[News] The Slippery Slope - Is there enough oil?
Anti-Imperialist News
News at freedomarchives.org
Thu Dec 22 11:59:38 EST 2005
The Slippery Slope
Is there enough oil? Or is there just enough oil to keep the Bush regime going?
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0551,ridgeway,71154,6.html
by James Ridgeway
December 20th, 2005 12:10 PM
American resolve to make the world safe for
Western democracy will increasingly depend on
economic control of oil. To that end, the U.S. is
locked in feverish competition with China for the
remaining oil and gas resources in Central Asia
and the Middle East. Another huge reservoir of
oil and gas lies under Russian control in Siberia.
News last week that Bush crony Donald Evans is on
the short list to become head of Rosneft, the
Russian oil giant, could give us added sway over
that oil pool. Evans was commerce secretary and
is a longtime pal of George W. Bush and one of,
if not the main, adviser to Bush on energy
matters. To have him running Russian oil would be
quite a coup. According to the Russian press,
Vladimir Putin is offering Evans the job of being
chairman of the firm's board of directors. Evans
would become the second major foreigner to manage
a big Russian energy outfit. Former German
chancellor Gerhard Schr is the new head of North
European Gas Pipeline, which will pipe natural
gas from Russia to Germany. Schr while chancellor, helped broker that deal.
Under Bush, the U.S. is committed to lessening
dependence on foreign oil, especially oil in such
faraway places as the Middle East, in favor of
closer-by supplies in Latin America and Canada.
In reality, Bush foreign policy aims to make the
U.S. more dependent on foreign oil by domination
of remaining supplies. There are any number of
signs that demonstrate this policy in action. For
example, in the name of energy independence, Bush
wants to spend billions to build liquefied
natural-gas plants along the U.S. coasts to
receive and process gas imported from the Middle East and Africa.
The most likely sources of LNG are in Central
Asia, principally Turkmenistan, along with Saudi
Arabia in the Persian Gulf. Another large
reservoir of gas lies in West Africa's Gulf of
Guinea. The gas trade binds us morenot lesstightly to the Middle East.
For years the industry has complained that
environmental restrictions result in reduced
refinery capacity within the U.S. To enhance
refining capacity, the energy industries are
searching for less expensive sites for refineries
abroad, and that leads them to the Middle East,
again another indication of growing, not
lessening, reliance on faraway sources. With
Evans in charge of Russian oil, Bush is but a
phone call away from obtaining another enormous reservoir of oil.
Meanwhile, China, the world's second-largest
energy consumer, is all over the Middle East and
Central Asia, scoring one deal after another. The
most recent was last week's opening of a
natural-gas pipeline from Kazakhstan. China has
gas deals in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Earlier
this year it bought Kazakhstan's third-largest oil company.
The Condi Doctrine
Bush energy plans are but part of the
administration's foreign-policy doctrine. Largely
overlooked in last week's Iraq developments was a
fresh rendering of this concept in the form of an
op-ed in The Washington Post by Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice. Published on the eve of
the Iraqi vote, Rice's piece presented the Bush
administration's understanding of the
21st-century world and set forth a policy for
dealing with it. Briefly, in this Bush-Rice
worldview, nation states have lost their
sovereignty and can only achieve stability
through institutions of democratic government
given to them by the U.S., the world's reigning
superpower. Implicit in this view is the
administration's determination to act
unilaterally to achieve stability. Iraq is the
prime example. But Iran and Syria appear to be in for the same treatment.
"The Bush Rice international system thus would
consist of one in which the U.S. is accepted by
all others as being the pre-eminent military
actor," writes Gerald B. Helman, United States
ambassador to the European office of the United
Nations from 1979 through 1981. "Whether for this
or additional reasons, conflict among major
states would be unlikely; these states (which
would include Russia and China) would be
increasingly available, under U.S. leadership, to
establish durable global stability that would
amount to a balance of power favoring freedom.
Those states that are weak or failing,
principally in the Middle East, would forfeit the
traditional protections of sovereignty so that
outside powers can guide them to democracy. By
thus abolishing their 'freedom deficit,' the
swamps of terrorism would be drained and the
world's security enhanced. Within this world, the
U.S. would be able to operate largely
unconstrained, employing shifting, ad hoc
coalitions, monitoring and correcting as
necessary national political systems and as a result preserve U.S. security."
It seems a bit far-fetched to think that China
and Russia would allow the U.S. to run the world
as it pleases. And as Helman points out, if the
U.S. tosses aside existing treaties and
international organizations in favor of
unilateral action, then China, Russia, and others
will do the same thing, and the world will be
plunged into even more endless bloody turmoil.
The Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 863-9977
www.freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20051222/4ae2cef1/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list