The diplomatic goals of Tillerson's company haven't always lined up with those of his government

The post-Crimea sanctions were not the first time ExxonMobil's goals were at cross-purposes with those of the United States, Coll told NPR.

"ExxonMobil is a very large corporation that really sees itself as an independent sovereign in the world. It has revenue the size of the economy of South Africa. It operates all over the world, negotiating with leaders on behalf of its shareholders. It's kind of a parallel quasi-state."
Exxon operates in more than 50 different countries, The New York Times reports; Tillerson became an important figure in nations around the world, Coll wrote in The New Yorker. He offered the example of ExxonMobil's business activity in the African nation of Chad:

"During the mid-two-thousands, the entirety of U.S. aid and military spending in the country directed through the U.S. Embassy in the capital, N'Djamena, amounted to less than twenty million dollars annually, whereas the royalty payments Exxon made to the government as part of an oil-production agreement were north of five hundred million dollars. Idriss Déby, the authoritarian President of Chad, did not need a calculator to understand that Rex Tillerson was more important to his future than the U.S. Secretary of State.
"In Kurdistan, during the Obama Administration, Tillerson defied State Department policy and cut an independent oil deal with the Kurdish Regional Government, undermining the national Iraqi government in Baghdad. ExxonMobil did not ask permission. After the fact, Tillerson arranged a conference call with State Department officials and explained his actions, according to my sources, by saying, 'I had to do what was best for my shareholders.' "

Link

Quote:the entirety of U.S. aid and military spending in the country directed through the U.S. Embassy in the capital, N'Djamena, amounted to less than twenty million dollars annually,

This is not the fault of ExxonMobil.

(12-14-2016 12:32 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

Quote:the entirety of U.S. aid and military spending in the country directed through the U.S. Embassy in the capital, N'Djamena, amounted to less than twenty million dollars annually,

This is not the fault of ExxonMobil.

Of course not but do you think it was ethical for Exxon to undermine U.S. foreign policy for their own personal gain?

(12-14-2016 12:33 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 12:32 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

Quote:the entirety of U.S. aid and military spending in the country directed through the U.S. Embassy in the capital, N'Djamena, amounted to less than twenty million dollars annually,

This is not the fault of ExxonMobil.

Of course not but do you think it was ethical for Exxon to undermine U.S. foreign policy for their own personal gain?

On the face of it, no.

But after years of observing government dependence both here in the USA and overseas has taught many (seemingly including ExxonMobil) that what the USA government considers to be in someone best interest rarely works out in the long run to be so.

In the case of Chad, the USA government didn't seem to deliver the goods & services the Chadians decided they need, yet we're supposed to treat the pronouncements of the USA government as something of a Commandment handed down from on high? ExxonMobil provided needed hard currency funds to a rather down and out country. That's bad, because why?

If ExxonMobil broke the law, then persecute them. Otherwise their success is my success, your success, and Chadian success.

(12-14-2016 12:39 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 12:33 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 12:32 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

Quote:the entirety of U.S. aid and military spending in the country directed through the U.S. Embassy in the capital, N'Djamena, amounted to less than twenty million dollars annually,

This is not the fault of ExxonMobil.

Of course not but do you think it was ethical for Exxon to undermine U.S. foreign policy for their own personal gain?

On the face of it, no.

But after years of observing government dependence both here in the USA and overseas has taught many (seemingly including ExxonMobil) that what the USA government considers to be in someone best interest rarely works out in the long run to be so.

In the case of Chad, the USA government didn't seem to deliver the goods & services the Chadians decided they need, yet we're supposed to treat the pronouncements of the USA government as something of a Commandment handed down from on high? ExxonMobil provided needed hard currency funds to a rather down and out country. That's bad, because why?

If ExxonMobil broke the law, then persecute them. Otherwise their success is my success, your success, and Chadian success.

What Chadians decided they need? Don't you mean their dictator? The U.S. and it's allies brokered a deal where the lion's share of Chad's profits would go towards helping the people, not for the dictator to increase his military.

I always thought that the pronouncements of the USA government should be honored especially by it's citizens and American companies. Doesn't the U.S. government deserve the benefit of the doubt?

(12-14-2016 12:46 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I always thought that the pronouncements of the USA government should be honored especially by it's citizens and American companies. Doesn't the U.S. government deserve the benefit of the doubt?

I just want to reinforce this:

Quote:If ExxonMobil broke the law, then persecute them.

(12-14-2016 12:49 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 12:46 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I always thought that the pronouncements of the USA government should be honored especially by it's citizens and American companies. Doesn't the U.S. government deserve the benefit of the doubt?

I just want to reinforce this:

Quote:If ExxonMobil broke the law, then persecute them.

Fair enough.

But what if their dealings endanger America lives?

(12-14-2016 12:33 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 12:32 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

Quote:the entirety of U.S. aid and military spending in the country directed through the U.S. Embassy in the capital, N'Djamena, amounted to less than twenty million dollars annually,

This is not the fault of ExxonMobil.

Of course not but do you think it was ethical for Exxon to undermine U.S. foreign policy for their own personal gain?

So you believe all corporations at all time should act for the good of the current administration and put their policies first? (be it bush, obama, or trump)

(12-14-2016 12:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Fair enough.

But what if their dealings endanger America lives?

a causal relationship exists between soda & obesity ...
fat kills far more ...
and it's legal to boot ...
why aren't you marching against coke, pepsi & rc cola ...

DO-GOODER

(12-14-2016 12:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 12:49 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 12:46 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I always thought that the pronouncements of the USA government should be honored especially by it's citizens and American companies. Doesn't the U.S. government deserve the benefit of the doubt?

I just want to reinforce this:

Quote:If ExxonMobil broke the law, then persecute them.

Fair enough.

But what if their dealings endanger America lives?

On a meta-level, that's bad.

But you have not shown, nor has the article shown, that ExxonMobil's foreign business policy has endangered American lives.

Anything can endanger American lives, like not have a secure southern border to keep the C. Americans out of the USA.

(12-14-2016 01:07 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 12:33 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 12:32 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

Quote:the entirety of U.S. aid and military spending in the country directed through the U.S. Embassy in the capital, N'Djamena, amounted to less than twenty million dollars annually,

This is not the fault of ExxonMobil.

Of course not but do you think it was ethical for Exxon to undermine U.S. foreign policy for their own personal gain?

So you believe all corporations at all time should act for the good of the current administration and put their policies first? (be it bush, obama, or trump)

Perhaps not in every single instance but for example, would you have been American companies profiting by selling products to the Germans during WWI or WWII?

If we are to believe, like Romney, that corporations are people, shouldn't they be held to an ethical standard like humans? Or should they simply care only about the pockets of their share holders.

#TeamExxon

(12-14-2016 01:24 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 12:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 12:49 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 12:46 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I always thought that the pronouncements of the USA government should be honored especially by it's citizens and American companies. Doesn't the U.S. government deserve the benefit of the doubt?

I just want to reinforce this:

Quote:If ExxonMobil broke the law, then persecute them.

Fair enough.

But what if their dealings endanger America lives?

On a meta-level, that's bad.

But you have not shown, nor has the article shown, that ExxonMobil's foreign business policy has endangered American lives.

Perhaps not but you might want to read this.


"Oil has long been the heart of Iraq’s wealth, and the invasion threw control of the rich reserves into question, exacerbating longstanding enmity between the Kurds and other Iraqis. Under President George W. Bush, the passage of an oil law to split revenues was considered a crucial benchmark to bring long-term peace to Iraq."


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/world/...suits.html


Doesn't undermining long term peace in Iraq put soldiers in danger?

(12-14-2016 02:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Doesn't undermining long term peace in Iraq put soldiers in danger?

Undermining long team peace in Iraq is the fault of Islam, not ExxonMobil.

Listen, there is a litany of poor if not criminal American business behavior throughout history. The record of the United Fruit Company in Latin America shames even to most ardent capitalist.

But that doesn't mean that the current nominee for Secretary of State is undermining the American government at the expense of American lives. The fact that Tillerson got along well with Putin or negotiated new oil deals with the Kurds when it was in the interest of his company to do so doesn’t mean that as Secretary of State he would get along well with Putin or negotiate oil deals with the Kurds if doing so were not in his country’s interest.

I have to roll my eyes when I hear certain buzz words couched in this way.

Exxon is a "quasi-state?"

Really?

That's called absolutelyfuckingstupid.

(12-14-2016 02:51 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 02:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Doesn't undermining long term peace in Iraq put soldiers in danger?

Listen, there is a litany of poor if not criminal American business behavior throughout history. The record of the United Fruit Company in Latin America shames even to most ardent capitalist.

But that doesn't mean that the current nominee for Secretary of State is undermining the American government at the expense of American lives. The fact that Tillerson got along well with Putin or negotiated new oil deals with the Kurds when it was in the interest of his company to do so doesn’t mean that as Secretary of State he would get along well with Putin or negotiate oil deals with the Kurds if doing so were not in his country’s interest.

Agreed. I sincerely hope that he makes the same shrewd business deals for the United States in the same way he did for his share holders.

I'll give Trump one thing, he's got balls to take a chance on these people.

I just hope it doesn't backfire.

(12-14-2016 01:57 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 01:07 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 12:33 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 12:32 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

Quote:the entirety of U.S. aid and military spending in the country directed through the U.S. Embassy in the capital, N'Djamena, amounted to less than twenty million dollars annually,

This is not the fault of ExxonMobil.

Of course not but do you think it was ethical for Exxon to undermine U.S. foreign policy for their own personal gain?

So you believe all corporations at all time should act for the good of the current administration and put their policies first? (be it bush, obama, or trump)

Perhaps not in every single instance but for example, would you have been American companies profiting by selling products to the Germans during WWI or WWII?

If we are to believe, like Romney, that corporations are people, shouldn't they be held to an ethical standard like humans? Or should they simply care only about the pockets of their share holders.

Perhaps you should do a little research into how Fanta was created.

(12-14-2016 03:38 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 01:57 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 01:07 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 12:33 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 12:32 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  This is not the fault of ExxonMobil.

Of course not but do you think it was ethical for Exxon to undermine U.S. foreign policy for their own personal gain?

So you believe all corporations at all time should act for the good of the current administration and put their policies first? (be it bush, obama, or trump)

Perhaps not in every single instance but for example, would you have been American companies profiting by selling products to the Germans during WWI or WWII?

If we are to believe, like Romney, that corporations are people, shouldn't they be held to an ethical standard like humans? Or should they simply care only about the pockets of their share holders.

Perhaps you should do a little research into how Fanta was created.

So Coca Cola accepted the embargo and did not do business with Germany? How is that the same as what Exxon did?

(12-14-2016 04:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 03:38 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 01:57 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 01:07 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 12:33 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Of course not but do you think it was ethical for Exxon to undermine U.S. foreign policy for their own personal gain?

So you believe all corporations at all time should act for the good of the current administration and put their policies first? (be it bush, obama, or trump)

Perhaps not in every single instance but for example, would you have been American companies profiting by selling products to the Germans during WWI or WWII?

If we are to believe, like Romney, that corporations are people, shouldn't they be held to an ethical standard like humans? Or should they simply care only about the pockets of their share holders.

Perhaps you should do a little research into how Fanta was created.

Interesting. I didn't know that about Fanta. How do you feel about that?

I don't care one way or another.