Aug. 29, 2004 Doing Business With The Enemy
Are U.S. Firms Doing Business In Nations That Support Terrorism?
By Rebecca Leung
(CBS) Did it ever occur to you that when
President Bush says, "Money is the lifeblood of terrorist operations,"
he's talking about your money -- and every other American's money?
Just
about everyone with a 401(k) pension plan or mutual fund has money
invested in companies that are doing business in so-called rogue
states.
In other words, there are U.S. companies that are
helping drive the economies of countries like Iran, Syria and Libya,
all places that have sponsored terrorists. Correspondent Lesley Stahl reported on this story last January.
"The
revenue that is generated from the work that these companies are doing,
we believe, helps to underwrite and support terrorism,” says William
Thompson, the New York City comptroller who oversees the $80 billion in
pension funds for all city workers.
He says he wants everyone
with a retirement or investment portfolio to know what these companies
are up to: “We're going to increase the public visibility on this issue
until these companies change their practices.”
He’s actually
identified specific companies that have invested in these rogue
countries, including Halliburton, Conoco-Phillips and General Electric.
And he points out that New York's pension funds own nearly $1 billion
worth of stock in these three Fortune 500 companies, which have
operations in Iran and Syria.
What was Thompson’s reaction when
he found out about this? “Anger that there were companies that could be
contributing to attacks on our nation,” he says. “You’d think to
yourself, well, why would they do that? … I didn't think they could.
And more than anything it was, you thought, that the law prevented them
from doing this.”
In fact, U.S. law does ban virtually
all commerce with the rogue nations, but there's a loophole that G.E.,
Conoco-Phillips and Halliburton have exploited: The law does not apply
to any foreign or offshore subsidiary so long as it is run by
non-Americans.
“These three companies, as far as we were
concerned, appear to have violated the spirit of the law,” says
Thompson. “In the case of Halliburton, as an example, they have an
offshore subsidiary in the Cayman Islands. That subsidiary is doing
business with Iran.”
That subsidiary, Halliburton Products and
Services, Ltd., is wholly owned by the U.S.-based Halliburton and is
registered in a building in the capital of the Cayman Islands – a
building owned by the local Calidonian Bank. Halliburton and other
companies set up in this Caribbean Island, because of tax and secrecy
laws that are corporate friendly.
Halliburton is the company
that Vice President Dick Cheney used to run. He was CEO from 1995 to
2000, during which time Halliburton Products and Services set up shop
in Iran. Today, it sells about $40 million a year worth of oil field
services to the Iranian government.
In the case of Iran,
Thompson says they earn most of their revenues through their oil
industry. So what is the connection between that oil business and
terrorism and weapons of mass destruction?
“The Iranian
government is receiving dollars from it. And then turning around and
exporting terrorism around the world. It benefits terrorism. At least
that's our belief,” says Thompson.
60 Minutes
decided to ask Halliburton's subsidiary about its work in Iran. But we
weren't allowed to enter the building with a camera. So we went in with
a hidden camera, and were introduced to David Walker, manager of the
local Calidonian Bank, where the subsidiary is registered.
60 Minutes
was expecting to find a bustling business, but, to our surprise, Walker
told us that while Halliburton Products and Services was registered at
this address, it was in name only. There is no actual office here or
anywhere else in the Caymans. And there are no employees on site.
We
were told that if mail for the Halliburton subsidiary comes to this
address, they re-route it to Halliburton headquarters in Houston.
“If
you understood what most of these companies do, you would, they're not
doing any business in Cayman per se. They're doing business,
international business,” says Walker. “Would it make sense to have
somebody in Cayman pushing paper around? I don't know. And some people
do it. And some people don't. And it's mostly driven by whatever the
issues are with the head office.”
Does that mean the head office
is calling the shots? If it is, that would be against the law, which
says the subsidiary must be completely independent of the U.S. company.
But 60 Minutes’ attempts to ask headquarters in Houston about this were rebuffed.
In a letter to New York City Comptroller Thompson, Halliburton says its Cayman Island subsidiary is actually run out of Dubai. 60 Minutes
went there and learned that it shares office space, phone and fax lines
with a division of its U.S.-based parent company -- which raises more
legal questions about its independence from Houston. But once again,
our inquiries went unanswered.
In its letter to Thompson,
Halliburton insists it is complying with all U.S. laws. But he and
legal experts we consulted believe they are dancing right along the
edge of legality.
“If the intent was to try and prevent United
States-based companies from doing business in these "rogue" nations,
then it appears as if they've gotten around what the law had intended,”
says Thompson, who filed a shareholder’s resolution calling on the
company to review and justify its operations in Iran. “Halliburton
attempted to block the shareholder resolution. They went to the SEC and
asked for permission not to put this before shareholders.”
Did the SEC take it up and rule on it?
“Oh,
absolutely. The SEC ruled against Halliburton and said that it had to
be put in front of the shareholders,” says Thompson, who plans to file
the resolution at the next shareholders meeting in April.
He’s
also taking issue with GE and its electrical work in Iran, as well as
Conoco-Phillips' gas production business in Syria: “If there are
nations that wind up increasing their resources because these companies
are doing business there, and we're attacked because of it, it in fact
undermines our entire country.”
Thompson says he
decided to open the investigation in the first place at the request of
New York City's police and firemen, who were outraged when they learned
where their retirement money was going.
“The members of the Fire
Department and the Police Department, after September 11th, given the
fact that hundreds of them died in the World Trade Center as a result
of a terrorist attack, had greater sensitivity than almost anybody,”
says Thompson. “And they were the ones who kind of took the lead on
this.”
But why do moral issues come into play when talking about pension funds?
“The
way we've approached it isn't as on a moral basis, it is as investors,”
says Thompson. “And what is in the best long-term interests of our
pension funds because we hold stock in these companies.”
What these companies are doing, he says, isn't just a question of ethics - it's financially unsound, and bad for business.
Roger
Robinson, who runs a research firm in Washington that monitors
companies working in rogue states, agrees. He cites the case of
Talisman Energy, whose reputation was damaged when it did business with
the Islamic Republic of Sudan. The negative publicity led to something
Wall Street calls "The Sudan Discount of Talisman Stock."
“In
other words, the share value or stock price was depressed by some 20,
25 percent by some estimates,” says Robinson, who believes that
Halliburton and GE could face the same risk.
Robinson has
identified nearly 400 companies that are in most pension portfolios
that are doing business in terrorist-sponsoring states. Well over 200,
he says, are actually doing business in Iran; of that, more than 60 are
doing business in Libya.
He says the companies are funneling
tens of billions of dollars worth of capital, technology and know-how
to the state-owned oil and gas sectors of these two countries.
Does he ever say to himself that by revealing this information, he’s taking steps to hurt the company and hurt the pension fund?
“I
think that it could be looked at another way. We're certainly alerting
investors to a genuine new risk category in the markets, every bit as
legitimate as environmental risk was through Three Mile Island, Exxon
Valdez and superfund legislation,” says Robinson. “So investors, we
think, have a right to know. Remember, this is their retirement
dollars. They should have a sense of those who invest on their behalf,
are there genuine risks there?”
With that question of risk in
mind, state treasurers across the country, like David Peterson of
Arizona, are using Robinson's database to investigate their pension
portfolios.
“I want to find out what projects they're doing and
what is specifically the dollars they're investing, where they're
going,” says Peterson.
Taken together, state-run pension investments amount to something like $7 trillion.
“Connecticut
is working on it,” adds Peterson. “I know Pennsylvania, their
legislature passed unanimously that we need to screen, with the
approval of their pension system, for these risks.”
But
some of the state treasurers are running into resistance from the
pension funds. In Peterson's case, the Arizona State Retirement System
refused to tell him anything about its holdings.
“I have asked
the pension system. We'd like to know what investments you have, the
scope of your investments, what companies you're involved with. We had
a legislator ask,” says Peterson. “We actually had an intern from this
office ask about what investments holdings do they have in some of
these companies. And they just didn't want to provide it to us.”
And Peterson believes that they really don’t have grounds to refuse to give him, as state treasurer, that information.
“They've more just kind of tried to be evasive, and said that it's too hard to get this information,” he says.
This
went on for months, but to our surprise, when we asked Arizona's
pension fund managers for a list of its holdings, they gave it to us
right away. And it confirmed what Peterson had suspected: that
Arizonans unwittingly own stock in companies like Halliburton, General
Electric and Conoco-Phillips.
“There's about 11 to 14 companies
that are on the S&P 500 that are involved in some substantial
projects with some of these countries,” says Peterson.
Congress recently directed the Securities and Exchange Commission to monitor companies operating in rogue nations.
But
in New York, Comptroller Thompson isn't waiting. He says he's going to
expand his investigation to include Boeing and other companies that do
business in terrorist states.
“Those countries depend on dollars
from us to live, to do business also,” says Thompson. “If we have, and
if we put pressure on the companies, and they can't do business there,
and others become embarrassed in doing business or buying oil there,
well maybe we can help to force these countries to change their
practices.”
Does he think this issue's going away?
“This issue isn't going to go away any time soon, at all,” says Thompson.
Halliburton declined 60 Minutes'
request for an interview, but in an e-mail, the company indicated it
has no intention of leaving Iran -- or addressing the questions we
raised about the independence of its subsidiary.
The company
did suggest that Thompson is playing politics with pension funds,
insisting there is no connection between its operations in Iran and
either terrorism or nuclear research.
As for General Electric
and Conoco-Phillips, they say they are breaking no laws, and like
Halliburton, make no apologies for their business dealings with states
that sponsor terrorism.
Since 60 Minutes
first broadcast this story, the company's work in Iran has come under
increasing scrutiny - first by the Treasury Department and members of
Congress, and most recently, by the Justice Department, which last
month convened a federal grand jury in Houston to investigate whether
the company is violating the U.S. embargo against Iran.
Halliburton
officials, who declined our requests for an interview, maintain that
the company is violating no laws or regulations. As for the other
companies mentioned in our report, General Electric called our
reporting "shallow and one-sided," while Conoco-Phillips announced that
it will not accept any new business in any country that sponsors
terrorism.