<DrumBeat: May 17, 2006The Oil DrumIs there a CTL in your future>

39 comments on Klare: Less Oil==More Wars

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

CarCulture on May 17, 2006 - 2:47pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
I would also like to point out that GNN (which also ahs posted links to TOD) reposted this article on their site this morning.

I love to read articles such as this one, because they represent the kind of dynamic that I built my education around.  The confluence of energy, sepecifically oil, and international political science, is THE defining paradigm of our times.

American non-involvement in the global south is simply not possible.  The neocons who currently dictate policy are well documented as putting forth the concept of "seizing the unipolarity moment" or, projecting force to ensure protection of American interests abroad while we are militarily dominant.

Whether or not you agree with them is irrelevant, because American business agrees with them, overwhelmingly.

That being said, the real issue is that the other developed nations of the global north will not sit idly by as the US breaks the pax of sovereignty and gobbles up the oil-rich regions as protectorates.  Never mind the strife and conflict within the regions we get involved in; the balance of power will shift away from us as other developed nations group together to offset our advantage.  

While there is clearly no one nation that can yet challenge American preponderance of power (economically or militarily) American policymakers have ignored the history of the system of alliances that always arises in reaction to hegemony.  Other countries cannot sit by as their lifeblood (oil) is taken over by just one nation, which holds both economic and military dominance in its grasp.  In effect, the American "colonization" or "imperialism" (whichever term smacks the least of leftist conspiracy theory to you)will ignite another world war, and this is the true, imminent spectre of the energy crunch.

That's my analysis, anyway.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Ibon on May 17, 2006 - 2:53pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
In a sane world you would see some cooperation of nations as this really is the only solution long term. But as we live in an insane world your analysis seems more accurate. I'm only left to wonder on our capability to achieve some sanity as time reveals force and domination as being insane when dealing with global finite resources since the amount of resources the dominator will have to use fighting resource wars will defeat the purpose. At some point sanity will be imposed by geology, right? Or can we be so stupid as a species.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
CarCulture on May 17, 2006 - 3:01pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I agree that cooperation is the only real solution, as I am something of an internationalist.

However, in my studies I have never seen any precedent for sustained meaningful cooperation and have seen thousands of examples of agressive responses to resource crises, in both politics and nature.  Political science is even defined as the science of resource allocation!

I would like to think that being human offers us a choice, but the exploitation of advantage is an impulse felt by every living creature on earth.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Todd on May 17, 2006 - 5:49pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I wouldn't surprise me that the US eventually develops similar problems due to disparities in sharing the wealth.  I can certainly see people in the GOM region getting really ticked off if "their" oil is being sent some place else while they live in poverty and others get richer.  I think this type of thinking will gain strength as the middle class is destroyed.

In fact, barring a dictatorship, it seems possible (albeit small) that the US will devolve into smaller "countries" built from states that share an area of interest.  We are already seeing states joining together in lawsuits against the Feds.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
fallout on May 18, 2006 - 9:00am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
AlanfromBigEasy (New Orleans native) often says something similar, to the effect of "just let us keep half the oil and we'll fix it ourselves!"
GOM area frustration with the federal government is growing.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
vtpeaknik on May 18, 2006 - 11:37am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Who is "us"?  The oil is already "kept" by the GOM-area-based corporations, but they see themselves as having no responsibility for others in the area.  The feds have nothing directly to do with this arrangement, it's called "capitalism".
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
fallout on May 18, 2006 - 12:03pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It's not my words. shrug
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
louGrinzo on May 17, 2006 - 4:46pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I like to phrase much the same line of thought as: Eventually, all the kids in the playground gang up on the local bully.  Once that happens, predictions go out the nearest window.

Sometimes I think Iran's pres. and Chavez are competing to see who can rattle Bush the most.  And with the US's relations with Russia suddenly turning frosty (thanks to Dick Cheney and his big mouth), there's another "interesting" country in the mix.  Of course, China has a big pile of our debt, but Japan owns about 2.5X as much of our paper as does China, which gives them a terrifying amount of leverage if they should decide to take offense at the US using a nuclear bunker buster or three in Iran.  (Japan, of all countries that would be third-parties to such a war, is uniquely placed in history to take deep offense at such an insane move.)

The next few years on the international front will be a lot of things, but dull ain't on the list.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BrianT on May 17, 2006 - 5:28pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
American business is investing their money in China. The amount of productive capital investment in the USA at this point is minor. Yes, American business interests would like to use the taxpayer's funds to finance a military to look out for their interests, but this is in the context of an international investment paradigm. Basically, the American military is paid by the American worker/taxpayer to protect the interests of American businesses (which are continuing to invest the bulk of their funds in the third world, which has the effect of raising the standard of living in the country that attracts the investment capital). My point is "American businesses" is a misnomer. These are international businesses that happen to be subsidized by the American taxpayer.    
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
CarCulture on May 18, 2006 - 7:38am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Sure, its a misnomer, but for the sake of the argument it would be best to clarify that these businesses have interests abroad that sometimes can only be realized through the forceful opening of a market by the US military.  The majors may be international companies, but they certainly benefit from the US opening up markets that were previously unavailable to them (Venezuela, Iraq, Iran) and some of them (Shell specifically) were heavily involved in the planning of post-war Iraq.

So in order to appease you, lets say, again - for the sake of the argument, that "american business" means "international corporate lobbies in the United States".  I'm pretty sure most knew what I meant, anyway.  Unfortunately, there is no way around shorthand when describing something like I did, because almost every phrase can be magnified until it is incomprehensible.

International businesses are primarily concerned with short-term profits anyway, and majors realize that the US is their biggest market, so to identify them as "american businesses" or "american business interests (perhaps the preferred term)" within the confines of my statement isn't such a big leap.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
CarCulture on May 18, 2006 - 7:46am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I agree with your comment but would like to point out that the US has traditionally been the force that opens up previously impenetrable markets for these companies all over the globe, and especially in the global south.  Their interests are typically so aligned with US policy (they actually dictate US policy) that it makes it possible to qualify them as "american business interests", for the sake of my post.  I assumed most TOD readers were aware of what you stated and I took it for granted.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
alistairC on May 18, 2006 - 8:10am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
You appear to be positing that US future intervention in Venezuela or Iran, and past intervention in Iraq, has been a net positive for multinationals (a better shorthand, perhaps, than "American business interests"?) -- or at least that that the multinationals perceive this to be so. Have I got that right?

I find this a frankly astonishing postulate. Where's the evidence?

Is it the economic stimulation due to huge military and reconstruction spending that you are talking about? Specific business opportunities aside (Blackwater, Halliburton...), I would expect rational economic actors to abhor the type of disruption, uncertainty and danger engendered by such adventures.

Or are you talking about sale of consumer goods to Iraq? (previously hampered by UN sanctions, which could have been dropped without a war...) I am not aware of specific trade barriers hampering companies wishing to sell stuff in Venezuela ?

Or when you talk about "impenetrable markets", are you talking about state ownership of such assets as oil, water, electricity distribution?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
fallout on May 18, 2006 - 9:11am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Good, suscinct article. Thanks Professor Goose.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
vtpeaknik on May 18, 2006 - 11:34am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Other countries cannot sit by as their lifeblood (oil) is taken over by just one nation...

Saw this quote that looked like a Freudian slip to me:

"To become energy independent and no longer rely on foreign oil would be like depriving Dracula of his blood supply: he would shrivel up and die."
- Cal Thomas (conservative columnist), 20 April 2006.

I've posted here an out-of-context snippet, what I think he meant was that the oil-exporting countries (that support Islam and terrorism, he says) will "shrivel up"...  But to me it read like this: if the US would try to live without imported oil it would shrivel up, since we're as addicted as Dracula.  No wonder we're afraid of the sunlight of truth.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.