t1 b19 marty miller fdr- entire contents- withdrawal notice re mfr and interview prep- also letter...

8/14/2019 T1 B19 Marty Miller Fdr- Entire Contents- Withdrawal Notice Re MFR and Interview Prep- Also Letter From Unocal

1/11

WITH D R A W A L N O TI C E

RG: 148Box: 00007 Folder: 0002 Document: 39Series: Team 1 FilesCopies: 1 Pages: 9

ACCESS RESTRICTEDThe item identified below has been withdrawn from this file:

Folder Title: Marty MillerDocument Date: 11-07-2003Document Type: Note/NotesFrom:To:

Subject: memorandum for the record and prep material for interview with Marty Miller

In the review of this file this item was remov ed because a ccess to it isrestricted. Restrictions o n records in the National Arch ives are stated ingeneral and specific record group restriction statements wh ich are availablefo r examination.

NND: 281Withdrawn: 04-09-2008 by:RETRIEVAL #: 281 00007 0002 39


2/11

UNOCAL Charles O. StrathmanVice President, LawTel: 310.726.7763Fax: [email protected]

November 6, 2003

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS

301 7 th Street, S.W., Room 5125Mr. Scott Allan301 7th Street, S.W ashington, DC 20407RE: UnocalDear Mr. A llan:As we discussed on the telephone, I am forwarding material Unocal submitted to theOffices of the U.S. Attorney from the Eastern District of Virginia and New York inconnection with the John Phillip Walker Lindh m atter. I am reason ably certain this wasthe final form of the letter, but you may want to check with one of the U.S. Attorneys'offices.If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call.

Best regards,

COS/irEnclosure

Unocal 2141 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 4000, El Segundo, CA 90245


3/11

oO ' M E L V E N Y & M Y E R S L L P

L O S A N G E L E S 1999 Aven u e of the Stars, Seventh Floor T Y S O N S C O R N E RI R V I N E S P E C T R U M L os A n g e l e s , C a l i f o r n i a 9 0 0 6 7 - 6 0 3 5 W A S H I N G T O N , D . C .M E N L O P A R K T E L E P H O N E (310) 553-6700 H O N G K O N GN E W P O R T B E A C H F A C S I M I L E (310) 246-6779 L O N D O NN E W Y O R K I N T E R N E T : WWW.Omm.com S H A N G H A ISA N F R A N C I S C O T O K Y O

O UR F I L E N U M B E RNovember 5, 2003 8 8 4 , 1 2 2 - 6VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S.M A I L

W R I T E R ' S D I R E C T D I A L3 1 0 - 2 4 6 - 6 8 5 0W R I T E R ' S E - M A I L A D D R E S S

Randy I. Bellows, Esq. -i [email protected] S. Davis, Esq. j^O \\t United States Attorneys 'Off ice of theUnited States Attorney J\for the Eastern District of Virginia2100 Jamieson AvenueAlexandria, Virginia 22314Facsimile Numbers: (703)548-0866 and (804)771-2316David N. Kelley,Esq.Deputy United States AttorneyOffice of the United States Attorney

for the Southern District of New YorkO ne St. An drew's PlazaNew York, New York 10007Facsimile Number: (718) 422-1700R e: United States of America v. John Phillip Walker Lindh

( E . D . V a . Crim. No. 02-37-A), Defendants' Motion to DismissCounts Eight a n d Nin e of th e Indictment fo r SelectiveProsecutionDear Sirs:

W e represent Unoc al in connection with the above-referenced action. W e write torespond to a number of erroneous allegations made by Mr. Lindh regarding Unocal in theselective prosecution motion that he filed on May 15, 2002.The main allegation regarding Un ocal in Mr. Lindh's motion is that Unocal"conducted business" with the Taliban, or otherwise supported the Taliban, both before


4/11

O ' M E L V E N Y & M Y E R S L L PR andy I. Bellows, Esq., John S . Davis, Esq., & D a vid N . Kelly, Esq. N ovember 5,2003 - Page 2

and after Federal R egulat ions barring such conduct took effect on July 6, 1999. See M o t.at 6-7; 31 C.F.R . 545.101 et seq. (the "Anti-Taliban Regulations"), see id. 545.302("Effective date."). M r. L indh also suggests that Unocal has future plans to do businesswith the Taliban despite theAnti-Taliban Regulations and despite our country's recentmilitary efforts in Afghanistan against th e Taliban and al Qaeda.

Both o f M r. L i n d h ' s assertions are untrue, misleading, and w holly un supported byth e alleged "evidence" he cites in his moving papers. As is shown below , Unocal neversigned a contract with th e Taliban, nor gave th e regime any money. Unocal had noinvolvement in Afghanis tan by the end of 1998six months before th e Anti-TalibanR egulations took effect. And Unocal not only has no plans of conducting business inAfghanistan or with th e Taliban, it is contractually barred from cond ucting business inAfghanistan until 2005.The H istory of Unocal's Involvem ent in AfghanistanUno cal 's involvem ent in Central Asia traces back to 1995. Aroun d that t ime,Unocal had d iscussions with the government of Turkmenistan and others regarding thefeasibility of exporting th e country's natural gas reserves. Bringing these vast ga sreserves to a viable market required transporting th e natural gas through R ussia, Iran, orAfghanistan and then P akistan. The R ussian route had been foreclosed by the R ussiangovernment, and American companies were forbidden from doing business with or inIran. Thus, th e pipeline route through war-torn Afghanistan to markets in Pakistan andpotentially India presented the only viable option.A n off-shore subsidiary of Unocal (Unocal Central Asia, Ltd.), the Turkmenistangovernment, and a multinational collection of five companies from Korea, Japan,Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia agreed to explore th e prospect of building this pipeline andexporting n atural gas from Turkmenistan. This seven-member group formed aconsortium in 1997 to conduct these investigations called Central Asia Gas Pipeline, Ltd.,or "CentGas."Uno cal 's inv olveme nt in CentGas and any investment that Unocal m ight make inthe construction of the pipeline w ere cond it ioned on the occurrence of certain events.Unocal never negotiated or entered into any agreements w ith th e Taliban or other

competing factions for powe r. Indeed, Unocal made clear that it refused to enter into anysuch deals with th e factions in Afghanistan's ongoing civil war, and instead, insisted thatth e project w ould not proceed until (a) peace and stability were achieved in the country;and (b) a government formed in Afghanistan that w as secure, internationally recognized,and fairly represented all of its people.


5/11

O ' M E L V E N Y & M Y E R S U PRandy I. Bellows, Esq., John S. Davis, Esq., & David N. Kelly, Esq. November 5,20 03 - Page 3

Of course, these events never occurred. Instead infighting intensified inAfghanistan, the Taliban rose to power, and the country remained pitched in civil war.The Taliban, moreover, was never recognized by the U nited N ations or the United Statesas th e legitimate ruling government in Afghanistan. However, at the behest of Unocal'sbusiness partners in CentGas, and with the support of the U nited S tates government,U nocal representatives had a limited number of courtesy meetings with mem bers of theTaliban and other factions in Afgh anistan, such as the Northern Alliance, to discuss thepipeline project. As the Chicago Tribune article with Mr. Lindh's motion confirms, thesecourtesy meetings were conducted with th e express "support" of the United States StateDepartment, wh ich wa nted to bring "stability to the country." Declaration of Tony Westin Support of Defend ant's Motion to Dismiss Counts Eight and Nine of the Indictmentfor Selective Prosecution (hereinafter "West Decl.") Exh. 24 .

It is important to note, however, that although U nocal participated in thesecourtesy meetings, neither U nocal nor CentGas ever negotiated (much less signed) acontract with the Taliban or the Northern A lliance. See id. ("Unocal tried to educatemany factions in Afghan istan about th e benefits of oil and gas pipelines. No deals wereever mad e because the country wa s too unstable.")The assertion in Mr. Lin dh 's motion and in the "Pop + Politics" article he submitsas evidence that, "[i]n 1996, Unocal signed an agreement with th e Taliban and theAfghan Northern Alliance, giving Unocal th e go-ahead to build a south-bound pipelinethrough Afghanistan" is completely false. W est Decl. Exh. 10. U nsurprisingly, theauthor of the "Pop + Politics" article - whose thesis is that U nited States m ilitary is

presently in Afghanistan, fighting th e Taliban and al Qaeda, to serve th e President's andVice P resident's pecuniary interests in the defen se, oil, andconstruction industries - citesno source or other evidence for her unsubstantiated assertions.A s Un ocal ' s public statements, statements to its business partners in CentGas,United States Department of Energy Reports, and Unocal's actions m ade clear, how ever,U nocal never entered into a deal with any faction in Afghanistan's civil war, and Unocalrepeatedly stated its refusal to enter such an agreement should one be presented (which itnever was). See West Decl. Exh. 14 (September 2001 U nited States Department ofEnergy Report: "U nocal had previously stressed [before 1998] that the C entGas pipeline

project wou ld not proceed until an internationally recognized government w as in place inAfghanistan.")"Doing business" or "signing agreements" with such factions would make nosense. To begin with, in order to obtain suitable financing for the massively expe nsivepipeline project, lending institutions would requ ire contracts with real governmentssolidly in place and recognized by the international com mun ity. Len ding institutions


6/11

O ' M E L V E N Y & M Y E R S L L PRandy I. Bellows, Esq., John S. Davis, Esq., & D a v i d N. Kelly, Esq. November 5,20 03 - Page 4

would also require that the region and government ev ince a likelihood an d tendency toremain stable, so that a return on inv estment wou ld be possible.Afghanistan was any thing but stable or secure in the second half of the 1990s. Asa result, in the Spring an d Sum mer of 1998, the pipeline project became less feasiblefrom Un ocal's perspective. A lthough the Taliban was achieving m ilitary victories in itsw ar against the Northern Alliance, the war showed no signs of abating, much less endingonce and for all. Furthermore, th e Taliban w as coming under increasingly harsh criticismfrom the international comm unity for its involvement in the international opium trade andits persistent human rights abuses. The prospects that the Taliban would control all ofAfghanistan (in particular its northern b order with Turkm enistan), or that it wou ld berecognized as a legitimate government by the world community, was extremely unlikely.Moreover, it is important to note, the two ma jor markets fo r Turkmenistan's

natural gas appeared jeopardized . Pakistan - initially, the primary market for thenaturalgas - was suffering from its own political and economic turmoil. In addition, Pa kistanwas engaged (and to this day is still engaged) in an intensifying border dispute with India.India, like Pakistan was a principal potential consumer of natural gas from Turkmenistan.In light of these market developments, and the distinct possibility that civil war andpolitical turmoil in A fghan istan wou ld not cease any time soon, Un ocal's involvemen t inth e pipeline project w as imperiled.The End of Unocal's Involvem ent in Afghan istan in 1998On August 7, 1998, terrorists bombed U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network in Sudan and Afghanistan were identified asprime suspects. Less than tw o weeks later, on August 20, 1998, th e United Statesconducted bombing raids in both countries, striking at least six sites of terrorist activity inAfghanistan.That same d ay, August 20, 1998, Un ocal was contacted by n ews agencies, such asD ow Jones and Knight-Ridder, asking fo r comment. Unocal orally responded to suchinquiries stating that, "[i]n light of the U.S. government actions against terrorist facilitiesin Afghanistan, Unocal, as the development manager for the CentGas consortium, feels itis appropriate to suspend all activities involving th e proposed pipeline project in

Afghanistan." Exh. A.The next day, August 21, 1998, Un ocal posted th e following on its website:

A s a result of sharply deteriorating political conditions in theregion, Unocal, which serves as the development manager for theCentral Asia G as (CentGas) pipeline consortium, has suspended all


7/11

O ' M E L V E N Y & M Y E R S L L PRandy I. Bellows, Esq., John S. Davis, Esq., & David N . Kelly, Esq. Novem ber 5,2003 - Page 5

activities involving the proposed pipeline project in Afghanistan.W e are discussing this suspension with th e other members of theconsortium.This decision to suspend activities is consistent with Unocal ' slong-held position concerning its involvem ent in the project. For thepast several months, Unocal has been reviewing this project withCentGas participants. W e have consistently informed the otherparticipants that unless and until th e United Nations and the United

States government recognize a legitimate government inAfghanistan, Unocal would not invest capital in the project.Contrary to some published reports, Unocal has notand will notbecome a party to a comm ercial agreement with an y individualAfghanistan faction.Unocal w as instrumental in proposing th e Central Asia ga spipeline project in 1995 and in forming the seven-member CentGasconsortium in October 1997. The conso rtium was formed toevaluate and , if appropriate, to participate in the future constructionof a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to naturalgas markets in Pakistan and, potentially, India.Unocal will only participate in construction of the proposedCentral Asia Gas Pipeline w hen and if Afghanistan achieves the

peace and stability necessary to obtain financing from internationallending agencies for this project and an established government isrecognized by the United Nations and the United States. For thisreason, we strongly support the United Nations conflict resolutionprocess underway in this and other regions.

W e believe that the CentGas pipeline w ould benefit the entireregion by providing vitally needed energy infrastructure,employment and training, as well as hard currency revenues to theseveral countries invo lved. The proposed pipelin e is an examp le ofa large-scale project that may, after the appropriate conditions aremet, help Afghanistan move from its present devastation towardeconomic reconstruction.

Since th e pipeline project w as first proposed, there have beena num ber of complex issues that Unocal has taken very seriously.Unocal recognizes the legitimate concerns regarding the treatment ofwomen in Afghanistan. Consistent w ith our core values and business


8/11

O ' M E L V E N Y & M Y E R S L L PRandy I. Bellows, Esq., John S. Davis, Esq., & . David N. Kelly, Esq. Novem ber 5, 2003 - Page 6

principles, Unocal is currently providing humanitarian support andskills training to A fghanistan through C ARE and the University ofNebraska at Omaha.Exh.B.

Over the next two months, all reports indicated that the instability in Afghanistanwould only intensify. The T aliban retrenched its positions and refused to extradite orotherwise turn over Osama bin Laden to internationa l authorities. Du ring these tensemonths, Unocal continued to observe its suspension of all activities in Afghanistan.O n Novem ber 4, 1998, at a shareholders manag ement com mittee meeting ofCentGas (in Istanbul, Turkey), Unocal announced its withdrawal from CentGas, givingits 30-day notice of withdrawal as a shareholder in the consortium, and its 60-day notice

of withdrawal as the consortium 's Development Manager. (Two November 4, 1998letters from Uno cal Central Asia, Ltd. to the members of the CentGas co nsortiumdocumenting these withdrawals are attached as Exhibits C and D.) After "withdrawing"from CentGas, Unocal was bound by the CentGa s Shareholder Agreement "not toparticipate, directly or indirectly, in any project relating to the transportation of Gas fromTurkmenistan through Afghan istan to P akistan and/or India" until 2005 or u ntil CentGasdisbanded completely. See Exhibit E ("Non-Competition Clause").One month after noticing its withdrawal from CentGas, Unocal, on December 9,

1 9 9 8 , notified the University of Nebraska at Omaha - which had been providing skillstraining and women's teacher training inAfghanistan - and CARE - a U.S.-based relieffoundation providing human itarian aid in Afghanistan that Unocal could no longer fundthe university's or the foun dation's efforts. Unocal expressed its understanding that anymonies it had advanced in the past to university and the foundation would be exhaustedby the end of the year and by the end of the first quarter of 1999, respectively. (Copies ofthese letters are attached as Exhibits F and G.)Mr. Lindh's Erroneous AllegationsM r. Lindh asserts that U nocal rema ined in Afghanistan supporting and

"conducting] business" with the Taliban "after the [July 7, 1999] effective date of the[Anti-Taliban] Regu lations." Mot. at 6-7. Yet each source (save three) cited by M r.Lindh that discusses Unocal's involvement in Afghanistan reports that Unocal withdrewfrom the region in 1998. See West Decl. Exh. 5 (July, 8, 1999 New York Times article:"Unocal last year abandoned plans to build a $20 billion pipeline in Afghanistan, and theproject was picked up by an Argentine company."); id . Exh. 6 (July 7, 1999 AgenceFrance Presse article: "Most econom ic ventures involving US companies, such as thetrans-Afghan pipeline have been shelved."); id . Exh. 10 ("Unocal opened offices in


9/11

O ' M E L V E N Y & M Y E R S U PRandy I. Bellows, Esq., John S. Davis, Esq., & David N. Kelly, Esq. Nove mber 5,2003 - Page 7

Kazakh stan, Uzbek istan, Pakistan, and Turkm enistan in anticipation of starting thepipeline, but turmoil in Afghanistan and ensuing conflicts with th e Taliban le d them towithdraw from th e project in 1998."): id . Exh. 14 (September 2001 United StatesDepartment of Energy Report: "O n December 8, 1998, Unocal announced that it waswithdrawing from th e CentGas consortium, citing low oil prices and turmoil inAfghanistan as making th e pipeline project uneconomical and too risky. . . . "In April1 9 9 9 , P akistan Turkmenistan and the Taliban authorities in Afghan istan agreed toreactivate the Turkmenistan gas pipeline project, and to ask the CentGas consortium, nowle d by Saudi Arabia's Delta Oil (following U nocal 's w ithdrawal from th e project) toproceed."); id . Exh. 24 (Chicago Tribune Oct. 21, 2001 article: "Unocal withdrew fromthe international consortium in late 1998 follow ing the bom bings of two U .S. Embassiesin Africa;" also no ting that U nocal cut off funding to the University of Nebraska atOmaha shortly thereafter); id . Exh. 26 (Declaration of Moham mad B asheer em ployee ofUniversity of Nebraska at Omaha "The Unocal Program ran for just one year, fromAugust 1997 to October 1998. . . . [T]he U nocal Program w as terminated due both tosecurity concerns and to pressure from feminist groups in the U.S. who opposed theTaliban.").

The two Internet sources and declaration that suggest that Unocal remainedinvolved in Afghanistan after th e Anti-Taliban Regulations took effect in July 1999 ar especious. One Internet report relies on unidentified "sources" and surmise about theirresistible allure of the pipe line's po tential profits to assert falsely that Unocal was tryingto "re-enter" the CentGas consortium and the "Turkmen gas pipeline project in March2000." WestDecl . Exh. 17. Nothing could be further from the truth. At the time,Unocal and CentGas were resolving differences regarding Unocal 's withdrawal fromCentGas in the aftermath of the aborted deal. These differences were resolved in a July2000 Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement, in which both sides abandoned theirclaims, and CentGas insisted that Unocal continue to honor the Non-Competition Clause,barring Un o ca l from participating "in any projec t relating to the transportation of Gasfrom Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to P akistan and/or India" until 2005.

The second Internet posting - wh ich weaves together a grand conspiracy involving"the B ush Adm inistration, U nocal, the CIA , the Ta liban, Enron, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan,an d theBush Oil team" - theorizes that, "[although Unocal claims it abandoned thepipeline project in December 1998, [a] series of mee tings he ld betwe en U .S., P akistani,and Taliban officials after 1998, indicates th e project w as never off the table." WestDecl. Exh. 21. Such theory and conjecture about the inner-wo rkings of the governme ntare not fact. And the theories postulated are demo nstrably untrue.

Lastly, the D eclaration of Gary Breshinsky states that, "when I was in Afghanistanin September 1999,1 saw trucks and Land Cruisers that said 'Unocal' on them. I believe


10/11

O ' M E L V E N Y & M Y E R S L L PRandy I. Bellows, E sq., John S . Davis, Esq., & David N . Kelly, E sq. N ovember 5, 2003 - Page 8

I was in Kandahar when I saw these vehicles. I did not know what Unocal was doing inAfghanistan then, but I definitely sa w their trucks and Land Cruisers there, and I believethat th e sanctions had already been imposed." West Decl. Exh. 9. Unocal had none of itsvehicles in Afghanistan in 1999, and never did prior. As it does in many markets whereit is trying to build brand recognition, Unocal broadly d isseminates free decals and othermarketing materials. These m arketing materials appear in regions where they weredistributed even though Unocal never did business in there or long-since left th e region.Indeed, recent news reports about Afghan istan center on how popular the decal trend is inAfghanistan. See, e.g., Exh. G Charles Recknagel, Afghanistan: In Kabu l, Drivers WearTheir Hearts On Their Cars, Not Their Sleeves, R adio Free E urope (Jan. 4, 2002) (InKabul, the capital of Afghanistan, "there are the cars with brand names for products ofevery sort - products usually unavailable in Kabul emblazoned on their doors. . . . Thetrademarks give th e cabs a prestigious air of carrying paid-for ads in a city with noadvertising industry . . . . 'The decal passion existed before and during [the Taliban] andeven the Taliba n were, if not a lot, at least a little interested in them . They especiallyloved trademarks, though usually they didn 't know what they meant.'").

Finally, M r. Lindh cites a handful of other sources that he alleges support hisassertion that Unocal remained in Afghan istan after July 1999 or intends to return there inth e future. However, th e sources he cites fo r this proposition: Predate the Anti-Taliban R egulations by several months, see West Decl. E xh.18 (April 1999 statements made by U.S. Con gressman Dan a Rohrbacher); The sources tangentially refer to "oil companies'" alleged interests in theregion - but do not refer to Unocal specifically, much less state that thecompany was doing business with Afghanistan after 1999. See id. Exh. 20(Aug. 3, 2001 Agence France Presse story about U.S . Assistant S ecretary ofS tate C hristina Rocca's meetings in Pakistan with Pakistani and T alibanofficials); id . E x h . 28 (alleging that, "at the behest of U . S . oil companies, th eBush adm inistration initially blocked FBI investigations into terrorism"); or The sources refer to pipeline projects contemplated by other oil companies, notin Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan where CentGas w as operating, but

in neighbo ring parts of Cen tral Asia w here the C entGas project was n ot eventaking place. See, e.g., E x h . 11 (Nightline broadcast discussing Chevron's andTexaco's explorations in Kyrgyzstan).

In sum, M r. Lindh's allegations about Unocal bear much resemblance to theInternet sources on which he is forced to rely. They are long on theory and speculation,and totally d evoid of substance or fact.


11/11

O ' M E L V E N Y & M Y E R S U PRandy I. Bellows, E sq., John S. Davis, E sq.,& David N . Kelly, E sq. N ovember 5, 2003 - Page 9

The reality is that U nocal lost a great deal of money in the CentGas project.Unocal abandoned the project, and left Turkmenistan, P akistan, and Afghanistan soonafter Afghanistan was bombed in August 1998. Unocal never signed contracts with theTaliban, nor gave the regime anymoney. Unocal had no contacts with the faction - andcertainly did not support the regime - after the Anti-Taliban regulations took effect.Unocal has no intention to return to Afghanistan. And even if it wanted to do so, it iscurrently barred by contract from doing so .

V ery truly yours,

Daniel M . Petrocelliof O ' M e lv en y & M y ers L L P

D M P : mtkCC1:570547.1

t1 b19 marty miller fdr- entire contents- withdrawal notice re mfr and interview prep- also letter...

Documents