113 comments on Bread and Oil: Rising Food Prices and the Middle East
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”
—Richard Feynman
Search The Oil Drum with Google
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Technician: Super G
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
- Enjoying Life Close to Home: Fun Streets
TOD:Europe
- UK Energy Flow Chart 2007
- Brown pretends to be tough on Russia
- Russian gas and European energy security - a reprise
TOD:Canada
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
- Weekend Energy Listening: Wind Power with Paul Gipe
TOD:ANZ
Peak Oil Primers
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- Ecological Economics
- David Strahan
- Econbrowser
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- Environmental Economics
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Organizations
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Though no friend of US biofuels, I remain unconvinced of this.
The big wheat exporters are US, Canada, Australia etc. There are not many others. More than half of all exports come from the three countries named.
In other words, high food prices could force some Middle East countries to come to terms with their dependence on the West for food. Then they might do more to dampen extremist elements within their borders.
The US already supplies substantial aid to Egypt and a big chunk of the wheat imports.
Hi George, would you mind defining who are the extremist elements within their borders? I am a bit fuzzy there as I would think it is one big extremist outfit outside their borders that is the problem.
Also your idea of food as a weapon in Western political policy sort of smacks along the line of war crime or worse; genocide! Wouldn't you think?
I sincerely doubt many people are going to be allowed to starve. We are not talking war here.
But food aid used as part of foreign policy.....yes, that is likely.
I also doubt very very much that you personally would allow them to starve if you could help it, but there seems to be a disconnection when we are able to allow our governments to do exactly that for political purposes. You can look to the aftermath of the first Gulf war and the embargo, according to the following from Wiki:
The estimate from the study indicates more than 46,900 children died between January and August 1991.[40] A 1998 UNICEF report found that the sanctions resulted in an increase to 90,000 deaths per year.
Withholding food or essentials for political reasons in time of peace is in my opinion as, or more reprehensible, than it would be in time of war.
BTW you did not respond to my first point, not that you are required to, but in the heat of the moment you might have overlooked it?
Chrystal, an embargo is rather extreme and, for all intents and purposes, an act of war.
I suspect the West could get a lot of mileage out of its food exports edge, if necessary, without resorting to embargo.
>>BTW you did not respond to my first point...
I think your point was that the Americans are extremists. In some ways, maybe, but I can't see how the world food situation gives us means to pressure them!
Using Crystal Radio's definition of embargos and war crimes, it sounds like OPEC should be the target of his/her anger.
Sorry Jack, you are way over my head with that. I know you must be, as all I can manage to decipher out of it is that OPEC is starving the west by not supplying needed oil to run their children ... all the little SuV's and Hummers?
NO! NO! that way lies madness ... must rest my head now, go to bed, dream of bunnies and butterflies...nite, nite :)
OPEC does not supply oil exclusively to the US or the West. People do die from lack of energy.
I think your point was that the Americans are extremists. In some ways, maybe, but I can't see how the world food situation gives us means to pressure them!
Not extremists but understanably a bit blind, just like Canadians are in not opposing a war of aggression in Afghanistan.
About agressive war, I have this about Nuremburg ( though not what I was looking for which was a more complete definition of aggressive war, I am surprised I cant even find the complete wording of the UN charter which as I remember made no bones about the business of war).
: The Nürnberg Tribunal condemned a war of aggression in the strongest terms: "To initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." It held individuals accountable for "crimes against peace", defined as the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing...." When the United Nations General Assembly unanimously affirmed the Nürnberg principles in 1946, it affirmed the principle of individual accountability for such crimes.
-----------------------
On this:
I suspect the West could get a lot of mileage out of its food exports edge, if necessary, without resorting to embargo.
The problem I see here is that it still involves the innocent along with those that are considered guilty, not exactly cricket eh? (but then cricket isn't what it was since it was played in Iraq, I think:P
Show me where this has worked in the Middle East previously. I believe that the only prior case you can make for moderates actually solving their extremist problems was Turkey, nearly a century ago. More recently we have Iran falling to fundamentalists when the US backed Shah fell from power, Afghanistan falling to fundamentalists after defeating the Soviets (and who appear to be driving back towards ruling Afghanistan yet again), Pakistan beset by fundamentalist uprisings, Lebanon ripped apart by civil war and then seeing the fundamentalist Hezbollah rise to power...
In fact, based on the historical record, I would strongly expect revolution led by fundamentalists to be the most likely response, leading to authoritarian governments that are openly hostile to the US. Yes, Egypt might deal with its extremists. But the historical record suggests strongly that the extremists will instead deal with the moderates and deal with them violently at that.
Egypt is a good example here of a nation that became more peaceful partially because of a food aid deal.
What would they eat? Even Islamic fundamentalists have to eat?
Although they have some success, extremists actually regularly get outmaneuvered, bought off, held in check, and sometimes outright defeated.
Iran has both oil and quite decent food production per capita (compared to Egypt). The regime has many more raw resources to play with compared with Egypt. So, it's not a good counter example, should one choose to cite it.
Pakistan just had an election. The secular parties were no longer banned by the US supported government, and the voters promptly deserted the fundamentalist parties for the secular parties.
There are no secular parties in Islamic Republic of Pakistan. No one in Pakistan openly calls for separation of the mosque & state. Everyone agrees that Pakistan should be an Islamic state with laws & constitution that are based on Koran. Everyone agrees that Islam has all the answers and that an Islamic state is an ideal state. The ex-prime minister Nawaz Sharif - whose party won the second largest number of seats - was considering implementing Sharia (chop limbs, heads, stoning, flogging, etc.)just before he was ousted by Musharraf in a coup.
The only debate is over how far to go in the process of Islamization. The "moderates" will tolerate movies, TV and music. The extremists want to recreate 7th century Arabia.
The question is not one of "dampening extremists".
Subsidy cuts in Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, and other countries are inevitable, especially if price hikes escalate, and this means serious political instabillity, whatever "dampening" measures are taken.
The people who will go out to the streets are not extremists - they're just people who want affordable prices. It is true thatIslamist groups will probably try to take advantage of the situation.