The Hidden Agenda is Oil
[ Dal Kosovo al Sudan, dal Caucaso alla Colombia, sempre naturalmente
passando per l'Iraq martoriato - una unica chiave di interpretazione
riesce a spiegare meglio di tante altre le cause e le dinamiche di
instabilita' e guerre: la corsa per il petrolio... ]
1. The Grand Game. An interview with Vassilis Fouskas ( Z Magazine
Online)
2. US-UK Interventionism. The Hidden Agenda is Oil (by Stephen Gowans)
3. Toward The Petro-Apocalypse (By Yves Cochet - Le Monde, 07 May, 2004)
MORE LINKS:
AMBO Oil Pipeline Construction to Begin (by Marija Lazarova)
http://www.balkantimes.com/
default3.asp?lang=english&page=process_print&article_id=23850
AMBO Plans 563-Mile Trans-Balkan Line
http://www.seeurope.net/en/Story.php?StoryID=49492&LangID=1
Khatami slates US backing of pipeline
http://www.dawn.com/2004/04/30/int8.htm
IPS: Politics of oil in Washington (by Eli Clifton)
http://www.dawn.com/2004/08/01/int14.htm
Oil Exports Via Baltic Flood North Europe
http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2004/06/22/046-print.html
RECENT IMPORTANT ARTICLES ON THE OIL CRISIS:
. "the end of cheap oil" - national geographic (cover story) - june
2004
. "what to use when the oil runs out" - bbc - april 22, 2004
. "adios cheap oil" - interpress news agency - april 27, 2004
. "g7: oil price threatens world economy" - moscow times - 4/26/04
. "world oil crisis looms" - jane's -- 4/21/04
. "us procuring the world's oil" - foreign policy in focus - january
2004
. "are we running out of oil? Scientist warns of looming crisis" - abc
news.com ? 2/11/04
. "blood, money, and oil" - us news - 8/18/03
. "soaring global demand for oil strains production capacity" - wall
street journal ? 3/22/04
. "check that oil" - washington post - 11/14/03
. "china's demand for foreign oil rises at breakneck pace" - knight
ridder ?1/26/04
. 'world oil and gas running out' - cnn - 10/02/03
. "debate rages on oil output by saudis in future" - the new york
times - 2/25/04
. "fossil-fuel dependency: do oil reserves foretell bleak future?" -
san francisco chronicle - 4/02/04
. "the end of the oil age: ways to break the tyranny of oil are coming
into view. Governments need to promote them" - the economist - 10/23/03
=== 1 ===
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Oct2004/valencic1004.html
Z Magazine Online
October 2004 Volume 17 Number 10
Interview
The Grand Game
An interview with Vassilis Fouskas
By Eric Valencic
Vassilis K. Fouskas is senior research fellow in European and
International
Studies and a Leverhulme Fellow (2002-03) at Kingston University,
United
Kingdom. He is the editor of the Journal of Southern Europe and the
Balkans
and the author of Italy, Europe and the Left (1998) and Zones of
Conflict
(2003).
VALENCIC: A lot of respected scholars, journalists, and historians
argue
there was never a real threat of a war between the USSR and the U.S.
How do
you understand it?
FOUSKAS: The Cold War was the result of an arrangement, basically,
between
Britain, the U.S., and the USSR. I stress the world "arrangement"
because it
points to an agreement between the powerful to divide the world into
zones
and spheres of influence, in order to have an "arranged peace" among
them.
This did not mean, however, that the arrangement was written in stone,
hence
attempts from each side to extend their military and
politico-ideological
influence into new zones, such as Latin America, Southern Asia, and
Iran.
Thus, the superpowers fought wars by proxy. In this sense, the war was
destined to remain cold because it was designed as such. The world did
experience moments during which a "hot" confrontation between the
superpowers was close to becoming reality-the Cuban missile crisis, for
instance.
You say the U.S. uses the IMF, World Bank, the WTO, and NATO to pursue
global domination. How?
The two pillars of U.S. foreign policy towards global domination are
the
successful management of the global economy and trade relations based
on the
dollar as a reserve currency and the successful projection of power
into
zones rich in raw materials. The U.S. "philosophy" of globalization
through
the WTO is for U.S. products to have a free ride across the globe,
while the
U.S. is in a position to impose protective tariffs in case sections of
its
economy can't endure competitive pressure from abroad.
The IMF, a "lender of last resort," is virtually the U.S. Treasury.
The IMF
and conditionality go hand in hand. The U.S. Treasury does not lend
money
without asking in return either political/military reforms favorable
to its
interests and/or other privileges. Virtually all Central-Eastern
European
countries have received, or currently are receiving, IMF injections.
Most of
these countries are now members of NATO. NATO guarantees the security
of
U.S. dollars and oversees any "dangerous" Russian moves in the
Balkans, the
Black Sea region, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. The U.S. would not
have
achieved much if these Cold War institutions had not been transformed
and
modernized.
NATO, after the fall of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact, replaced the Evil
Empire with dozens of rogue states, which, so we are told, threaten the
Western world with nuclear weapons and sponsor international
terrorism. How
do you comment on this new NATO doctrine?
After the collapse of the USSR, terrorism became the ideological scheme
through which NATO, the U.S., and other Western governments defined
their
security agendas. Yet, this scheme is bound to fail. NATO is a military
alliance which acquired an extended political scope after the Cold
War, but
it is in no position to successfully fight terrorist activities.
NATO's technological superiority was visible in its war against
Yugoslavia
in 1999. The official explanation is this was a "humanitarian war." You
claim it was something else.
It was unavoidable that the breakup of Yugoslavia would spark Albanian
claims for national independence and integration in Kosovo and
Macedonia.
The Europeans knew that. The U.S. knew that. The war over Kosovo, the
first
and perhaps the last war that NATO fought together, was primarily a
war to
exclude the Russians from the Balkans and secure the wider Balkan zone
from
German and French influences. The U.S. could not lead the NATO
expansion by
having a Russian client state, Serbia, in its soft underbelly. Then
there is
the "oil factor." An entire network of oil and gas pipelines, old and
new,
are connected or designed to bring oil and gas from the Caspian Sea to
Western markets through the Balkans. In this context, the Balkans is a
fundamental transport corridor and its security could not have been
left to
the Russians or the Europeans.
You claim that military interventions cannot secure peace and bring
about
democracy. Can we understand the current developments in Kosovo as
proof of
this?
Wherever the military goes, it brings about partition and racist forms
of
separation of ethnic groups. The U.S. agenda is not that of ethnic
reconciliation and healing of wounds. Their agenda, from the
beginning, has
been that of partition, of divide and rule. This is an ages old
imperial
tactic. The Romans did it, the British did it, and now the U.S. is
doing it
in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere.
NATO expansion eastward is causing a lot of tension in Moscow. The
fact that
NATO planes will protect the air space of its new Baltic members
sparked a
lot of criticism there. How do you comment on the establishment of a
NATO-Russia Council in 2002, an event that led commentators and
politicians
to declare the real end of the Cold War?
I never believed that the 2002 agreements were more than a public
relations
exercise with some substantial parts, though, particularly as far as
deals
over oil were concerned. Russia and China remain the U.S.'s foremost
Eurasian competitors, whereas its relationship with the EU is on a
different
scale. It is interesting to note that the Russians also objected to
Europe's
expansion in Poland because they felt their economic interests were
threatened. NATO will continue to expand and encircle Russia and
China. If
the Ukraine, a pivotal state, shifts to the side of NATO and the U.S.,
then
Russia will be in real trouble.
After September 11, 2001, the U.S. vastly increased its military
presence in
the Caucasus, Caspian area, and broader Central Asia. The U.S. is
supplying
military aid to Azerbaijan, Georgia, Uzbekistan, and Kazahstan in
terms of
training troops, providing military equipment, and establishing army
bases.
The U.S. also controls Afghanistan and has put Pakistan in line with
its
interests. The explanation is that this is being done in the name of
war
against terrorism and to secure democracy. How do you comment on this?
The recent discoveries of oil in the Caspian Sea region kicked off an
entirely new geo-political game. Western companies vied for the
acquisition
of lucrative contracts, the construction of new pipelines, and the
rights to
extract oil and gas. They asked NATO and the U.S. to provide them with
security in order to transport these valuable things to Western
markets at
stable prices, in dollars. This, of course, does not mean the Caucasus
area
was an entirely new region in which no oil had been found
previously-for
instance, Hitler's drive through Romania during World War II aimed at
reaching the Baku area, where oil was found. Also, we should mention
the
importance of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan project for the countries
involved and
the U.S.-UK. After all, the British giant BP is heavily involved in the
construction of the pipeline. These things do not happen in order to
promote
democracy, although some of them may be happening in the name of
democracy.
In Zones of Conflict you write that the principle aim behind U.S.
control of
the Caspian energy resources lies in reducing U.S. dependence on Saudi
Arabia and OPEC countries.
The Caspian discoveries brought a sigh of relief to the U.S. and so
did the
May 2002 agreement with Russia, another non-OPEC source. Overall,
however,
the U.S. needs Saudi Arabia and OPEC more than ever before-and so do
China
and other Eurasian powers. This is because their modernization plans
have
increased their appetite for oil and gas and the Caspian discoveries
alone
are not enough. The grand game has just begun.
Time and again, a headache for the U.S. has been how to stabilize the
Caspian and Caucusus regions. Can they do it?
No, I don't think so. I don't think the U.S. does what it does in
various
Eurasian sub-regions (the Middle East, the Caucasus, etc.) because it
wants
to tame disobedient actors and bring about stability. Of course, the
U.S.
would like to have a certain degree of stability in order to better
coordinate the various groups involved in conflicts, ethnic or
otherwise.
But it was first and foremost the U.S. that instigated and encouraged
ethnic
nationalism in Soviet-dominated zones in order to undermine the
coherence of
the USSR and bring about its collapse. Now the U.S. finds itself in
the odd
position of managing these conflicts. But it will always need to
support
some nationalisms against some others in order to achieve what it
wants.
The Serbo-Croat conflict speaks for itself. Why was Croat nationalism
more
sympathetic to the U.S. than the Serbian one? Are there good and bad
nationalisms? Look at the game the U.S. is playing in Georgia, trying
to
mediate between pro-Russian Abkhazians and Georgians. There is the
problem
of Ossetia, too. These conflicts serve NATO and the U.S. as they can
tell
the conflicting parties and the world: "Look, we are coming here to
mediate
and bring about stability; we want peace and to bring the conflict to
an
end; but to achieve this we need to create some military bases."
China's need for oil is expected to rise 40 percent by 2010. How
serious a
rival is China?
China is fully involved in the pan-Eurasian pipeline and it is also
flirting
with the Russians to construct jointly another pipeline, which
by-passes its
competitor, Japan. Sinopec Group, the Chinese state-owned
petrochemicals
giant, confirmed recently that it was holding talks with the Iranians
on a
major purchase agreement for liquefied natural gas. China's
unprecedented
economic growth has made it the world's second largest oil consumer
behind
the U.S.
Many people see the war against Iraq as just another U.S. attempt to
control
Central Asian energy resources. Would you agree?
In many ways, it is a war to prevent Iraq and other OPEC countries from
switching their oil reserve holdings from dollars to euros. Iraq had
pushed
OPEC to start a similar process in November 2000. This would have
caused
havoc to U.S. management of global currency markets, signaling the end
of
its economic hegemony.
Another reason, of course, has to do with control over Iraqi's oil
reserves,
the second largest in the world after Saudi Arabia.
A third reason is what the U.S. calls "democratization of the Middle
East."
The U.S. and Israel think that by violently imposing their brand of
liberal
democracy, everything will be a bed of roses for them and terrorism
will
wither away. There is nothing more wrong than that, as the roots of
terrorism can be found in the way in which Israel has dealt with the
Palestinian problem, at least since 1967, and in the way the U.S. has
dealt
with world politics, at least since 1989.
The U.S. won the war in Iraq, but lost the peace. Now it might lose
the war,
too. How do you see the present situation in Iraq?
Even if the U.S. manages to suppress the uprising, there will be many
others
in the months and years to come. The U.S. managed to turn a first world
country, full of educated and highly qualified people, into a huge
shanty
town. They will hold their ground in Iraq, no matter what. They won't
hesitate to carpet bomb Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands.
The EU states have been completely divided on the issue of whether to
support and participate in a U.S.-led occupation of Iraq. One of the
biggest
blows to the EU was the so-called Vilnius Group, composed of all ten
new EU
member states, which openly committed themselves to the U.S. disarming
of
Iraq. Was something like this on Brzezinski's mind, when he wrote: "A
larger
Europe will expand the range of American influence?"
The real winner of EU enlargement is NATO and the U.S. If the Europeans
manage to create a coherent political block with an autonomous
security and
defense structure, then we can talk of Europe as an independent
political
actor, as you say. The newcomers, in my view, did nothing unusual.
They are
saying, "I'm going with Europe as far as geo-economics are concerned,
but I'
m going with the U.S. and NATO as far as geo-politics are concerned."
You write in Zones of Conflict: "The U.S. and Britain are the strongest
supporters of Turkey joining the EU 'as soon as possible' because,
among
other reasons, huge amounts of the IMF cash now pouring into Turkey's
ailing
economy would be replaced by Europe's regional and structural funds."
How
soon can we expect Turkey to join the EU?
The biggest obstacle to Turkey joining the EU is its geographical
location-Turkey is surrounded by tension and war zones and I'm not
sure that
the Europeans want that at present. Another problem is Turkey's special
relationship with the U.S. and Israel. These are the things that the
Europeans dislike. I tend to believe that the issues of "human
rights," the
"Kurdish question," and so on, are being used as a pretext to cover
deeper
strategic reasons. But if there is an improvement in the security
conditions
of its neighborhood, then we can expect Turkey's entry by 2010-2012.
The EU lacks a firm security policy, which was most obvious in the
Balkans
in the 1990s. There has been an initiative to field 60,000 troops
independent of the U.S.-dominated NATO. The Pentagon has been negative
about
this all along. Why?
Because the U.S. is afraid of having a force that competes with NATO.
What
is going to happen if both the EU and NATO want to go there because
their
interests dictate so?
Eurasia is arming itself: Russia is talking about expanding its nuclear
arsenal due to the unfriendly extension of NATO to Russia's western and
southern borders; China has announced it will increase its defense
budget,
as has Japan; North Korea is showing no signs of ending its nuclear
programs
and neither are Pakistan and India. The U.S. is setting up more
military
bases in Asia using the war against terrorism as an excuse. Middle East
countries are modernizing their armies with new high-tech weapons. NATO
demands that its new member states increase their military budgets.
How do
you comment on the current developments in Eurasia as a whole?
Eurasia has been, is, and will be the major playground for the Great
Powers'
national interests. Unfortunately, this will be another "century of
war," as
the historian of war and diplomacy, Gabriel Kolko, argued
convincingly. We
may not see a war after the pattern of the two world wars of the 20th
century. More likely we'll see wars of the scale and endurance of the
current ethnic conflicts and terrorist activities, which damage a
humane and
democratic development of societies, but benefit grand and small
imperialisms. The main playground for all this will be Eurasia. I'm not
saying that other deprived parts of the world, such as sub-Saharan
Africa or
Latin America, will be conflict-free. But I'm saying that Eurasia will
continue to be the main theater for world hegemony both because it is
rich
in resources and because it hosts three or four major competitors to
U.S.
interests-such as China, Europe, Russia, and even Japan.
Can you imagine what havoc an understanding between these Eurasian
powers
would cause the U.S.? Practically, it would mean the end of U.S.
hegemony in
world affairs.
=== 2 ===
www.globalresearch.ca
Centre for Research on Globalisation
Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation
US-UK Interventionism. The Hidden Agenda is Oil
Sudan: Round Gazillion
by Stephen Gowans
Stephen Gowans . 27 July 2004
www.globalresearch.ca 30 July 2004
The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/GOW407B.html
The United States and Britain are playing the ethnic cleansing and
genocide cards. Again. This time in Sudan.
And while there may indeed be a genocide going on, it's very unlikely
either country cares overly much about ethnic cleansing and the
destruction of a people.
After all, they have always been quite willing to live with, even
perpetrate, atrocities every bit as vile, if, somewhere down the line,
there's a buck in it.
And in Kosovo, where they said there was a genocide planned and ordered
by Slobodan Milosevic (but have failed to produce any evidence or
testimony to that effect at the Hague Tribunal), and where in the
aftermath of the NATO war thousands of Serbs, Jews, and Roma have been
driven from their homes, ethnic cleansing has been both a pretext to
wage war, and, where it offers no geo-strategic benefit, something to
be ignored.
What's more likely to be the case is that the conflict in Sudan
provides a compelling pretext for military intervention, one which
could eventually see the US and Britain stumble into Sudanese oil
wells, while claiming to be rescuing the victims of ethnic cleansing.
Here's what's said to be going on: Arab militias, the Janjaweed, have
pursued a campaign of ethnic cleansing, displacing more than one
million from their homes in Sudan's Darfur region and driving them into
filthy, disease ridden refugee camps in neighboring Chad, (much as
numberless Afghans were driven by US bombs into filthy, disease ridden
refugee camps in neighboring Pakistan.)
On the surface, it seems simple enough. Ethnic cleansing. Maybe
genocide. An obligation on the part of the international community to
act. But it's not quite as simple as that.
For one thing, Sudan has oil -- lots of it.
And there's been a 21-year long civil war raging in the country, with
the secessionist Sudanese People's Liberation Army, which seeks
self-determination in the south, battling the government in Khartoum,
not one of Washington's favorites.
The SPLA, backed by the US, is said to employ terrorism against
civilians to further its aims -- hardly the kind of organization the US
is supposed to be backing, yet precisely the kind of organization the
US government takes a shine to, if its interests are served. The US
doesn't abhor terrorism so much as terrorism that works against its
interests, rather than for them.
And there's China. Dangerously dependent on US controlled sources of
oil, it's involved in a consortium developing Sudan's oil. China needs
to cultivate sources of supply outside the US orbit.
Problems is, at every turn, the US is there to thwart its plans.
The Shanghai Five, a security organization China established to
protect a planned pipeline to carry petroleum resources from the oil
rich Caspian Sea, fell apart when the US invaded Afghanistan and set up
bases throughout Central Asia—along the proposed pipeline route.
And China also had a deal to develop Iraqi oil -- one that's unlikely
to be honored, now that the US has 141,000 troops in the country, and
has installed its own people in Iraq's interim government to look out
for the interests of corporate America.
Blocking Chinese oil deals in Iraq, scuppering the Shanghai Five, and
working to undermine Chinese oil field development in Sudan serves a
strategic goal of the US: to limit the rise of a great power rival.
Keeping China (along with the European Union and Japan) dependent on
the US for access to oil, is one way of ensuring US primacy remains
unchallenged.
Is it any wonder then that China is reluctant to approve a proposed UN
Security Council Resolution imposing sanctions on Sudan, or that it
refused to authorize the US invasion of Iraq (or that the US is seeking
one in Sudan, and sought a UN imprimatur to conquer Iraq)?
Face it. The US doesn't care about ethnic cleansing. It's seeking to
dominate the oil producing regions of the world: to secure its own oil
supply; to ensure oil sales continue to be denominated in US dollars
(thus propping up the dollar in the face of a yawning trade deficit);
and to ensure strategic competitors Japan, Europe and China remain
dependent on the US for access to oil.
It doesn't give a damn about ethnic cleansing. Look around at who the
US steadfastly supports.
Israel, one of Washington's favorites, was founded on ethnic cleansing.
Hundreds of thousands of Arabs were driven into squalid, disease-ridden
refugee camps in neighboring countries, where they and their
descendants still live, many decades later.
If Washington is so concerned about ethnic cleansing, why isn't it
threatening Israel with sanctions and military intervention?
And as far as US legislators are concerned, the right of Palestinians
to return to the homes they were driven from or fled – a measure that
would reverse ethnic cleansing – is completely out of the question.
Indeed, rather than opposing Israel's actions, the US abets the Zionist
state, and facilitates the ongoing expansion of its borders -- at the
Palestinians' expense. Is this the behavior of a country that abhors
ethnic cleansing and genocide?
A closer parallel is Colombia, in which a decades long civil war has
raged between the government, right-wing paramilitaries, and Leftist
guerilla groups. While the government and paramilitaries have engaged
in the same activities the Janjaweed are accused of, US policy has been
to support the government, and to oppose the guerillas.
If they can, the US and its British ally will use the civil war in
Sudan as a pretext to intervene militarily, to secure control of the
country's oil resources, in the same way they've done in Iraq, and in
the same way they may soon do – even if there's a Democrat in the White
House – in Iran.
Great capitalist powers don't care about the fate of people abroad, or
about most people who live within their own borders, for that matter.
There's too much evidence of their indifference to believe otherwise.
But what they do care about is markets, and opportunities for
profitable investment, and sources of raw materials, especially oil.
Civil wars, ethnic cleansing, and genocide come in handy when the
commercial interests of a country's business class can be pursued by
military means. They offer a ready made justification for invasion.
But more than that, these grim events are often outcomes of the very
same scramble for markets, investment opportunities and raw materials.
The US, UK and Germany were very much involved in fomenting the ethnic
conflict in the former Yugoslavia, encouraging Slovenia, Croatia and
Bosnia to secede. The US funneled arms to the Bosnian Muslims,
facilitated the flow of Mujahedeen into Bosnia, provided intelligence
to the Croats, and, with Germany and Britain, trained and equipped the
KLA, among other things.
Once the kindling of ethnic conflict was carefully gathered in a pile,
and a spark added, the roaring fire was cited as a rationale to hurry
to the scene, with fire hoses at the ready. Problem is, the fire hoses
were just props -- pass keys to gain entry. The fires were left to rage
unchecked.
And the US, as backer of the SPLA, is hardly innocent of involvement in
Sudan's long running civil war, or, through the billions of dollars in
aid it provides Israel every year, of the ethnic cleansing carried out
by Israel in Palestine.
Western intervention in trouble spots, then, can hardly be meliorative.
The West itself is in many instances at least partly, if not wholly
responsible for the very conflicts it proposes to resolve through
intervention.
In the long running serial of imperialist intervention, Sudan is just
another episode.
*******
A group calling itself al-Qaeda's European branch has threatened
terrorist attacks against Australia if it doesn't withdraw its troops
from Iraq.
"You came to our lands to loots its wealth," a communiqué from the
group charges, "and God willing we will move the battle to your country
as you did to our countries." ("Al Qaeda threatens Australia and
Italy," Associated Press, July 25, 2004.)
By this analysis, the war on terrorism is imperialism in disguise, and
attacks on the imperialist countries are salvos in a war of national
liberation.
What makes this war different from those of the past is that the
resistance hasn't limited its attacks to imperialist forces within the
occupied countries, but has "moved the battle" to the imperialist
countries themselves.
However morally reprehensible the attacks are, they are still an
inevitable response to imperialist plunder, and will almost certainly
continue so long as the United States and its subalterns loot the
wealth of Northern Africa, Western Asia and Central Asia.
The only effective protection against these attacks is to put an end to
the imperialism that prompts them in the first place. And since what
lies behind the exploiting, subjugating, and plunder is the incessant
drive to accumulate that lies at the heart of capitalism, the task of
achieving genuine "homeland security" is inseparable from the task of
replacing capitalism itself.
Stephen Gowans
© Copyright belongs to the author, 2004. For fair use only/ pour usage
équitable seulement
=== 3 ===
[ Yves Cochet è parlamentare verde al parlamento Francese. ]
Toward The Petro-Apocalypse
By Yves Cochet
07 May, 2004
Le Monde (Paris)
In a few years, the global production of conventional oil will fall,
while
the global demand continues to rise. The resulting shock of this
structural
oil famine is inevitable, so great are the dependency of our economies
on
cheap oil and, related to the first, our inability to wean ourselves
from
this dependency in a short period of time.
We can hope to soften the shock, but only if its imminence immediately
becomes the unique reference point for a general mobilization of our
societies, with, as a consequence, drastic consequences in every sector.
The alternative is chaos. This prospect is based on the work of the
American geologist King Hubbert, who predicted in 1956 the peak in US
domestic production of oil in 1970. This occurred exactly as predicted.
Transposing Hubbert's approach today to other countries has given
similar
predictive results: at present, the production of every giant oilfield
--
and only the giant ones matter -- is in decline, except in the "black
triangle" of Iraq-Iran-Saudi Arabia.
The Hubbert's peak of the oil-producing Middle East should be reached
around 2010, depending on the more or less rapid recovery of full Iraqi
production and the growth rate of demand in China.
The sectors most affected by the steady rise in the price of crude oil
will
be, first, aviation and intensive agriculture, since the price of jet
fuel
for one, and of nitrogenous fertilizer as well as diesel fuel for the
other, are directly linked to the price of crude oil.
This will occur unless stabilizing policies are used -- for a time and
in
some other sectors -- to lower taxes on oil as prices rise. But
afterwards
ground transport, tourism, the petrochemical industry, and the
automotive
industry will feel the depressive effects of a reduction in the
quantity of
oil (depletion). To what extent will this situation lead to a general
recession? No one knows, but the blindness of politicians and the usual
panicked overreaction of markets allows us to fear the worst.
This unavoidable prophecy is being universally ignored, denied, or
underestimated. Rare are those who realize exactly how close and how
great
is its advent. Michael Meacher, formerly UK minister of the environment
(1997-2003), wrote recently in the Financial Times that unless there is
a
general awakening and decisions at the planetary scale to bring radical
change in the domain of energy, "civilization will confront the most
acute
and no doubt most violent upheaval in recent history."
If, in spite of everything, we want to maintain a bit of humanity in
life
on Earth in the 2010s, we ought, as the geologist Colin Campbell has
suggested, to call on the United Nations to agree immediately on the
following: to guarantee that poor countries will still be able to
import a
little oil; to forbid oil profiteering; to encourage saving energy; to
promote renewable sources of energy. In order to attain these
objectives,
this universal agreement should impose the following measures: every
State
must regulate oil imports and exports; no oil-exporting country may
produce
more oil than its annual depletion, scientifically calculated, allows;
every State must reduce its oil imports to an agreed-upon global
depletion
rate.
This necessary priority granted to physical econometrics will not suit
economists and politicians, especially in America. No government of the
United States has ever accepted questioning the American way of life.
Since
the first oil shock of 1973-1974, every American military intervention
can
be analyzed in the light of the fear of running short of cheap oil. It
was,
moreover, the American production peak in 1970 that enabled OPEC to
seize
the occasion and cause the first shock, which coincided with the Yom
Kippur
War. Countries in the West then attempted to regain control and conjure
away the specter of shortage, less through energy sobriety than by
means of
opening oilfields in Alaska and the North Sea. In 1979, the Iranian
revolution and the second oil shock once again allowed OPEC to regain
preeminence, as Western economies paid dearly for their thirst for oil
through the recession of subsequent years.
At the beginning of the 1980s, the financing and arming of Saddam
Hussein
to fight Iran was part of the American reconquest of the price and flow
of
oil, as was the cooperation obtained from King Fahd of Saudi Arabia to
increase crude oil exports to the West. That allowed the oil price
crash of
1986, a return of Western growth through unlimited oil abundance, the
extension of the thirst for energy up to the Iraq wars (1991, 2003) no
matter how many died from them (100,000? 300,000?), no matter how much
they
cost ($100 billion? $300 billion?), by no matter what means (annual
Dept.
of Defense budget: $400 billion).
During these same last fifteen years, the multiple conflicts in the
Balkans
had their source and their resolution in the American desire to keep
Russia
away from the oil transport routes from the Black Sea and the Caspian to
the ports on the Adriatic, by way of Bulgaria, Macedonia, and Albania.
Oil
geopolitics authorizes any pact with Islamist devils, from central Asia
to
Bosnia, and all the cynical connivances with terrorists, right up to
Tony
Blair's recent trip to Libya to allow Shell to bring its volume of
reserves
in return for several hundred million dollars.
The present American Greater Middle East Initiative is dressed up in
humanitarian and democratic considerations, but it is nothing but an
attempt to get control once and for all of every source of oil in the
region.
More than thirty years of worrying about oil has not opened the eyes of
American and European leaders concerning the energy crisis that is
looming
just before us. Despite what René Dumont and the ecologists were saying
from the 1974 presidential campaign on, the governments of
industrialized
countries have continued and continue to believe in almost inexhaustible
cheap oil -- to the detriment of the climate and human health, both
perturbed by greenhouse gas emissions -- instead of organizing a
reduction
in their economies' reliance on hydrocarbons.
However, the oil shock that promises to strike before the end of the
decade
is not like the ones that preceded it. What is at stake this time is not
geopolitical, but geological. In 1973 and 1979, the shortage had a
political origin in OPEC's decision. Then the supply was restored.
Today, it is the wells themselves that are declining. Even if the United
States succeeded in imposing its hegemony on all the oilfields in the
world
(outside of Russia), their army and their technology will not be able to
prevail against the coming depletion of conventional oil. In any case,
there is not enough time to replace a fluid so cheap to produce, so
rich in
energy, so easy to use, store, and transport, with so many uses
(domestic,
industrial, fuel, raw material...), in order to reinvest $100 billion in
another source of abundance that doesn't exist.
Natural gas? It does not have the just-named qualities of oil and will
reach its global production peak in around 2020 -- about ten years after
the other peak. The only viable path is immediate oil sobriety organized
through an international agreement along the lines I have sketched out
above, authorizing a prompt weaning from our addiction to black gold.
Without waiting for this delicate international agreement, our new
regional
elected officials and our soon-to-be-elected European representatives
should set for themselves as a top priority the local realization of
these
objectives by organizing, on their own territory, an oil shrinkage.
Otherwise, rationing will come from the market through the coming rise
in
oil prices, and then be propagated by inflation, with the shock reaching
every sector. Since the price will soon reach $100 a barrel, this will
no
longer be a simple oil shock -- it will be the end of the world as we
know it.
--Yves Cochet (Green) represents Paris in the National Assembly, and is
former land and environment minister (ministre du territoire et de
l'environnement).
(Translated from Le Monde, Paris by Mark K. Jensen, Associate Professor
of
French, Chair, Department of Languages and Literatures, Pacific Lutheran
University, Tacoma, WA. - Webpage: http//:www.plu.edu/~jensenmk/ )
[ Dal Kosovo al Sudan, dal Caucaso alla Colombia, sempre naturalmente
passando per l'Iraq martoriato - una unica chiave di interpretazione
riesce a spiegare meglio di tante altre le cause e le dinamiche di
instabilita' e guerre: la corsa per il petrolio... ]
1. The Grand Game. An interview with Vassilis Fouskas ( Z Magazine
Online)
2. US-UK Interventionism. The Hidden Agenda is Oil (by Stephen Gowans)
3. Toward The Petro-Apocalypse (By Yves Cochet - Le Monde, 07 May, 2004)
MORE LINKS:
AMBO Oil Pipeline Construction to Begin (by Marija Lazarova)
http://www.balkantimes.com/
default3.asp?lang=english&page=process_print&article_id=23850
AMBO Plans 563-Mile Trans-Balkan Line
http://www.seeurope.net/en/Story.php?StoryID=49492&LangID=1
Khatami slates US backing of pipeline
http://www.dawn.com/2004/04/30/int8.htm
IPS: Politics of oil in Washington (by Eli Clifton)
http://www.dawn.com/2004/08/01/int14.htm
Oil Exports Via Baltic Flood North Europe
http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2004/06/22/046-print.html
RECENT IMPORTANT ARTICLES ON THE OIL CRISIS:
. "the end of cheap oil" - national geographic (cover story) - june
2004
. "what to use when the oil runs out" - bbc - april 22, 2004
. "adios cheap oil" - interpress news agency - april 27, 2004
. "g7: oil price threatens world economy" - moscow times - 4/26/04
. "world oil crisis looms" - jane's -- 4/21/04
. "us procuring the world's oil" - foreign policy in focus - january
2004
. "are we running out of oil? Scientist warns of looming crisis" - abc
news.com ? 2/11/04
. "blood, money, and oil" - us news - 8/18/03
. "soaring global demand for oil strains production capacity" - wall
street journal ? 3/22/04
. "check that oil" - washington post - 11/14/03
. "china's demand for foreign oil rises at breakneck pace" - knight
ridder ?1/26/04
. 'world oil and gas running out' - cnn - 10/02/03
. "debate rages on oil output by saudis in future" - the new york
times - 2/25/04
. "fossil-fuel dependency: do oil reserves foretell bleak future?" -
san francisco chronicle - 4/02/04
. "the end of the oil age: ways to break the tyranny of oil are coming
into view. Governments need to promote them" - the economist - 10/23/03
=== 1 ===
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Oct2004/valencic1004.html
Z Magazine Online
October 2004 Volume 17 Number 10
Interview
The Grand Game
An interview with Vassilis Fouskas
By Eric Valencic
Vassilis K. Fouskas is senior research fellow in European and
International
Studies and a Leverhulme Fellow (2002-03) at Kingston University,
United
Kingdom. He is the editor of the Journal of Southern Europe and the
Balkans
and the author of Italy, Europe and the Left (1998) and Zones of
Conflict
(2003).
VALENCIC: A lot of respected scholars, journalists, and historians
argue
there was never a real threat of a war between the USSR and the U.S.
How do
you understand it?
FOUSKAS: The Cold War was the result of an arrangement, basically,
between
Britain, the U.S., and the USSR. I stress the world "arrangement"
because it
points to an agreement between the powerful to divide the world into
zones
and spheres of influence, in order to have an "arranged peace" among
them.
This did not mean, however, that the arrangement was written in stone,
hence
attempts from each side to extend their military and
politico-ideological
influence into new zones, such as Latin America, Southern Asia, and
Iran.
Thus, the superpowers fought wars by proxy. In this sense, the war was
destined to remain cold because it was designed as such. The world did
experience moments during which a "hot" confrontation between the
superpowers was close to becoming reality-the Cuban missile crisis, for
instance.
You say the U.S. uses the IMF, World Bank, the WTO, and NATO to pursue
global domination. How?
The two pillars of U.S. foreign policy towards global domination are
the
successful management of the global economy and trade relations based
on the
dollar as a reserve currency and the successful projection of power
into
zones rich in raw materials. The U.S. "philosophy" of globalization
through
the WTO is for U.S. products to have a free ride across the globe,
while the
U.S. is in a position to impose protective tariffs in case sections of
its
economy can't endure competitive pressure from abroad.
The IMF, a "lender of last resort," is virtually the U.S. Treasury.
The IMF
and conditionality go hand in hand. The U.S. Treasury does not lend
money
without asking in return either political/military reforms favorable
to its
interests and/or other privileges. Virtually all Central-Eastern
European
countries have received, or currently are receiving, IMF injections.
Most of
these countries are now members of NATO. NATO guarantees the security
of
U.S. dollars and oversees any "dangerous" Russian moves in the
Balkans, the
Black Sea region, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. The U.S. would not
have
achieved much if these Cold War institutions had not been transformed
and
modernized.
NATO, after the fall of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact, replaced the Evil
Empire with dozens of rogue states, which, so we are told, threaten the
Western world with nuclear weapons and sponsor international
terrorism. How
do you comment on this new NATO doctrine?
After the collapse of the USSR, terrorism became the ideological scheme
through which NATO, the U.S., and other Western governments defined
their
security agendas. Yet, this scheme is bound to fail. NATO is a military
alliance which acquired an extended political scope after the Cold
War, but
it is in no position to successfully fight terrorist activities.
NATO's technological superiority was visible in its war against
Yugoslavia
in 1999. The official explanation is this was a "humanitarian war." You
claim it was something else.
It was unavoidable that the breakup of Yugoslavia would spark Albanian
claims for national independence and integration in Kosovo and
Macedonia.
The Europeans knew that. The U.S. knew that. The war over Kosovo, the
first
and perhaps the last war that NATO fought together, was primarily a
war to
exclude the Russians from the Balkans and secure the wider Balkan zone
from
German and French influences. The U.S. could not lead the NATO
expansion by
having a Russian client state, Serbia, in its soft underbelly. Then
there is
the "oil factor." An entire network of oil and gas pipelines, old and
new,
are connected or designed to bring oil and gas from the Caspian Sea to
Western markets through the Balkans. In this context, the Balkans is a
fundamental transport corridor and its security could not have been
left to
the Russians or the Europeans.
You claim that military interventions cannot secure peace and bring
about
democracy. Can we understand the current developments in Kosovo as
proof of
this?
Wherever the military goes, it brings about partition and racist forms
of
separation of ethnic groups. The U.S. agenda is not that of ethnic
reconciliation and healing of wounds. Their agenda, from the
beginning, has
been that of partition, of divide and rule. This is an ages old
imperial
tactic. The Romans did it, the British did it, and now the U.S. is
doing it
in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere.
NATO expansion eastward is causing a lot of tension in Moscow. The
fact that
NATO planes will protect the air space of its new Baltic members
sparked a
lot of criticism there. How do you comment on the establishment of a
NATO-Russia Council in 2002, an event that led commentators and
politicians
to declare the real end of the Cold War?
I never believed that the 2002 agreements were more than a public
relations
exercise with some substantial parts, though, particularly as far as
deals
over oil were concerned. Russia and China remain the U.S.'s foremost
Eurasian competitors, whereas its relationship with the EU is on a
different
scale. It is interesting to note that the Russians also objected to
Europe's
expansion in Poland because they felt their economic interests were
threatened. NATO will continue to expand and encircle Russia and
China. If
the Ukraine, a pivotal state, shifts to the side of NATO and the U.S.,
then
Russia will be in real trouble.
After September 11, 2001, the U.S. vastly increased its military
presence in
the Caucasus, Caspian area, and broader Central Asia. The U.S. is
supplying
military aid to Azerbaijan, Georgia, Uzbekistan, and Kazahstan in
terms of
training troops, providing military equipment, and establishing army
bases.
The U.S. also controls Afghanistan and has put Pakistan in line with
its
interests. The explanation is that this is being done in the name of
war
against terrorism and to secure democracy. How do you comment on this?
The recent discoveries of oil in the Caspian Sea region kicked off an
entirely new geo-political game. Western companies vied for the
acquisition
of lucrative contracts, the construction of new pipelines, and the
rights to
extract oil and gas. They asked NATO and the U.S. to provide them with
security in order to transport these valuable things to Western
markets at
stable prices, in dollars. This, of course, does not mean the Caucasus
area
was an entirely new region in which no oil had been found
previously-for
instance, Hitler's drive through Romania during World War II aimed at
reaching the Baku area, where oil was found. Also, we should mention
the
importance of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan project for the countries
involved and
the U.S.-UK. After all, the British giant BP is heavily involved in the
construction of the pipeline. These things do not happen in order to
promote
democracy, although some of them may be happening in the name of
democracy.
In Zones of Conflict you write that the principle aim behind U.S.
control of
the Caspian energy resources lies in reducing U.S. dependence on Saudi
Arabia and OPEC countries.
The Caspian discoveries brought a sigh of relief to the U.S. and so
did the
May 2002 agreement with Russia, another non-OPEC source. Overall,
however,
the U.S. needs Saudi Arabia and OPEC more than ever before-and so do
China
and other Eurasian powers. This is because their modernization plans
have
increased their appetite for oil and gas and the Caspian discoveries
alone
are not enough. The grand game has just begun.
Time and again, a headache for the U.S. has been how to stabilize the
Caspian and Caucusus regions. Can they do it?
No, I don't think so. I don't think the U.S. does what it does in
various
Eurasian sub-regions (the Middle East, the Caucasus, etc.) because it
wants
to tame disobedient actors and bring about stability. Of course, the
U.S.
would like to have a certain degree of stability in order to better
coordinate the various groups involved in conflicts, ethnic or
otherwise.
But it was first and foremost the U.S. that instigated and encouraged
ethnic
nationalism in Soviet-dominated zones in order to undermine the
coherence of
the USSR and bring about its collapse. Now the U.S. finds itself in
the odd
position of managing these conflicts. But it will always need to
support
some nationalisms against some others in order to achieve what it
wants.
The Serbo-Croat conflict speaks for itself. Why was Croat nationalism
more
sympathetic to the U.S. than the Serbian one? Are there good and bad
nationalisms? Look at the game the U.S. is playing in Georgia, trying
to
mediate between pro-Russian Abkhazians and Georgians. There is the
problem
of Ossetia, too. These conflicts serve NATO and the U.S. as they can
tell
the conflicting parties and the world: "Look, we are coming here to
mediate
and bring about stability; we want peace and to bring the conflict to
an
end; but to achieve this we need to create some military bases."
China's need for oil is expected to rise 40 percent by 2010. How
serious a
rival is China?
China is fully involved in the pan-Eurasian pipeline and it is also
flirting
with the Russians to construct jointly another pipeline, which
by-passes its
competitor, Japan. Sinopec Group, the Chinese state-owned
petrochemicals
giant, confirmed recently that it was holding talks with the Iranians
on a
major purchase agreement for liquefied natural gas. China's
unprecedented
economic growth has made it the world's second largest oil consumer
behind
the U.S.
Many people see the war against Iraq as just another U.S. attempt to
control
Central Asian energy resources. Would you agree?
In many ways, it is a war to prevent Iraq and other OPEC countries from
switching their oil reserve holdings from dollars to euros. Iraq had
pushed
OPEC to start a similar process in November 2000. This would have
caused
havoc to U.S. management of global currency markets, signaling the end
of
its economic hegemony.
Another reason, of course, has to do with control over Iraqi's oil
reserves,
the second largest in the world after Saudi Arabia.
A third reason is what the U.S. calls "democratization of the Middle
East."
The U.S. and Israel think that by violently imposing their brand of
liberal
democracy, everything will be a bed of roses for them and terrorism
will
wither away. There is nothing more wrong than that, as the roots of
terrorism can be found in the way in which Israel has dealt with the
Palestinian problem, at least since 1967, and in the way the U.S. has
dealt
with world politics, at least since 1989.
The U.S. won the war in Iraq, but lost the peace. Now it might lose
the war,
too. How do you see the present situation in Iraq?
Even if the U.S. manages to suppress the uprising, there will be many
others
in the months and years to come. The U.S. managed to turn a first world
country, full of educated and highly qualified people, into a huge
shanty
town. They will hold their ground in Iraq, no matter what. They won't
hesitate to carpet bomb Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands.
The EU states have been completely divided on the issue of whether to
support and participate in a U.S.-led occupation of Iraq. One of the
biggest
blows to the EU was the so-called Vilnius Group, composed of all ten
new EU
member states, which openly committed themselves to the U.S. disarming
of
Iraq. Was something like this on Brzezinski's mind, when he wrote: "A
larger
Europe will expand the range of American influence?"
The real winner of EU enlargement is NATO and the U.S. If the Europeans
manage to create a coherent political block with an autonomous
security and
defense structure, then we can talk of Europe as an independent
political
actor, as you say. The newcomers, in my view, did nothing unusual.
They are
saying, "I'm going with Europe as far as geo-economics are concerned,
but I'
m going with the U.S. and NATO as far as geo-politics are concerned."
You write in Zones of Conflict: "The U.S. and Britain are the strongest
supporters of Turkey joining the EU 'as soon as possible' because,
among
other reasons, huge amounts of the IMF cash now pouring into Turkey's
ailing
economy would be replaced by Europe's regional and structural funds."
How
soon can we expect Turkey to join the EU?
The biggest obstacle to Turkey joining the EU is its geographical
location-Turkey is surrounded by tension and war zones and I'm not
sure that
the Europeans want that at present. Another problem is Turkey's special
relationship with the U.S. and Israel. These are the things that the
Europeans dislike. I tend to believe that the issues of "human
rights," the
"Kurdish question," and so on, are being used as a pretext to cover
deeper
strategic reasons. But if there is an improvement in the security
conditions
of its neighborhood, then we can expect Turkey's entry by 2010-2012.
The EU lacks a firm security policy, which was most obvious in the
Balkans
in the 1990s. There has been an initiative to field 60,000 troops
independent of the U.S.-dominated NATO. The Pentagon has been negative
about
this all along. Why?
Because the U.S. is afraid of having a force that competes with NATO.
What
is going to happen if both the EU and NATO want to go there because
their
interests dictate so?
Eurasia is arming itself: Russia is talking about expanding its nuclear
arsenal due to the unfriendly extension of NATO to Russia's western and
southern borders; China has announced it will increase its defense
budget,
as has Japan; North Korea is showing no signs of ending its nuclear
programs
and neither are Pakistan and India. The U.S. is setting up more
military
bases in Asia using the war against terrorism as an excuse. Middle East
countries are modernizing their armies with new high-tech weapons. NATO
demands that its new member states increase their military budgets.
How do
you comment on the current developments in Eurasia as a whole?
Eurasia has been, is, and will be the major playground for the Great
Powers'
national interests. Unfortunately, this will be another "century of
war," as
the historian of war and diplomacy, Gabriel Kolko, argued
convincingly. We
may not see a war after the pattern of the two world wars of the 20th
century. More likely we'll see wars of the scale and endurance of the
current ethnic conflicts and terrorist activities, which damage a
humane and
democratic development of societies, but benefit grand and small
imperialisms. The main playground for all this will be Eurasia. I'm not
saying that other deprived parts of the world, such as sub-Saharan
Africa or
Latin America, will be conflict-free. But I'm saying that Eurasia will
continue to be the main theater for world hegemony both because it is
rich
in resources and because it hosts three or four major competitors to
U.S.
interests-such as China, Europe, Russia, and even Japan.
Can you imagine what havoc an understanding between these Eurasian
powers
would cause the U.S.? Practically, it would mean the end of U.S.
hegemony in
world affairs.
=== 2 ===
www.globalresearch.ca
Centre for Research on Globalisation
Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation
US-UK Interventionism. The Hidden Agenda is Oil
Sudan: Round Gazillion
by Stephen Gowans
Stephen Gowans . 27 July 2004
www.globalresearch.ca 30 July 2004
The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/GOW407B.html
The United States and Britain are playing the ethnic cleansing and
genocide cards. Again. This time in Sudan.
And while there may indeed be a genocide going on, it's very unlikely
either country cares overly much about ethnic cleansing and the
destruction of a people.
After all, they have always been quite willing to live with, even
perpetrate, atrocities every bit as vile, if, somewhere down the line,
there's a buck in it.
And in Kosovo, where they said there was a genocide planned and ordered
by Slobodan Milosevic (but have failed to produce any evidence or
testimony to that effect at the Hague Tribunal), and where in the
aftermath of the NATO war thousands of Serbs, Jews, and Roma have been
driven from their homes, ethnic cleansing has been both a pretext to
wage war, and, where it offers no geo-strategic benefit, something to
be ignored.
What's more likely to be the case is that the conflict in Sudan
provides a compelling pretext for military intervention, one which
could eventually see the US and Britain stumble into Sudanese oil
wells, while claiming to be rescuing the victims of ethnic cleansing.
Here's what's said to be going on: Arab militias, the Janjaweed, have
pursued a campaign of ethnic cleansing, displacing more than one
million from their homes in Sudan's Darfur region and driving them into
filthy, disease ridden refugee camps in neighboring Chad, (much as
numberless Afghans were driven by US bombs into filthy, disease ridden
refugee camps in neighboring Pakistan.)
On the surface, it seems simple enough. Ethnic cleansing. Maybe
genocide. An obligation on the part of the international community to
act. But it's not quite as simple as that.
For one thing, Sudan has oil -- lots of it.
And there's been a 21-year long civil war raging in the country, with
the secessionist Sudanese People's Liberation Army, which seeks
self-determination in the south, battling the government in Khartoum,
not one of Washington's favorites.
The SPLA, backed by the US, is said to employ terrorism against
civilians to further its aims -- hardly the kind of organization the US
is supposed to be backing, yet precisely the kind of organization the
US government takes a shine to, if its interests are served. The US
doesn't abhor terrorism so much as terrorism that works against its
interests, rather than for them.
And there's China. Dangerously dependent on US controlled sources of
oil, it's involved in a consortium developing Sudan's oil. China needs
to cultivate sources of supply outside the US orbit.
Problems is, at every turn, the US is there to thwart its plans.
The Shanghai Five, a security organization China established to
protect a planned pipeline to carry petroleum resources from the oil
rich Caspian Sea, fell apart when the US invaded Afghanistan and set up
bases throughout Central Asia—along the proposed pipeline route.
And China also had a deal to develop Iraqi oil -- one that's unlikely
to be honored, now that the US has 141,000 troops in the country, and
has installed its own people in Iraq's interim government to look out
for the interests of corporate America.
Blocking Chinese oil deals in Iraq, scuppering the Shanghai Five, and
working to undermine Chinese oil field development in Sudan serves a
strategic goal of the US: to limit the rise of a great power rival.
Keeping China (along with the European Union and Japan) dependent on
the US for access to oil, is one way of ensuring US primacy remains
unchallenged.
Is it any wonder then that China is reluctant to approve a proposed UN
Security Council Resolution imposing sanctions on Sudan, or that it
refused to authorize the US invasion of Iraq (or that the US is seeking
one in Sudan, and sought a UN imprimatur to conquer Iraq)?
Face it. The US doesn't care about ethnic cleansing. It's seeking to
dominate the oil producing regions of the world: to secure its own oil
supply; to ensure oil sales continue to be denominated in US dollars
(thus propping up the dollar in the face of a yawning trade deficit);
and to ensure strategic competitors Japan, Europe and China remain
dependent on the US for access to oil.
It doesn't give a damn about ethnic cleansing. Look around at who the
US steadfastly supports.
Israel, one of Washington's favorites, was founded on ethnic cleansing.
Hundreds of thousands of Arabs were driven into squalid, disease-ridden
refugee camps in neighboring countries, where they and their
descendants still live, many decades later.
If Washington is so concerned about ethnic cleansing, why isn't it
threatening Israel with sanctions and military intervention?
And as far as US legislators are concerned, the right of Palestinians
to return to the homes they were driven from or fled – a measure that
would reverse ethnic cleansing – is completely out of the question.
Indeed, rather than opposing Israel's actions, the US abets the Zionist
state, and facilitates the ongoing expansion of its borders -- at the
Palestinians' expense. Is this the behavior of a country that abhors
ethnic cleansing and genocide?
A closer parallel is Colombia, in which a decades long civil war has
raged between the government, right-wing paramilitaries, and Leftist
guerilla groups. While the government and paramilitaries have engaged
in the same activities the Janjaweed are accused of, US policy has been
to support the government, and to oppose the guerillas.
If they can, the US and its British ally will use the civil war in
Sudan as a pretext to intervene militarily, to secure control of the
country's oil resources, in the same way they've done in Iraq, and in
the same way they may soon do – even if there's a Democrat in the White
House – in Iran.
Great capitalist powers don't care about the fate of people abroad, or
about most people who live within their own borders, for that matter.
There's too much evidence of their indifference to believe otherwise.
But what they do care about is markets, and opportunities for
profitable investment, and sources of raw materials, especially oil.
Civil wars, ethnic cleansing, and genocide come in handy when the
commercial interests of a country's business class can be pursued by
military means. They offer a ready made justification for invasion.
But more than that, these grim events are often outcomes of the very
same scramble for markets, investment opportunities and raw materials.
The US, UK and Germany were very much involved in fomenting the ethnic
conflict in the former Yugoslavia, encouraging Slovenia, Croatia and
Bosnia to secede. The US funneled arms to the Bosnian Muslims,
facilitated the flow of Mujahedeen into Bosnia, provided intelligence
to the Croats, and, with Germany and Britain, trained and equipped the
KLA, among other things.
Once the kindling of ethnic conflict was carefully gathered in a pile,
and a spark added, the roaring fire was cited as a rationale to hurry
to the scene, with fire hoses at the ready. Problem is, the fire hoses
were just props -- pass keys to gain entry. The fires were left to rage
unchecked.
And the US, as backer of the SPLA, is hardly innocent of involvement in
Sudan's long running civil war, or, through the billions of dollars in
aid it provides Israel every year, of the ethnic cleansing carried out
by Israel in Palestine.
Western intervention in trouble spots, then, can hardly be meliorative.
The West itself is in many instances at least partly, if not wholly
responsible for the very conflicts it proposes to resolve through
intervention.
In the long running serial of imperialist intervention, Sudan is just
another episode.
*******
A group calling itself al-Qaeda's European branch has threatened
terrorist attacks against Australia if it doesn't withdraw its troops
from Iraq.
"You came to our lands to loots its wealth," a communiqué from the
group charges, "and God willing we will move the battle to your country
as you did to our countries." ("Al Qaeda threatens Australia and
Italy," Associated Press, July 25, 2004.)
By this analysis, the war on terrorism is imperialism in disguise, and
attacks on the imperialist countries are salvos in a war of national
liberation.
What makes this war different from those of the past is that the
resistance hasn't limited its attacks to imperialist forces within the
occupied countries, but has "moved the battle" to the imperialist
countries themselves.
However morally reprehensible the attacks are, they are still an
inevitable response to imperialist plunder, and will almost certainly
continue so long as the United States and its subalterns loot the
wealth of Northern Africa, Western Asia and Central Asia.
The only effective protection against these attacks is to put an end to
the imperialism that prompts them in the first place. And since what
lies behind the exploiting, subjugating, and plunder is the incessant
drive to accumulate that lies at the heart of capitalism, the task of
achieving genuine "homeland security" is inseparable from the task of
replacing capitalism itself.
Stephen Gowans
© Copyright belongs to the author, 2004. For fair use only/ pour usage
équitable seulement
=== 3 ===
[ Yves Cochet è parlamentare verde al parlamento Francese. ]
Toward The Petro-Apocalypse
By Yves Cochet
07 May, 2004
Le Monde (Paris)
In a few years, the global production of conventional oil will fall,
while
the global demand continues to rise. The resulting shock of this
structural
oil famine is inevitable, so great are the dependency of our economies
on
cheap oil and, related to the first, our inability to wean ourselves
from
this dependency in a short period of time.
We can hope to soften the shock, but only if its imminence immediately
becomes the unique reference point for a general mobilization of our
societies, with, as a consequence, drastic consequences in every sector.
The alternative is chaos. This prospect is based on the work of the
American geologist King Hubbert, who predicted in 1956 the peak in US
domestic production of oil in 1970. This occurred exactly as predicted.
Transposing Hubbert's approach today to other countries has given
similar
predictive results: at present, the production of every giant oilfield
--
and only the giant ones matter -- is in decline, except in the "black
triangle" of Iraq-Iran-Saudi Arabia.
The Hubbert's peak of the oil-producing Middle East should be reached
around 2010, depending on the more or less rapid recovery of full Iraqi
production and the growth rate of demand in China.
The sectors most affected by the steady rise in the price of crude oil
will
be, first, aviation and intensive agriculture, since the price of jet
fuel
for one, and of nitrogenous fertilizer as well as diesel fuel for the
other, are directly linked to the price of crude oil.
This will occur unless stabilizing policies are used -- for a time and
in
some other sectors -- to lower taxes on oil as prices rise. But
afterwards
ground transport, tourism, the petrochemical industry, and the
automotive
industry will feel the depressive effects of a reduction in the
quantity of
oil (depletion). To what extent will this situation lead to a general
recession? No one knows, but the blindness of politicians and the usual
panicked overreaction of markets allows us to fear the worst.
This unavoidable prophecy is being universally ignored, denied, or
underestimated. Rare are those who realize exactly how close and how
great
is its advent. Michael Meacher, formerly UK minister of the environment
(1997-2003), wrote recently in the Financial Times that unless there is
a
general awakening and decisions at the planetary scale to bring radical
change in the domain of energy, "civilization will confront the most
acute
and no doubt most violent upheaval in recent history."
If, in spite of everything, we want to maintain a bit of humanity in
life
on Earth in the 2010s, we ought, as the geologist Colin Campbell has
suggested, to call on the United Nations to agree immediately on the
following: to guarantee that poor countries will still be able to
import a
little oil; to forbid oil profiteering; to encourage saving energy; to
promote renewable sources of energy. In order to attain these
objectives,
this universal agreement should impose the following measures: every
State
must regulate oil imports and exports; no oil-exporting country may
produce
more oil than its annual depletion, scientifically calculated, allows;
every State must reduce its oil imports to an agreed-upon global
depletion
rate.
This necessary priority granted to physical econometrics will not suit
economists and politicians, especially in America. No government of the
United States has ever accepted questioning the American way of life.
Since
the first oil shock of 1973-1974, every American military intervention
can
be analyzed in the light of the fear of running short of cheap oil. It
was,
moreover, the American production peak in 1970 that enabled OPEC to
seize
the occasion and cause the first shock, which coincided with the Yom
Kippur
War. Countries in the West then attempted to regain control and conjure
away the specter of shortage, less through energy sobriety than by
means of
opening oilfields in Alaska and the North Sea. In 1979, the Iranian
revolution and the second oil shock once again allowed OPEC to regain
preeminence, as Western economies paid dearly for their thirst for oil
through the recession of subsequent years.
At the beginning of the 1980s, the financing and arming of Saddam
Hussein
to fight Iran was part of the American reconquest of the price and flow
of
oil, as was the cooperation obtained from King Fahd of Saudi Arabia to
increase crude oil exports to the West. That allowed the oil price
crash of
1986, a return of Western growth through unlimited oil abundance, the
extension of the thirst for energy up to the Iraq wars (1991, 2003) no
matter how many died from them (100,000? 300,000?), no matter how much
they
cost ($100 billion? $300 billion?), by no matter what means (annual
Dept.
of Defense budget: $400 billion).
During these same last fifteen years, the multiple conflicts in the
Balkans
had their source and their resolution in the American desire to keep
Russia
away from the oil transport routes from the Black Sea and the Caspian to
the ports on the Adriatic, by way of Bulgaria, Macedonia, and Albania.
Oil
geopolitics authorizes any pact with Islamist devils, from central Asia
to
Bosnia, and all the cynical connivances with terrorists, right up to
Tony
Blair's recent trip to Libya to allow Shell to bring its volume of
reserves
in return for several hundred million dollars.
The present American Greater Middle East Initiative is dressed up in
humanitarian and democratic considerations, but it is nothing but an
attempt to get control once and for all of every source of oil in the
region.
More than thirty years of worrying about oil has not opened the eyes of
American and European leaders concerning the energy crisis that is
looming
just before us. Despite what René Dumont and the ecologists were saying
from the 1974 presidential campaign on, the governments of
industrialized
countries have continued and continue to believe in almost inexhaustible
cheap oil -- to the detriment of the climate and human health, both
perturbed by greenhouse gas emissions -- instead of organizing a
reduction
in their economies' reliance on hydrocarbons.
However, the oil shock that promises to strike before the end of the
decade
is not like the ones that preceded it. What is at stake this time is not
geopolitical, but geological. In 1973 and 1979, the shortage had a
political origin in OPEC's decision. Then the supply was restored.
Today, it is the wells themselves that are declining. Even if the United
States succeeded in imposing its hegemony on all the oilfields in the
world
(outside of Russia), their army and their technology will not be able to
prevail against the coming depletion of conventional oil. In any case,
there is not enough time to replace a fluid so cheap to produce, so
rich in
energy, so easy to use, store, and transport, with so many uses
(domestic,
industrial, fuel, raw material...), in order to reinvest $100 billion in
another source of abundance that doesn't exist.
Natural gas? It does not have the just-named qualities of oil and will
reach its global production peak in around 2020 -- about ten years after
the other peak. The only viable path is immediate oil sobriety organized
through an international agreement along the lines I have sketched out
above, authorizing a prompt weaning from our addiction to black gold.
Without waiting for this delicate international agreement, our new
regional
elected officials and our soon-to-be-elected European representatives
should set for themselves as a top priority the local realization of
these
objectives by organizing, on their own territory, an oil shrinkage.
Otherwise, rationing will come from the market through the coming rise
in
oil prices, and then be propagated by inflation, with the shock reaching
every sector. Since the price will soon reach $100 a barrel, this will
no
longer be a simple oil shock -- it will be the end of the world as we
know it.
--Yves Cochet (Green) represents Paris in the National Assembly, and is
former land and environment minister (ministre du territoire et de
l'environnement).
(Translated from Le Monde, Paris by Mark K. Jensen, Associate Professor
of
French, Chair, Department of Languages and Literatures, Pacific Lutheran
University, Tacoma, WA. - Webpage: http//:www.plu.edu/~jensenmk/ )