|
|
Blog Feeds
The SakerA bird's eye view of the vineyard
Public InquiryInterested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Human Rights in IrelandPromoting Human Rights in Ireland
Lockdown Skeptics
|
Being antiwar isn't about the oil national |
miscellaneous |
news report
 Friday January 24, 2003 11:40 by Thinker
 "It's all about oil." Those four words are often used to denounce the planned attack on Iraq. For many in the antiwar movement, the idea that the "Bushies" plan to invade the Gulf to get their greasy hands on more oil has become an article of faith, an unquestionable truth repeated like a mantra. But how true is it? Being antiwar isn't about the oil LONDON - "It's all about oil." Those four words are often used to denounce the planned attack on Iraq. For many in the antiwar movement, the idea that the "Bushies" plan to invade the Gulf to get their greasy hands on more oil has become an article of faith, an unquestionable truth repeated like a mantra. But how true is it? Iraq is certainly oil-rich, and the question of what will happen to its resources après la guerre is no doubt of concern to Bush & Co. But the antiwar movement's obsession with oil is less the result of a deep economic understanding of the coming conflict than an attempt to reduce war to a black-and-white clash between good and evil - making it all the easier to oppose, but doing no favor for the movement. The "war for oil" theory has become a pat explanation for every Western intervention of recent years. According to influential antiwar writer John Pilger, the Afghan war - launched after the Sept. 11 attacks - was about installing "a regime that will oversee an American-owned pipeline bringing oil and gas from the Caspian basin." Before that, the international intervention in Kosovo in 1999 was said to be "about oil and nothing but oil." Even the 1993 US invasion of Somalia was seen by some as a profit-making oil mission. One journalist claimed that somewhere under Somalia, there could be "significant amounts of oil and natural gas," ripe for the taking "if the US-led military intervention could restore peace." The "blood for oil" argument was downright surreal when applied to Somalia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. These were very different wars, with their own dynamics and goals. But instead of coming to terms with the forces driving Western intervention in each case, sections of the antiwar movement opted for a one-size-fits-all explanation, superimposing the "war for oil" script on often complex conflicts. The well-rehearsed oil argument attempts to make war a simple issue of good versus evil, with oil-greedy imperialists on one side and defenseless civilians on the other. This presents the world as we might prefer it to be, where it's easy to know whom we should oppose, rather than as the world really is - where wars are weird, confusing, and often fought for no obvious material or economic gain. The trend to shout "oil!" to simplify conflicts was most apparent in the war in Afghanistan. Antiwar protesters applied the oil theory seriously only after that conflict had dragged on for months. The more confusing it became - with ill-defined goals, botched operations, and no sign of Osama bin Laden - the more the antiwar movement was tempted to wheel out the simplistic oil argument. The oil theory may provide comfort to protesters. But it causes big problems for those of us interested in challenging Western intervention on grounds that it most often exacerbates tensions rather than resolves them. The politics of oil certainly plays its part in international affairs, but the "war for oil" theory misunderstands modern wars. And it also renders much of today's opposition to war ineffective. Many antiwar protesters want to blame corporate America as the driving force behind war. They argue that faceless profit-makin' businessmen pull the strings of oil-lovin' politicians. But this sounds more like a conspiracy theory than a considered political opposition to war. What about other, genuine reasons for opposing military intervention - the fact that it overrides nation states' sovereignty, that it often disregards peoples' democratic rights, that it can destabilize regions further? "War for oil" antiwar protests often look like an expression of powerlessness in the face of "evil corporate interests," rather than a defiant stand against war. After all, if international affairs really are determined by a hidden, all-powerful force of oil interests, there isn't much chance of standing up to them and changing things for the better. It's high time the antiwar movement put aside the lazy rhetoric and took a grown-up approach to opposing war. The oil arguments are a slippery slope to nowhere. • Brendan O'Neill is assistant editor of spiked-online.com. |
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (11 of 11)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11It is not 'All about oil' - it is about Empire and the Oil that Fuels it.
I'm using 'The Empire' in the broadest sense of the word, not just American.
We all live under this regime and our personal choices about how we use energy has as much to do with it as does governmental policies.
If saving civilization and the earth means anything, then working towards the elimination of the internal combustion engine has to be a top priority.
Our addiction to oil necessarily means war and corruption.
The argument here is essentially that some people have said "Its about oil" on previous occassions, and those statements may not have been well-founded. That means that when somebody says "Its about oil" today, the statement must not be well-founded. But everybody knows that Iraq is sitting on one of the largest oil supplies in the world. Control of these resources is clearly a motivating factor here, and senior US figures have said as much in the past.
(That's not to say that there aren't other, equally or more valid reasons to argue against this war as well)
Oil or No oil, its still about the US extending their stranglehold over the globe, and demonstrating that they can do whatever they want to whoever they please because someoneone blew up a few buildings.. boo hoo.
Incidentally.. i have heard much anti-antiwar sentiment recently. Arguments over the validity of the rhetoric employed by antiwar protest is whitewash. The fact is that the US is hellbent on throwing a flaming sqibb into the Middle east to further their own ends. That is not a policy that can be tolerated by civilised humanity anywhere. Anyone with half a brain can see how this could potentially turn into the biggest bloodbath of mankinds history, on one side we have Arabs, pushed right to the edge by the indignities thrust upon them by the west, armed to the teeth with the weapons of the infidel, and caught up in a big revival of 7th century millitant islamic fervour. On the other side you have the US, Also armed to the teeth, also led by a madman, and also high on end-of-days religious conservatism, BUT...the US has the distinction of being the one country thats already proved its willingness to use nuclear weapons, ie, nothing is beyond their machievellianism. The US knows nothing of the type of War they are willing to plunge the world into, maybe if they had opted to invade japan in 45 and not use the quick and easy push-button technique of waging war, they would have learnt from the painful experience of hunreds of thousands of US deaths. Obviously the deaths of mere foreigners does not even raise an eyebrow in the whitehouse leadership of the late twentieth century.
Bottom line, whether its about Oil, UN inspections, humanitarian ideals..whatever the propagandists claim of the day happens to be,..whatever the reason, war is the very last resort of a society that dares to call itself civilised.
Iraq is not an island.
Its Oil is part of a finely balanced strategic block.
That is essentially why France Russia and China
took the advice of some a while back and are supporting the short-term preservation of that finely balanced strategic block.
Ms Mowlam was rubbished for mentioning Saudi Oil, quite without careful thinking. "Empire" is very well chosen used above. The 21st century is going to be indeed is at the moment a debate between multiple strategic approaches to the present globalised strategic blocks. These are not states or countries or corporations alone.
Those protesters or tourists who consider accompanying "Expensive World Leaders" are as important globalised strategic blocks as those faithful who make the Haj to Mecca.
The collision course set upon by the Western Military Industrial Complex and elements of World Islam with the sideshow of primary capitalist China is something that requires "counterpointal" analysis rather than material dialectic.
It is about Oil.
and It is about Power.
and It is more about forecasting than anything else. Our austrian friends with their funny vocabulary and at times offensive site links have quite rightly pursued the veracity of declared Oil reserves.
It is very sunny here today with blue skies. My favourite wall of murals has been knocked down. €money is redeveloping the block. They´ll build a market there for the new more expensive residents when they arrive. THey are forecasted to move in about 2005.
It is all forecast.
Venezuela is also forecast.
- ¿anyone read Tarot?
It’s easy to carry a banner saying “It’s about oil”. It’s a phrase that can FIT on a placard/ poster etc. That doesn’t mean that the person carrying that placard doesn’t have any more to say than those few words! That doesn’t mean that they don’t think the war is ONLY about oil. The war is about several things – oil, power, empire, ego, revenge for Daddy Bush, greed, boosting the arms industry which has so many contacts in the US government etc. Saying “it’s about oil” is at least drawing attention away from the government propaganda that it is a just war. Once the great masses of people know that the government are lying on the issue then they can analyse the matter in further detail if they wish. The main point is that they know that the governments are lying.
Goebbels said “Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious... The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly... it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.”
When trying to get a POPULATION to agree on something the message has to be simple and repetitive. Only a brief simple message can be the message to the masses. It’s up to smaller groups to discuss things in more detail.
My own “few points” that I would love to see enshrined in mainstream thinking are;
The evil of War, the evil of capitalist exploitation of people, the seriousness of the environmental threats, all humans are equal, we have no democracy.
To me the current “it’s about oil” slogan helps in all of these areas.
By the way, I think there is a possibility that the oil question re Iraq could be as much about denying Russia the oil as grabbing it for US. There are excellent arguments out there that the greatest threat to US world dominance could still come from Russia, along with China. The point is made that Afghanistan is about surrounding Russia with US influence. Again these are the details of what these elite schemers are up to – they can be discussed. But discussing them won’t achieve much on its own, the PEOPLE are needed to bring about change in the world, and the people have to believe the “fundamental principles” first. Confine ourselves to a few points and repeat them over and over.
This is a stupid opinion piece that isn't worthy of even the Christian Science Monitor and it would be better seen as an illustration of the propoganda function now being served by large sections of the American media. Moreover its a re-post that is available elsewhere on the net and 'Thinker' couldn't be bothered to summarise it and provide a link. Having said that and despite some reluctance at wasting time responding....
First of all, a majority of the population of many countries could now be termed 'anti-war' - and the number is growing. These people oppose American aggression for a wide variety of reasons ranging from the potential damage to the international order to distrust of the Bush administration to genuine concern about the loss of human life that would result from war. There is no unified, consistant group of 'anti-war protestors'. Different people oppose different things at different times for different reasons.
The anti-war movement is therefore diverse and not only does NOT reduce the conflict to 'good vs evil', but does NOT even speak with the same voice. Instead it is the Bush administration that uses such simplistic rhetoric - surely O'Neill remembers the 'Axis of evil', 'with us or against us' and other simplistic speeches from Bush. It is the current US administration (supported by much of the American media) that believes its own 'moral clarity' is a virtue.
Plans for an oil pipeline across Afganistan and the huge benefits of this to the US are well documented. Nevertheless I don't know of one commentator or peace protestor who believes that this was the only reason for the American invasion of Afganistan and that getting bin Laden was just an excuse.
As for oil in Kosovo or Somalia - get real. There was little or no talk of oil during these interventions because there is no oil in these places. Indeed, many who now oppose war in Iraq supported intervention in Kosovo and particularly in Somalia. In any case, it not reasonable to compare this war with Kosovo and Somalia. Opposition to current American aggression towards Iraq is wider and deeper than at any time since the Vietnam war and even threatens the credibility of the United Nations and thus an international order built on discussion and agreement rather than violence. This war is different.
Along with many others my view is that America is planning to invade Iraq for many reasons. However I also believe that gaining political control of Iraqi oil fields is by far the most important of these reasons. Afganistan, Kosovo and Somalia do not have any significant amounts of oil. Iraq, on the other hand, sits on the world's second largest oil reserves.
This war is about many things, but the most important of those things is oil.
It's not "just about oil". It is, however, mainly about oil. The true mistake many make is to assume it's just about US consuption of oil. The US gets some oil from the gulf but mainly it get's its oil either domestically or from Latin America. The rest of the world gets most of it's oil from the gulf.
Yes, US consumption is increasing, especially relative to the rest of the world and it will get increasing amounts from the gulf as domestic sources get lower, but what they're really after is the political control that comes from control of oil. Especially, they know that if they don't control the Middle East then the EU will start to assert itself there (Europe gets more oil from the Gulf than the US) which, in turn, will lead to a much more powerful and influential EU which could challenge US dominance. It's increasingly true that he who controls the Middle East, controls the World.
However, even leaving aside personal (and family:) grudges against Iraq, there's also one other very important factor. The US government NEEDS anb enemy. You can't justify that sort of military spending and deployment, or that sort of control over your own people, without one. The interesting question is "Who will be next?"
First, you rightly point out that the US doesn't need Middle Eastern oil; it gets most of its oil from Latin America and also has vast resources of its own in reserve. Secondly you also correctly note that it is the EU which is heavily dependent on oil from the Middle East.
But here is where you lose the plot:
"Especially, they know that if they don't control the Middle East then the EU will start to assert itself there (Europe gets more oil from the Gulf than the US) which, in turn, will lead to a much more powerful and influential EU which could challenge US dominance. It's increasingly true that he who controls the Middle East, controls the World."
Is the EU behind this war or not? If they are not, what makes you think that they will assert themselves in the ME further down the line, especially if the US fails now?
If the EU loses access to ME oil - which is quite possible under Hussein - it will be in a world of hurt. The reason the US has an interest is that if the EU goes, the US suffers. The US needs a strong EU; don't underestimate the importance of global trade. It's economics, not dominance.
More specifically I'd like to see you show data that supports this statement:
"The trend to shout "oil!" to simplify conflicts was most apparent in the war in Afghanistan. Antiwar protesters applied the oil theory seriously only after that conflict had dragged on for months."
Unless you can back this up with data then your whole article is bogus.
Look forward to seeing the data.
Get Real! All about oil, no . All about oil, all the other business and rackets to be done hand in hand with a political mandate from the Bible Belt for a third crusade.
It's political reality in Israel and the US bible belt that "Zion" must be occupied. How can I show you how they feel it in their bones because of early brainwashing, to be their duty. Zionists point to the biblical book of Genesis as their title deed to "Zion", and "Zion" to them includes Iraq! Sharon has promised his people 100 years of war if that is what is necessary to complete "Zion" - occupy Iraq.
A great deal of Bushes backers apart from the oil companies and the many other corporations who make a mint when they colonise a new land , i.e. Afghanistan, comes from churches that can be termed Christian Fundamentalists who are weaned on songs like "Praise the lord and pass the ammunition" and "Onward Christian soldiers".
Oil is the main carrot at the end of the stick but there is also so much other business to be done - on their terms, i.e. Afghanistan.
http://www.myafghan.com/news2.asp?id=1817592871
its about this, that, the other...doesnt matter, you either condone or condemn this war, theres not much of an argument in favour of starting world war three, now is there?