Norway Considers Sharing Risk Intelligence with Businesses

OSLO - Norway will consider sharing national risk assessments with businesses operating in politically unstable regions after five Statoil ASA employees were killed in a terrorist attack in Algeria, the Minister of Trade and Industry said Thursday.

Trond Giske was meeting with business associations and unions to discuss security one day after the caskets of four deceased Statoil employees arrived in Norway, following the Jan. 16 terrorist attack and the kidnapping of hostages at the In Amenas gas plant in Algeria, operated by Statoil ASA, BP PLC and Algerian energy company Sonatrach.

"Of course, when such a dramatic incident occurs, it's a reminder of how important security is," said Mr. Giske. "Our international activity is growing, and this development will continue" he said, adding that "it's no alternative not to engage abroad."

The business associations wanted to combine the risk assessments of Norwegian government ministries and agencies, embassies and big companies, and to make them easily accessible to each other as well as to smaller companies.

"Unfortunately, sometimes it takes a serious incident to increase the focus on security," said Kristine Breitland, leader of NSR, a council set up by business associations in sectors like shipping, oil and gas and telecom to give security advice to companies.

Among the bigger Norwegian companies with global operations are telecom provider Telenor ASA, aluminum producer Norsk Hydro ASA and fertilizer producer Yara International ASA.

Even companies with solid emergency organizations had been reviewing their preparedness after the attack, Ms. Breitland said. But most Norwegian companies are small and medium-sized, and will need help from the government and big companies to gather intelligence, Ms. Breitland said.

"They need good tools and to know what risks they are facing," she said. "Statoil has been in front and said it will share what it finds in its investigation process [after the Algeria attack]. That's positive."

If Statoil couldn't guarantee the safety of its workers in any of its facilities abroad, Chief Executive Helge Lund said Wednesday, "we can't have employees in those areas."

Statoil has said it operates in politically, economically and socially unstable areas of the world, and has identified a range of potential threats such as wars, guerilla activity, nationalization of assets, political unrest, strikes and insurrections.

"The span of topics is so huge," said Petter Haas Brubakk, executive director of the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise, who joined the calls for the government to improve information sharing. "Some countries you avoid because they are too dangerous. It may be health-related risk, traffic risk, abduction, crime, corruption--you have to analyze each country to be prepared."

Copyright (c) 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Generated by readers, the comments included herein do not reflect the views and opinions of Rigzone. All comments are subject to editorial review. Off-topic, inappropriate or insulting comments will be removed.

View the original article here

Norway Considers Sharing Risk Intelligence with Businesses

OSLO - Norway will consider sharing national risk assessments with businesses operating in politically unstable regions after five Statoil ASA employees were killed in a terrorist attack in Algeria, the Minister of Trade and Industry said Thursday.

Trond Giske was meeting with business associations and unions to discuss security one day after the caskets of four deceased Statoil employees arrived in Norway, following the Jan. 16 terrorist attack and the kidnapping of hostages at the In Amenas gas plant in Algeria, operated by Statoil ASA, BP PLC and Algerian energy company Sonatrach.

"Of course, when such a dramatic incident occurs, it's a reminder of how important security is," said Mr. Giske. "Our international activity is growing, and this development will continue" he said, adding that "it's no alternative not to engage abroad."

The business associations wanted to combine the risk assessments of Norwegian government ministries and agencies, embassies and big companies, and to make them easily accessible to each other as well as to smaller companies.

"Unfortunately, sometimes it takes a serious incident to increase the focus on security," said Kristine Breitland, leader of NSR, a council set up by business associations in sectors like shipping, oil and gas and telecom to give security advice to companies.

Among the bigger Norwegian companies with global operations are telecom provider Telenor ASA, aluminum producer Norsk Hydro ASA and fertilizer producer Yara International ASA.

Even companies with solid emergency organizations had been reviewing their preparedness after the attack, Ms. Breitland said. But most Norwegian companies are small and medium-sized, and will need help from the government and big companies to gather intelligence, Ms. Breitland said.

"They need good tools and to know what risks they are facing," she said. "Statoil has been in front and said it will share what it finds in its investigation process [after the Algeria attack]. That's positive."

If Statoil couldn't guarantee the safety of its workers in any of its facilities abroad, Chief Executive Helge Lund said Wednesday, "we can't have employees in those areas."

Statoil has said it operates in politically, economically and socially unstable areas of the world, and has identified a range of potential threats such as wars, guerilla activity, nationalization of assets, political unrest, strikes and insurrections.

"The span of topics is so huge," said Petter Haas Brubakk, executive director of the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise, who joined the calls for the government to improve information sharing. "Some countries you avoid because they are too dangerous. It may be health-related risk, traffic risk, abduction, crime, corruption--you have to analyze each country to be prepared."

Copyright (c) 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Generated by readers, the comments included herein do not reflect the views and opinions of Rigzone. All comments are subject to editorial review. Off-topic, inappropriate or insulting comments will be removed.

View the original article here

How the U.S. Intelligence Community Came Out of the Shadows

By Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch
A Leftist’s Argument Against Gun Control Pro-Gun Senators Call for Gun Control, NRA Takes Down Facebook Page, and More Guns, of Course, but What About Mental Illness? Who Is South Carolina’s New Senator? Anonymous Hacks, Promises to ‘Destroy’ Westboro Baptist Church Is This the Most Inappropriate Reaction to Sandy Hook School Shooting?
Robert Scheer on the Connecticut School Shooting and Gun Control Watch: ‘SNL’ Honors Connecticut School Shooting Victims GOP Lawmaker’s Solution to Preventing Mass Shootings: More Guns ‘Left, Right & Center:’ School Shooting, Susan Rice Withdraws, and More
Hollywood’s Raid on Convention
By Richard Schickel Understanding Economics in Plain English
By Thomas Hedges, Center for Study of Responsive Law Regulate Dissent in Hong Kong, Jackie Chan Says
Fighting Manifest Destiny
By Jonathan Yardley
The Questions Education Reformers Aren’t Asking
Dig led by Mike Rose

Gore Vidal: His Life and Legacy
Dig led by Truthdig Staff

advertisement

-->
L.A. Noir: The Struggle for the Soul of America’s Most Seductive CityBy John Buntin
$17.16

advertisement

-->
Static: Government Liars, Media Cheerleaders, and the People Who Fight Backby Amy Goodman, David Goodman
$5.58

advertisement

-->
Basic T-Shirt$13

  Email    Print    Share

Tweet Posted on Dec 18, 2012 pareeerica (CC BY 2.0)

By Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch

This piece first appeared at TomDispatch.

Weren’t those the greatest of days if you were in the American spy game?  Governments went down in Guatemala and Iran thanks to you.  In distant Indonesia, Laos, and Vietnam, what a role you played!  And even that botch-up of an invasion in Cuba was nothing to sneeze at.  In those days, unfortunately, you—particularly those of you in the CIA— didn’t get the credit you deserved.

You had to live privately with your successes.  Sometimes, as with the Bay of Pigs, the failures came back to haunt you (so, in the case of Iran,  would your “success,” though so many years later), but you couldn’t with pride talk publicly about what you, in your secret world, had done,  or see instant movies and TV shows about your triumphs.  You couldn’t launch a “covert” air war that was reported on, generally positively,  almost every week, or bask in the pleasure of having your director claim publicly that it was “the only game in town.”  You couldn’t, that is,  come out of what were then called “the shadows,” and soak up the glow of attention, be hailed as a hero, join Americans in watching some (fantasy) version of your efforts weekly on television, or get the credit for anything. 

Nothing like that was possible—not at least until well after two journalists, David Wise and Thomas B. Ross, shined a bright light into those shadows, called you part of an “invisible government,” and outed you in ways that you found deeply discomforting. 

Advertisement

Their book with that startling title, The Invisible Government, was published in 1964 and it was groundbreaking, shadow-removing, illuminating.  It caused a fuss from its very first paragraph, which was then a shockeroo: “There are two governments in the United States today. One is visible. The other is invisible.”

I mean, what did Americans know at the time about an invisible government even the president didn’t control that was lodged deep inside the government they had elected? 

Wise and Ross continued: “The first is the government that citizens read about in their newspapers and children study about in their civics books. The second is the interlocking, hidden machinery that carries out the policies of the United States in the Cold War.  This second,  invisible government gathers intelligence, conducts espionage, and plans and executes secret operations all over the globe.”

The Invisible Government came out just as what became known as “the Sixties” really began, a moment when lights were suddenly being shone into many previously shadowy American corners. I was then 20 years old and sometime in those years I read their book with a suitable sense of dread, just as I had read those civics books in high school in which Martians landed on Main Street in some “typical” American town to be lectured on our way of life and amazed by our Constitution, not to speak of those fabulous governmental checks and balances instituted by the Founding Fathers, and other glories of democracy.

I wasn’t alone reading The Invisible Government either.  It was a bestseller and CIA Director John McCone reportedly read the manuscript, which he had secretly obtained from publisher Random House.  He demanded deletions.  When the publisher refused, he considered buying up the full first printing.  In the end, he evidently tried to arrange for some bad reviews instead.

Time Machines and Shadow Worlds

By 1964, the “U.S. Intelligence Community,” or IC, had nine members, including the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and the National Security Agency (NSA).  As Wise and Ross portrayed it, the IC was already a labyrinthine set of secret outfits with growing power.  It was capable of launching covert actions worldwide, with a “broad spectrum of domestic operations,” the ability to overthrow foreign governments, some involvement in shaping presidential campaigns, and the capacity to plan operations without the knowledge of Congress or full presidential control.  “No outsider,” they concluded, “can tell whether this activity is necessary or even legal.  No outsider is in a position to determine whether or not, in time, these activities might become an internal danger to a free society.”  Modestly enough, they called for Americans to face the problem and bring “secret power” under control.  (“If we err as a society, let it be on the side of control.”)

Now, imagine that H.G. Wells’s time machine had been available in that year of publication.  Imagine that it whisked those journalists, then in their mid-thirties, and the young Tom Engelhardt instantly some 48 years into the future to survey just how their cautionary tale about a great democratic and republican nation running off the tracks and out of control had played out. 

The first thing they might notice is that the Intelligence Community of 2012 with 17 official outfits has, by the simplest of calculations, almost doubled.  The real size and power of that secret world, however, has in every imaginable way grown staggeringly larger than that.  Take one outfit, now part of the IC, that didn’t exist back in 1964, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.  With an annual budget of close to $5 billion, it recently built a gigantic $1.8 billion headquarters—“the third-largest structure in the Washington area, nearly rivaling the Pentagon in size”—for its 16,000 employees.  It literally has its “eye” on the globe in a way that would have been left to sci-fi novels almost half a century ago and is tasked as “the nation’s primary source of geospatial intelligence, or GEOINT.” (Don’t ask me what that means exactly, though it has to do with quite literally imaging the planet and all its parts—or perhaps less politely, turning every inch of Earth into a potential shooting range.)  

1   2   3   4   NEXT PAGE >>>

TAGS: 24 911 cia covert war david wise fbi geoint homeland intelligence community iran jsoc nctc nsa osama bin laden pentagon the invisible government thomas b ross tom engelhardt tomdispatch top secret america war zero dark thirty



Related Entries Hollywood’s Raid on Convention The Shameful Exploitation of Bradley Manning Court: CIA Tortured Wrongly Detained Terror Suspect The Trials of Bradley Manning

Email to a friend

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: The Humanitarians Who Came In From the Cold

Next item: Remember the Children

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.Get Truthdig in your inbox

Newsletter

Become a Fan

Follow Us

Subscribe

     
       #donation_div {display:none;}.popup {background:#FFF; border:1px solid #333; padding:1px;}.popup-header {height:65px; padding: 30px 40px 10px 50px;}.popup-header h2 {margin:0; padding:0; font-size:18px; float:left;}.popup-header .close-link {float:right; font-size:11px;}.popup-body {padding: 20px 70px 20px 50px;}a {color: #990000;}Close

Give the gift of independent journalism.

Support Truthdig by making a donation of at least $25 in someone's name, and we'll send him or her a signed letter of appreciation from our publisher.

With your support, we've been able to pay writers such as Chris Hedges, Col. Ann Wright, Mr. Fish and Nomi Prins.

We've sent reporters around the world, from Afghanistan to Cairo to Cuba.

Thanks to you, our mission to find and publish a range of insightful opinion and analysis from a progressive point of view continues.

Support Truthdig

HOME|Digs|Reports|Arts & Culture|Uncovered|Ear to the Ground|A/V Booth|Cartoons
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+ Google+
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
© 2012 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved. Web site development by Hop Studios 

View the Original article