The geopolitics of oil gains a new constituency
Posted by Yankee on July 19, 2006 - 9:09pm
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: afghanistan, iraq, taliban [list all tags]
Whether or not this blood-for-oil scenario is the whole story, the new Iraqi constitution and laws already passed there contain far stronger guarantees for major U.S. oil interests than they do for the women of Iraq. Women's rights deteriorated rapidly after the first Gulf War, when Saddam Hussein sold them out to religious fundamentalists in order to consolidate power. The U.S. had the opportunity to restore much of what was lost after the 2003 invasion. But in the period leading up to the election of the National Assembly, our government ignored demands by Iraqi women's organizations to create a women's ministry, appoint women to the drafting committee of Iraq's interim constitution, pass laws codifying women's rights and criminalizing domestic violence, and uphold U.N. Security Council Resolution 1325-- which mandates that women be included at all levels of decision-making in situations of peacemaking and postwar reconstruction.
In contrast, Big Oil is well protected in the constitution and through laws. The constitution guarantees the reform of the Iraqi economy in accordance with "modern economic principles" to "ensure...the development of the private sector"--essentially abolishing Iraqi state dominion over its petroleum reserves. Corollary laws guarantee that foreign companies will have control over at least 64 percent of Iraq's oil, and possibly as much as 84 percent.I'm very glad to see the issue of the geopolitical implications of oil spread to as many new constituencies as possible, but I just find the link between American oil lust and the trampling of women's rights a little tenuous. The author doesn't convince me that there's a direct connection between oil policy and the US turning a blind eye to women's issues, though it certainly is the case that (a) women's rights are being violated left and right in many Middle Eastern countries and (b) many US decisions regarding the Middle East revolve around oil.
The question we must ask is the following: if it weren't for the abundance of oil in the Middle East, would the US do anything about their women's rights violations? It seems a foolish question, since if it weren't for the oil, we wouldn't be involved in a war in Iraq to begin with, hence obviating the need for discussion about the role of women in the Iraqi constitution. But to answer the question, we need only look at any other country with an abysmal record on women's rights: Nigeria (which has oil, but we're not currently trying to nation-build there), or Uganda, for example. Does the US government work toward women's rights reforms in these countries? Not exactly. So it is possible, and even likely, that the US government doesn't care about women's rights violations in the Middle East because they don't care about them anywhere, not because they're consciously choosing oil interests above women's rights.
While any magazine has the right to take any angle they want on their articles, I can't help but feel that this is a missed opportunity. Peak oil is an issue with a feminist angle, and it would have been more valuable for there to be an argument pointing these links out and giving readers material to work with. A couple of months ago, Energy Bulletin reran an article original published in Adaptation Blog called "Post Petroleum Woman". The article, written by Carolyn Baker, is a different flavor of feminism to be sure. It's also considerably more alarmist than the Ms. article, but Baker, as well as a blog post by jewishfarmer at Relocalize.net, bring up some points that I would like to see raised by a more mainstream feminist magazine. For example, from jewishfarmer:
The way women live now in the Western world is almost entirely a result of cheap energy and its byproducts. I think it would be easy to lose track of how much contemporary feminism, with its focus on women in the workplace, and on the politics of equality is shaped by cheap energy in the forms of birth control, easy access to medical care, formula, breast pumps, drive-to daycare, Social Security, etc... I am a feminist, and enormously grateful for what feminism has given me, but I also feel that women have not carefully enough interrogated the degree to which their options are dependent on carbon exploitation.It has been noticed here on TOD before that there are (apparently) not many female contributors. It will be nice to see that change someday soon, though I'm unfortunately not optimistic that the Ms. article will be a catalyst for that change.
I too have noticed there are not many Female contibutors here, perhaps they are browsing TOD. Nonetheless, would like to hear their inputs.
Back to the issues of fossil fuel depletion please.
IGNORE THIS COMMENT.
I have respected your contributions, MicroHydro. I support your right to free speech. I also support adolescent sexual obsession. I'm only going to try to balance the two for myself and by myself.
We are a different community here. And for the record - we are the most advanced fossil fuel depletion site on the planet - bar none.
We got that way by being inclusive, not exclusive. Hell, we even let smekhovo say what he wants.
Come again. Or rather, visit us again soon.
Let us please bury the hatchet.
I think you are a good person.
I also wish for an ignore or hide function.
There is no clock.
When a baby is born, he or she is not aware of a "clock".
He/she comes out, gets smacked on the behind (not always) and begins to be programmed by his/her parents and society.
FF's or Fundie Folk as you call them, did not have free will in choosing to become who they are. They were born. They were programmed. Same for their parents.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Battered women don't talk about such things.
You do understand about "honor killings", no?
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.
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. :-)
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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
What are you expecting? Gail the accountant has made a number of good posts lately. Her stuff is really good. Beyond that, I don't know what to say. We get the usual geeks (scientists, engineers) here and lots of other types.
What could we possibly do about this?
"I am a man.
But I can change.
If I have to.
I guess."
(Thanks to Red Green. A little, ummm, humour?)
Having said that I think there is actually some truth (but not the whole truth :-) in Matt's postings about how males enjoy showing off in (for instance) a debating context more than females. I read in