|
|
||||||
|
|
Why all this interest in the Middle East? |
|||||
|
|
When a power such as the U.S. government takes action, there is always a confluence of motives behind such an action. For example, the main benefit of the Balkan and Afghan wars was to establish a military presence curtaining a dissolving and desperate Russia. Such a curtain would be essential in the event of a global energy shortage (long forecast by pessimistic geologists), in order to prevent either Russia or China from making a grab for the Middle East. Sounds unlikely? Then why the U.S. Military presence in the Phillipines? The strong interest in Indonesia and Timor? And why the renewed interest in Somalia and Yemen? Certainly Indonesia and the Phillipines are necessary to contain China, but it is no accident that the Phillipines dominates the oil shipping lanes from the Middle East to the US, and that Indonesia and Timor are suspected to contain reserves of oil and natural gas. Then there is Somalia. A country that clearly has no strategic advantage for containment ... yet coupled with Yemen, one would have complete strategic control of both sides of the Gulf of Aden and the mouth of the Red Sea, another important oil shipping channel. If this containment theory seems weak in relation to these areas, then let us move our focus to South America, what of Columbia and Venezuela? Bush's Administration has stated that it considers the Columbian FARC (the rebel resistance) to be terrorists, and that the US should take an active role in guarding Colombian oil pipelines. Then there was April's attempted coup in Venezuela, coupled with US official statements that President Hugo Chavez and his administration are viewed as terrorist sympathizers. Beyond this we have Iraq and Iran. Between them these countries hold the vast portion of the remaining energy resources in the Middle East. Certainly the US aims to take full use of these resources before the approaching decline of world oil production. Then what of Russia and China? If containment is a readily apparent goal, why are they not responding? For some inexplicable reason both countries currently seem very eager to appease the US, particularly Russia. During the Afghan war in late 2001, oil prices were held down because Russia opened up the pumps on its own reserves. Likewise in the spring of the same year, when Iraq tried to interest the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in an oil embargo against the US, Russia forced its oil production to full throttle. This action suggests that Bush and Putin have some sort of "arrangement" As for China, it is sufficient to note that in the wake of 9-11 Bush quickly pushed through China's entrance into the World Trade Organization, thereby opening China for international corporations. Irrelevant? No. Along with India, China is expected to be the big growth market indemand for oil. Chinese energy demand is projected to grow so tremendously in the next decade that it could crowd the rest of the world out of the energy market. A social and economic threat for the US. As oil and natural gas production decline, so will the economy and our technological civilisation. Without oil and natural gas modern agriculture will fail and people will starve. Without oil and gas industry will grind to a halt, transportation will be grounded, and people in colder countries will freeze in the winter. The most scary notion of this all is that there are no alternative energy sources which, considered seperately or in total, can replace oil and natural gas. There is enough energy remaining in the world right now for us - the people - to take control and ease ourselves into a democratic egalitarian, stable-state society. Or there is enough energy for the elite to build a feudalistic, fascist, police-state with themselves at the top. In the choice that faces us right now .. what is really at stake? Click here to go back to the American Intelligence menu | |||||
