contracts that were already in process at the time the decision was made. In fact, it was not until 2008 that GE finally completed Iranian contract work.</p>
<p>Though legal, the original work that was accomplished through a systematic loophole, as well as the continued contract work, violated business ethics and undermined the pressure that the U.S., U.N. and other partners were placing on rogue nations with nuclear and terror-related ambitions, like Iran – nations that were and continue to be bastions of instability. GE’s continued dealings with Iran afforded the state a measure of legal legitimacy, reduced the incentive to comply with sanctions, and ultimately halted the progress the international community was attempting to make in the region.</p>
<p>GE continued to do work on remaining Iranian projects (those contracted before the 2005 suspension) until 2008. This occurred <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/06/politics/06bomb.html">despite</a> U.S. knowledge of the role that Iran was playing in supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents. Last month, Chip Cummins of <em>The</em> <em>Wall Street Journal</em> <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703429304575095430605944518.html">mentioned</a> an acquisition that raises some eyebrows about GE’s true commitment to its 2005 business suspension. According to Cummins, in 2007 GE purchased Vetco Gray, a company that was doing business in Iran at the time (though GE has since allowed its contracts to close out). As a result of the actions of at least three unidentified employees, Vetco Gray was <a href="http://skaddenpractices.skadden.com/sec/attach.php?documentID=111">fined $26 million</a> in 2004 for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by making payments to Nigerian customs officials.</p>
<p>Prior to negative press coverage for its engagement with Iran, GE had no qualms about contracting with rogue nations. Consider its relationship with Libya, a nation that was actively involved in terror activities in the 1980’s and 1990’s and was not removed from the U.S. State Department’s State Sponsors of Terrorism <a href="http://www.state.gov/s/ct/c14151.htm">list</a> until 2006. In 2004, <em>Fortune</em> magazine reported that, during years of active sanctions against the nation, GE conducted business with Libya through Nuovo Pignone (Italian subsidiary); work in Libya continues today, though U.S. relations with the former rogue nation have improved.</p>
<p>Today, General Electric claims that outside of humanitarian aid neither the main company nor its subsidiaries engage in any business relationships with nations that are presently on the U.S. State Sponsors of Terrorism list (Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria). Based on GE’s history, however, the concern for state sponsors of terrorism is likely linked more to public perception and potential business impact than it is to ethical convictions. The company still stands by its handling of Iranian business, claiming on its <a href="http://www.ge.com/news/our_viewpoints/iran.html">web site</a> that, “GE at all times acted in full compliance with U.S. and other laws. We have always required our businesses to follow U.S. sanctions and other applicable laws. In fact, our policies have been more restrictive than U.S. law.” But in a sign of its new position, on Sept. 2009, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703429304575095430605944518.html">GE became the first company</a> to sign UANI’s public statement claiming that it would not do business in Iran (aside from approved humanitarian work).</p>
<p>Still, the record is clear: Whatever it may say now, the company – with its various arms extending into commercial and consumer finance, aviation, aerospace, healthcare, entertainment and energy – has become proficient at finding loopholes in order to do business with rogue nations. When it comes to getting the job done and driving revenues, GE’s principal concern seems to be for its bottom line – even if it means contracting with the enemy.</p>
<p><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/billy-hallowell/contracting-with-the-enemy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 761/799 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 07:59:27 by W3 Total Cache -->