Royal Dutch Shell Playing Politics with Human Lives?
What is even more appalling is the fact that the oil giant Royal Dutch Shell, is the one behind the scene steering the affairs of the Dutch Government and practically playing politics with ‘human lives.’
By Zik Gbemre
We find it rather appalling that the custodians’ of society, in this case; the Netherlands, Russia and other European states plus the oil giant-Royal Dutch Shell, are more interested in ‘their pockets,’ thirst for power politics and their economy/business rather than ‘human life’ and high moral values enshrined in the rule of law and rights of its citizenry. That is how best we can describe the pathetic situation playing out between some European nations and Russia and Shell in the middle. Like the above article has noted, it is really sad that “despite anger over downed Jetliner, Europe is shying away from sanctions against Russia.” What is even more appalling is the fact that the oil giant Royal Dutch Shell, is the one behind the scene steering the affairs of the Dutch Government and practically playing politics with ‘human lives.’
As noted in the article extract above, the Anglo-Dutch Shell is one of the largest foreign investors in Russian gas fields in Siberia and is also the largest corporation in the Netherlands. This has automatically made Shell the most vital and important player in the economy of Netherlands. That means if anything affects Shell, it also affects the Dutch Government and the Netherland’s economy. Hence, the neatly close relationship between the Royal Dutch Shell and the Dutch Government. And as noted in the article extract above, Shell stock is widely held in the nation’s pension funds. That means if Shell loses money, the pensions of Dutch teachers, civil servants and many others suffer. As a result, the ties between Shell and the Dutch government are extremely close, and the company’s welfare inevitably influences policy and every other decisions of the Dutch Government.
As noted in the post, “They have direct access to everybody in the establishment,” said Sweder van Wijnbergen, who was the secretary-general of the ministry of economic affairs from 1997 to 2000. His former boss in that job, who was then the minister in charge of the economy, Hans Wijers, sits on the Shell board of directors (that is how close the relationship between Shell and the Dutch Government is). “Naturally, Shell will try to prevent any sanctions against Russia,” Mr. van Wijnbergen said. “Of course the government ultimately makes its own decisions.” And we add, such decisions of the Dutch Government are still tailored to suit the interests of the oil giant-Shell to protect their business in Russia.
That means we cannot separate Shell’s interests from that of the Dutch Government’s interests. And as such, the business interests of Shell obviously outweighs every other interests concerning The Netherlands; even if it pertains to human lives. This to us is a rather dangerous pattern of relationship that only upholds the ideals of capitalism.
But the truth is that, in a situation where innocent lives were blatantly cut short by the inter-play of a supposed cold war driven by the excessive tendencies of the Russia Government in Ukraine and parts of Europe, and the Dutch Government and Shell are more interested in saving their self-centered interests, then it greatly questions the integrity of the oil giant that keeps preaching “SAFETY FIRST” in all its operations across the world.
In a situation where about 298 lives were lost, which includes Four Shell employees and 193 citizens of The Netherlands that died in the crash of Flight 17, we are greatly disturbed at the length these big corporate companies and their partners in government would go to just to be on top of their game. Shell as a company often preaches that ‘Safety’ (which focuses on the safety of personnel against injury and loss of life during their operations), is the ultimate goal of all of its operations. And that if a job is considered to be ‘unsafe’ then such a job should be discarded and done away with, no matter how much is involved. But by playing ignorant of the situation in Russia and the loss of countless innocent lives and planes getting shot with missiles, then it means Shell’s SAFETY FIRST slogan and sermons are all a complete sham in all ramifications. When it comes to human lives and business, every corporate entity and government should know where to draw the line.
It is also funny that Shell is plying ‘double-standard’ in its operations in other countries like Nigeria when compared to what it does in The Netherlands. For instance, in its regular Integrity Due Diligence (IDD) Audit exercise in Nigeria meant for its registered Vendors/Contractors, Shell (SPDC) clearly stipulates that for every job execution, its registered Vendor/Contractor must first confirm that “none of its owners or directors, nor its employees or associates who will benefit from or take part in the execution or performance of the Agreement, is a Government Official…” That means as a Shell (SPDC) Vendor/Contractor in Nigeria, one should have no ‘relationship with the government’ that will make the latter benefit from the job being executed on behalf of the Shell. In fact, we know of one Prince Chief Okeimute Oviri, a registered Shell (SPDC) Contractor who was nearly disqualified because he made some published commentaries on Nigerian politics, not that he was even an elected government official.
The question now is, if Shell has and encourages a closely-knitted relationship with its Dutch Government in the Netherlands, how come the situation is different in Nigeria concerning its Vendors? Shell even allows a government official to sit on its board of directors. That is unheard of in other countries like Nigeria where it operates. Perhaps, this is a topic for another day.
It is also appalling and unfortunate that the Dutch Government is not condemning Russia for its devious actions in Ukraine and even against its citizenry, simply because of its economic interests in Russia through Shell. For shying away from this, it simply means the Dutch Government are aiding and abating broad day light ‘war crimes’ perpetrated by the Russia Government. As noted in the article, “In a full-page advertisements in major Dutch newspapers, the government offered condolences, but described the downing of the plane as a “disaster” rather than a missile strike. In recent days, Prime Minister Mark Rutte of The Netherlands has made sure to keep his lines of communication with Mr. Putin open, to “bring the bodies home,” he has said repeatedly. Behind the scenes, Dutch investors in Russia are also consulted, former insiders said. “Of course representatives of Shell are discreetly talking to the government throughout the plane ordeal, in order to minimize damage to the company,” Mr. van Wijnbergen said.
The Dutch entanglement with Russia through Shell is emblematic of ties that many European nations have with Russia. In making the case for tougher sanctions to his Parliament, Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain argued that Europe should use its economic leverage against Russia. But other European countries have parried/blocked efforts to strengthen penalties on Russia. France for instance, has opposed proposed sanctions against arms sales to Russia, in part because it is building two Mistral-class helicopter ships for Russia’s military. “For the time being, a level of sanctions has not been decided that would prevent this delivery,” President François Hollande of France said in the report. “The Russians have paid,” he said, and canceling the deal would require France to reimburse Russia €1.1 billion, or $1.5 billion. Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany on Monday said that communication lines with Russia needed to stay open.
As reiterated in the post, despite widespread anger over the plane’s downing, European nations have shied away from measures that would further isolate Russia. Dependent on Russian gas and oil, wary of confrontation on the Continent and alive to the fact of Russia’s proximity, Europe’s leaders have largely decided they will have to live with a newly assertive Russia. “Almost every European state has voluntarily handed over power to Mr. Putin, allowing him to play countries against each other,” said Marietje Schaake, an influential member of the European Parliament. “We should choose for energy independency, for principles, human rights and rule of law. But that is not what (they) are doing now.”
At a recent meeting, the foreign ministers of the European Union agreed to draw up a new, broader list of targets for sanctions, including Russian individuals and entities, said Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s foreign affairs Chief. But no new additional measures were imposed, reflecting fears among some Europeans that tougher sanctions would invite reprisals by Russia against countries dependent on its energy supplies, harming the Continent’s economic growth. It was a mirror image of the debate that unfolded in bland diplomatic language in Brussels, where foreign ministers of the European Union’s 28 member states were under pressure to display resolve and common purpose after the downing of the Malaysia Airlines jet over eastern Ukraine. In the end, there was plenty of tough talk, yet no real punishment for Russia despite calls from Australia, Britain and the United States, who have all accused Russia of supplying the missile that brought down Flight 17, to take a tougher line.
“Nowhere is the European conundrum clearer than in the Netherlands, a tiny nation of 16 million but one of the wealthiest in the European Union. For more than a decade, the Dutch have been forging closer ties with Russia, emphasizing a growing trade and economic partnership while pointedly ignoring President Vladimir V. Putin’s regional ambitions,” said the post.
But the question is, should government of nations and big corporate companies like Shell do whatever pleases them in securing their economic interests to the detriment of its various citizenry? Absolutely not! As emphasized in the article, “We have to draw a line somewhere,” said Meindert van der Kaaij, a silver-haired journalist, lamenting over those who died on Flight 17. “We must say something.”
It is also imperative to note that if what is going in Europe, Russia and Ukraine (plus the oil giants in the middle), is happening in Africa or Asia, we are very sure all the major powers of the West will be crying foul and making so much noise. In fact, we are sure they will not even hesitate a moment to impose sanctions and carry out complete aerial raids/invasion (like the ones done by NATO), on any African country that is doing what Russia is doing in Ukraine and Europe.
Zik Gbemre, JP
National Coordinator
National Coordinator
We Mobilize Others to Fight for Individual Causes as if Those Were Our Causes
Europe fails to impose tough sanctions on Russia
Extract from a Seeking Alpha article published 23 July 2014
EU foreign ministers failed to impose any tough sanctions against Russia during a meeting of the bloc’s foreign ministers yesterday, NYT reports.
Dependent on Russia’s energy and wary of confrontation, Europe’s leaders have largely decided they will have to live with a newly assertive Russia.
The Netherlands lost at least 193 victims in the Malaysian Airlines crash over Ukraine, but Royal Dutch Shell is one of the largest foreign investors in Russian gas fields in Siberia; if Shell loses money, the pensions of Dutch teachers, civil servants and many others suffer.
One of our sources: Joe McGinniss, the famed ‘journalist provocateur’
Extract from a Joe McGinniss email to a PR officer for one of the organizations supporting the plaintiffs in the Wiwa v Shell case, in which Joe (right) criticised the $15.5 million settlement:
But I can’t help sensing that after finally reaching the point where you were about to show the world the evidence of Shell’s maleficence and perfidy you turned back from the brink, took a token payment, and let them off the hook. There may have been many sound reasons for doing so. Obviously, on balance, you collectively agreed that settlement was preferable to the trial you’d sought for thirteen years. But it was like you had the stake in your hand, and then instead of driving it into their foul and noxious heart you set it down, took their chump change, and walked away, leaving them able to scurry off spouting claims of having been “humanitarian.”
By John Donovan
Joe McGinniss, the famed “journalist provocateur” as described in aNew York Times obituary published days after his death, was a fan of this website, a friend and a source of insider information.
Extract from NYT Obituary
…in 2010, Mr. McGinniss caused a ruckus when he moved next door to Sarah Palin, former governor of Alaska and Republican vice-presidential candidate, and her family in Wasilla, Alaska, where she was once the mayor. Mr. McGinniss said he needed to be nearby to do research for a book about her. The book, “The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin,” published in 2011, made sensational allegations…
Joe had made his name decades earlier as a result of his bestseller book about the Presidential campaign of Richard Nixon: “The Selling of the President 1968.”
It was because of Joe that we were able to announce the pendingsettlement of the Wiwa v Shell case in June 2009 before anyone else, including mainstream media. I mentioned in the article that I was receiving insider information on the case. It came from Joe who was not a fan of Shell.
I have reprinted below one of the many emails we received from Joe at that time.
Alfred & John–
Steve Kretzman, p.r. man for one of the organizations supporting the plaintiffs in Wiwa, has written a reply to my piece in The Daily Beast.
I don’t know whether they will publish it, but I thought you’d find it of interest and thought you also might be interested in a letter I wrote to Kretzman this morning, at the conclusion of which I pasted some of John’s words of wisdom from June 8th.
Ireland sounds interesting. Maybe I should visit the ould sod and take a first-hand look.
best,
Joe
Joe
Sitting with Shell’s unsettling settlement
After thirteen years and countless hours by lawyers, community members, and activists around the world, Royal Dutch Shell finally settled the Wiwa v Shell case in a New York court for $15.5 million.
Shell says they settled the case as a “humanitarian gesture” to the Ogoni. Does anyone really believe that after fighting for more than a decade to keep this out of court, Shell suddenly woke up and felt great compassion for the Ogoni? Please.
Writing in the Daily Beast, Joe McGinniss asks “how much is a dead Nigerian worth to Shell”? It’s a perfectly legitimate question to ask, especially when you consider that Royal Dutch Shell is a corporation that made more than $30 billion in profits last year alone.
Its also more than a bit unfair. Not to Shell – who cares about them? But to the families of Ken Saro-Wiwa and the other executed Ogoni men, McGinniss’ article is completely insensitive to the reality of trying to find closure on a painful episode in their lives.
As Ken Wiwa Jr. wrote eloquently in the Guardian, “the case [was] freighted with all kinds of agendas that it [could not] possibly satisfy”. Has the settlement brought relief to Ken Wiwa jr and the families of the other men who were executed? The answer from them is an unequivocal yes. That alone should be cause for celebration, and they alone get to be the judges of what is adequate for that.
Is $15.5 million is enough to compensate for the hanging of nine men, the death of thousands more, and for the destruction of an ecosystem? No of course not. One wonders what amount of money would ever be enough for that.
But was $15.5 million on par with what a jury would have awarded in this case? Yes, lawyers tell me, for sure.
The reality is Shell settled because they were scared, and they knew the evidence against them was overwhelming. They publicly say they had nothing to do with the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and the other Ogoni, and yet there were documents and video that they fought hard to keep out of the public eye.
Evidence that was to be introduced in the case included an internal Shell memo where the head of Shell Nigeria offered to intervene on Saro-Wiwa’s behalf, if only Saro-Wiwa and others would stop claiming that Shell had made payments to the military.
Then there was this memo, requesting payment to the Nigerian military for an incident in which at least one Ogoni man died.
Witness were set to testify that they saw Shell vehicles transporting Nigerian soldiers, that they saw Shell employees conferring with the military, that they saw money being exchanged between Shell employees and military officers, and that they heard military officers, including Major Okuntimo of the Rivers State Internal Security Task Force, make admissions regarding the work they were doing on behalf of Shell.
We have known of Shell’s involvement in this tragedy for a long time. In early May of 1994, Ken Saro-Wiwa Sr. faxed me a memo authored by Major Okuntimo which read “Shell operations still impossible unless ruthless military operations are undertaken for smooth economic activities to commence” and further called for “pressure on oil companies for prompt regular inputs”.
I received that fax and immediately called Ken, who was in London at the time. He said “this is it. They’re going to kill us all. All for Shell.” It was the last time I talked with him. He returned to Nigeria (an incredibly brave thing to do), and was shortly arrested on the trumped up charges for which he was ultimately hanged.
Ken Sr.’s famous last words from the gallows were “lord take my soul but the struggle continues”. In this moment, perhaps more than ever before, we need to heed that call to action. The settlement in this case brings satisfaction to the plaintiffs for an event that happened 14 years ago. It in no way, shape or form excuses or absolves Shell of their ongoing destruction of the Niger Delta environment
One of the central complaints of Niger Delta communities for forty years is gas flaring, which sends plumes of toxic pollutants into the air and water of the Niger Delta. Gas flaring endangers human health, harms local ecosystems, emits huge amounts of greenhouse gases, wastes vast quantities of natural gas, and is against Nigerian law. Shell does it nowhere else in the world in volumes that are even remotely comparable to what they flare in the Delta.
But Shell is still flaring gas with reckless abandon in Nigeria.
While there is no doubt that the settlement represented a significant victory for the plaintiffs’ in this one human rights case against Shell, true justice will not be served as long as the people of Nigeria continue to suffer the terrible impact of Shell’s operations. Shell estimates it would cost about $3 billion – only 10% of just their last year’s profits – to end Shell’s gas flaring in Nigeria once and for all.
But instead of putting their great “humanitarian concern” into action, Shell points the finger at the Nigerian government and demands that they pay to end this practice.
Send a message to Shell’s CEO Jeroen van der Veer, and let him know that if he really wants to prove his great concern for the Ogoni people, he’ll end gas flaring once and for all.
The struggle continues.
Steve Kretzmann is Executive Director of Oil Change International. He has worked on policy and movement building surrounding energy issues and the global oil industry for the last nineteen years. He served as the environmental advisor to Ken Saro-Wiwa and the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People in Nigeria. In April 2009, he testified in the US Congress on the impacts of the oil industry in Nigeria.
Steve–
Steve–
I know you will have seen what’s below fromhttp://royaldutchshellplc.com.
I don’t agree for a moment that plaintiffs’ lawyers “had their own greed-driven agenda,” but I am left wondering about other factors, such as a) simple exhaustion after thirteen years, b) the actual strength of the claims as they would have been argued before a jury (which is different from the underlying legal soundness of the case, which is what got it this far), c) the possible effect of last year’s Chevron verdict in California on the decision of whether or not to go to trial, and d) whether, as I have read in Nigerian newspapers, Ken Jr.’s position in the Nigerian government would have undercut his testimony and the strength of your arguments in his behalf.
An oil company executive in Alaska whom I have known for many years just wrote to me that “The size of that settlement says they were just trying to buy off what they considered a nuisance suit. But why in hell, if the plaintiffs believe in their case, are they supposedly happy with it?”
A fair question?
What I haven’t yet been able to understand is how–after all that moral fervor sustained for all those years, and all the rhetoric about Shell’s merciless criminal conduct in Ogoni and elsewhere in the Niger Delta for decades, and in particular the allegations of complicity in extrajudicial executions–you could agree to a settlement in which there is absolutely no admission of wrongdoing. To me, that seems to make claims of victory ring hollow. And it does allow those inclined to believe it to go on saying that from the start the plaintiffs were only in it for what they might be able to extract from Shell’s deep pockets and that there were no larger human rights principles involved, only the invocation of same for strategic purposes.
I don’t believe that. I’m aware that there are inevitably tugs and pulls in different directions in litigation involving multiple plaintiffs over many years.
But I can’t help sensing that after finally reaching the point where you were about to show the world the evidence of Shell’s maleficence and perfidy you turned back from the brink, took a token payment, and let them off the hook.
There may have been many sound reasons for doing so. Obviously, on balance, you collectively agreed that settlement was preferable to the trial you’d sought for thirteen years. But it was like you had the stake in your hand, and then instead of driving it into their foul and noxious heart you set it down, took their chump change, and walked away, leaving them able to scurry off spouting claims of having been “humanitarian.”
Would Ken Saro-Wiwa really have been pleased to see Shell able to escape the consequences of their complicity in his death without
admitting to so much as a misdemeanor? I ask that not confrontationally, but in the hope that as I move forward with research for a book about the impact of the ATCA on human rights litigation in the U.S. and on the history of this case, in particular, I might be able to reach a better understanding.
admitting to so much as a misdemeanor? I ask that not confrontationally, but in the hope that as I move forward with research for a book about the impact of the ATCA on human rights litigation in the U.S. and on the history of this case, in particular, I might be able to reach a better understanding.
Respectfully,
Joe
Joe
Shell’s blood money settles the Wiwa case
Jun 8th, 2009 by John Donovan.
By John Donovan
As forecast on June 3 in my article “Shell settlement in the Wiwa v. Shell U.S. trial imminent?“, Shell has indeed chosen “to solve the problem with hard cash rather then allowing the dirtiest of dirty laundry to be aired in court”. $15.5 million to be precise.
My analysis and forecast was based partly on inside information and partly on our own unique experience in dealing with Shell lawyers and Shell senior management, including Malcolm Brinded, in an unparalleled series of seven court actions, all of which Shell chose to settle.
My article led to feverish speculation by Ogoni activists in the USA, of a sell out. I have Ogoni internal emails confirming this fact.
The plaintiffs contended that Shell colluded with the Nigerian Military Government in the 1995 execution of 9 Ogoni activists, including Ken Saro-Wiwa (above), after being convicted on trumped up charges…Greed seems to have overcome the stated objectives of exposing Shell’s evil misdeeds in open court. The plaintiffs would have been under pressure by their lawyers, who had their own greed driven agenda. That would have made it easier to take Shell’s blood money.
Contrary to the words attributed to his soon-to-be wealthy son, I doubt Ken Saro-Wiwa would be at all happy with Shell being allowed to escape justice with the usual formula of no admittance of wrongdoing. From all that I have heard about him, I think he would be utterly disgusted with the outcome.
I know how the PR side is arranged in advance with press statements being issued containing false information to fool the media, the public, and Shell stake-holders into believing that Shell was an innocent benevolent bystander. In our last action against Shell, the true terms of settlement were kept secret even from the Judge, Mr Justice Laddie. $15.5 million is a pittance compared with the billions of dollars in hydrocarbons Shell has extracted from the Niger Delta over decades,leaving death and destruction in its wake.
Another win for the devil.
BP a better investment than Shell right now
Extracts from an article by David Thorpe published 22 July 2014 by What Investment under the headline: “M&G: BP is a better investment than Shell right now”
Felton’s reason for not investing in Shell at present is that he believes the company has made a significant strategic blunder.
‘Shell has always been the high cost, low risk producer. They are the archetypal supertanker of the oil industry. But a few years ago, they began to focus on extracting very expensive oil from the Canadian sands. The rationale was that the higher production cost would be offset by the ease of transporting the oil just next door to the US. And that made sense, when the US was the largest oil market in the world, but the rapid acceleration of the fracking industry means that the US could become self-sufficient in energy within one or two years, which means Shell wouldn’t have that market.’
He continued: ‘Shell has invested a lot over the past decade, maybe £40 billion in capital expenditure around the world, pursuing its high cost, low risk production strategy and has very little to show for it.’
‘Shell will try to prevent any sanctions against Russia’
Extracts from a New York Times article by Thomas Erdbrink published 23 July 2014 in the New York edition under the headline: “Despite Anger Over Downed Jetliner, Europe Shies Away From Sanctions on Russia”
Shell, the Anglo-Dutch oil giant, which has its head office in The Hague, is one of the largest foreign investors in Russian gas fields in Siberia. Shell is the largest corporation in the Netherlands, and its stock is widely held in the nation’s pension funds. If Shell loses money, the pensions of Dutch teachers, civil servants and many others suffer.
As a result, the ties between Shell and the government are extremely close, and the company’s welfare inevitably influences policy, analysts said.
“They have direct access to everybody in the establishment,” said Sweder van Wijnbergen, who was the secretary-general of the ministry of economic affairs from 1997 to 2000. His former boss in that job, who was then the minister in charge of the economy, Hans Wijers, sits on the Shell board of directors. “Naturally Shell will try to prevent any sanctions against Russia,” Mr. van Wijnbergen said. “Of course the government ultimately makes its own decisions.”
A spokesman for the company declined to say whether Shell would reconsider its investments in Russia after the downing of the plane. Four Shell employees died in the crash of Flight 17.
The port of Rotterdam saw the import of Russian oil rise fivefold over the past decade, making the country the largest importer of Russian gas. Shell has been a major investor in a huge Russian liquefied natural gas project in Siberia.
The Dutch entanglement with Russia through Shell is emblematic of ties that many European nations have with Russia.
Behind the scenes, Dutch investors in Russia are also consulted, former insiders said. “Of course representatives of Shell are discreetly talking to the government throughout the plane ordeal, in order to minimize damage to the company,” Mr. van Wijnbergen said.
The TRUTH will set you FREE.
