The joint venture has been increasingly troubled in recent months
BP has said the chief executive of its Russian joint venture TNK-BP has temporarily left Russia because of "sustained harassment".
Robert Dudley will run the company from outside the country and BP said that TNK-BP will operate as normal.
This year TNK-BP has faced lawsuits, visa rows, industrial spying claims, as well as arguments over investment and the future role of Mr Dudley.
On Tuesday, BP pulled out its last 60 technical specialists from Russia.
A spokesman for BP in London said that Mr Dudley had decided to leave because "he felt the sustained harassment of the company made it impossible for him to lead the company in Russia".
Mr Dudley said that he hoped his decision would mean the "administrative pressure" on the company would now ease.
"I hope this will enable our employees to continue with our business, outside of the media glare, whilst the shareholders seek to resolve their differences," he said in a statement.
Attacks
BP owns 50% of the venture while the Russian shareholding is made up of three billionaires who control a consortium known as Alfa Access Renova (AAR).
The Russian investors have accused Mr Dudley of acting only in BP's interests and have called for his dismissal.
AAR is also said to want higher dividend payments from the venture.
BP said that it sympathised with Mr Dudley's view that harassment by the AAR shareholders is preventing him from fulfilling his duties.
"We regret that Mr Dudley has been subjected to such sustained attacks and consequently has decided to leave Russia," BP chief executive Tony Hayward.
"We remain fully supportive of his ongoing role managing the joint venture for the benefit of all shareholders."
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I was wondering is this retaliation for charging Mr Lugovoi?
I was reading Putin's speech at the G8 summit,
wondered if he knew they have an independent judiciary in England?
PS I haven't lived there for years chorney, as you well know.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
WALL STREET JOURNAL: Coming back to BP, when TNK-BP was created, the Russian shareholders were asked how control would be exercised in a situation where the stakes were 50-50. Now Russia is retaining a 51-stake in its major companies, and this means that the state retains control.
From the point of view of Russia’s strategic interests, do you think that TNK-BP, which is now the country’s third biggest company in terms of production, can continue to operate on this 50-50 basis, or would it be better to have control…?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: This is not a question for me. I am not a shareholder in either BP or TNK. This is a question for the shareholders. Neither in my personal capacity nor as a state official can I speak on behalf of the shareholders in BP and TNK. I said right at the outset, when they decided to operate on a 50-50 basis, that I recall from my work in St Petersburg that this is not always effective, but they said they would be able to agree. I told them that this was their affair. So far, it seems, they have managed to agree, and as far as I know they do not have any problems.
WALL STREET JOURNAL: So the state is not of the opinion that it would be better to have a 51-percent stake in such companies?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Let foreigners buy all 100 percent if they want.
No need to arrest the company--it will be Russian owned soon enough, but through softer and more refined means. Either the Russian shareholders will get it or one of the State oil/gas companies. This has nothing to do with Lugovoi, and everything to do with British arrogance. They seem to run TNK-BP as if they have a controlling stake in it, which they in fact don't--British employees get paid several times more than Russians do for doing the same work. That seems to be extremely unfair, and may even be considered neo-colonialistic. Also one additional reason which is rarely mentioned is that TNK-BP has recently got a deal in Venezuala, which I imagine the UK and BP's leadership is not very happy with (it could result in the UK angering its Big American Brother).
Of course the fact that Britain has adopted a very hostile stance toward Russia on a wide range of issues may have something to do with it. Nothing of the kind has happened to other nation's companies in Russia, including many other EU nations' companies.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The Lugovoi issue is crystal clear, Russia cannot extradite its own citizen to another country--period. This is the law, and is not subject to change at the whims of Gordon Brown or anyone else. The objectivity of the British judiciary is much talked about, but it always seems to act against Russian interests. For example, Berezovsky and Zakaev are both criminals and there is ample evidence of their crimes which was presented to Britain, but still Britain does not extradite these criminals or even try them in its own courts. Why not? Because they are given political protection by the MI-5, and the supposedly independent British judiciary is in cahoots with British intelligence. The MI-5 clearly has an axe to grind with Lugovoi, because of their prior confrontations, so how can we trust an "independent" judicial system where the MI-5's role is so not transparent? Also the Hague's kangoroo court's show-trials and convictions of Serbian commanders (who were accused of being "war-criminals"), while acquitting Albanian, Bosnian and Croat commanders, has really raised some serious questions about the objectivity and fairness of the European justice system.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Michail, you misunderstand.
The British justice system is independent, Brown had no say in the court charging Lugovoi.
The court decided that there was enough evidence to charge him. As it would have with a British resident.
The fact that there is no extradition treaty with Russia was immaterial to the legal process.
Putin asked why no evidence had been presented to Russia, which is strange.
If there is no way under the Russian constitution that Lugovoi could be extradited, why
is there any requirement for the British court to provide evidence?
This begs the question, what would happen if a Russian longterm resident in a foreign country
commited a crime and then returned to Russia. Should any country grant visas or residency
to Russian citizens without reservations?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
There is no such thing as an independent judiciary!
No score for this post
July 25 2008, 3:30 PM
One may claim that you have trial by jury in Great Britain
and that Judges do not change as the cabinets of Her Majesty the Queen
change after each general election...
However, juries and Judges are imbedded with the ideologies and doctrines that
upholds the present social-political system. Members of the juries are
,for the most of their majority, unaware of this almost subconscious imbedding
in such social dogmas but the Judges are. The Judges are very conscious of
the social ideologies they support and enforce. Such ideologies do not
change with the change of the governing coalition after all.
"If there is no way under the Russian constitution
that Lugovoi could be extradited, why is there any requirement
for the British court to provide evidence?"
This is really simple.
If there is any reasonable amount of evidence,
this Lugovoi could be tried in Russia by a Russian Court.
.
This message has been edited by LplDcc on Aug 20, 2008 7:35 AM This message has been edited by LplDcc on Jul 25, 2008 3:39 PM This message has been edited by LplDcc on Jul 25, 2008 3:38 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
No jury as yet as no trial, just a judgement on basis of the evidence, presented by the police.
(who by the way are not immune from prosecution either)
Believe me Brown is so unpopular at the moment, if there was the slightest
hint that he would intervene to quash or even intefere with the court decision
the Press would savage him.
This does not happen in England. Even where the government has tried to pressure witnesses
this has led to election defeats.
If there is evidence of security forces or other groups involved in a smear campaign
Now would be a good time for Russia or Lugavoi's lawyers to present the evidence
as the British would be liable to believe anything thrown at the Labour Party.
As far as the police are concerned, Brits are still angry at the handling of the
De Menezes shooting.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Putin did say that no evidence was presented by Britain, which is strange, but I believe Putin and not the British on this issue. Why doesn't Britain present evidence, if it has any? Even if the evidence is top-secret, it can share it with the Russian government without making it available to the press. Why does Britain demand extradiction, when it knows full-well that this is against the Russian constitution. It seems to me that Britain is interested in scoring political points and getting political dividends out of all of this.
As I mentioned the issue isn't about Brown or Blair, or any other British politician, but about the unelected British security establishment--MI-5 in particular. It seems to have a mind of its own, and judging from their statements which sometimes contradict Brown's own statements (such as the MI-5 leak about supposed Russian government involvement in the Lugovoi case, which in fact was quickly thereafter disavowed by the Brown administration). The MI-5 leak seemed to have been aimed against Brown, and it is very doubtful that it was authorized by him.
So no I am not saying that Brown is calling all the shots in Britain. It is clear that he is not. What I am saying is that there is an unelected institution in Britain that is hostile to Russia, and which wields huge power and authority, and is virtually unaccountable to anyone. And given this situation, the replacement of Brown with anyone else is unlikely to change the situation. It would be in everyone's interest if the prime-minister of Britain, whoever he is, can assert his authority over MI-5. Then and only then can serious negotiations take place between Russia and Britain. Because it is very difficult to negotiate when it is not even clear who is calling the shots in Britain.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Look at it from my point of view a guy dies of radioactive poisoning in the middle of London.
There is a trail all the way back to a foreign country.
This is like something out of a Le Carre novel. Not sposed to happen in a real life,
modern day Capital city in Western Europe.
I would like some answers and if Russia or Lugevoi has any to offer, then I would like to
hear it.
AS far as proscecution evidence is concerned,i believe it is normally handed to
defence lawyers. However there aren't any......
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Look, if Britain is requesting extradiction--it has to provide the evidence. It is naive and arrogant to the utmost to demand an extradiction without providing any evidence. The polonium trail is very suspicious, and doesn't prove anything. If Russia wanted to assassinate Litvinenko it would do it in such a way that would leave no trace--I've never heard of anyone being assassinated by polonium. Most modern intelligence agencies have other poisons that leave no trace and make the death look natural. Just remember how Mr. Patrikatshvilli the leader of the Georgian opposition was assassinated in London recently--he died of a sudden heart attack, even though his heart was healthy. There was no trace of any poison in his body. But he was at odds with the Georgian dictatorial regime of Saakashvilli, and the CIA which protects it. He was attempting another "rose revolution" in Georgia, which the CIA didn't want, and in my view the CIA had him liquidated. But this story never made any news in Britain--nobody even questioned the official position that a perfectly healthy man died suddently of a heart attack, while he was engaged in a conflict with Georgia's dictator and his CIA protectors.
The Litvinenko assassination (if there was one) looks almost designed to frame Russian intelligence services. But remember that not all polonium is produced in Russia--some is produced in the United States.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The british have not officially stated the cause of death and have not supplied the requested documents .Anyway the english two faced bastards will not extridite Berezovsky or 30 other criminals for which Russia has requested to extridite. Nothing new here same old english ,they never change.
"Surrender life to motherland, soul to God, and honor to nobody!"
In the same way that Russia does not extradite it citizens,
the data protection act in Britain does not allow a court to
hand over details of possible witnesses to a foreign government.
This would happen in the process of extradition and would be handed to a court
or defence lawyers.
National laws are a pain the the proverbial aren't they
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Current Topic - BP's representative forced to leave Russia
