From: bobworn@aol.com
Subject: SNET: Congress Gives Oil & Island To Russians...
Date: 9 Oct 2000 13:26:28 -0400
To: BOBWORN@aol.com

->  SNETNEWS  Mailing List

BOB'S NOTE:  OK Sheeple, you elected those grossly
despicable traitors to Capital(sic) Hill - Now you have 
to endure their skullduggery - you asked for it - now
YOU'VE GOT IT!!!  Keep sitting on your couch-potato 
butts - they'll give your nation away.
Bob

SATURDAY OCTOBER 7 2000  
BLACK GOLD BLUES 
Oil adds to Alaskans' ire at island giveaway 
Congress ignores legislature's resolution condemning transfer to Russia
By David M. Bresnahan
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

Alaskan legislators, trying to block the U.S. government's controversial
treaty ceding to Russia eight islands belonging to Alaska, now have one more
reason to fight -- in addition to sovereignty, state's rights and the fishing
industry -- namely, oil.

"The issues involve not only state sovereignty over vital territories but
also significant national defense concerns and substantial economic losses
over fisheries and petroleum," said Alaska state Rep. John B. Coghill,
R-Dist. 32. The U.S. State Department cannot continue to allow further
encroachment of Alaska's states rights and valuable economic resources."

The Senate ratified the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Maritime Boundary Treaty in 1991, which
was then signed by President George Bush. The Alaska House and Senate were
never consulted during the treaty's negotiations, however, and recently have
teamed up with the governor to send a strong message of protest to President
Bill Clinton, without apparent effect, however.

Alaska is believed to have some of the largest oil fields in the world. Much
of Alaska's oil cannot be pumped, however, because of wilderness designations
placed on much of Alaskan land, said Coghill, who believes access to vast oil
fields may now be lost to Russia if the transfer is not reversed.

Earlier this year, WorldNetDaily reported that, according to national
security advisers on Capitol Hill, oil ministers from OPEC nations had
quietly confided to them that oil production cutbacks -- and resulting price
increases -- had been implemented at the request of the Clinton
administration on behalf of Russia, Indonesia, Mexico and Iran.

The idea was that higher oil prices would help Russia, a major oil exporter,
to generate funds to get out of massive debt and rebuild the Russian economy.

Carl Olson, chairman of State Department Watch, a public interest group,
agreed that Russia benefits greatly from the increase in gasoline and oil
prices.

"Russia is one of the largest oil-producing nations in the world. Guess who's
benefiting greatly from this run-up in oil prices? The Russian oligarchs in
Moscow who stick all their money in Swiss bank accounts. They love this
thing. They've got giant lobbyists in Washington," said Olson.

"If you look at the worldwide scheme of things in terms of production and oil
purchasing, there's been a gigantic leap up in prices for no good reason for
the American consuming public. What we have to do is look at who's getting
rich in all of this -- big oil companies and big governments," he said.

Oil, oil everywhere

"Think about this," said Olson. "If you had just one island with only one
square mile and you drew a 200 mile circle around it, do you know that's
125,000 square miles of potential sea bottom for oil exploration?

"It's totally anti-public, anti-Congress, anti-state actions -- but
unfortunately the State Department thinks it has the power to adopt this
boundary line with the Russians without anybody's consent outside
themselves," he said.

Coghill sponsored Alaska H.J.R. 27, a resolution that was passed in the
state's House and Senate then enacted by Alaska Gov. John Knowles in 1999. It
was intended to "require the federal government to begin a new dialogue with
Russia over the disputed maritime borders, insuring that Alaska is sitting at
the negotiating table, as well as prevent the impending giveaway of eight
Alaskan islands," said Coghill.

A resolution is not binding, but rather expresses the will of a legislative
body, so the Alaska resolution isn't binding on Congress.

"They have not responded in any way," Coghill said.

Negotiations between the State Department and the Soviet Union began in 1990
when a proposed treaty agreement was drafted. The federal government has
honored that agreement -- which changed boundaries -- even though it has
never been fully ratified and the Soviet Union no longer exists.

"It's an unratified treaty with a non-entity," quipped Coghill.

The United States-U.S.S.R. Maritime Boundary moved the line between Russia
and Alaska in such a way that eight islands that were specified as part of
Alaska when it was purchased from Russia would become part of Russia once
again.

The State of Alaska was not included in the negotiations at the time of the
agreement, or at any time since, complains Coghill.

"There were representatives of the Fish and Game present to answer
questions," he said, "but there was never any opportunity for input."
Coghill's resolution demands official representatives from Alaska be present
and have authority to participate in any further negotiations.

The agreement transfers to Russia the islands of Wrangell, Herald, Bennett,
Henrietta, and Jeannette Islands in the Arctic, and Copper Island, Sea Lion
Rock, and Sea Otter Rock on the west end of the Aleutian chain.

The problem, say Coghill and his colleagues in the Alaska legislature, is
that it gives Russia access to vast oil and fishing areas without any
compensation to Alaska.

There has been a long history of disputes over which country owns the
islands, particularly Wrangell Island, which is about the size of Rhode
Island and Delaware combined. According to credible reports, Russia used it
for a concentration camp until recently.

Alaska claims the islands on the basis of the original sale agreement for
Alaska and other transactions.

The U.S. purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867 and the sale included all
Aleutian Islands, including Copper, Sea Otter Rock, and Sea Lion Rock. In
1881, U.S. Capt. Calvin L. Hooper landed on Wrangell Island and claimed it
for the U.S. Also in 1881, the U.S. Navy claimed the islands of Bennett,
Jeannette, and Henrietta. The British held Herald Island, but they gave up
that claim permitting the U.S. to take it.

Russia's claim over the boundary may soon reach a court of law.

"Just last week we boarded a vessel that crossed the boundary -- and that's
going to be disputed," said Coghill, referring to a Russian ship that was
recently stopped in waters claimed by Alaska. The action may take the
boundary dispute out of the hands of politicians and place it in the courts.

Have the islands been handed over to Russia yet by the U.S. government?

"That's not an easy answer," said Coghill. "There has been an acquiescence to
Russia, yes. There has been no extinquishment of any legitimate claim that we
(Alaskans) might have. It has been blindly ignored by our Congress."

Secret agreement

On June 1, 1990, then-Secretary of State James Baker signed a secret
executive agreement with Eduard Shevardnadze, the former U.S.S.R. foreign
minister. It specified that even though the treaty had not been ratified, the
U.S. and the U.S.S.R. agreed to abide by the terms of the treaty beginning
June 15, 1990.

Coghill said the existence of the agreement, which is described in his
resolution, is now well known by Alaskan and U.S. elected officials. At the
time the treaty was presented to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
however, the existence of the secret agreement was not made known, he said.

Although the Senate ratified the treaty and President George Bush signed it
in 1991, the Soviet Union never ratified it, nor has Russia. Russians have
always claimed they did not benefit enough from the boundaries offered in the
treaty.

The State Department is engaged in negotiations with Russia to change the
boundaries specified in the unratified treaty even further, claims Coghill,
who further says he doesn't know the status of those negotiations because the
State Department is not responding to Alaskan officials on the issue.

Russia is asking to move the boundary line in such a way that an additional
40,000 square miles of ocean and seabed would belong to Russia. That would
yield 300,000 pounds of fish per year -- fish that are normally harvested by
Alaskan fishermen. If the transfer were made, Alaska would not be compensated
for the loss, according to Coghill.

Alaska's resolution demands new negotiations start back at the beginning,
before the treaty was formed.

"Along with the maritime issue, this needs to be discussed as well. Alaska
needs to be in on it because, number one, it's a significant part of the
fishing part of the world. Secondly, we have a legitimate historical claim
that has not ever been addressed," Coghill said.

The resolution demands that:


the Clinton administration start new negotiations.

Alaska be a full participant in any negotiations with Russia.

the State Department stop all negotiations that give fishing rights to
Russia.

illegal acts involving the effort to transfer land to Russia be prosecuted.
Although the resolution has been in the hands of Clinton, members of Congress
and the State Department for more than a year, it has been ignored, Coghill
says.

The California legislature unanimously passed a resolution in support of
Alaska in 1991, asking U.S. senators from California not to consider the
treaty until Alaska "has been able to participate fully in negotiations and
has been guaranteed that its consent will be required for any agreement
affecting its boundaries."

Coghill hopes U.S. citizens will call on their state legislatures to approve
similar resolutions, saying all states should be concerned "because if they
can do this to Alaska, they can do this to any state."

Olson said the U.S. government has prevented oil companies from drilling by
declaring areas of Alaska and other parts of the U.S. as wilderness areas.
But the U.S. has more than enough oil to supply its own needs and export oil
as well, he says.

"The wholesale price of gasoline today is a very easy thing to look up in the
Wall Street Journal because they run it every day. For unleaded standard
regular gas it's $.89 a gallon, but it's selling for $1.75 to $2 a gallon.
Somebody's making a ton of dough here and it's split up between the oil
companies and the government," said Olson.

Olson called on all presidential candidates to make a statement on where they
stand and what they will do if elected.

"It shows whether they are on the public's side, or if they are on the
inside-the-beltway side. Every single presidential campaign has been
approached by us and we're still waiting for them to address this in public."


-> To unsubscribe send email to snetnews-unsubscribe@topica.com
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A  The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics