Massenbach-Letter: NEWS 12/12/14

Massenbach-Letter. News

*Herausgegeben von Udo von Massenbach, Bärbel Freudenberg-Pilster, Joerg Barandat*

· A grim portrait of CIA tactics

· Veröffentlichung des Berichts des Sonderausschusses des Senats zu den Nachrichtendiensten

· Erklärung des Außenministers

· Erklärung des Präsidenten

·

· U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Proved Reserves report for 2013 released

· Texas drilling frenzy made oil crash inevitable: Kemp

· Rohstoffsituationsbericht der Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe

· McKinsey “A productivity perspective on the future of growth.”

· "Top-Frauen und ihre Erfolgsgeschichten – Die Selbstständigkeitsfalle der Frauen" – Holst

· "Wieder Krieg in Europa? Nicht in unserem Namen!"

· Russia plans to become reliable energy supplier to Asian markets

· The US Army War College Quarterly Autumn 2014

· Gulf Labour Markets and Migration Newsletter

· Special Report: How Exxon helped make Iraqi Kurdistan

Massenbach* U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Proved Reserves report for 2013 released

U.S. proved reserves of oil increase for the fifth year in a row in 2013;
U.S. natural gas proved reserves increase 10% and are now at an all-time high

• North Dakota proved oil reserves surpass the Gulf of Mexico

• Pennsylvania and West Virginia account for 70 percent of increase in natural gas reserves

U.S. crude oil proved reserves increased for the fifth year in a row in 2013, a net addition of 3.1 billion barrels of proved oil reserves (a 9% increase) according to U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Proved Reserves, 2013, released today by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). U.S. natural gas proved reserves increased 10% in 2013, more than replacing the 7% decline in proved reserves seen in 2012, and raising the U.S. total to a record level of 354 trillion cubic feet (Tcf).

At the state level, North Dakota led in additions of oil reserves (adding almost 2 billion barrels of proved oil reserves in 2013, a 51% increase from 2012) because of development of the Bakken and Three Forks formations in the Williston Basin. North Dakota’s proved oil reserves surpassed those of the federal offshore Gulf of Mexico for the first time in 2013. Texas (still the state with the largest proved reserves of oil) had the second-largest increase, adding 903 million barrels of proved oil reserves in 2013.

Pennsylvania and West Virginia reported the largest net increases in natural gas proved reserves in 2013, driven by continued development of the Marcellus shale play, the largest U.S. shale gas play based on proved reserves. Combined, these two states added 21.8 Tcf of natural gas proved reserves in 2013 (13.5 Tcf in Pennsylvania and 8.3 Tcf in West Virginia) and were 70% of the net increase in proved natural gas reserves in 2013.

U.S. production of both oil and natural gas increased in 2013: Production of crude oil and lease condensate increased about 15% (rising from 6.5 to 7.4 million barrels per day), while U.S. production of natural gas increased a more modest 2% (rising from 71 to 73 billion cubic feet per day).

Proved reserves are those volumes of oil and natural gas that geological and engineering data demonstrate with reasonable certainty to be recoverable in future years from known reservoirs under existing economic and operating conditions. An increase in natural gas prices used to characterize existing economic conditions (for example, the 12-month, first-of-the-month average natural gas spot price at the Henry Hub increased from $2.75 per million Btu (MMBtu) in 2012 to $3.66 per MMBtu in 2013) contributed to the reported increase in proved natural gas reserves.

Read the full report at: http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/crudeoilnaturalgasreserves

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

COLUMN-Texas drilling frenzy made oil crash inevitable: Kemp

09-Dec-2014 15:23

(John Kemp is a Reuters market analyst. The views expressed are his own)

By John Kemp

LONDON, Dec 9 (Reuters) – If prices had not crashed over the past five months, the oil market would have moved into a substantial surplus in the first half of 2015, according to a review of drilling and production statistics from major shale plays in the United States.

The pace of drilling and production growth in the Eagle Ford and Permian Basin shale plays in Texas, which together with North Dakota’s Bakken account for most of the increase in U.S. output since 2008, was accelerating in the first eight months of 2014.

The combined crude output from the Eagle Ford and Permian Basin surged by 400,000 barrels per day (b/d) in the eight months, compared with an increase of 288,000 b/d in the previous eight-month period, according to records published by the Railroad Commission of Texas, which regulates the industry.

In August 2014, total production of crude and condensates from the two plays topped 2.5 million b/d, up from 1.1 million just three years earlier. Combined output was higher than some members of OPEC.

And the industry was preparing to increase output even further. Exploration and production companies were adding more drilling rigs, especially in the Permian Basin, where the number of rigs in operation exceeded 460 throughout the summer, up from less than 400 in 2013, according to Baker Hughes, the oilfield

services company.

Record numbers of applications for permission to drill new wells were being filed with the Railroad Commission. In September 2014, regulators issued almost 2,000 new permits for oil or combined oil and gas wells, up from less than 1,000 in the same month a year earlier.

A Reuters’ chartbook “Spotlight on Eagle Ford and Permian Basin” can be downloaded here: http://link.reuters.com/xeh63w

In explaining the sudden drop in prices, analysts have tended to focus on the resumption of Libyan oil exports, which added an extra 700,000 b/d to the crude market between June and September.

But the acceleration in output from the Texas fields played a critical role too in pushing the market toward incipient oversupply.

With so much extra oil hitting the market, a sharp drop in prices had become inevitable as the only way to enforce a slowdown in drilling.

John Kemp

Senior Market Analyst

Reuters

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Rohstoffsituationsbericht der Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe:

Deutschland führte Rohstoffe im Wert von 143 Mrd. Euro ein

Ist die Rohstoffversorgung für den Technologiestandort Deutschland gesichert? Wie viel Roh-stoffe produziert Deutschland im eigenen Land, was muss importiert werden? Welchen Anteil steuert das Recycling zur Deckung des Rohstoffbedarfs bei? Zur Beantwortung dieser und anderer wichtiger Fragen stellt der neue Rohstoffsituationsbericht der Bundesanstalt für Geo-wissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR) die nötigen Daten und Fakten zur Verfügung.

Grundsätzlich gilt: Deutschland ist nach wie vor ein wichtiges Bergbauland. Im Jahr 2013 war Deutschland weiterhin der weltgrößte Braunkohle-Produzent. Bei der weltweiten Förderung von Kaolin belegte Deutschland Rang drei und bei Steinsalz den vierten Platz. In Europa ist Deutschland für diese Rohstoffe sogar der größte Produzent.

Im Jahr 2013 wurden in Deutschland 192,9 Millionen Tonnen Braunkohle, Steinkohle und Erdöl sowie 10,7 Milliarden Kubikmeter Erdgas gefördert. Dazu kamen rund 546 Millionen Tonnen mineralische Rohstoffe und 6,8 Millionen Tonnen Torf. Alles zusammen entspricht einem Wert von insgesamt rund 14,8 Milliarden Euro. Damit nahm der Wert der produzierten einheimischen Rohstoffe im Vergleich zum Vorjahr um 6,3 Prozent ab.

Weiterhin gilt aber auch, dass Deutschland bei vielen Rohstoffen stark von Importen abhängig ist. Im Jahr 2013 wurden mineralische Rohstoffe und Energierohstoffe im Wert von rund 142,8 Milliarden Euro eingeführt. Das war im Vergleich zu 2012 ein Minus von 4,9 Prozent. Mit Ausnahme des durch die Finanzkrise 2009 verursachten deutlichen Rückgangs hat Deutschland damit zum ersten Mal seit über zehn Jahren weniger für seine Rohstoffimporte gezahlt als im Jahr zuvor. Der größte Teil der Importe waren Energierohstoffe, auf sie entfie-len gut 70 Prozent der Einfuhren. Metallrohstoffe machten 28,8 Prozent aus, der Rest entfiel auf Nichtmetalle.

Eine zunehmend wichtigere Rolle bei der Versorgung mit Rohstoffen spielt mittlerweile das Recycling. In der deutschen Raffinade- und Rohstahlproduktion stammten – wie auch schon in den Vorjahren – mehr als 55 Prozent des Aluminiums, etwa 42 Prozent des Kupfers sowie rund 44 Prozent des Rohstahls aus sekundären Rohstoffen. Durch das Recycling von Metallrohstoffen sowie den Zukauf von Schrott und Abfällen – überwiegend aus Staaten der Europäischen Union – konnte Deutschland die Importabhängigkeit deutlich reduzieren.

Der seit 1980 jährlich erscheinende Bericht der BGR ist eine Gesamtdarstellung der Situation der nichterneuerbaren Rohstoffe für Deutschland. Als geowissenschaftliches Kompetenzzent-rum informiert die BGR die Bundesregierung und die deutsche Wirtschaft über aktuelle Ent-wicklungen zur Rohstoffproduktion im eigenen Land, den Außenhandel, die Preisentwicklung sowie den Verbrauch mit Blick auf die Versorgungssituation Deutschlands mit mineralischen und Energierohstoffen. Zudem wird auch die Entwicklung auf den internationalen Rohstoffmärkten dargestellt und bewertet.

Datengrundlage für die Studien sind die bei Veröffentlichung verfügbaren Zahlen und Fakten des jeweiligen Vorjahres.

http://www.bgr.bund.de/DE/Themen/Min_rohstoffe/Downloads/Rohsit-2013.pdf

**********************************************************************************************************************

McKinsey “A productivity perspective on the future of growth.”

-à see attachment

**********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Policy= res publica

Freudenberg-Pilster* Beitrag "Top-Frauen und ihre Erfolgsgeschichten –

Die Selbstständigkeitsfalle der Frauen"


von Elke Holst beim manager managzin.

http://www.manager-magazin.de/unternehmen/karriere/frauen-und-ihre-erfolgsgeschichten-elke-holst-a-1003042.html

*********************************************************************************************************************************************

Politics: From Vision to Action

Barandat* "Wieder Krieg in Europa? Nicht in unserem Namen!"

5. Dezember 2014 Roman Herzog, Antje Vollmer, Wim Wenders, Gerhard Schröder und viele weitere fordern in einem Appell zum Dialog mit Russland auf. ZEIT ONLINE dokumentiert den Aufruf … Initiiert wurde der Aufruf vom früheren Kanzlerberater Horst Teltschik (CDU), dem ehemaligen Verteidigungsstaatssekretär Walther Stützle (SPD) und der früheren Bundestagsvizepräsidentin Antje Vollmer (Grüne). "Uns geht es um ein politisches Signal, dass die berechtigte Kritik an der russischen Ukraine-Politik nicht dazu führt, dass die Fortschritte, die wir in den vergangenen 25 Jahren in den Beziehungen mit Russland erreicht haben, aufgekündigt werden", sagt Teltschik zur Motivation für den Appell.

Unterzeichnet haben den Text unter anderem die ehemaligen Regierungschefs von Hamburg, Berlin und Brandenburg, Klaus von Dohnanyi, Eberhard Diepgen und Manfred Stolpe, der ehemalige SPD-Vorsitzende Hans-Jochen Vogel, Alt-Bundeskanzler Gerhard Schröder, Alt-Bundespräsident Roman Herzog und der Schauspieler Mario Adorf.

Der Aufruf im Wortlaut:

Wieder Krieg in Europa? Nicht in unserem Namen! … Das Sicherheitsbedürfnis der Russen ist so legitim und ausgeprägt wie das der Deutschen, der Polen, der Balten und der Ukrainer. Wir dürfen Russland nicht aus Europa hinausdrängen. Das wäre unhistorisch, unvernünftig und gefährlich für den Frieden. Seit dem Wiener Kongress 1814 gehört Russland zu den anerkannten Gestaltungsmächten Europas … Wer nur Feindbilder aufbaut und mit einseitigen Schuldzuweisungen hantiert, verschärft die Spannungen in einer Zeit, in der die Signale auf Entspannung stehen müssten. Einbinden statt ausschließen muss das Leitmotiv deutscher Politiker sein … Jeder außenpolitisch versierte Journalist wird die Furcht der Russen verstehen, seit NATO-Mitglieder 2008 Georgien und die Ukraine einluden, Mitglieder im Bündnis zu werden. Es geht nicht um Putin. Staatenlenker kommen und gehen.

Es geht um Europa. Es geht darum, den Menschen wieder die Angst vor Krieg zu nehmen …

http://www.zeit.de/politik/2014-12/aufruf-russland-dialog

Debatte um andere Russlandpolitik: Brennende Sorge 7. Dezember 2014 In einem offenen Brief rufen 64 Prominente zum Frieden in Europa auf. Sie warnen davor, angesichts der Ukraine-Krise Russland zu dämonisieren. Dieser Aufruf hat Gewicht, nicht nur, weil sich unter den Unterzeichnern ein Altkanzler und ein ehemaliger Bundespräsident befinden … Der Aufruf kritisiert Russland, er kritisiert auch die USA und die Europäische Union. Er sucht nicht aber nach Schuldanteilen am "verfahrenen Zustand", er sucht den Weg zur Befriedung – und er drängt die deutsche Regierung "weiterhin zum Dialog mit Moskau" … Der Aufruf ist ein Dokument der brennenden Sorge. Die Sorge ist berechtigt … Das war nicht Diplomatie, das war Gehabe. Gehabe ist der Geschlechtstrieb der Politik.

Polternd-herablassende Sprache gehört auch zum Gehabe. Solches Gehabe beherrscht nicht nur Putin ausgezeichnet, Obama kann es auch … Die Motive des anderen zu verstehen, ist Grundlage für alle Verhandlungen. Wer das schmäht, wer nicht mehr verstehen will, der will nicht mehr verhandeln … Es ist Zeit für die Neuöffnung Europas. Russland ist ein Teil davon. Es wäre gut, wenn man das auch in der Art des Umgehens miteinander wieder spüren würde.

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/debatte-um-andere-russlandpolitik-brennende-sorge-1.2256375

Dohnanyi zieht Unterschrift zu Aufruf zurück

http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article135230093/Dohnanyi-zieht-Unterschrift-zu-Aufruf-zurueck.html?wtmc=nl.wdwbdreiT1

***********************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Russia plans to become reliable energy supplier to Asian markets

Russia wants to become a reliable energy supplier to the Asian markets, President Vladimir Putin said.

• Putin said Russia had to branch out its energy supplies as European consumption increased too slowly.

• The president particularly mentioned the energy cooperation between Russia and India.

MOSCOW, Dec. 9 (Xinhua) — Russia wants to become a reliable energy supplier to the Asian markets, President Vladimir Putin said in an interview with India’s semi-official news agency Press Trust of India (PTI).

"We expect to secure ourselves the role of a reliable energy supplier to the Asian markets," Putin said prior to his two-day official visit to India starting from Wednesday.

Putin stressed that Russia had to branch out its energy supplies as the European consumption increased too slowly, also because of the rising political, regulatory and transit risks in the West.

"At the same time, we intend to focus on the economic development in Russia’s Eastern Siberia and Far East regions and build new infrastructure there," in order to go with the tide of rapid economic growth of Asian economies, Putin added.

"Russia and India have a huge potential of bilateral trade and economic cooperation," although the bilateral trade decreased due to unfavorable global macroeconomic situation, according to Putin.

The president particularly mentioned the energy cooperation between Russia and India, saying that India will start receiving shipments of liquefied natural gas from Russia under a 2012 contract as early as in 2017.

Putin said that "we will devote particular attention to expanding trade and economic links and boosting mutual investments, " according to the interview transcript posted on president’s official website.

He added that views on current international and regional issues, as well as on deepening foreign policy coordination, would be exchanged "in order to further strengthen security and stability in Eurasia and in the whole world."

Meanwhile, as India is seeking to reach a free trade agreement with Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus that have a customs union, experts of a joint group would discuss and decide on details of the agreement and its implementation, Putin said.

The visit, the fifth to India by Putin, came amid a great deal of animosity between Russia and the West over the Ukraine crisis.

Related:

Western sanctions act as stimulus to Russian scientific researches: Putin

ST. PETERSBURG, Dec. 8 (Xinhua) — Sanctions imposed on Moscow by the West could turn to be beneficial for Russian scientific researches, President Vladimir Putin said Monday, citing that blocked assess to foreign technologies and cooperation could push Russia into developing its own technologies. Full story

Russia eyes economic self-development, proves national strength amid Western pressure: Putin

MOSCOW, Dec. 4 (Xinhua) — Russia seeks for more independent economic development and has proved its national strength amid Western sanctions, President Vladimir Putin said Thursday. Full story

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/europe/europe/2014-12/10/c_133843605.htm

******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

The US Army War College Quarterly Autumn 2014

è See attachment

******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Middle East

Gulf Labour Markets and Migration Newsletter

November 2014

Gulf Labour Markets and Migration (GLMM) Programme
The Gulf Labour Markets and Migration (GLMM) programme is an international independent, non-partisan, non-profit joint programme of a major Gulf think tank, the Gulf Research Center (GRC – Jeddah, Geneva, Cambridge, Tokyo) and a globally renowned academic migration centre, the Migration Policy Centre (MPC – Florence). The GLMM programme provides data, analyses, and recommendations contributing to the understanding and management of Gulf labour markets and migration, engaging with and respecting the viewpoints of all stakeholders.
Developments | Demo-Eco Data |Legal Documents| Publications | Events| Labour & Migration in Gulf News| Notes


Developments
The GLMM started in March 2013 and the initial priority was the collection, analyses and re-publication of national data and legislation of the six GCC countries together with the production of explanatory notes that capture the main aspects of labour markets and migration in the individual GCC countries. At present, for Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, this work has been completed, while the work for Bahrain is expected to be completed by early December 2014, for Oman by mid-January 2015 and the UAE by late February 2015. Since September 2014, GLMM is turning more fully to its core activity: research. It is developing regional research projects (i.e., projects that deal with all six GCC countries) on Fertility; Perceptions of non-nationals and vice-versa; Irregular migration; and Gender and migration. Furthermore, GLMM is developing projects for different forms of training (e.g., a workshop on data pooling and harmonisation; and a summer school on Gulf labour markets and foreign workers).
Demographic-Economic Data
GLMM collects demographic and economic data necessary for research on Gulf labour markets and migration. All data used by GLMM are published by government ministries and agencies of the Gulf, their metadata is analysed, and the links to the official source provided. This is a sample of data recently published by GLMM:

All data can be searched, printed, downloaded in PDF and, after registration, also in Excel.

Click here to access all demographic-economic data
Legal Documents
GLMM collects legal documents necessary for research on Gulf labour markets and migration. All documents used by GLMM are published by government ministries and agencies of the Gulf, they are analysed and contextualised, and the links to the official source are provided. This is a sample of documents recently published by GLMM:

All documents can be searched, printed, downloaded in PDF.

Click here to access all legal documents
Publications
GLMM publishes different forms of papers, including concise notes and research papers. The most recent publications include:

Demography, Migration, and Labour Market in Qatar by Francoise De Bel Air

Keywords: Family Reunification, Foreign Population, Human Rights, Labour Gathering, Migration Policy, National & Foreign Labour, National Population, Qatar, Second Generation, Sponsorship, Statistics

The Legal Framework of the Sponsorship Systems of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait: a Comparative Examination by Maysa Zahra

Keywords: Foreign Labour, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sponsorship

Saudi Arabian Investor Class Visas: An Overview by Arwa Aulaqi
Keywords: Employer, Highly-Skilled Labour, Laws & Regulations, National & Foreign Labour, Saudi Arabia

Arab Gulf States: An Assessment of Nationalisation Policies by Steffen Hertog
Keywords: Bahrain, Employment, Foreign & National Populations, Foreign Labour, Gulf Cooperation Council, Irregular Migration, Kuwait, Labour Market, Labour Rights, National Labour, Nationalisation Work Force, Policy, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sponsorship, Unemployment, United Arab Emirates, Visas & Fees, Work Conditions

Forthcoming publications include:

  • Recent Amnesty Programmes for Irregular Migrants in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia by Nasra Shah
  • Ethnography, Anthropology and Migration to the Arabian Peninsula by Andrew Gardner
  • Current Developments in the Nationalization Programs in Saudi Arabia by Hend Al-Sheikh
  • Socio-political Background and Stakes of the Nitaqat Policy in Saudi Arabia by Francoise de Bel-Air
  • Motivating GCC Migrants to Save by Ganesh Seshan
  • Bahrain’s Legal Profile of Migration by Maysa Zahra
  • Bahrain: A Demographic-Economic Profile of Labour and Migration by Francoise de Bel-Air
Click here to access all publications
Events
GLMM organised a panel on "Arab Gulf Labour Markets and Migration: Challenges, Data, Policies" at the 48th Annual Meeting of the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA) – Washington, D.C., 22-25 November 2014 with 4 original research papers. For more information, please click here.
GLMM organised a workshop on "Determinants of Future Migration to the Gulf" at the 5th annual Gulf Research Meeting (GRM) – Cambridge, 25-28 August 2014 with 15 original research papers. For more information, please click here.
Labour & Migration in Gulf News
GLMM provides a daily news service listing articles published in the English-language Gulf press that deal with labour markets and migration issues. The articles are selected by specialised personnel which uses an extensive list of keywords to browse approximately 30 media sources. Click here to access the service.

******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

*Massenbach’s

Recommendation*

*Senate Report Says Torture Program Was More Gruesome, Widespread Than CIA Claimed*

WASHINGTON — The Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday released the highly anticipated 500-page summary of its report on the CIA’s post-9/11 torture program, providing a sobering glimpse into one of the darkest chapters in the U.S. government’s history.

In the report, a product of a 5-year investigation, Senate investigators reveal torrid details of the systemic and individual failures by the agency personnel who ran the "enhanced interrogation program" — the government’s euphemism for systematic torture — during the George W. Bush administration. The program involved capturing terrorism suspects and shipping them to secret overseas prisons, where they were subjected to techniques such as waterboarding.

The CIA’s program has long been criticized as un-American and a chilling departure from the nation’s values. Opponents allege that it resulted in gross abuses and inhumane treatment of detainees, some of whom were eventually revealed not to have been involved in terror organizations.

The 6,300-page report may be the most unsanitized official account to date of the agency’s program, which the Senate investigators say was mismanaged, poorly conducted and characterized by abuses far more widespread than the CIA previously conveyed to lawmakers.

The newly released document tears apart the CIA’s past claims that only a small number of detainees were subjected to the harsh interrogation techniques. The agency has said it held fewer than 100 detainees and subjected fewer than one-third of those to controversial tactics such as waterboarding. But Senate investigators found that the CIA had actually kept 119 detainees in custody, 26 of whom were illegally held. And despite CIA insistence that the program was limited in scope, Senate investigators conclude that the use of torture was much more widespread than previously thought.

The study reveals several gruesome instances of torture by mid-level CIA officers who participated in the program, including threats of sexual violence using a broomstick and the use of "rectal hydration" in instances of harsh interrogations that lasted for days or weeks on end. And, contrary to the agency’s prior insistence that only three detainees were subject to waterboarding, the Senate report suggests it was likely used on more detainees.

The report cites the presence of materials typically used for waterboarding being present at certain "blacksites," or secret prisons, where the agency had previously said waterboarding was not used.

Rather than wrestling with the morality of the agency’s torture program or the operation’s damaging effect on the U.S.’ international credibility, Senate investigators instead weighed whether the agency’s tactics were effective. Through narrative examinations of 20 separate detainee cases, the panel attempted to make the case that the use of harsh interrogation techniques such as waterboarding did not yield valuable intelligence.

"The committee reviewed 20 of the most frequent and prominent examples of purported counterterrorism ’successes‘ that the CIA has attributed to the use of its enhanced interrogation techniques," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chair of the intelligence panel, said in a statement Tuesday. "Each of those examples was found to be wrong in fundamental respects."

In some instances, the study finds, the information acquired proved irrelevant to stopping terror threats. In others, the use of the techniques resulted in detainees providing fabricated or inaccurate information, and in still other cases, the information obtained through interrogating the detainees had already been acquired through other techniques.

Given that the techniques were ineffective, the study says, the agency routinely misled Congress and the White House when it claimed that the use of torture did in fact contribute to intelligence victories. For instance, the Senate report pushes back against the CIA’s argument that torture provided the information about Osama bin Laden’s courier that helped the U.S. kill the al Qaeda leader in 2011. In a 10-page discussion on the subject, Senate investigators say the information that led the U.S. to bin Laden was obtained from a detainee while he was in foreign custody, prior to being subjected to torture.

The CIA, however, refutes these conclusions. In a roughly 100-page official response released alongside the intelligence panel’s summary, the agency contends that harsh interrogation techniques were effective.

“The sum total of information provided from detainees in CIA custody substantially advanced the Agency’s strategic and tactical understanding of the enemy in ways that continue to inform counterterrorism efforts to this day," the agency said in its rebuttal.

The response argues that it’s not clear whether the valuable information could have been acquired by means other than harsh interrogation techniques, although the agency concedes that it’s possible.

“It is impossible to imagine how CIA could have achieved the same results in terms of disrupting plots, capturing other terrorists, and degrading al-Qa’ida without any information from detainees, but it is unknowable whether, without enhanced interrogation techniques, CIA or non-CIA interrogators could have acquired the same information from those detainees," the rebuttal said.

Still, the CIA is not advocating a return to the use of torture during interrogations. Rather, it is most concerned with defending itself against charges that it misled Congress and the White House about the extent and value of the program. The official response vehemently challenges the Senate’s allegation that the spies acted outside the limits of what the White House had allowed the agency to do. The agency has said that the enhanced interrogations were part of a government-approved program carried out under express orders from within the Bush administration.

"The image portrayed in the Study of an organization that—on an institutional scale—intentionally misled and routinely resisted oversight from the White House, the Congress, the Department of Justice, and its own OIG simply does not comport with the record,“ the agency’s response said.

Among the Senate report’s 20 main conclusions are that the CIA misled Congress, the White House and the Department of Justice, that the agency ignored internal critiques of the program, and that the CIA’s use of the techniques went far beyond the legal authority bestowed upon it by the Bush White House.

In a statement Tuesday, President Barack Obama said, "The report documents a troubling program involving enhanced interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects in secret facilities outside the United States, and it reinforces my long-held view that these harsh methods were not only inconsistent with our values as nation, they did not serve our broader counterterrorism efforts or our national security interests."

"That is why I will continue to use my authority as President to make sure we never resort to those methods again," Obama added.

"In carrying out that program, we did not always live up to the high standards that we set for ourselves and that the American people expect of us," CIA Director John Brennan said Tuesday in his official response. "As an Agency, we have learned from these mistakes, which is why my predecessors and I have implemented various remedial measures over the years to address institutional deficiencies."

The agency says it has no intention of revamping the current version of its interrogation program, which was curbed as a result of directives from Obama. "It is Director Brennan’s resolute intention to ensure that Agency officers scrupulously adhere to these directives, which the Director fully supports," the statement continued.

"CIA has owned up to these mistakes, learned from them, and taken numerous corrective actions over the years. Further improvements to CIA practices continue to be made today as a result of our review of the SSCI Study," the agency’s response noted, referring to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the intelligence panel’s full name.

The document’s release marks the conclusion of an explosive, high-stakes feud that played out between the White House’s chief spying agency and its powerful Senate overseers about how much of the report to release publicly.

The feud revolved around the executive branch’s insistence that the committee redact the pseudonyms used to identify the mid-level CIA officers involved in the program. Despite a monthslong fight, Feinstein was ultimately forced to relent and allow the pseudonyms to remain blacked out in order to get her study’s summary out the door before the panel’s incoming Republican majority takes control of the report in January.

The study, which was first commissioned by Feinstein in 2009, began as a bipartisan effort with then-ranking member Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.). Republicans on the panel, though, withdrew from the study just months after it was commissioned.

The document released Tuesday will very likely be the only portion the public sees of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report. Although Feinstein suggested in April that the full report would be released at a later date, Republicans are not likely to seek further declassification once they gain control of the committee, given their opposition to the investigation.

The study set the stage for a dramatic, closed-door dispute between the agency and Feinstein, which resulted in deeply personal jabs and competing referrals to the Justice Department asking for criminal investigations. The CIA accused Feinstein’s staff early this year of taking highly sensitive material from the secure agency facility where the investigation was conducted. Feinstein, meanwhile, insisted the investigators had a right to the document, and further accused the agency of improperly monitoring the computers her staff used to construct the study.

The Department of Justice declined to investigate either the CIA’s or Feinstein’s allegations. The CIA has since conceded that it did improperly monitor Senate investigators’ computers, and is conducting an independent accountability review board to determine what consequences, if any, its employees should face.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy1.pdf

Veröffentlichung des Berichts des Sonderausschusses des Senats zu den Nachrichtendiensten

Erklärung des Außenministers

WASHINGTON – (AD) – Nachfolgend veröffentlichen wir die Presseerklärung von US-Außenminister John Kerry zur Veröffentlichung des Berichts des Sonderausschusses des Senats zu den Nachrichtendiensten vom 9. Dezember 2014.

Die Veröffentlichung dieses Berichts bestätigt erneut, dass eine der Stärken unseres demokratischen Systems in der Fähigkeit liegt, unsere eigene Geschichte anzuerkennen und uns mit ihr auseinanderzusetzen, Fehler einzugestehen und den Kurs zu korrigieren. Hiermit geht ein Kapitel in der Geschichte unseres Landes zu Ende. Präsident Obama beendete das Kapitel dieser Politik, als er sein Amt antrat, bereits in der ersten Woche die Anwendung von Folter verbot und das Inhaftierungs- und Verhörprogramm beendete. Es war aus einem einfachen, aber schlagkräftigen Grund richtig, diese Praktiken zu unterbinden: Sie waren nicht mit unseren Werten vereinbar. Sie entsprechen nicht dem, was wir sind oder was wir werden müssen, denn das mächtigste Land der Welt muss nicht zwischen der Gewährleistung seiner Sicherheit und der Förderung seiner Werte wählen.

Dieser Bericht beleuchtet einen Zeitraum, der nun mehr als fünf Jahre zurückliegt, damit wir über unsere Geschichte diskutieren und debattieren und dann wieder in die Zukunft blicken können.

Zu Beginn dieser Debatte möchte betonen, dass es zwar unbequem und unangenehm sein, diese Phase erneut zu untersuchen, dass wir aber nicht zulassen dürfen, dass das Bild, das die Menschen von den Nachrichtendiensten haben, dauerhaft davon geprägt wird. An jedem einzelnen Tag sorgen die Männer und Frauen der CIA und der anderen Nachrichtendienste für die Sicherheit des Außenministeriums, unserer Diplomaten und ihrer Familien. Sie melden sich ebenso zum Dienst für ihr Land wie unsere Diplomaten und Soldaten. Sie riskieren ihr Leben, um uns zu schützen und die amerikanische Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik zu stärken. Die schrecklichen Fakten dieses Berichts stehen nicht für das, was sie sind, Punktum. Auch dieser Zusammenhang ist für unser Geschichtsverständnis von Belang.

Originaltext: Release of Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report

US-POLITIK

Obama zur Veröffentlichung des Berichts des Sonderausschusses des Senats zu den Nachrichtendiensten

Erklärung des Präsidenten

WASHINGTON – (AD) – Nachfolgend veröffentlichen wir die Erklärung von US-Präsident Obama zur Veröffentlichung des Berichts des Sonderausschusses des Senats zu den Nachrichtendiensten vom 9. Dezember 2014.

Zeit der Geschichte haben die Vereinigten Staaten mehr als jedes andere Land getan, um sich für Freiheit, Demokratie, die inhärente Würde und die Menschenrechte von Menschen überall auf der Welt einzusetzen. Als Amerikaner schulden wir unseren Mitbürgern, die dienen, um uns zu schützen, tiefe Dankbarkeit. Zu ihnen gehören auch die engagierten Männer und Frauen unserer Nachrichtendienste, einschließlich der CIA. Seit den grausamen Anschlägen vom 11. September 2001 haben diese Staatsdiener unermüdlich daran gearbeitet, den inneren Kern von Al Kaida zu zerschlagen, Osama bin Laden seiner gerechten Strafe zuzuführen, terroristische Operationen zu stören und Terroranschläge zu vereiteln. Feierlich ehren Sternenreihen an der Memorial Wall der CIA diejenigen, die ihr Leben gegeben haben, um unser Leben zu schützen. Die Mitarbeiter unserer Nachrichtendienste sind Patrioten, und dank ihres heroischen Einsatzes und der von ihnen gebrachten Opfer leben wir sicherer.

In den Jahren nach dem 11. September war die vorherige Regierung aufgrund legitimer Ängste vor weiteren Angriffen und der Verantwortung, noch katastrophalere Verluste zu verhindern, mit schwierigen Entscheidungen im Hinblick darauf konfrontiert, wie Al Kaida zu verfolgen und weitere terroristische Anschläge gegen unser Land zu verhindern seien. Ich habe schon einmal gesagt, dass unser Land in diesen schwierigen Jahren vieles richtig gemacht hat. Gleichzeitig standen einige der Maßnahmen, die getroffen wurden, im Widerspruch zu unseren Werten. Deshalb habe ich Folter nach meinem Amtsantritt unmissverständlich verboten, denn eines unserer effektivsten Werkzeuge bei der Bekämpfung des Terrorismus und der Gewährleistung der Sicherheit der amerikanischen Bevölkerung ist es, unseren Idealen im In- und Ausland treu zu bleiben.

Der heute erschienene Bericht des Sonderausschusses des Senats zu den Nachrichtendiensten legt detailliert einen Teilbereich der Antwort unseres Landes auf den 11. September dar – das Inhaftierungs- und Verhörprogramm der CIA, das ich an einem meiner ersten Tage im Amt offiziell beendet habe. Der Bericht dokumentiert ein verstörendes Programm, das erweiterte Verhörmethoden beinhaltet, die an Terrorverdächtigen in geheimen Einrichtungen außerhalb der Vereinigten Staaten angewendet wurden, und er bestärkt mich in der lange von mir vertretenen Auffassung, dass diese harten Methoden nicht nur unseren nationalen Werten widersprechen, sondern auch nicht unseren umfassenderen Bestrebungen im Kampf gegen den Terrorismus oder unseren nationalen Sicherheitsinteressen dienen. Darüber hinaus haben diese Methoden dem Ansehen der Vereinigten Staaten massiv geschadet und es erschwert, unsere Interessen gemeinsam mit unseren Verbündeten und Partnern zu verfolgen. Daher werde ich meine Autorität als Präsident weiter nutzen, um sicherzustellen, dass wir niemals wieder auf diese Methoden zurückgreifen.

Als Oberbefehlshaber ist es meine wichtigste Aufgabe, für die Sicherheit der amerikanischen Bevölkerung zu sorgen. Wir werden unseren Kampf gegen Al Kaida, ihre Verbündeten und andere gewalttätige Extremisten daher weiterhin ohne Unterlass führen. Wir werden dabei auf alle Elemente unserer nationalen Macht setzen, einschließlich der Kraft und Vorbildlichkeit unserer Gründungsideale. Aus diesem Grund habe ich die Freigabe des heutigen Berichts konsequent unterstützt. Kein Land ist vollkommen. Aber eine der Stärken, die die Vereinigten Staaten zu etwas Besonderem machen, ist unsere Bereitschaft, uns offen mit unserer Vergangenheit auseinanderzusetzen, unsere Fehler anzuerkennen und Dinge zu verändern und besser zu machen. Ich hoffe, dass der heutige Bericht keinen weiteren Grund liefern wird, alte Dispute neu auszutragen, sondern uns helfen wird, diese Methoden dort zu belassen, wo sie hingehören – in der Vergangenheit. Der heutige Tag soll uns auch daran erinnern, dass es uns nicht schwächt, sondern stärkt, wenn wir Werte, zu denen wir uns bekennen, aufrechterhalten, und dass die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika weiterhin die stärkste Kraft für Freiheit und Menschenwürde sein werden, die es auf der Welt je gab.

Originaltext: Statement by the President Report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Herausgeber:
US-Botschaft Berlin, Abteilung für öffentliche Angelegenheiten

http://blogs.usembassy.gov/amerikadienst/

**********************************************************************************************************************

Kurdistan

Special Report: How Exxon helped make Iraqi Kurdistan

(Reuters) – In January 2011, Exxon hired one of the best connected men in Iraq: Ali Khedery, an American of Iraqi descent who had served in Baghdad as a special assistant to five U.S. ambassadors and a senior adviser to three U.S. generals.

At a meeting with Exxon a few months later to analyze Iraq’s future, Khedery laid out his thoughts.

Iraq under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was moving toward dictatorship and civil war, he said he told the session. "We will see a rise in violence and a total paralysis in Baghdad," he recalled saying. Iraq was likely to align itself more closely with Iran, which will "have an adverse impact on U.S. companies."

The gloomy scenario grabbed the attention of Exxon executives. Just two years earlier, they had signed a $25 billion deal with Iraq to develop West Qurna, one of the largest oil fields in the country.

"No one wanted to hear that they had negotiated a multi-billion dollar deal in a country which will soon implode," said Khedery, who has detailed to Reuters the meeting and subsequent events for the first time.

He suggested an alternative: Kurdistan, a semi-autonomous region in northern Iraq that was politically stable, far from the chaos in the south, and had, by some estimates, oil reserves of 45 billion barrels.

Less than a year later, Exxon signed a deal with Kurdistan. The story of how that happened explains much about the would-be nation’s growing power.

Interviews with key players in the secret 2011 negotiations – the talks involved not just Exxon but also fellow Western oil giant Royal Dutch Shell – show how Exxon’s decision to invest infuriated both Washington and Baghdad, and helped propel Kurdistan closer to its long-held goal of independence.

Kurds like to say they are the world’s largest ethnic group without a state. Numbering some 35 million, they inhabit a band that stretches from Syria across southern Turkey and northern Iraq and into Iran. Most follow Sunni Islam and speak their own distinct languages.

The Exxon deal fueled Kurdish self-belief. The presence of the biggest U.S. oil company has helped not just financially but also politically and even psychologically.

"Part of the process of building our region has to do, of course, with dealing with oil, signing contracts, negotiations with various countries," Fuad Hussein, chief of staff to Kurdistan’s president, told Reuters. The Exxon deal validated smaller oil deals Kurdistan had already signed and was "a big victory for us."

Exxon declined to comment.

Despite the deal, Kurdistan’s path to nationhood is far from certain. Independence is opposed by Washington, Baghdad, neighboring Turkey and Iran. It also remains unclear whether the Kurds have the strength to stand alone in this volatile region. As militant group Islamic State (IS) advanced through Iraq this summer, Baghdad’s troops melted away, leaving the Kurdish fighters known as peshmerga to halt the extremists. When IS threatened to take Arbil, Iraqi Kurdistan’s capital, the United States bailed out the Kurds with a bombing campaign. On Tuesday, a temporary agreement between Baghdad and Arbil to end their dispute over oil exports and budget payments looked, at first glance, like Kurdistan returning to the Iraqi capital’s control.

But the deal does nothing to resolve the issues between Arbil and Baghdad, while forcing the Iraqi capital to effectively acknowledge Arbil’s development of its energy resources with Exxon, other foreign companies and Turkey. Arbil has compromised, but it has also locked in the progress of the past three years.

A CHANGE OF THINKING

Oil companies have been interested in Kurdistan for years. But after the United States toppled Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein in 2003, a series of governments in Baghdad made clear that to get a slice of the biggest prize – the huge reserves in Iraq’s south – firms should not cut separate deals with the Kurds.

The fear: Letting the Kurds control the oil would rob central government of billions of dollars in revenue and bring a breakup of the country closer.

Western firms‘ reluctance began to melt after Kurdistan passed more business-friendly oil legislation in 2007. Mid-sized firms began to invest, though the biggest players remained on the sidelines.

Baghdad finally divvied up the oil concessions in Iraq’s south in 2009 and 2010, and oil majors rushed to sign. But terms were tough and many firms, including Exxon, were soon frustrated.

Quietly, in late 2010, Exxon began putting out feelers to the Kurdish regional government. Proper talks began in early 2011, according to Hussein, the Kurdish president’s chief of staff. Khedery had resigned from the U.S. administration the previous year to protest against U.S. policies in Iraq, which he thought were hurting Washington’s interests in the region.

In the oil world, filled with Texas oilmen and former U.S. military types, Khedery stood out. Young, rail thin and with the bearing of an academic, he appeared confident and well connected. He had been privy to many of the backroom political deals in Iraq since 2003, and had a direct channel to the president of Kurdistan.

"He knew almost every official from the American side in Baghdad and he used to know every Iraqi leader," said Hussein, who had befriended Khedery when they worked together as advisers to the U.S. occupation authorities in Baghdad.

Exxon began to rethink its approach to Kurdistan when a small group of company officials met long-time CEO Rex Tillerson and his deputies a few times in the spring of 2011.

The first meeting took place at Exxon’s headquarters near Dallas. The small Exxon team briefed Tillerson in his huge conference room. The oil boss listened quietly to the presentations, most of which focused on technology and geology, with a brief talk on Iraqi politics. Afterwards, most of Tillerson’s questions were about politics. That’s when Khedery spoke up.

"I told him everything I thought would happen in Iraq," Khedery said. "I said that if you want to manage risk, then the last place you want to be is in Baghdad or southern Iraq." Those zones, he warned, were filled with Shi’ite militias, who had killed and maimed thousands of American troops, as well as "neo-Baathist insurgents, al Qaeda sleeper cells, and Iranian Revolutionary Guards."

He pointed instead to Kurdistan, which was "more peaceful, more predictable, and overwhelmingly pro-American."

NEAR FAILURE

Serious talks with the Kurds began soon after, with a call from Khedery to Hussein, according to the presidential chief of staff. The two sides met secretly in London, Dubai and Arbil.

On the Kurdish side, the main negotiator was Oil and Gas Minister Ashti Hawrami. But Kurdistan President Massoud Barzani also tapped Hussein to attend discussions. Unusually, the president even joined some meetings himself. Exxon was represented by senior executives from Texas.

But it was not just Exxon and the Kurds talking. Europe’s biggest oil major, Shell, was also involved, according to Hussein. Shell was Exxon’s junior partner in the West Qurna field and had a separate deal with Baghdad to invest tens of billions of dollars in southern Iraq’s Majnoon field. Exxon and Shell believed that teaming up – they had a combined market capitalization of more than $600 billion – would make it hard for Baghdad to throw them out of the south even if they cut a deal with Kurdistan.

The first meeting was in Arbil, which is dominated by a central citadel that is one of the oldest continuously inhabited settlements in the world. The Exxon team, concerned about Kurdistan’s relationship with Baghdad, and longterm stability, quizzed Barzani on his views of Iraq.

"They wanted to know how my president is thinking, what is his vision," Hussein said. The chief of staff said Barzani called Prime Minister Maliki’s policies damaging to Iraq. "(Barzani said) that if it will continue this is bad for the country, this is dangerous, the path must be changed."

Barzani and Maliki both declined to comment.

In the summer of 2011, as negotiations continued, Kurdistan sold two oil blocks to Hess, a U.S. company. Exxon and Shell had been keen to get the blocks, and the surprise sale nearly ended the talks, according to Hussein. To show Arbil was still serious, Barzani promised more attractive terms, according to both Khedery and Hussein.

A signing ceremony in Arbil was planned for mid-October, but another complication arose. Shell was in the final stages of talks with Baghdad to obtain exclusive rights to process all natural gas produced in Iraq’s south, a deal worth $17 billion. If Shell signed with Arbil, Baghdad might scuttle the gas deal.

At a meeting with Barzani in the Imperial hotel in Vienna, where the Kurdish president was on holiday, Exxon executives said they were committed to signing. Shell’s executives, though, seemed less sure.

What Barzani and Exxon did not know was that Shell’s CEO Peter Voser was in Baghdad, meeting Maliki to clinch the gas deal in southern Iraq. Just three days before the Kurdish deal was to be signed, Shell told Exxon it was no longer interested.

A Shell spokesman declined to answer questions about the Kurdistan deal. "Today our focus is on delivering the Basrah Gas Company project and the Majnoon Oil Field development, both of which are projects of critical importance to the reconstruction and economic development of (Iraq)," the spokesman said.

TERRITORIAL AMBITIONS?

Exxon pushed ahead. The firm believed that rivals such as Chevron and Total would follow suit.

The Texans kept things low key, though. An Exxon delegation flew to Arbil to sign the deal. Tillerson stayed in Dallas.

The six blocks Exxon won were scattered around the autonomous region. One block was near Turkey and another near the border with Iran. The three most controversial were along the line that divides Kurdistan and the rest of Iraq, straddling areas whose control is disputed between Arbil and Baghdad. The Kurds included the blocks in the deal and later managed to bring the governor of Nineveh, one of the provinces affected, on board.

To some, it looked as if Arbil was using Exxon to consolidate its borders. Hussein said Arbil already controlled the disputed territories and did not need Big Oil’s legitimacy. Barzani, though, has since described the presence of companies such as Exxon as a form of insurance for Kurdistan.

"A FEW F-BOMBS"

When news of the deal leaked in early November 2011, both Baghdad and Washington were furious. Maliki wrote a letter to President Barack Obama demanding he push Exxon to scrap the deal. Iraq’s deputy prime minister for energy affairs summoned Exxon executives to explain.

To Washington, the deal was an embarrassment. The U.S. strategy was built on support for Maliki and its ‚one Iraq‘ policy of a unified nation under a strong central government. Now one of America’s most powerful corporations had undermined that approach.

A former U.S. diplomat told Reuters the U.S. government had less than a day’s notice of Exxon’s deal. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey was livid, said the former diplomat. "My understanding is that (Jeffrey) dropped a few F-bombs," he said. "He was less than amused."

Hussein remembers a tense meeting he and the Kurdish oil minister, Ashti Hawrami, had with Jeffrey in Baghdad soon after the deal. "He was very angry," Hussein said. "We were trying to explain that what we are doing is in the interest of Iraq, what we are doing is in the interest of Kurds, what we are doing is legal."

Hawrami declined to comment. Jeffrey has since left the State Department. He is reported to be a consultant to Exxon, but declined to comment for this story.

Despite the anger, the deal was a political triumph for the Kurds. Exxon had shown Arbil could attract oil majors regardless of what Baghdad thought. Hawrami unveiled the deal at an Arbil energy conference in late 2011. Kurdistan had initially signed contracts with "small and beautiful" companies, he said. Now it was working with "the giant and magnificent."

Within a few months, both Chevron and Total signed deals, further strengthening Kurdistan. A pact with Russia’s Gazprom followed.

"What really binds Kurdistan to Baghdad is money," said Robert Ford, who retired from his post as U.S. ambassador to Syria in February and previously served three stints for the State Department in Iraq. "The more the Kurds have an independent source of income, especially from energy, the more it feeds into their desire to establish greater autonomy if not independence from Baghdad."

In January 2013, Exxon CEO Tillerson made his first and so far only visit to Iraq, traveling to Baghdad to mend fences with the central government. It isn’t clear what happened in that meeting, but Baghdad has not canceled its own contract with the Texas firm. Arbil has even built a pipeline to Turkey, which makes it easier to export its oil.

The Iraqi capital remains riven by strife, but things are looking up for Exxon. The firm’s main Iraqi critics – Maliki and two other senior politicians – were pushed from power this year in elections. The men who replaced them are more amenable to a compromise, as this week’s agreement with Arbil shows.

Khedery, who has since set up his own consultancy, is not surprised. "I think for Exxon," he said, "with their 125 years in business, the opposition from Maliki was simply seen as something that could be managed and eventually mitigated."

*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

see our letter on:

Wir wünschen Ihnen ein angenehmes Wochenende. Ihr Team.

*****************************************************************************************************************
Udo von Massenbach – Bärbel Freudenberg-Pilster – Jörg Barandat

UdovonMassenbachMail

JoergBarandat

12-09-14 SPOTLIGHT ON EAGLE FORD AND PERMIAN.pdf

McKinsey- a_productivity_perspective_on_the_future_of_growth-Sep 2014.pdf

Confronting the -Islamic State-.pdf

Advertisements