The Oil Drum | The geopolitics of oil gains a new constituency

142 comments on The geopolitics of oil gains a new constituency

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

beggar on July 19, 2006 - 10:19pm

I've read Michael Klare's latest article here -- a summary of his take on our foreign policy and oil.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0719-22.htm

Klare makes the point that we do indeed support tyrants, overlook human rights issues (including women's rights issues) specifically because of petroleum.

Face it folks, things are worse in Iraq for women now than they were before the USA "liberated" them in a fit of militaristic generosity.

The point is that we might want to work for human rights in when we are so deeply entangled with other regimes in terms of economics, energy, and geopolitics. That we don't is truly a setup for massive blowback against us as supporters of oppression.

Klare makes a superb and simple point. We must divorce foreign policy from our energy needs. To do this, we must develop an energy strategy that brings rapid energy independence. Then we can bring the troops home and deal with various regimes on the merits of principle rather than petroleum addiction.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

GreyZone on July 20, 2006 - 12:07am

I don't think it's a deliberate policy to overlook human rights abuses though, as much as it is a policy to get along with whomever is running the target country. If they would want to liberalize, we would support that. If they would want to oppress, we would support that. Mainly, we want a stable nation with a stable economy for extracting oil.

So no, I don't think women's rights are targeted specifically, just that they get ignored as other things have higher priorities.

I agree that developing an energy policy that doesn't leave us at the mercy of tyrants is a necessary first step in separating human rights issues from oil. Unfortunately, I expect us to do the opposite and make friends with more tyrants because China is doing that already and trying to lock up energy sources. Since we are on tenuous ground in the supply arena, this strategy will appeal to the Bush administration for the short term and since GW Bush only has 2 years left, it's something he's more likely to do than start a policy that may take 20 years to finally come together.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

MicroHydro on July 20, 2006 - 1:38am

Of note, this is the third time in the spotlight for the gender/oil issue.

Feminist Kate Millet went to Iran in 1979, was expelled, and wrote about the experience in "Going to Iran" 1982 (out of print). At that time Ms magazine noted the US accomodation of sexual apartheid oil regimes, of which Saudi Arabia is the worst.

Jay Leno's wife Mavis has been a longtime advocate for the rights of women in Moslem oil nations. Jay Leno (much to the dismay of then Pres. G.H.W. Bush) complained about Saudi law when entertaining the troops in Saudi Arabia in 1991. (This was before Jay became the permanent Tonight Show host in 1992)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Rick on July 20, 2006 - 4:13am

I agree with your comments about the unnecessary lewdness of some posts. However, I don't think it's fair to tar this issue with the same brush.

People of both genders are exporting untold billions of their hard-earned dollars which support regimes with appalling policies. It's not unreasonable for the human rights issue to surface, or for feminists to view it through their own lens. And bringing it up 3 times in 24 years doesn't seem very pushy.

And then there is the cultural lens. If you live in a country where women are taken seriously, it's easy to forget that it's not true everywhere. In gender gap ratings (PDF), just as an example, New Zealand ranks #6 overall, and #1 in political empowerment for women--versus #17 and #19 respectively for the USA. The American sisters have a long way to go, and bringing up the issues can't hurt.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

MicroHydro on July 20, 2006 - 6:58am

I am just tired of fighting the flow of history, and complaining about gender apartheid in oil states while the world lurches into resource wars just feels like the ultimate futility. IMO, the 1970s were humanity's last chance to head off all the catastrophes that are unfolding now. The last chance to get serious about population stabilization, to prepare for the transition to a post oil infrastructure, to complete the enlightenment by removing ancient tribal superstitions from public policy. Establishment of universal human rights including gender equity would have been a part of that. Well, humanity failed all the tests. We acted like the only slightly upgraded Homo ergasters that we are.

We decided as a species to continue investing in living arrangements that were increasingly oil dependent. We doubled the global population and the cult of consumerism and endless growth spread worldwide. Hundreds of millions embraced the various fundamentalist religions, including insane death cults who believe global thermonuclear war would trigger the rapture. Feminist splinter movements within traditionally masculinist cultures (never more than a small minority of women) were a passing artifact of the cheap oil era. As the world becomes poorer, and once again more local, gender relations will return to the local past.

In a few places like Scandanavia, NZ, and Oregon's Willamette Valley, the deep rooted local cultures of gender balance will persist. In Mississippi and Afghanistan the patriarchal plantation master and warlord will rise again. There is no more hope of changing this than Jimmy Carter had of selling peak oil mitigation 30 years in advance. Going forward, post peak women will need the same things that men will need - allies who can help acquire and defend survival resources. There will be no post peak sisterhood other than ones biological sisters and in-laws.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Seadragon on July 20, 2006 - 8:10am

I agree with this...just seems like a stretch to force a "feminist perspective" of peak oil. BTW, I agree with your posts on this thread. ALL OF THEM.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Yankee on July 20, 2006 - 9:12am

The reason that it's important to pitch energy issues with a feminist perspective is because most people really do see things through a particular filter. People who read Ms. Magazine don't also read Oil and Gas Journal, and they read Ms. because they are interested of the ramifications of some issue on women. Same thing for any other kind of special interest group. If you could couch PO in a way that best relates to the specific interests of Native Americans or rock musicians or runway models, then you would be able to explain to each different group why PO is such a serious issue.

I don't know what will happen to gender relations in a future era, but if the point now is to get the message out to as many people as we can, then we're going to have to learn how to tailor our delivery to different constituencies.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Rick on July 20, 2006 - 3:32am

Unfortunately, I expect us to do the opposite and make friends with more tyrants ...

Well, al-Gaddafi is already back on the friends list. There's some work to do with Iran, of course. Don't know whether Chavez makes the "tyrant" list or not. But beyond that, are there any significant oil-bearing tyrants we're not friendly with?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

LevinK on July 20, 2006 - 11:42am

There's some work to do with Iran, of course

Since we are talking about female rights in this thread it is worth mentioning, that the image of Iran in this respect is strongly influenced by the propaganda here.

I have met several Iranian women here in the US - all doctors, architects, economists. None of them said anything about sexual oppression or unequality. They all were pretty independant and proud with their country IMO. My impression (also coming from the conversations with Iranian men on the matter) is that in this respect Iran is pretty much like Turkey. There may be some provincial places or religious communities where women are oppressed, but in general the country is pretty close to a secular state.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

step back on July 20, 2006 - 12:49pm

Their husbands would beat them if they said something.

Battered women don't talk about such things.

You do understand about "honor killings", no?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

LevinK on July 20, 2006 - 1:04pm

Did somebody beat you down to post in this blog? Please provide me with some proof nobody did, so that I can trust your words.

Actually I met those ladies in a pretty intimate environment. No husbands, no religious clothing, nothing even remotely close to the preconceptions of the West. Now of course I wake up each night shivering that I'm going to be hunted down by angry Iranian husbands all my life. Still alive.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

step back on July 20, 2006 - 3:30pm

Yes, here are the people who beat me.

2. Here are those that don't like the sound of music

3. Here are the battered wives

4. Here is a bit more about the "modern" culture"

Yup, everything I post is a pure fabrication, a delusion invented in the isolation of my disconnected mind. :-)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

LevinK on July 20, 2006 - 3:57pm

I think you don't get the point.

These are remainants of an backwardish culture, which can be seen in even more modernized countries. Iran is a huge country (some ~60 mln.) and parts of it are still on the medievil level. But bashing the whole on these grounds is as counterproductive as bashing US for encouraging racism because of the existence of KKK. This country was going in the right direction and the antiiranian propaganda has exactly the opposite effect - fueling exactly those forces that are interested in Iran staying at these levels.

The case of SA is totally different one - Sheriat is a national law and the state is the one that interested in the country staying at a semi-feodal level.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

tom deplume on July 20, 2006 - 5:41pm

The problem isn't that there is racism and sexism here it's that such things are considered outside of the law's interest there. Commit an act of domestic or racial violence here and the victims have the protection of the law. Over there if you kill your wife or daughter it is the killer who is protected by the law.
Jerry Ford negotiated and signed the Helsinki Accord on Human Rights. Jimmy Carter linked human rights to his foreign policy. Reagan and the Bushies have turned a blind eye on human rights if the violators were on thier side of the Cold War or so called War on Terror. If we linked trade privileges to human rights and simply refused to due business with the protectors of murderers perhaps things for women worldwide would improve.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

bicycle on July 20, 2006 - 5:59pm

LevinK has a point, though. There are many countries where authorities and courts turn a blind eye to domestic violence, etc. Happens all over the world - even in some parts of the rich countries. The isn't a criteria that should be used to single Iran out as a backward country that oppresses it's women. I know a couple Iranian women and they are very educated, come from forward thinking modern families, and they absolutely defend the modernity of their country. That isn't to ignore its faults, but these are proud women. Take a look at Iranian cinema if you like too. Very forward thinking. This whole idea that Iran just like all the other oppressive countries in its neighborhood just because it's run by clerics that nobody likes is just an easy assumption for people to make who want to stereotype.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Dryki on July 20, 2006 - 9:06pm

I DO think it is an explicit policy.

The PTB in global economy put property rights ahead of human rights. That simple.

It gets worse, because those of us in rich countries - male and female - depend on that global system to stay on top. What would really be entailed in supporting human rights - let alone women's rights?

cfm

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

beggar on July 20, 2006 - 9:58pm

Greyzone -- to the contrary, consider this:

The USA promotes oppression as the preferred form of stability in petroleum-rich (or other "strategic") nations, and actively discourages democracy.

How did the Shah of Iran come to power many years ago? A progressive, budding democracy was killed off with the USA as a prime player, then installing a torture-mongering despot in its place.

Look at Venezuela today. Chavez comes from the poor, works for the poor, and draws much of his power from the poor of his country as his political base. The USA, which has a sham democracy, cannot stand such an arrangement that turns the world upside down. Therefore the USA has been actively trying to depose Chavez, and I suspect tries to depose any other Latin American leader who tends to be socialist and populist. On the other hand, the USa loved the brutal Noriega of Panama until he got a bit too uppity.

Then there is the long and sordid love affair between the USA establishment and Saddam Hussein, which sadly came to a bad end because Saddam also got a bit uppity.

We also love the Saudis and the UAE elite and the esteemed nuclear-armed, nuclear-proliferating dictator of Pakistan and just about any brutal, sexist, slave-trading bastard who will swear to kick ass on behalf of the "interests" of the USA elite anywhere in the world.

Lovely. Just lovely. My, we (USA) are as sweet and unsullied as a new rose blossom in the morning, all covered with....dew....dooo...uhh, wait, that's "dew" -- no, wait! Now I'm all confused.

The bottom line for the US elite was written by George F. Kennan, American Ambassador to Moscow, in a State Department Policy Planning Study in 1948:

"we have 50 percent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 percent of its population. In this situation, our real job in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which permit us to maintain this position of disparity. To do so, we have to dispense with all sentimentality ... we should cease thinking about human rights, the raising of living standards and democratisation."

This attitude has morphed further as the Neocons of today use the US government as a political/military vehicle to develop a "pattern of relationships" which I believe will ultimately exclude most American citizens from wealth and power, as well as most of the world's citizens.

The USA is a vehicle which is being run into financial and political wreck and ruin by those who control our government bcause, at the end of the crash, they will have no use for the vehicle any longer.

We may see some trappings of the US "republic" continue, but in realityour planet is being pretty well transformed into a large Empire filled with moslty poor and powerless people who will be abandoned to the ravages of disease, global climate change, resource depletion, and war -- while the "disparity" is maintained by and for a shrinking class of people who believe themselves to deserve wealth and power at the expense of the great masses of the world's people and other species.

So, to put a finer point on it, I think we have seen the USA support oppression and sabatoge democracy and "liberty and justice for all."

Where is General Smedley Butler when you need him?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

TI on July 20, 2006 - 2:08am

Let's do some geopolitical reality check. What is going on in Lebanon? Just the next step in the grand plan of reshaping the Middle East and first operations in the war against Iran (and Syria).

Let's see. The British and French announced for evacuation of their citizens right in the beginning of the hostilities, when the potential evacuees didn't yet think they were in danger. The locals thought that the shelling would be limited to parts of the Southern Lebanon as usual and people elsewhere would be safe. But no. The was no "we follow the situation and decide later if the evacuation is necessary", as you could expect. The decision was pre-made and the plans were ready and practical arrangements made in advance.

All the decisions on Lebanons future are made in advance. We already know that there will be "international" troops. This decison needed some negotiations, before the present crisis began, so it was made before the hostilities started. There will be a "Balkan" solution, like in Kosovo. Permanent US bases, British and French, too, some Russian and European token troops. Occupation "UN" government and all that. "Reconstruction" a la Iraq.

But first Lebabon should "fail". The Israelis are doing the job by destroying methodically the Lebanese infrastructure and economy. All the country, not just the Hezbollah areas, is isolated, ports, main roads and airports shut. Electricity is down, oil supply destroyed.

Syria or Iran, or Hezbollah did not make these decisons, but they were obviously made before the bombing began.

Syria will be gone after the occupation of Lebanon. The Syrian economy and logistics are dependent of Lebanon, and Syria is already effectively blockaded. The US wants supply routes to Iraq through Lebanon and Syria and will get them. The Syrian-Iranian alliance will break down, the Iraq resistance will be isolated. The US troops are now "hostages" in Iraq because the heavy logistics go through the Persian Gulf and the narrow Southern parts of Iraq. This route is long and vulnerable and it could be blocked in a conflict with Iran. A route through Syria would change the situation.

When the Iranian-Syrian alliance breaks, Iran will be isolated and lose its main military advantage. No wonder Iran has been quiet lately. Now here is the real US plan for Iraq. The situation there will change decisively after Syria and Iran have their regime changes and get US military presence. This is why the dismal military situation in Iraq has not bothered much the US government. The solution lies not in Iraq - but in Lebanon.

Well, will this nice plan really succeed? At least the Russians think so - they have already agreed to be part of the occupying force in Lebanon. The Chinese may be pissed, but what can they do?

Here we see how the US becomes "oil independent": the ME oil will be firmly in the US hands, may be in the hands of the US oil companies. The oil revenues will flow to the US shareholders. The ME oil will be domestic US oil. Fine.

And human rights? Who cares.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

PeakOil Tarzan on July 20, 2006 - 8:46am

Now, there's an analysis that you won't hear on the six o'clock news.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

vtpeaknik on July 20, 2006 - 11:44am

I do think that there's more than meets the eye in this Lebanon thing, but it's not at all clear who is trying to do what. I disagree with TI's analysis because Syria is a much larger country than Lebanon, and Iran is a much larger country than Syria, so I don't see the dominos falling in that direction. "The Syrian economy and logistics are dependent of Lebanon" - why? They have their own piece of coastline further North. "A route (for US supplies to Iraq) through Syria would change the situation." - why? They can't even defend the road from Bhagdad to the airport, let alone the long road through the desert to (and through) Syria. "Iran will be isolated and lose its main military advantage." - Iran does not need Syria, it is a large oil-rich country with a significant military industry and a chokehold on the Straits of Hormuz. "The Chinese may be pissed, but what can they do?" - oooh, they can do a lot! How about selling some of their dollar holdings? If they can't use those dollars to buy oil and gas, why keep them?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

TI on July 20, 2006 - 1:09pm

Vtpeaknik: here is some added info.

The Syrian and Lebanese economies have been traditionally connected for a very long time. Lots of Syrians work in Lebanon (before the crisis) and send money back. Sanctions against Syria don't work if Lebanon is out of tight control.

The US logistics volume in Iraq is enormous, but the routes through Southern Iraq have been relatively safe to the huge logistical bases near Baghdad. The pro-Iranian shiites have not attacked the transports up to now. This could change if hostilities break with Iran. Closing Persian Gulf and this logisitics route is the main advantage of Iran in a conflict with the US.

China will not hurt itself economically by any forex operations or the like.

And remember, there are now UN troops in Southern Lebanon. They just watch the fighting. Sending new UN troops will mean considerable changes in the UN presence, quite likely something like in Kosovo or Bosnia.

The news tell now that the Hezbollah forces have not suffered much from the bombing, as was to be expected (remember the Kosovan war). They seem to have anti-tank missiles and can kill Isreali tansk and make resistance on the ground. So probably the Israelis have to go in with massive ground forces and there will be real fighting. When the Isrealis go in they have to go all they way to Beirut and beyound, up to the Bekaa valley. So this will be big operation. But the internationals cannot go in before the Israelis have done their "cleaning job". This will take time and kill a lot more civilians. Besides, it can cause poltical and other complications. We will see how well the plan really works.

And this is on topic: they kill women there.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Stoneleigh on July 20, 2006 - 1:49pm

CBC News said this morning that Israel had given civilians in south Lebanon 24 hours to leave the area, including the city of Tyre. Presumably this means that a significant ground offensive is imminent.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

MUDLOGGER on July 21, 2006 - 3:12pm

'' and human rights? -who cares''.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

- Pastor Martin Niemoller 1892-1984
U boat commander WWI, Winner of the Iron Cross, Fiekorp Member then Lutheran Minister. Imprisoned in Sachsenhausen and Dachau for objecting to the Nazis

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

tstreet on July 20, 2006 - 10:41am

amen.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

142 comments on The geopolitics of oil gains a new constituency

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

“Any coward can fight a battle when he's sure of winning, but give me the man who has pluck to fight when he's sure of losing. That's my way, sir; and there are many victories worse than a defeat.”

—George Eliot