<Wolcott: "Worse Than a Fool"The Oil DrumFriday Open Thread>

47 comments on Of rigs and pipelines

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Don Sailorman on March 23, 2006 - 3:30pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
IMO Putin (along with many other older Russians) is still annoyed with Japan for events of 1905. There has been little love lost between Japan and Russia (or between Japan and China, or, for that matter between Japan and ANYBODY) for the past hundred years.

It is amazing to me how long ancient memories rankle. For example, many older Japanese hate Koreans with a fierce passion--and why? Because in the immediate aftermath of World War II the U.S. occupation forces used many Koreans as translators and middlemen, and some Koreans became seen as carpet-baggers taking advantage of poor helpless Japanese people.

And of course, the hatred of Koreans for Japanese can hardly be overstated.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dave Cohen on March 23, 2006 - 3:47pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Yeah, I thought about 1905 and you may very well be right. Does anyone have any current information about Russian & Japanese mutual cultural attitudes or predjudice?
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on March 23, 2006 - 4:04pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I think they're still fighting over four tiny islands that Russia took during WWII.  

But I don't think that's the reason Russia prefers China.  I suspect Russia sees China as a better potential ally than Japan.  Many are expecting China to be the next superpower.  Militarily and economically.  

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
joule on March 23, 2006 - 5:35pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The Russo-Japanese war of 1904 - 1905 was by no means the last time there was a major armed conflict between Russia and Japan.

During the 1930s, when Japan was heavily engaged in its imperialist expansionary adventure in China, Russia found it necessary to maintain a very large troop presense along the border between Manchuria and the far eastern parts of Siberia, as well as in Mongolia (then a de facto protectorate of the USSR).  For a very long time,Japan coveted the resource-rich areas of Siberia and had dreams of slicing off a nice chuck for itself.

It is not too widely known that in October 1939 Russia and Japan came to blows in the Mongolian desert in a place called Nomanhan. The Russians came out ahead this time around. This was no minor border skirmish, as the Japanese had something like 20,000 casualties and the Russians roughly 15,000. While the pressure on Russia eased after the Japanese started fighting the US in the Pacific, it was still necessary for Russia to maintain many divisions in the area in spite of their being badly needed on the Eastern front against the Germans.

In fact, the Japanese Army and Navy were bitter rivals: the Army favored attacking Russia to split off  a piece of Siberia, while the Navy was in favor of taking control of the Pacific to get at the resources of Southeast Asia.

So, the relations between the two countries was never good and probably still isn't.  

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on March 23, 2006 - 6:44pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
FWIW, CNN is now airing a story on the alliance between Russia and China.  They mentioned the energy deal, but emphasized the military alliance.  

They seem to think the old Russia and China vs. the U.S. dynamic is alive and well.  I think there's something to that.  Japan has no real military, and they're in our pocket, anyway.  If I were Russia, I'd court China, too.

Now the talking heads are lamenting the failure of "free trade."  Opening up to China was supposed to tame them by showing them the benefits of trade.  Instead, it's had the opposite effect.  They are getting more aggressive, not less.  

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
westexas on March 23, 2006 - 6:57pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
GW did say he is a "uniter not a divider."  In a sense that it is true.  He has succeeded in uniting the world against us.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
strandk on March 23, 2006 - 11:07pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
There was a meeting of foreign ministers from Australia, Japan, and USA last week (http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/australia/joint0603-2.html).  USA and Japan also emphasized the corporation with India. I think that the alliance of USA, Japan, India, and Australia has been forged gradually in the last couple of years to contain China. Nuclear deal of USA with India should be part of this alliance. The weakest link of BRIC alliance, Brazil and India, seems to move away form the alliance slowly. In my opinions, the most important issue is how far Russia is willing to support China. There was a deal for gas pipelines but not oil pipelines.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
oilaholic on March 24, 2006 - 12:27am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Good observation, strandk.  One interesting aspect of an alliance composed of USA, Japan, India, and Australia is that among all four there is damn little oil produced.   As opposed to the China/Russia alliance, which has a lot of oil and, especially, NG.   With China, you have to count in their rapidly expanding bi-lateral deals for oil: Sudan, Iran, etc. and growing.

Frankly, it doesn't look too good for the home team unless we get to work real fast on both conservation and alternatives, as Hirsch says.   In this regard, the recent strong statements by Richard Lugar are totally on point.  I have to believe that people are going to see this in the not too distant future.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jokuhl on March 24, 2006 - 9:26am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I have to wonder, when you mention those four nations, (Aus, USA, Jap, India) how much the global-influence of a Nation is necessarily hinged upon its access to raw materials and great labor-force.  Look at the British Empire, or just the way Humans, and by a further extension, the Transistor- use raw power itself.  It is a model of a smallish conduit that funnels and manages power.  Success is based on the effective, and sometimes the efficient Handling of that power, not necessarily that of being the energy supply itself.

So I look at the ascendency of China and wonder if the Next Dynasty comes from SIZE, or from Having the 'Right Idea for the time period in question' (IE, England combining their Market Systems with the need for Naval Dominance reinforced by the history of Norman and Spanish incursions)

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jokuhl on March 24, 2006 - 9:36am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
.. I should have said
"The right MANAGEMENT Idea for that period.." since, as I re-read it, I'm looking at 'Power Conduits' that operate largely Extra-nationally, like Wal-Mart or Exxon..  They are leveraging the power-sources wherever they are, against the financial resources, whereever they are.. dependent, of course, upon the ability to transport the goods from the one to the other.  But aren't corporations in many ways competing at the scale of the nations for resources and influence, with the 'Power Management Idea' of doing so without the Ball-and-chain of a fixed piece of land or a population to have to answer to?
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ChrisPhoenix on March 24, 2006 - 9:53am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
If I were to make a guess, I'd guess that the right management idea for the upcoming period will involve less stringent rules on some forms of intellectual property than the US currently has.

The US software industry flourished for decades with no patent protection.

Computers have provided the first manufactured good that's literally too cheap to meter: the transmission of data by the megabyte around the world. Business models that take advantage of the unlimited-sum nature of data copying will do better than those that try to fight it. For example, some book publishers are finding that putting complete books online for free increases sales of those books, and Megatunes.com is doing the same with music.

For more of my thoughts on intellectual property, click here.

Chris

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jokuhl on March 24, 2006 - 4:38pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Interesting points.

John Perry Barlow of the Grateful Dead would seem to agree with you in this.  He's said that their open policy about bootlegging was a boon to their success, not a drag on it.  I have been looking at the increasing amount of art that is finalized as 'Data', and therefore doesn't exist as a unique material object.  There is no 'Original'.  What does that do to Arts Auctioning, and then what does that mean for 'Ownership' of art at all?  Would people who could have just 'one of an unlimited number' of copies of a great Cezanne, a CB DeMille or one of Mozart's or Shakespeare's Manuscripts, etc, without ever getting to be that 'King of the Hill' who has 'THE ONE'..

.. and is universal access to one's very own source of power-generation (Solar, Wind, etc) just as great a threat to the 'Selective-Ownership Society' as that of our Art being so 'unownable'.

It's unfortunate that parts of Capitalism tend to succeed from conditions of imbalance, because it creates a demand by the capitalist society FOR imbalance.  It's a disincentive for cooperation, trust and peace.  Now sure, to do business with each other, these same conditions have to be present to some degree, but PROFIT is won by leveraging divisions.  Feeding from low cost supplies, offered to places with high-priced demand.  War Profiteering has never had it so good, and it's hard to keep the labor costs down if population gets too plentiful.

 

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Brother Kornhoer on March 24, 2006 - 11:16am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I think the US is in some ways trying to replay the old English strategy of building alliances on the continent to contain the strongest continental power.  In this version, though, instead of Great Britain offshore of Europe, it's the US offshore of Asia, building alliances to contain the Chinese.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
CapnBligh on March 24, 2006 - 10:01am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
There's also a good article in this week's Newsweek about this "alliance." The other remarks about in this thread are true enough, but....

I think Russia is merely bowing to the inevitable, though I'm sure they don't see it that way.

Nature (and politics) abhors a vacuum, and that's what Siberia is. The Chinese are already "invading" it, and if they're patient, they can probably take it without a fight. Given all its problems (demographic meltdown, AIDS, tuberculosis, alcoholism, corruption, ...), Russia won't be able to resist very effectively.

OTOH, China faces demographic problems of its own. They will all be living in interesting times.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
strandk on March 24, 2006 - 10:50am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Yes, I remember that my Russian friend showed me an editorial in Pravda regarding with Russian policy in Far East a year ago. It said that Russia would welcome remilitarization of Japan because Japanese military will become a good counterbalance against Chinese. It also mentioned that this would be a good way to avoid nuclear attacks from Chinese. Russians are much more comfortable with Europe than China. Russians are well aware of resource insecurity of Chinese. Russians have great concerns about Chinese illegal immigrants in Far East. To my eyes, USA and Russia seem to be dealing with China independently and from different reasons. Nobody wants to provoke China. But it would be very dangerous to fuel too much self-confidence in Chinese. That is why, as I said, the most important issue is how far Russia is willing to support China.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on March 24, 2006 - 11:43am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I think Russian's policy is brilliant in this regard. By making themselves a critical supplier of energy they are both supporting and putting China under some kind of control.

Of course they have the resources to do it.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gets IT on March 24, 2006 - 7:54pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
And Europe.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
davebygolly on March 24, 2006 - 12:12am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Yes, history may play a role, but I agree with those who point to the current situation. The US has been and is doing everything possible to undermine the Russian sphere of influence and loosen its grip on its energy assets. And China is of course the next Evil Empire. So in spite of numerous reasons for Russia to be leary of China, and China to be leary of its leariness, they are forced to draw together to some extent.

Russia is huge, empty (by Chinese standards), resource rich (by any standard), but still nuclear with means to deliver. So Russia must figure it's better to give China at least some of what it wants. Upheaval in China can only scare Russia whereas a certain degree of power that challenges US power is a plus.

Historical animosities are usually, or maybe even always, exploited to serve current political objectives. One could write a fair-sized book on contemporary demonizations and stirrings-up of animosities. The biggie is anti-Muslim, anti-Arab. Briefly we had "freedom fries" and "freedom kisses". And the Germans got whacked briefly before that. Of course one of the really big demonizations occurred in Germany in the 30s when a group of Germans discovered that they weren't really Germans! Who me? And now, irony of irony, Palestineans have a very bad image because they don't understand why they should foot the bill for all that mischigass in the 30s and 40s. Another irony of irony, somewhat more humorous, but not entirely, occurred when some darker Arabs here in the US, after 9-11, found it expedient to pass for black!

In any case, animosities can go into remission and even heal. But if there is a major interest to be served in stirring them up, it will happen.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Nick Rouse on March 24, 2006 - 6:18am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It is not just the Kuril Islands over which Japan has a dispute with Russia. The far larger Sakhalin Island, with an estimated 14 billion barrels of oil and 96 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, has long  been in contention between the two countries (and China). The first Japanese settlement there was in  1679. In 1845 Japan declared sovereignty over the whole island which they call Kita Ezo. Various treaties have split the island between the three countries. The Japanese  held the southern part of the island until 1875 when they ceded it to Russia in exchange for the Kuril Islands but regained the southern part in 1905. In 1945 the Russians took Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands by force with, according to Japanese sources, 20,000 civilian casualties. No formal treaty has been signed but in 1952 Japan renounced  claims over Sakhalin but did not recognise Russia's claim. On Japanese maps it is marked as no man's land.

Japanese prejudice against the sizeable Korean ethnic minority in Japan is vicious and deep seated. My wife, who translates Japanese professionally, has come across jibes and characterisations in business letters that would be legally actionable in many countries in the West.   This from a country that normally uses the most restrained language to avoid offence. If  Koreans were black and Japanese widely understood there would be a world scandal.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.