<-- Twitter Summary card images must be at least 120x120px -->



EU ISIS Oil Hipocracy: EU Lifted Ban On Syrian Oil From Rebels In 2013

The EU lifted the ban on buying oil from ‘rebel-held-territories’ in Syria in 2013. And now they are wondering who is buying the oil from ISIS...?

03.12.2015. / 17:35:55

Source: SITE NAME


Great article by Christof Lehmann on nsnbc. It’s worth reminding ourselves about the developments in Syria that have led to the ever bigger crisis.

Here is the original article:


EU’s Ambassador to Iraq and former European Parliament MP for the Czech Republic, Jana Hybášková, addressed the EU’s foreign affairs committee, chastising Iran, the Kurdish administrated region of Iraq and Turkey for “inadvertently” supporting the so-called Islamic State, a.k.a. ISIS/ISIL/IS by facilitating the “terrorists” export of oil for a net revenue of $3 million per day.
Hybášková demanded that the European Union “exert pressure on Iran, Kurdistan and Turkey in order to stop this trade”, adding that this wasn’t the first time that Turkey had been accused of turning a blind eye to the political situation in Iraq for financial gain.
Turkey’s Energy Minister Taner Yildiz, for his part, denounced allegations about Turkey’s involvement in financing the Islamic State, claiming that such statements aimed at creating controversy about Turkey’s politics.
Yildiz did, however, admit that Turkey is transporting oil from the Kurdish administrated region of Northern Iraq via Turkey, while the Kurdish government described Turkey as reliable partner in that regard. In fact, the export of northern Iraqi oil via Turkey has almost doubled in 2014 and increased to 400,000 barrels per day.
Neither EU Ambassador to Iraq, Jana Hybášková, Turkey’s Energy Minister Taner Yildiz, nor any of the mainstream media in EU and NATO member states, however, appear to recall that the EU legalized the import of Syrian oil from so-called “rebel-held territories”.

On Monday, April 22, 2013, the 27 EU foreign ministers decided to lift the EU’s embargo on the import of Syrian oil from rebel-held territories to support more economic support for the so-called Syrian opposition.
The then UK Foreign Secretary William Hague told reporters that the move aimed at laying the legal groundwork to get the flow of crude oil going as rapidly as possible reported Yahoo News, quoting Hague as saying:
“The security situation is so difficult that much of this will be difficult to do, but it is important for us to send the signal that we are open to helping in other ways, in all the ways possible.”
The then German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle commented on the lift of the oil-import ban:
“We wish for good economic development in the areas controlled by the opposition, therefore we lift the sanctions which hinder the moderate opposition forces work.”
The Irony of EU Ambassador Hybášková, chastising Iran, Kurdistan and Turkey is palatable.
Neither the BBC, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, nor the guardian mention the EU’s lifting of the oil-import ban in 2013 in relation to the EU Ambassador’s 2014 criticism of Iraq, Turkey and “Kurdistan”.
Hague’s words about “helping in all ways possible” however, were indeed ominous in more than one sense.
Not to be fooled twice ? Understand the timeline!
• April 22, 2013, the EU lifts the ban on the import of Syrian oil from rebel-held territories”.
• nsnbc warned since June 2013 that a major chemical weapons attack was planned to serve as pretext for a military intervention against Syria.
• August 20, 2013, nsnbc reports that a major offensive in the predominantly Kurdish and oil-rich eastern regions of Syria had begun in the attempt to conquer the Syrian oil fields in the Deir Ez Zour province and the city of Deir Ez-Zor and reiterated the risk of an imminent chemical weapons attack.
• August 21, 2013, Liwa-al-Islam, under the command of the Saudi Arabian intelligence asset and chemical weapons specialist Zahran Alloush, and under direct U.S. orders, launched the chemical weapons attack on the Damascus suburb East Ghouta.
• August 30, 2013, the BBC had to report that British PM David Cameron’s motion to join a U.S.-led military intervention against Syria had been rejected by the UK’s parliament.
• On August 31, U.S. President Obama had to follow suit saying that he had decided to consult with Congress first, reported the guardian.
• November 22 – 23, 2013, the Atlantic Council convened for an Energy Summit in Turkey’s capital Ankara. Atlantic Council President Frederick Kempe stated before the meeting, that decisions which were about to be made in the nearest future would have a historical bearing on Iran, Turkey, the U.S. and the region, which were comparable to the historic events in 1918 and 1945.
• June 22, 2014, nsnbc international published a report after a meeting with a person from within the inner circle around the former Lebanese PM Saad Hariri. The whistleblower presented evidence in support of his statement that the invasion of Iraq by ISIL had originally been planned for 2013, but that it was called off when the UK parliament voted against bombing Syria.
• The final green light for the invasion of Iraq via ISIL/ISIS or IS was given on the sidelines of the Atlantic Council’s Energy Summit in Ankara, in November 2013, he said, adding that the campaign was managed via the U.S. Embassy in Turkey and that U.S. Ambassador Ricciardone played a central role in the management of the war waged with ISIS as mercenary force that both served as friend and foe.
Note that nsnbc, already in October 2013 reported that the agenda of the Atlantic Council’s Energy Summit was the distribution of Syrian and Northern Iraqi oil to the international markets and the “Balkanization” of Iraq. EU Ambassador Jana Hybášková’s chastising of Iran, Kurdistan and Turkey has, as all statements in politics a function. The question is what function her statement has, especially in the light of the given, although omitted facts.


This article originally appeared in: SITE NAME


';
First article