Ordinarily, governments can’t be held responsible for the actions of corporations registered in their country. The corporations are themselves responsible for any catastrophes they cause. Were it otherwise, American government officials would be held responsible for events such as the Union Carbide industrial disaster in India, a methyl-isocyanate leak that led to the deaths of 15,000 people by some estimates. To my mind, this would be unfair, since Union Carbide’s move to India was to escape the environmental, safety, and labor rights constrictions that reduced their profits in America. What the Indian government allowed Union Carbide to get away with was not the responsibility of the U.S. government.

By that same logic, the absolutely stunning disregard for the environment and enforcement of safety rules that BP (British Petroleum) displayed seems more the responsibility of the U.S. government than that of Britain’s, at least at first. After all, was not Rahm Emanuel living rent-free for years with one of BP’s top lobbyists? Did not the Obama administration give BP a safety award a month before the disaster?

It seems overly fashionable to blame the British for everything (and indeed, they have been a very busy nation throughout history), but is blaming them for BP’s incompetence and the US government’s collusion and lack of oversight a stretch?

True, the German government pays reparations for corporate actions in WW2, but Germany had nationalized their industries during the Nazi period,hence the government was responsible for their corporations and vice-versa.

However, the Drudge Report linked to an article from the London’s Evening Standard newspaper which states about the release of the man convicted in the Lockerbie bombing:

“Megrahi, who was convicted for the murder of 270 people on Pan Am 103 in December 1988, was released last year after a prisoner transfer deal with Libya was signed by former justice secretary Jack Straw.

But with BP under fire in the US, senators have also seized on claims that the prisoner deal was done in return for lucrative drilling rights handed to the oil giant by Tripoli.

Mr Straw, who could be forced to testify in front of a US investigation, has admitted that the BP deal “played a very big part” in his decision to agree the prisoner transfer plan in 2007.”

Now, Jack Straw is a very big wig in Britain, so his admission that his government was willing to release a mass murderer to further the corporate aims of British Petroleum is no small matter. In fact, it is an extremely large one. It points to collusion with BP at the very highest levels of British government. It points to a nation with an extremely large influence on the U.S. government as proven to be willing to do absolutely anything to further the aims of BP, even release a man convicted of killing 270 innocent people.

What wouldn’t the British government do for BP?

This is important. BP is already talking about splitting up the company and other various steps companies do to protect their asstes when facing huge lawsuits (consider this:Union Carbide joined Dow Chemical, and by this alchemy avoided a lot of legal threats to their money). Pretty soon, somebody is going to have to pay for all the ill effects of the Gulf Fiasco. If it is not BP or the British Government, who will pay?

One wild guess.

Oh, and BP says the continuing seepage from the area of the “capped” well is not their fault. Why drill in the first place then, when the oil was naturally leaking into The Gulf before you even started? We should have gotten an American company to drill originally. Real American oil people, smarter than BP, for instance, The Beverly Hillbillies. Granny would never have been so stupid.