FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Oil, Power and Empire

The U.S. government has mustered a dizzying and often shifting assortment of “reasons” for invading and occupying Iraq. At one time or another–sometimes in the next breath–it cited weapons of mass destruction and imminent threats to America, links to terrorism and al Qaeda, liberating the Iraqi people, and transforming the entire Middle East. Yet, as it was going on ad nauseam about such nonexistent threats, phantom connections, and hollow promises, there was one real issue that the Bush team adamantly refused to discuss at all: oil. Before the war, Rumsfeld even told CBS News that the U.S. conflict with Iraq “has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil.”

Bush II officials studiously avoided even mentioning the ‘o-word.’ At one White House briefing on October 9, 2002, a reporter asked press spokesman Ari Fleischer, “how much does oil have to do with the assessment of the threat from Saddam Hussein? President Bush didn’t mention it.” Fleischer first claimed not to “follow” the question, then said it was “not a factor.” He wouldn’t even utter the word “oil” in the back-and-forth. Two days later, The New York Times reported that the Pentagon had plans to occupy Iraq and take control of its oil fields.

Behind closed doors, Bush was giving top U.S. corporate heads and financiers a different message: according to Bob Woodward’s recent book Bush At War, in October 2001, on the eve of war with Afghanistan and as planning was beginning for invading Iraq, he told a private New York meeting of business leaders, “I truly believe that out of this will come more order in the world-real progress to peace in the Middle East, stability with oil-producing regions.” In his paean to his former boss, Bush speech writer David Frum laid it out more directly: America’s new global “war on terror,” he wrote, was designed to “bring new freedom and new stability to the most vicious and violent quadrant of the earth-and new prosperity to us all, by securing the world’s largest pool of oil.”

Overthrowing Saddam Hussein, creating a client state in Iraq, and opening up Iraq’s economy are key components of a much larger, multi-faceted global agenda in which energy resources play a crucial role. The point is not that the Bush inner circle waged war simply to secure Iraq’s oil for American profit or consumption. Yet petroleum was a central and major objective–if understood in the larger context of global empire. Most broadly, the 2003 invasion and occupation were designed to solidify American political/military domination of the energy heart of world — the Middle East/Central Asian region, and are part of broader efforts to secure control of global energy sources and use that control to ensure the smooth functioning of U.S. capitalism, strengthen its competitive position in world markets, and increase U.S. leverage against potential rivals. In short, oil is a powerful instrument of hegemony, which is what the new Bush II National Security Strategy is all about.

Controlling Persian Gulf oil and dominating world energy markets has been a prime U.S. strategic objective for over 60 years, as examined in previous chapters. However, the global energy picture does not remain constant: the tension between supply and demand evolves, and new dynamics and problems arise. Two trends stand out today: the precarious nature of the global economy and the possibility that growing energy demand will outstrip the global capacity to meet it.

A look at these concerns and how the capitalist political elite is approaching them opens a window on some of the deep compulsions and potential opportunities that drove the 2003 war on Iraq and continue to drive the Bush II global agenda.

U.S. Strategists Declare: “It’s the Oil, Stupid”

A key element of the new Bush doctrine is leveraging current U.S. military supremacy into economic supremacy and dealing with various difficulties confronting the global economy. Oil and natural gas play an important part in this grand design.

The 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical earthquake, but it did not lead to U.S. economic dominance. In his 1995 brief for global supremacy, current Bush II official Zalmay Khalilzad worried that rivals were gaining ground: “economic growth under way in Asia…will produce important changes in relative economic power-with important potential geopolitical and military implications” and “intensified international economic competition.”

Nor did the fall of the Soviet empire usher in an era of sustained economic growth; instead, the global economy has remained fragile. “The world economy is in trouble,” wrote Jeffrey Garten, a former government official and now dean of the Yale School of Management, in early 2003. “Corporate investment and trade are slowing, factories are producing more than they can sell, and deflation is threatening many regions. The two potential economic engines besides the United States – Germany and Japan – are stagnating. Big emerging markets, from Indonesia to Brazil, are in deep trouble.”

The new National Security Strategy promises to ignite “a new era of global economic growth through free markets and free trade,” and to use American preeminence to promote an “efficient allocation of resources, and regional integration.” In other words, the U.S. seeks to use its military power to secure favored access to markets, raw materials, and human labor across the planet.

Joseph Nye, dean of the Kennedy School at Harvard, compares the Bush II strategy to a three-dimensional chessboard: “The top board is the military and we can do pretty much what we want. The middle board is economics, and is not a world America controls.” Cheney and Rumsfeld are focusing on the “top board,” he argues, in order to parlay U.S. military power into greater economic and political power. Nye’s “bottom level” consists of factors beyond Washington’s control — anti-U.S. movements, weapons proliferation, the spread of infectious disease, etc. He warns, “The Cheney-Rumsfeld focus on the top board may win in the short run, but will cause lots of problems in the long run.”

This is where oil ties in: global capitalism remains dependent on a steady flow of low-priced petroleum, making oil both vital to the health of the world economy and key to the competitive position of rival nations. “The single best cyclical indicator for the world economy is the price of oil,” one economist told The New York Times, “Nothing moves in the world economy without oil in there somewhere.”

Despite a shift from manufacturing to services and increases in energy efficiency, the U.S. still relies on petroleum products for 40 percent of its energy needs and remains the world’s biggest energy glutton, devouring 19 million barrels of oil a day. With a mere three percent of the world’s population, it consumes over 25 percent of the global output of crude. “The price shocks from a serious disruption in oil supplies would course through every quarter of the United States economy,” The New York Times notes. “The drain on people’s incomes and companies’ revenue would further sap a weakened economy.” One Goldman-Sachs analyst told Forbes Magazine, “Any [oil] price increase has devastating effects on the U.S. economy.”

On the other hand, in 1991 economics lecturer Alan Freeman estimated that each $1 fall in the price of a barrel of oil transferred roughly $5 billion a year from Third World producing countries to North America, and the difference between oil at $20 and oil at $25 a barrel meant the transfer of $70 to $100 billion from the impoverished south to the industrialized north. These figures are no doubt even more staggering today given the rise in world oil consumption.

Former Clinton official Kenneth Pollack, echoing Kissinger’s words from two decades earlier, is blunt about the oil connection:

It’s the Oil, Stupid–The reason the United States has a legitimate and critical interest in seeing that Persian Gulf oil continues to flow copiously and relatively cheaply is simply that the global economy built over the last 50 years rests on a foundation of inexpensive, plentiful oil, and if that foundation were removed, the global economy would collapse.

***
Oil, Power and Empire is now available at bookstores (distributed by Consortium and Ingram) or through Common Courage Press: 800.497.3207
To purchase online or contact author LARRY EVEREST: www.larryeverest.com

ISBN: 1-56751-246-1 paper $19.95
390 pages, appendix, chronology, index

* LARRY EVEREST will be discussing the oil connection on KPFA’s Flashpoints (94.1 FM, 5-6 pm) this Monday, Dec. 8

* Book Launch: Author Signing, Conversation, Refreshments
Thursday, December 11, 2003–7:00 PM
Revolution Books
2425 Channing Way, Berkeley
510.848.1196

 

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
June 22, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Karl Grossman
Star Wars Redux: Trump’s Space Force
Andrew Levine
Strange Bedfellows
Jeffrey St. Clair
Intolerable Opinions in an Intolerant Time
Paul Street
None of Us are Free, One of Us is Chained
Edward Curtin
Slow Suicide and the Abandonment of the World
Celina Stien-della Croce
The ‘Soft Coup’ and the Attack on the Brazilian People 
James Bovard
Pro-War Media Deserve Slamming, Not Sainthood
Louisa Willcox
My Friend Margot Kidder: Sharing a Love of Dogs, the Wild, and Speaking Truth to Power
David Rosen
Trump’s War on Sex
Mir Alikhan
Trump, North Korea, and the Death of IR Theory
Christopher Jones
Neoliberalism, Pipelines, and Canadian Political Economy
Barbara Nimri Aziz
Why is Tariq Ramadan Imprisoned?
Robert Fantina
MAGA, Trump Style
Linn Washington Jr.
Justice System Abuses Mothers with No Apologies
Martha Rosenberg
Questions About a Popular Antibiotic Class
Ida Audeh
A Watershed Moment in Palestinian History: Interview with Jamal Juma’
Edward Hunt
The Afghan War is Killing More People Than Ever
Geoff Dutton
Electrocuting Oral Tradition
Don Fitz
When Cuban Polyclinics Were Born
Ramzy Baroud
End the Wars to Halt the Refugee Crisis
Ralph Nader
The Unsurpassed Power trip by an Insuperable Control Freak
Lara Merling
The Pain of Puerto Ricans is a Profit Source for Creditors
James Jordan
Struggle and Defiance at Colombia’s Feast of Pestilence
Tamara Pearson
Indifference to a Hellish World
Kathy Kelly
Hungering for Nuclear Disarmament
Jessicah Pierre
Celebrating the End of Slavery, With One Big Asterisk
Rohullah Naderi
The Ever-Shrinking Space for Hazara Ethnic Group
Binoy Kampmark
Leaving the UN Human Rights Council
Nomi Prins 
How Trump’s Trade Wars Could Lead to a Great Depression
Robert Fisk
Can Former Lebanese MP Mustafa Alloush Turn Even the Coldest of Middle Eastern Sceptics into an Optimist?
Franklin Lamb
Could “Tough Love” Salvage Lebanon?
George Ochenski
Why Wild Horse Island is Still Wild
Ann Garrison
Nikki Haley: Damn the UNHRC and the Rest of You Too
Jonah Raskin
What’s Hippie Food? A Culinary Quest for the Real Deal
Raouf Halaby
Give It Up, Ya Mahmoud
Brian Wakamo
We Subsidize the Wrong Kind of Agriculture
Patrick Higgins
Children in Cages Create Glimmers of the Moral Reserve
Patrick Bobilin
What Does Optimism Look Like Now?
Don Qaswa
A Reduction of Economic Warfare and Bombing Might Help 
Robin Carver
Why We Still Need Pride Parades
Jill Richardson
Immigrant Kids are Suffering From Trauma That Will Last for Years
Thomas Mountain
USA’s “Soft” Coup in Ethiopia?
Jim Hightower
Big Oil’s Man in Foreign Policy
Louis Proyect
Civilization and Its Absence
David Yearsley
Midsummer Music Even the Nazis Couldn’t Stamp Out
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail