Why Must Ilhan Omar Apologize for Telling the Truth?

by Brett Wilkins Posted on February 14, 2019

https://original.antiwar.com/Brett_Wilkins/2019/02/13/why-must-ilhan-omar-apologize-for-telling-the-truth/

There can be no doubt among reasonable and informed observers that pro-Israel lobby groups and individuals are among the most influential players in US politics. Why, then, has Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) been forced to apologize for tweeting the truth about the outsize influence of the Zionist lobby on US foreign and domestic policy?

Omar and Palestinian-American Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), the first two Muslim women elected to Congress, have only been in office for a month. Yet they have been constantly accused of anti-Semitism from House Republicans because of their criticism of Israel and their support for Palestinians. Now Omar’s own party has joined in on the attacks against her, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and four other leading House Democrats issuing a statement condemning the former refugee from Somalia for "the use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel’s supporters."

"All About the Benjamins"

Rep. Omar’s offense? Tweeting the obvious – that US support for Israel is "all about the Benjamins, baby" (a hip-hop reference to hundred dollar bills) and that AIPAC, the powerful lobby group American Israel Public Affairs Committee, pays politicians to be pro-Israel. While AIPAC doesn’t actually contribute directly to politicians, it nevertheless wields tremendous influence within the halls of US power, as you’ll soon see.

All lobbying is "all about the Benjamins," especially since 2010 when the Supreme Court affirmed in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations are people, money is free speech and corporations and other special interests can spend unlimited amounts of money influencing the outcome of US elections. This corrupt system has not only allowed but has encouraged corporations, special interest groups, and wealthy individuals to spend billions of dollars on candidates and causes. Pro-Israel groups and individuals have spent hundreds of millions of dollars backing politicians and policies favorable to Israel and, by natural extension, harmful to Palestinians.

It is perfectly acceptable to criticize the National Rifle Association (NRA) for its incessant objection to any and all gun control efforts, or the American Petroleum Institute (API) for opposing meaningful action to combat climate change, or the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) for supporting myriad reprehensible policies and actions. No one cries "Islamophobia" when pro-Saudi Arabia groups are criticized for spending millions of dollars influencing the United States. So why is Israel off limits?

"It’s a Trick"

The answer lies largely in the very power of the Zionist lobby, which has worked very hard to conflate legitimate criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews. "It’s a trick," explained the late Israeli cabinet minister Shulamit Aloni. "When somebody from Europe is criticizing Israel, we bring up the Holocaust. When in [the US] people are criticizing Israel, then they are anti-Semitic." Aloni continued:

The organization is strong, and has a lot of money… and they have power… They are talented people and they have power and money, and the media and other things, and their attitude are ‘Israel, my country right or wrong’…and they are not ready to hear criticism. And it’s very easy to blame people who criticize certain acts of the Israeli government as anti-Semitic, and to bring up the Holocaust and the suffering of the Jewish people, to justify everything we do to the Palestinians.

Silencing Dissent

While it is true that fallacious accusations of an insidious global Jewish conspiracy to control the world have long been a weapon of choice of anti-Semites, it is also undeniably true that Israel and the Zionist lobby are far more powerful than one would expect considering that Israel is the world’s 100th-largest country by population, its 150th-largest by land area and its 31st-largest economy. Now consider that every major Republican and Democratic 2016 presidential contender spoke at AIPAC’s annual convention, either in person or via video.

"Any member of Congress knows that AIPAC is associated indirectly with significant amounts of campaign spending if you’re with them, and significant amounts against you if you’re not with them," former congressman Brian Baird (D-WA) explained to the New Yorker.

In an effort to protect Israel’s reputation amid growing international outrage over its illegal occupation and settler colonization of Palestinian territory, more than 100 laws have been passed or proposed in a majority of US states that outlaw support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, the peaceful campaign for freedom, justice and equality for Palestinians. One bipartisan bill in Congress, the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720), would make it a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison and a $1 million fine, to comply with or support peaceful boycotts of Israel. According to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, S. 720 "was drafted with the assistance of AIPAC." Americans have also lost or been denied employment for failing to sign pro-Israel oaths in work contracts, and lobbyist-backed anti-BDS measures have targeted students, staff and speakers on college campuses across the nation.

For what other foreign nation would members of both houses of Congress and countless state and local officials be willing to sacrifice Americans’ sacred First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association?

"A Big, Big Issue"

The 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq is another case in point. While pressure from Israel and the Zionist lobby wasn’t the only – or even the leading – reason why the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq, it was a major factor driving the US toward war. This might be a controversial, even taboo, assertion in the United States. But don’t take my word for it; former British prime minister Tony Blair testified before the UK Iraq war commission that "Israel was a big, big issue" and 9/11 Commission chief Philip Zelikow said that the "real threat" from Iraq was not to the United States but rather "against Israel." Bush’s decision to invade Iraq delighted Israeli leaders including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who publicly stated that 9/11 was good for Israel and who boasted how he’d deceived Bill Clinton to sabotage the Oslo peace process.

"America is a thing you can move very easily," bragged Netanyahu, who marveled at the "absurd" level of popular support for Israel in the United States. He wasn’t the only one gloating – AIPAC executive director Howard Kohr said in 2003 that one of the lobby’s "success stories" was its "quiet lobbying" of Congress for a war resolution.

Thanks to groups like AIPAC, criticism of Israel or even expression of sympathy for the Palestinian people has become the third rail of American politics. Aspiring pro-Palestinian politicians are quickly brought to heel; witness candidate Barack Obama acknowledging on the 2008 campaign trail that "nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people." That statement raised Zionist eyebrows and ire from Brooklyn to Beersheba and the presidential hopeful’s tune quickly changed – a year later as he closed in on the prize of a political lifetime, Obama crushed the hope of many Palestinians when he appeared at AIPAC’s annual policy conference and pledged his full support for Israel. Explaining why it’s so difficult for an American president to be an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Obama later told Palestine advocates that "you cannot simply rely on the belief that you are right; I hear from AIPAC every week, you need to raise your voice so that I hear you and not just them."

Silence Is Betrayal

The problem is that the Zionist lobby – which has even made the word "Zionist" taboo – is doing everything in its power to make sure that only its voice, and not the growing international chorus of voices condemning Israeli crimes against Palestine, is heard. Anti-Semitism is an ancient and deadly scourge that has sparked some of the most horrific crimes against humanity ever perpetrated by humankind. It should be roundly condemned wherever it raises its ugly head. So should Israel, the only country in the world today guilty of simultaneously committing occupation, ethnic cleansing, colonization, and apartheid. Pro-Israel groups and individuals deny these things are happening and seek to silence those who condemn them, including Rep. Omar. Neither she nor anyone else who speaks out against Israeli crimes or those who aid and abet them should ever apologize for doing so, for as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "there comes a time when silence is a betrayal." We passed that time long ago.

Brett Wilkins is editor-at-large for US news at Digital Journal. His work, which has recently appeared in Common Dreams, Counterpunch, and Daily Kos, focuses on issues of war and peace, human rights, and social justice.

America's Effort to Isolate Iran Will Backfire

John Bolton and Mike Pompeo are pushing Trump down a proven path of failure.

by Trita Parsi

February 12, 2019 

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/americas-effort-isolate-iran-will-backfire-44342

As the celebrations of the fortieth anniversary of the Iranian revolution comes to an end in Tehran, Secretary Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton are busy gathering an anti-Iran coalition in Warsaw to crush Iran’s clerical rulers once and for all. But there is nothing innovative about the Pompeo-Bolton plan. In fact, Washington has been down this path numerous times before and it has invariably led to failure—even when much of the world was on America’s side. The question is not whether Bolton and Pompeo will succeed or not, but what they will push Donald Trump to do once their failure is clear for all to see.

America was on top of the world in 1991. The Soviet Union had collapsed, and America had become the sole superpower of the world. It had an unparalleled ability to shape both global and regional orders. After it defeated Saddam Hussein in the Persian Gulf War, it moved to establish a new security architecture for the Middle East through the Madrid conference. Though the gathering is most known for its efforts to resolve Arab-Israeli tensions, the second track of the conference focused on region-wide security issues.

All major regional states were invited except one: Iran.

Though Madrid wasn’t aimed at creating an anti-Iran coalition, it nevertheless set the foundation for a policy of uniting the region to contain Iran. As Israel turned in favor of making peace with the Palestinians under the new Rabin-Peres Labor government, it demanded that Washington sanction and weaken Iran in order to give Israel the space to risk making peace with the Arabs. Israel played a critical role in convincing the Clinton administration to adopt the policy of Dual Containment in 1993—the idea that the new order in the region would be based on the dual containment of Iran and Iraq, while centered on Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. According to Kenneth Pollack, who served as an Iran analyst with the CIA at the time, the policy was “designed to reassure Israel that the U.S. would keep Iran in check while Jerusalem embarked on the risky process of peacemaking.”

Iran was infuriated. It came out of the Iraq-Iran war weak, isolated and exhausted. The eight-year war with Saddam Hussein had devastated the country and the promises of the revolution were as distant then as they are today. Rather than becoming the leader of the Muslim world, Iran was shunned and marginalized.

Determined to save the revolution, President Hashemi Rafsanjani shifted strategy. Instead of violently exporting the revolution, he was going to turn Iran into a stunning economic success whose model other countries in the Islamic world would seek to emulate. This necessitated, however, improved relations with the West as Iran was in desperate need of investments and technology.

Rafsanjani made several attempts to lower tensions with the United States, including granting the American oil company Conoco a contract to develop one of Iran’s largest oil fields, but Washington was not interested. “We weren’t interested in creating a new opening towards Iran,” Clinton envoy Dennis Ross told me in 2004. “We were interested in containing what we saw as a threat.”

Rebuffed by Washington, Tehran shifted its focus towards sabotaging the American-Israeli plan to contain and isolate Iran. The weakest link in the American strategy, Tehran assessed, was the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. If it was blocked, Washington’s goal of marginalizing Iran would also fail.

It was at this point that Tehran began to heavily support Palestinian rejectionist groups that used violence and terror against Israel in the hope of collapsing the Oslo process. Despite Washington’s long-standing accusations of Iranian support for terror, it was still taken by surprise.

“What the Iranians did was to outsmart us by taking on the peace process. And they became very aggressive supporters of Palestinian terrorism,” Martin Indyk, the brainchild behind “dual containment” told me.

Washington eventually began to understand the critical strategic flaw in its policy of dual containment—by rejecting Iranian overtures and aiming to create a broad coalition to contain Tehran, the United States was giving Iran strong incentives to sabotage all of America’s policies in the Middle East. According to Indyk, the Iranians had “every incentive to oppose” the peace process.

“Our strategy was to, on one hand, use the engine of peacemaking to transform the region and on the other hand contain the [Iranians] through sanctions and isolation,” he said. “The two were symbiotic. The more we succeeded in making peace, the more isolated they would become. The more we succeeded in containing them, the more possible it would be to make peace. So they had an incentive to do us in on the peace process in order to defeat our policy of containment and isolation. And therefore, they took aim at the peace process.”

Though Iran’s actions strengthened Washington’s case for isolating the country, the end result was nevertheless one that deeply frustrated the United States: The peace process was leading nowhere, and Iran had strengthened its hand in the region by positioning itself as the leader of the rejectionist camp.

By the time George W. Bush entered the office, dual containment had already run its course. The Bush team was no longer interested in containing Iraq and Iran; they wanted to overthrow their regimes and turn them into pliant pro-American states. Iran was, together with Iraq and North Korea, put in Bush’s Axis of Evil.

Realizing they were next on Bush invasion list, Tehran once again acted to sabotage America’s plans in the Middle East. By 2005, it was increasingly clear that the Iraq invasion was an abysmal failure and that America couldn’t take on Iran until it first had extracted itself from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush had no choice but to shift towards a containment policy once again.

But it was too late. With the Saddam and Taliban regimes removed, Iran was unleashed. Its influence in the region was fast growing and despite the efforts to isolate it over its nuclear program, Tehran’s nuclear advances continued unabated. Iran had less than 150 centrifuges and no stockpile of enriched uranium in 2003. By the time Bush left office, Iran had more than 8,000 centrifuges and 1,500 kilograms of low enriched uranium—enough to produce one nuclear bomb.

Once again, Washington’s efforts to build an international coalition to contain Iran had failed spectacularly.

Washington only (temporarily) abandoned the goal of excluding Iran from the regional order through the Iran nuclear deal. Through the deal, Washington was now encouraging trade with Iran and actively seeking to include Iran in regional security dialogues. It was a massive shift that ended almost four decades of American efforts at containing Iran.

Obama only opted for this path after recognizing that Iran’s prolonged isolation was neither possible nor necessarily helpful. Even at the apex of its power, the United States had failed to contain Iran—even when it had much of the international community on its side. European governments had been seeking to convince Washington of this for decades. “No one believes Iran can perpetually be put in a straightjacket,” Germany’s U.S. Ambassador Peter Wittig told me in 2015. More importantly, Obama realized that continuing on the failed path of isolating Iran eventually would bring the United States into open confrontation with Iran.

Perhaps this is why Bolton and Pompeo are pushing Trump down this proven path of failure. If isolating Iran failed at the unipolar moment, it simply cannot succeed today when the United States is much weaker, Iran is much stronger, and most of the world worry more about Trump’s impulsiveness and unpredictability than about what remains of Iran’s revolutionary fervor.

But the failure of the anti-Iran coalition can still pave the way for the war with Iran Bolton has long been dreaming of.

Trita Parsi is the author of three books on Iran. His latest book is Losing an Enemy: Obama, Iran and the Triumph of Diplomacy.

President Starts a War? Congress Yawns. Threatens to End One? Condemnation!

by Ron Paul Posted on February 12, 2019

https://original.antiwar.com/paul/2019/02/11/president-starts-a-war-congress-yawns-threatens-to-end-one-condemnation/

Last week’s bipartisan Senate vote to rebuke President Trump for his decision to remove troops from Syria and Afghanistan, unfortunately tells us a lot about what is wrong with Washington, DC. While the two parties loudly bicker about minor issues, when it comes to matters like endless wars overseas they enthusiastically join together. With few exceptions, Republicans and Democrats lined up to admonish the president for even suggesting that it’s time for US troops to come home from Afghanistan and Syria.

The amendment, proposed by the Senate Majority Leader and passed overwhelmingly by both parties, warns that a “precipitous withdrawal of United States forces from the ongoing fight…in Syria and Afghanistan, could allow terrorists to regroup.” As one opponent of the amendment correctly pointed out, a withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan is hardly “precipitous” since they’ve been there for nearly 18 years! And with al-Qaeda and ISIS largely defeated in Syria a withdrawal from that country would hardly be “precipitous” after almost five years of unauthorized US military action.

Senators supporting the rebuke claim that US troops cannot leave until every last ISIS fighter is killed or captured. This is obviously a false argument. Al-Qaeda and ISIS did not emerge in Iraq because US troops left the country – they emerged because the US was in the country in the first place. Where was al-Qaeda in Iraq before the 2003 US invasion the neocons lied us into? There weren’t any.

US troops occupying Iraqi territory was, however, a huge incentive for Iraqis to join a resistance movement. Similarly, US intervention in Syria beginning under the Obama Administration contributed to the growth of terrorist groups in that country.

We know that the US invasion and occupation provides the best-recruiting tools for terrorists, including suicide terrorists. So how does it make sense that keeping troops in these countries in any way contributes to the elimination of terrorism? As to the “vacuum” created in Syria when US troops pull out, how about allowing the government of Syria to take care of the problem? After all, it’s their country and they’ve been fighting ISIS and al-Qaeda since the US helped launch the “regime change” in 2011. Despite what you might hear in the US mainstream media, it’s Syria along with its allies that have done most of the fighting against these groups and it makes no sense that they would allow them to return.

Congress has the Constitutional responsibility and obligation to declare war, but this has been ignored for decades. The president bombs far-off lands and even sends troops to fight in and occupy foreign territory and Congress doesn’t say a word. But if a president dares seek to end a war suddenly the sleeping Congressional giant awakens!

I’ve spent many years opposing Executive branch overreach in matters where the president has no Constitutional authority, but when it comes to decisions on where to deploy or redeploy troops once in battle it is clear that the Constitution grants that authority to the commander-in-chief. The real question we need to ask is why is Congress so quick to anger when the president finally seeks to end the longest war in US history?

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

Golpe de Estado híbrido y asimétrico contra Venezuela

Marcos Roitman Rosenmann

https://www.jornada.com.mx/2019/02/10/mundo/018a1mun

La guerra contra Venezuela ha subido un peldaño en la planificación de los golpes de Estado. Hasta hoy, en América Latina, asistimos a una variedad de quiebres constitucionales bajo el manto protector de los Estados Unidos. Acciones encubiertas, ejércitos mercenarios, invasiones, asesinato político o magnicidio. Cualquier estrategia ha validado sus delirios de dominación planetaria. En este plano, Estados Unidos no puede emprender con garantías una guerra global, sin el control de materias primas. América Latina es su arsenal particular. Níquel, litio, cobre, petróleo, gas. La existencia de una plutocracia y elite política sumisa le cubre las espaldas. Se convierten en los ejecutores materiales del golpe de Estado.

Si el triunfo inesperado de las izquierdas pone en entredicho su control, el dispositivo entra en liza. Sociedades dependientes tecnológica, militar e industrialmente con 70 por ciento de las importaciones provenientes de Estados Unidos, son un blanco fácil. Estrangular la economía, provocar desabastecimiento, mercado negro e inflación es tarea simple. Basta con pedir el pago por adelantado de las importaciones para vaciar las arcas públicas y provocar una crisis inflacionaria. Asimismo, patrocinar el abandono de multinacionales del territorio y cerrar sus filiales acaba desangrando la economía. La falta de repuestos, productos de primera necesidad, pasta de dientes, jabón, papel higiénico, medicamentos antes en abundancia, desaparecen del mercado. Un discurso señalando como responsables al gobierno y una guerra sicológica multiplican por mil la escasez. Levantar una economía alternativa cuesta mucho, y a corto plazo los visos de éxito son escasos. Proceso desestabilizador, estrangulamiento de la economía, ruptura de las fuerzas gubernamentales concluyen llamando a las fuerzas armadas al golpe restaurador.

La tarea de provocar la caída de los gobiernos populares en América Latina se asignaba a la alianza interna cívico-militar. Hoy el factor exterior se estrena como determinante y articulador del golpe de Estado. Países extranjeros y un personaje irrelevante es proclamado presidente interino. Sin control del territorio, sociedad a la cual gobernar, instituciones a la cual administrar, ni las fuerzas armadas, en definitiva sin poder, es elevado a la presidencia. Hoy, en Venezuela, no se trata de derrocar un gobierno legítimo. El objetivo final, no es restaurar la democracia, es desintegrar el país para que Estados Unidos pueda seguir su afiebrada marcha por el control del mundo, cuyas miras están en el gigante asiático que le amenaza: China.

Estados Unidos, Brasil, Canadá, países de la Unión Europea, la OEA y el grupo de Lima, actúan de lanzadera para legitimar un golpe de Estado desde el exterior. La mentira, la manipulación informativa, los factores emocionales y sicológicos cobran un papel fundamental. Se trata de romper los apoyos al gobierno hasta hacerlo caer. Es la articulación de un orden paralelo. Hacer creer que nos hemos instalado en un poder dual. Pero ni la OEA ni la Unión Europea han logrado la unidad para ratificar al golpista. Sólo 16 de sus 34 miembros apoyan el discurso de Almagro. México y Uruguay, entre otros, han preferido mantener la dignidad, negándose a reconocer el gobierno de facto. Donald Trump y Jair Bolsonaro, presidentes considerados un peligro para la democracia representativa, la paz mundial y regional se rescatan por un sector de la comunidad internacional, para legitimar el golpe en Venezuela. En España, los medios de comunicación, partidos políticos, gobierno y oposición se hacen eco para justificar el apoyo a los alzados. No es un golpe de Estado argumentan. Así le dan el estatus de interlocutor válido. ¿Cuáles serán las consecuencias? No se engañen, serán como en Paraguay, Honduras o Brasil: el asesinato político, la pérdida de espacios democráticos y el exilio. El discurso de odio, venganza y represión política son las cartas del autoproclamado presidente. Ya lo han demostrado con las guarimbas. Decenas de asesinatos políticos, entre cuyos responsables se encuentra Leopoldo López. Venezuela sufre la cólera de un conglomerado golpista mundial donde están la socialdemocracia, liberales, conservadores y el complejo industrial-financiero-militar. El diálogo no entra en sus planes, ni la paz, ni las elecciones, sólo el derrame de sangre. En Venezuela, el punto de inflexión fue el rechazo a firmar los acuerdos para configurar un calendario de diálogo y elecciones entre gobierno y la oposición (MUD) celebrado en República Dominicana. Prestos a firmar, el gobierno republicano de Donald Trump desautorizó a los negociadores. Así, renunciaron a la soberanía. Llenos de odio, desprecio a las clases trabajadoras, acabaron articulados a una estrategia de muerte bajo el mando de Estados Unidos y banderas extranjeras. En España, el presidente de gobierno, Pedro Sánchez, acompasado por los medios de comunicación, junto a los dirigentes Casado, Rivera, Iñigo Errejón, Pablo Iglesias, Manuela Carmena o el ex vicepresidente del PSOE Alfonso Guerra, tal loritos repetidores califican al presidente Nicolás Maduro de dictador. No asumirán responsabilidades secundando un golpe de Estado, una invasión o una potencial guerra civil. Ellos se lavarán las manos. La sangre será del pueblo venezolano.

Nearly 85 percent of Germans see U.S-German ties as negative

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-germany-usa/nicht-gut-nearly-85-percent-of-germans-see-u-s-german-ties-as-negative-idUKKCN1PX1CR

BERLIN (Reuters) - Nearly 85 percent of Germans have a negative or very negative view of U.S.-German relations, and most want to put more distance between the traditionally close transatlantic allies, a new poll showed on Friday.

Just over 40 percent of those polled view China as a better partner for Germany than the United States, the survey of around 5,000 people, conducted by Atlantik-Bruecke and the Civey institute in a poll in November and December, showed.

Ties between the United States and Germany, Europe’s largest economy, have been strained since the 2016 election of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has criticized Germany repeatedly for its trade practices, defense spending and its participation in the Russian-led Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline.

Germany has sought to maintain friendly ties with the United States, but senior leaders speak publicly about an erosion of trust after Washington’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, a 2015 nuclear accord with Iran, and most recently, the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF).

Michael Werz, a senior fellow at the U.S.-based Centre for American Progress and a member of the executive board of the Atlantik-Bruecke, urged Germans not to let concerns about Trump spiral into anti-American resentment.

Burkhard Schwenker, deputy chairman of the Atlantik-Bruecke, said the poll showed the need to redouble efforts to expand dialogue between the two allies at all levels.

A total of 57.6 percent of those polled want to see more distance between Berlin and Washington, and 42.3 percent consider China a better partner.

About a third of those polled said they viewed right-wing populism and protectionism as the most dangerous global crises, compared to only 1.9 percent worried about Russia, and 2.2 percent who feared the growing influence of China.

Reporting by Andrea Shalal

Cancela AMLO 26 empresas privadas de Pemex en paraísos fiscales

Enero 28, 2019

AUTOR: NANCY FLORES / @NANCY_CONTRA

https://www.contralinea.com.mx/archivo-revista/2019/01/28/cancela-amlo-26-empresas-privadas-de-pemex-en-paraisos-fiscales/?utm_source=phplist251&utm_medium=email&utm_content=HTML&utm_campaign=Contral%C3%ADnea+627

Petróleos Mexicanos extingue 26 de las 51 empresas privadas que constituyó en paraísos fiscales, y que fueron heredadas por el gobierno de Peña Nieto. Todas operan al margen de la ley. El Grupo PMI –“brazo comercial” de la petrolera–, en la mira por presuntos actos de corrupción.

La nueva administración en Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex), encabezada por el ingeniero Octavio Romero Oropeza, busca desmantelar la red de empresas offshore que constituyeron sus antecesores y que llegó a sumar más de 60 compañías de papel, sin oficinas ni empleados pero con múltiples gastos suntuosos y presuntos actos de corrupción.

Veintiséis ya fueron extintas entre diciembre de 2018 y los primeros días de enero, revelan a Contralínea funcionarios de la petrolera mexicana. No obstante, indican que el esquema es tan complejo que no será fácil desaparecer el resto: otras 25 compañías de portafolios. En total, el gobierno de Enrique Peña heredó 51.

La ruta crítica para atender este tema será cerrar otras 15 en los próximos meses, pero las otras 10 empresas no se podrán desmantelar en el corto plazo: están ligadas a proyectos productivos de Pemex y sus subsidiarias, así como a contrataciones de deuda en mercados internacionales que aún se están pagando, detallan los funcionarios.

En el caso de PMI Comercio Internacional, el plan es volverla nuevamente una empresa del Estado, pues desde diciembre de 2014 –bajo el amparo de la reforma energética– el Consejo de Administración de Pemex la transformó de paraestatal a filial.

Ese cambio permitió la extinción del Órgano Interno de Control, la imposibilidad legal de que la Auditoría Superior de la Federación fiscalizara al llamado “brazo comercial” de la petrolera y la volvió sujeto no obligado a la Ley General de Transparencia. En 3 años, ni esa filial ni sus empresas satélite (el Grupo PMI) han rendido cuentas a pesar de que manejan todas las exportaciones e importaciones de Pemex.

Más aún, según los funcionarios consultados, al Grupo PMI ya se le investiga por presuntos actos de corrupción y fraudes contra la hacienda petrolera.

Al respecto, el propio Andrés Manuel López Obrador indicó el pasado 24 de enero que “Pemex Internacional requiere una revisión a fondo, porque incluso llegó a ser independiente del Estado mexicano, funcionaba como una empresa privada sin control, sin que tuviese que rendir cuentas”.

Agregó que del Grupo PMI no sólo le preocupa la refinería que se tiene en sociedad con la trasnacional Shell en Estados Unidos (Deer Park): “es que la compra del combustible no se transparentaba, y eso lo vamos a hacer. Vamos poco a poco”.

Esquema mafioso

Al analizar la compleja estructura empresarial que Pemex creó desde 1988 –cuando el gobierno de Carlos Salinas desapareció las oficinas de representación de Pemex en el extranjero y las transformó en empresas privadas extraterritoriales–, la nueva administración encontró que se trata de un esquema similar al que emplean organizaciones mafiosas o empresas y personas evasoras de impuestos.

Y es que pareciera una telaraña de compañías offshore diseminadas en cinco territorios fiscalmente laxos (Delawere, Estados Unidos; Irlanda; Países Bajos; Suiza, y España), un conocido paraíso fiscal –Islas Caimán– y México.

La mayoría de empresas se derivan de sus tres holdings (tenedoras de acciones), de tal forma que Pemex y sus subsidiarias figuran como propietarias indirectas del resto.

Sus operaciones incluyen triangulaciones de capital, cuentas bancarias privadas abiertas en paraísos fiscales y una tesorería en Holanda, donde se retienen supuestas ganancias de carácter “privado”, a pesar de que todas las transacciones se derivan de los recursos públicos de Pemex: su petróleo y derivados o su capital.

Los funcionarios explican que entre los hallazgos destaca que, a través de estas empresas offshore, Pemex ha participado en negocios totalmente adversos a sus finanzas. Particularmente sobresalen inversiones del Grupo PMI en sociedades que registran pérdidas multimillonarias, como las sostenidas con las españolas Hijos de J Barreras y Repsol; con la estadunidense Deer Park (propiedad 50-50 con Shell); y en México, las fraudulentas adquisiciones de Agronitrogenados y Fertinal, por ejemplificar con los peores casos.

En todos éstos, las decisiones fueron tomadas de forma unilateral por ejecutivos del Grupo PMI, con la venia de los altos directivos de la petrolera mexicana: jamás se consultó al Congreso para estas inversiones con capital público, tanto en el extranjero como en México.

Aunado a ello, los operadores de las sociedades y compras accionarias no pueden ser imputados por los daños patrimoniales causados al erario, porque no son considerados servidores públicos, sino ejecutivos de empresas privadas. No obstante, el quipo que revisa estos temas continúa analizando la legalidad de cada caso.

Con este nivel de opacidad, Pemex también empleó estas compañías para triangular compras y contratar servicios, sin garantizar los principios de eficiencia, eficacia, economía, transparencia y honradez que exige la ley. De esta manera, en muchos casos no había licitaciones sino sólo contratos directos.

Gastos suntuosos

Como si se tratara de jeques petroleros, al frente de todas esas negociaciones, los “ejecutivos” del Grupo PMI viajaban a “visitar” a sus “socios”. Cada semana se programaba al menos un viaje al extranjero, muy frecuentemente a Europa (particularmente a Oslo, Noruega), “pero ahí no hay socios, hay contratistas”, afirman los funcionarios consultados.

Y así es: en Oslo reside la trasnacional Bergesen, a la que Pemex le arrenda el barco Señor de los Mares, tipo FPSO. En su momento, se documentó un sobrecosto en dicho contrato, que involucró como coyotes a las empresas Subtec, Blue Marine, Arrendadora Ocean y Oceanografía.

El dispendio ha sorprendido al nuevo equipo en Pemex, pues, sin ninguna justificación, los viáticos y el hospedaje de lujo corrían a cuenta de las finanzas “privadas” de Pemex. Por ello, estos gastos ya se revisan con lupa, al igual que los sueldos, porque se fijaban discrecionalmente.

Fraude de 700 pipas pasó por Grupo PMI

Una operación que también ha llamado la atención no sólo al interior de Pemex sino en el gabinete es el presunto fraude que denunció el presidente López Obrador, relacionado con una frustrada compra de 700 carrotanques para transportar hidrocarburos.

Y es que fue una de esas 51 empresas privadas la que asignó el contrato y después perdió el litigio: Pemex Procurement International, Inc –radicada en Houston, Estados Unidos–, eligió a Ethan Gas Oil, por medio de una licitación pública. No obstante, la compañía se quedó con un anticipo de 400 millones de pesos y nunca entregó los carrotanques.

Pemex Procurement es una de las 25 empresas que difícilmente podrá extinguir el gobierno de López Obrador: ha desarrollado más de 200 acuerdos comerciales de largo plazo desde su creación, y actualmente tiene en pie el concurso de licitación PETIL-CAT-B-GCPCYC-E00-49591-0010179374-18-3, para Pemex Etileno.

Antes denominada Integrated Trade Systems, Inc, ésta fue constituida el 18 de febrero de 1994 en Delaware, y su única propietaria es Petróleos Mexicanos. Según los datos oficiales, desde 1998 cuenta con un sistema de adquisiciones para Pemex, que va desde la licitación o contratación directa hasta el pago de la factura, pasando por la logística de entrega.

La compañía ha sostenido relaciones contractuales con más de 1 mil 700 proveedores de equipos de manufactura y servicios de la industria del petróleo y otras relacionadas, todos para la petrolera del Estado mexicano.

La herencia de Peña Nieto

Al cierre del sexenio de Peña Nieto, el 4 de noviembre de 2018, Pemex consolidó 53 empresas privadas ante la estadunidense Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); la lista incluye a PMI Comercio Internacional y a Hijos de J Barreras (de la que posee el 51 por ciento).

Ante la Comisión Nacional Bancaria y de Valores, informó menos compañías de este tipo: en su más reciente reporte, del tercer trimestre del año pasado, aseguró que eran 31. Entre éstas hacía referencia a Pemex Finance, el vehículo financiero que la petrolera estatal opera en el famoso paraíso fiscal Islas Caimán.

Del cruce de datos se desprende que Pemex cerró su ciclo peñanietista con 51 empresas offshore.

Según PMI Comercio Internacional, las sociedades del Grupo PMI ligadas a proyectos e infraestructura son: PMI Campos Maduros SANMA, vehículo de propósitos específicos para las alianzas estratégicas del proyecto de inversión denominado Campos Maduros; PMI Azufre Industrial, encargada del desarrollo de diversos proyectos relacionados con el azufre; Hijos de J Barreras, dedicada a la construcción y mantenimiento de embarcaciones (astillero); PMI Servicios Portuarios Transoceánico, que construye, desarrolla, administra y opera puertos marítimos, muelles, escolleras, almacenes, tanques de gas natural y de gas licuado de petróleo o cualquier otro petrolífero o hidrocarburo.

Con similares propósitos pero en el tema de hidrocarburos, en especial los denominados “limpios”, está PMI Midstream del Centro; También, PMI Cinturón Transoceánico Gas Natural, especializa en transportación de etano; PMI Transoceánico Gas LP, para el transporte de propano; PMI Ducto Juárez, para petrolíferos por medio de ductos a terceros; y Administración Portuaria Integral, que administra las zonas petroleras del puerto de Salina Cruz, Oaxaca.

Al referirse a PMI Comercio Internacional, López Obrador se comprometió el pasado 24 de enero a “limpiar a Pemex de corrupción. […] Vamos poco a poco. Algunos dicen que con mucha prisa; pues no, es que tenemos mucho trabajo qué hacer en esa materia”.

Apoyo al diálogo y la paz en Venezuela

Montevideo – 1 de febrero de 2019

Nosotros, parlamentarios y parlamentarias de la región, académicos, personalidades y líderes políticos del mundo, queremos manifestar nuestro apoyo a la iniciativa propuesta por los gobiernos de Uruguay y México para instalar un diálogo por la paz en Venezuela, y extendemos las siguientes consideraciones para acompañar esta propuesta con el propósito de evitar y denunciar una posible intervención militar extranjera en nuestro continente:

·         Nos preocupa que la paz, la estabilidad, la cooperación y la integración en nuestra región están bajo fuerte amenaza, producto del hostigamiento e injerencia externa en la vida política venezolana. Como parlamentarios y parlamentarias no desconocemos las dificultades que se viven.

·         Mientras que algunos actores apuestan a la guerra y la intervención, otros gobiernos están impulsando con mucho esfuerzo el llamado al diálogo y la negociación como vías legitimas del derecho internacional para resolver los conflictos.

·         Desde nuestros respectivos espacios y roles acompañamos y adherimos a las iniciativas de diálogo y negociaciones políticas que tienen como objetivo la paz en la región y el mundo, y apoyamos la realización de la próxima Cumbre sobre Venezuela a realizarse en Montevideo. Proponemos acompañar y realizar el seguimiento a esta iniciativa desde nuestro papel como representantes democráticos basado en los buenos oficios y el diálogo político en la búsqueda de la paz.

·         634 firmantes

·         de 27 países

·         FIRME ESTA INICIATIVA