TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- its about oil
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
its about oil
there was a thread about oil which seems to have fallen off the face of the earth. I spent a bit of time writing up a response to some of the issues raised and so it would be a bit of a waste to not post my responses. Although without seeing what I am responding to may be confusing.
I wanted to draw in how Israel plays into US middle east foreign policy vis a vis Iraq. This post is not specifically about Israel but rather why the US does what it does (taking Israel into account). If it proves of benefit to anyone.
In summary oil = national security (how that national security is advanced is another thing). The goal of the USA is maintaining global hegemony which means ensuring that other states should be compliant or at least take US interests very seriously. It is relations between states that are important in international relations not the opinion of the populations of the states so the bad feelings on the �arab street� at US policy are irrelevant. For the state that is number one (the hegemon) the goal is the preservation of the status quo and the maintenance of stability which means balancing the competing interests of the states and resolving them in such a way as to make the hegemon�s role indispensible.
Israel complicates the middle east equation of preserving the status quo essential for continued US pre-eminence.
I had avoided raising Israel in my previous posting on the topic of oil since it is a country that is either mythologised or demonised with no room in between.
But since it has been raised and it is an important player in US geo-political calculations in the region I will have to draw in how Israel relates to the big picture. Unfortunately yet again I will have to go back and discuss a fair bit of middle-east history.
US relations with Israel can be summed up in one word: complicated.
Ideally for the United States it would never of had to worry about the state of Israel. The Arab monarchies/dictatorships which emerged from the end of the Ottoman empire were for the most part exactly to the US liking as they were unwilling to upset overall US hegemony and were firmly anti-Communist.
When Israel was created this posed a serious problem for the US, which did not want to alienate the good relations with the Arabs. Serious divisions erupted in the Truman administration over the recognition of Israel in 1948. Secretary of State Marshall could see the problems the Jewish state would cause in the region and opposed recognition. Truman however overruled his Secretary of State (a man Truman was in awe of) opting to recognise what was in fact a fait a compli. Israel�s army and its victory over the Arab coalition meant that it was here to stay regardless of US opinion. If the USA did not give recognition to Israel this could lead to it seeking support instead from the Soviet Union. It is highly unlikely that at this stage Israel would have wanted to be close to the Soviet Union given Stalin�s intense dislike of Jews but this was the Cold War and US suspicions of the USSR were extremely high.
So US policy ever since that stage has been to juggle two contradictory policies good relations with the Arabs and good relations with Israel.
At first the USA was deeply ambivalent about the state of Israel opposing the joint Israel, Britain, France war with Egypt over the Suez Canal. It also opposed Israel�s development of the atomic bomb in the 1960�s. Israel in fact lied to the USA over the status of its nuclear project showing American inspectors a fake control room effectively deceiving them. This allowed Israel to build the bomb despite US opposition and there was nothing the US could do about it. Israel�s overwhelming military superiority in the region meant the USA had to take it seriously as a regional player. So when the Israeli airforce almost sank an American warship there was little the US could do except suck it up and move on.
The US Cold War containment policy meant that the need to keep out Soviet influence from the Middle East was paramount and by drawing Israel into US orbit it effectively contained the Soviet Union because it was the most powerful state in the region.
The Soviet Union saw the Middle East as a fertile ground for an expansion of its influence and ideology. The Arabs who did flirt with the Soviet Union merely saw it as a supply of funds and technology both of which did them no good when it came to war with Israel.
Egypt had wanted Soviet support for its attack on Israel in 1973 but the Soviet Union deeply opposed this fearing it might upset the warm relations (d�tente) it was then enjoying with the USA. So Egypt responded by kicking out the Soviet advisers. Egypt and Syria�s invasion ended in disaster with Israel decisively beating both (with a bit of help from the USA) so they were looking for a way out. The Soviet Union tried to broker a deal but it had zero influence over Israel so the Arabs realised only the USA could do it. This led to Egypt switching camps and going into US orbit. Egypt realised that only the US could convince Israel to hand back its territories which it eventually did in the Camp David accords brokered by President Carter a tremendous coup for American diplomacy.
So all of that back-story sets the stage for current US-Israel-Arab relations.
As a hegemonic power the USA seeks to have its policies and its desires taken seriously. The Camp David accord has led the USA to believe it has more stroke with Israel than it truly has. I would shortly outline why Israel wanted peace with Egypt to show how the US overestimates its control of Israel and how this in turn affects US strategy
Israel�s grand strategy has always been to preserve the territorial integrity of the state of Israel as a homeland for the Jews. This strategy involves three closely related strands:
-ensuring that the Jewish population of Israel outnumbers the arabs inside Israel and the occupied territories
-overwhelming military strength
-ensuring the USA takes its needs seriously by investing considerable resources influencing US public opinion to ensure popular support for Israel.
Israel�s treaty with Egypt made strategic sense. The Sinai was a desert and Egypt itself does not pose a military threat to Israel. By cutting a deal with Egypt it could divert its resources to its real threat.
Now that Israel had nuclear weapons, there was only one strategic threat to Israel�s existence- the Palestinians.
The Palestinians were (and are) a destabilising factor in Middle-East politics. The lack of genuine support for its cause among the Arab states led to increasing militancy among the Palestinians. It also led to an extremely distressing (for Israel) factor- Palestinian nationalism that did not exist in the war of 1948. Palestinian militia, fired up with the cause and having little to do started to cause trouble leading to their expulsion from Jordan (a country with a large Palestinian population). They moved to Lebanon.
Israel calculated that if it knocked out the PLO in Lebanon (killing its leadership) this would destroy Palestinian nationalism once and for all and this would keep the Palestinian population in Gaza and the West Bank placid. They also calculated that the Lebanese would be happy to see the back of all the Palestinian militiamen who were destabilising Lebanon.
Like the rest of the Middle East, Lebanon was a European construct having a shifting coalition of different ethnic groups Druze, Maronites, Shia. The Syrian�s had tried to play the kingmaker and coupled with Palestinian involvement was to lead to the Lebanese civil war. Israel calculated that invading Lebanon would achieve three objectives:
-Smash the PLO
-Provoke a conflict with the Syrians allowing them to smash them militarily once and for all
-Support the Phalange militia that would lead to a pro-Israel Maronite government
So by striking a deal with Egypt, Israel would ensure that it was not attacked in the back when it turned its attention on Lebanon which was of much more importance than a bit of desert.
Egypt in turn had every reason to seek a peace with Israel. If it got back the Sinai it would avoid another war and would negate a powerful enemy and would sideline the Islamic fundamentalists. For Egypt, its real enemies are upstream states such as Sudan that can cut off the flow of the Nile River. A peace treaty with Israel would prevent Israel from forging a dangerous alliance against it. Egypt�s abandonment of the Palestinian cause however meant that it had to give up its pretensions to be the hegemonic leader of the Arab world. Arab leaders often have secret pretensions that they will be the next Saladin or Baybars (famous Muslim warlords who defeated the crusaders) and create a truly pan arab nationalism. Unfortunately internal divisions among the arabs has meant that this is an impossibility. For both Israel and the USA, arab unity is a very bad thing so they both have an interest in playing divide and rule.
Saddam Hussein was one leader with pretensions of grandeur. Of all the states in the Middle-East, Israel considered Iraq to be enemy number one. The Gulf state leaders (even by other arabs) are considered to be lazy, effete and corrupt so they are hardly the standard bearers for pan-arab nationalism. Unfortunately for his people, Saddam Hussein�s ability did not match his ambitions. Saddam Hussein sought to transform his country into a regional hegemon by building up his military and socially transforming it from a middle-east backwater. Hussein�s role-model was Joseph Stalin whom he greatly admired. In order to rule a multi-ethnic kingdom like a good Stalinist requires:
- absolute terror
- A vast military buildup leading to aggression against weaker opponents
- propping up insurgent groups(5th columnists) who could undermine regional opponents (eg the Palestinians).
So Israel had two reasons to dislike Saddam Hussein, which was why it acted to destroy Iraq�s, nuclear capacity, it formed a loose alliance with Turkey and gave some support to Iran in its war against Iraq. To this day Israel keeps its options open in relation to Iraq by providing covert support for the Kurds.
For Israel to preserve its nuclear monopoly and prevent any pan-arab nationalism a weak Iraq is ideal, a shattered Iraq is even better. Presumably the Israelis calculate that if the Iraqis are busy fighting each other and the foreign Islamist fighters are fighting the occupation they wont be helping the Palestinians or destabilising states which are ambivalent about Israel �Egypt and Jordan.
So what does all that have to do with the USA and the Israel lobby.
As has been discussed the USA needs to take Israel seriously because it has the real potential to completely destroy the Middle-East with its nuclear arsenal should it be pushed to the wall. This gives Israel an awful lot of leverage with the USA. As mentioned before Israel (like any other state which perceives itself to be threatened) works hard to ensure that its major ally implements policy which are conducive to Israel�s national interest.
For example President Bush I after the 1991 Gulf War thought that being the sole superpower would allow it to sort out all the lingering problems in the world thus boosting its prestige. The Palestinians were severely weakened by their support for Saddam and the time was seen as ripe to settle the Israel/Palestine dispute once and for all. Israeli settlement construction, then, as now was a serious obstacle to reaching the agreement the US desired. Bush I was irate and incensed at Israeli intransigence and said so openly. Which was a big mistake, costing him politically. The Israel lobby is well organised and influential which stands to reason given the importance of the USA to Israel�s existence. Bush I lost the election, although the state of the economy probably did him in more than crossing the Israel lobby. But the point is well known amongst the movers and shakers in the USA that the Israel lobby as well as the military and big business lobby are groups that a potential politician does not want to alienate if he/she wants to have a career.
This is why politicians such as Clinton spent enormous political capital trying to broker a deal between Israel and the Palestinians. Such a deal would have given Israel what it desperately wants to achieve namely its long-term strategic objective of securing its borders in a way favourable to it, not the Palestinians. As it stands Israel is overwhelmingly military powerful in the region but completely unable to translate this into anything meaningful politically. By knocking out Saddam Hussein this helps Israel diplomatically in trying to secure a deal with the Palestinians because Iraq was a major supporter of the Intifada.
A treaty between Israel and PLO would also lead to stability in the Middle-East which is what the USA wants (and no more planes flying into buildings).
Of all the populations in the Middle-East the only one to wholeheartedly support the invasion of Iraq was Israel�s. Not so the governments. Saddam Hussein�s policies meant he had no friends in the region so the governments largely gave support for the US invasion while their populations opposed it. Without the tacit support of Qatar, Saudi Arabia etc the US would have had a much harder time in its Iraq war.
So US foreign policy in the region alternates between two opposed policies supporting Israel and ensuring the flow of oil, each of which are essential for US national security.
The USA policy clique that masterminded the Iraq war can see the obvious that Saudi Arabia is a country that is in deep trouble. 9/11 is the Pearl Harbour which legitimates US action in Iraq. The USA lacks any means to transform Saudi Arabia from its current system and its problems are getting worse. As its population grows it is only adding to the ranks of disenfranchised young males who have too much time on their hands. The Saudi government turned a blind eye to the Wahhabi fanatic preachers instead giving them funding to export their vision overseas in the hope they would not challenge the regime at home. The USA knows that the real sponsor of international terrorism is not Syria or Iran but Saudi Arabia and they would ideally like to do something about it but there is little they can do. The best they can do is remove their soldiers hoping that this will remove hostility to the government and hope that the monarchy is able to engage in reforms that keep its population quite. As mentioned removing Saddam was seen as a way of ending the Palestinian conflict by removing a base of support for their cause.
It was hoped that by getting rid of Saddam and imposing some neoliberal reforms on Iraq that this would transform Iraq into a role model for the region. With all the new satellite communications available a prosperous but militarily weak Iraq would create domestic agitation in countries like Saudi Arabia for reforms that would also reduce the sympathy for the Islamists.
The US policy in the Middle East has always been to preserve the status quo. However there are differing interpretations of how to achieve this. All US administrations believe in the �democratic peace theory� of spreading democracy as a way of promoting peace (and US hegemony) however Bush II unrealistically believes that military force is a means of promoting democracy.
As for economic motivations for war, national security considerations shape how a state values economic motivations. From a neoclassical economic perspective the war makes no economic sense. BUT the way its should be seen is from a mercantilist perspective. A mercantilist views economics as war. I win you lose. Trade policy is a way of benefiting the state not the shareholders of whichever corporation benefits from globalisation. This is how both Japan and China view trade. Closely tied to Mercantilism is a belief that balance of power politics has always shaped international relations and it always will. The USA can reasonable calculate that on present trends, its power will be eroded against that of China so taking action now by securing oil is essential better now than when China has the real military diplomatic potential to stop it. They can also calculate that China plays by the mercantilist rules not the free trade rules. Make no mistake the glory days of free trade and globalisation are over. The USA and China are enemies and both are jockeying for power and influence across the world, which will lead to a new Cold War. For example the USA tries to build up Iraq, the Chinese forge close relationships with Iran and Venezuela. Its deja vue all over again.
Rupert, I believe some of your responses are arguments against my response ... do you have any of my responses quoted and saved by any chance? Anyway, I hope to have enough time to properly address your arguments over the next few days.
Ok Rupert, I've read your post completely. Only once, but I'm going to put forth my premature argument now. You lay out a very good geopolitical background that may support your case, however, you're still missing a very major component.
You raise the issue of Israel as being a very significant component of US foreign policy that requires US support despite the fact that it goes against the entire oil argument because what's important is national relations as opposed to general public sentiment (however this alone disputes your argument of the significance of the composition of the 9/11 Saudi Arabian hijackers and general Saudi sentiment, because apparentely that IS important). Furthermore, primary Saudi hostility of the US came not from US antagonism towards Saddam, but the fact that US troops were based in Saudi Arabia.
The major component you're missing however, is the driving force behind action. My argument is that 9/11 resulted in an irrational perceived threat of terrorism that provoked a war that was seemingly beneficial in the face of a genuine or imagined wmd. This same action hwoever, would be woefully cost ineffective in any other regard including as a means of securing oil reserves which logically eliminates such an argument. I know you've written history papers. They generally consist of specific theses with supporting arguments. So what event made such a proposition economically worthwhile? Or are you insisiting that it was always worthwile despite the fact that at the end of the first gulf war bush decided to NOT invade Iraq? Or was it so worthwile despite the fact that Bush II made no effort to ratchet up the case against Iraq only until a year after 9/11?
I've written extensive case studies on 19th and 20th century European warfare. I've studied many long term effects and short term fuses that result in wars. I can honestly say, without a doubt, that my examination of this particular conflict has lead me to conclude that it simply cannot be a war over oil as a primary cause. It's simply too unsubstantiated by any relevant facts which by all other indicators support a different theory and cause.
i get the impression that Rupert thinks Middle East Oil will last forever as opposed to 25-30 years (within our lifetime). anyway...
of course the war doesn't make any sense if you're not looking at the Greater Middle East far enough ahead in terms of an already poor region without their only export and Facism the status quo during that production downturn. the two just won't mix. so you do something now, in the face of world opinion and global economic hegemony (not just the US).
fortunately for us, China and America can see that far ahead. China has been doing it for a few thousand years. they are not willing to give up much going to war or cold war with the America in this 21st century global economy to a pissant country like Iran knowing full well the downturn ahead. besides, we are already in a cold war with China, but i'm not at liberty to discuss it.
BTW there has never, ever, ever never, ever been more success promoting Democracy than not using force. good luck and god bless
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwesse...heoilstupid.htm
BTW - our country isn't a Democracy, it's a Constitutional Republic
leave it to Trancer-X to link to some incoherent paranoid spew, that no educated person would buy without themselves being in the shadows of reality. some one needs to take the internet away from you for a while...go watch TV and lay like broccoli
...meanwhile the rest of the world prepares to bite the bullet and pay $80 a barrel dictated by a Middle East cartel.
Ditto whatever Occrider said. I'm pissed that gas is over $2 a gallon. Don't rightly know what is causing it and would rightly want to know who to kill or what to do drop the prices like most Americans.
[[[smoke]]]
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo leave it to Trancer-X to link to some incoherent paranoid spew, that no educated person would buy without themselves being in the shadows of reality. some one needs to take the internet away from you for a while...go watch TV and lay like broccoli ...meanwhile the rest of the world prepares to bite the bullet and pay $80 a barrel dictated by a Middle East cartel. |
Enjoyed reading rupert. Your knowledge of international relations is incredible, really appreciate the depth with which you construct your arguement.
Definitely one of the best columns I have read in recent memory. You actually taught me a thing or two about the history in which case I was completely unaware of the relying fact.
just some food of thought (if anyone could be bothered reading). This is a presentation paper I wrote last semester, which has some historical reference to rupert's post. It focuses, as you will discover, on the Nixon and to a lesser extent the Carter presidencies. I must admit that the role played by Kissinger throughout this period was nothing short of amazing. His understanding of international relations is something which I truly admire and have great respect for.
Tutorial Paper: What were vital American interests in the Middle East?
Throughout the period of the Nixon and Carter presidencies, American vital interests in the Middle East firmly resided in securing Arab Oil. For American policymakers this has often been complicated with their underlying support for the Jewish state of Israel. Kissinger was Nixon�s talisman in the Middle East throughout 1973 and his resolve was firmly put to the test with the outbreak of the fifth Arab-Israeli War. Israel suffered major military setbacks, including the successful Arab offensive during the Jewish holiday, Yom Kippur, on October 6, 1973, which placed Nixon and Kissinger in a difficult predicament. Continuos military and economic support for Israel would undoubtedly place their vital interest of Oil under serious risk, with the looming possibility of an Arab Oil embargo, while they could not abandon their close friend in the Middle East. Although the Great Oil Embargo of 1973 weakened US resolve, Kissinger was able to establish diplomatic relations with Egypt. This inevitably secured America�s vital interest, when on March 18, 1974 the Arab states lifted the Oil embargo. Carter was elected to the American presidency in November 1976 and vital Oil interests in the Middle East undoubtedly remained. Although Carter�s greatest achievement was the peace deal brokered between Egypt and Israel, Iran firmly remained central to vital Oil interests in the Middle East. Yet, Carter�s failure to deal with the impeding theological threat of the Ayatollah Kohmeni had ominous consequences for America�s principal supplier of oil.
America�s vital interest in the Middle-East throughout 1973 undoubtedly remained Oil. However, securing its most sought after resource from the region became ever more difficult with the outbreak of the fifth Arab Israeli, October 1973. Arab patience had reached its limit with the failure of successive diplomatic attempts to ensure the return of its territories occupied by Israel in 1967. On October 6, 1973, during the Jewish religious holiday of Yom Kippur, the Egyptian and Syrian armies, virtually simultaneously, began air and tank attacks on the Israeli front lines and on the Suez front. Much to the surprise of many, including Kissinger, Israeli forces were driven off the Golan Heights, along the Suez, while the Egyptians destroyed the heavily defended Bar-Lev defensive line, which the Israelis had deemed impregnable. It appears clear that throughout the planning for the military operations in the October war, the Egyptians were under no illusions about their capacity to defeat Israel. Various pressures began to operate on Nixon and Kissinger, if Israel continued to be defamed by the Arabs. While they could not abandon a close friend in Israel, they were anxious not to allow the major Arab oil-producing states a means by which they could mount significant pressures in the form of an Oil Embargo. The Sunday times asserted the following analysis:
Kissinger wanted a limited Israeli defeat. The nicety lay in calculating the optimum of this defeat: big enough to satisfy the Arabs and avoid any form of Oil restriction to Europe; bearable enough to avoid the collapse of Mrs Meir�s government and its replacement by right intransigent.
However, it must be said that Nixon and Kissinger badly underestimated the political use of Oil and continued to fund Israel�s military operations. This had detrimental effects on America�s vital Oil interests, as the Arabs imposed a total oil embargo on the United States.
The Great Oil Embargo of 1973 clearly put Nixon and Kissinger�s resolve to the test, as the potential consequences for America�s vital Oil interests were now increasingly evident. During the previous decade, the American government had been aware of the prime importance of oil shipments on reasonable terms to Europe. This is evident between 1968 and 1973, where European and Japanese dependence upon Middle Eastern petroleum dramatically increased and the United States, having steadily increased its own oil consumption, had itself come to depend upon petroleum imports much more than in the past. Oil was the State Departments obsession and the so-called �oil weapon� implemented by the Arabs had to be quickly neutralised. Kissinger�s diplomatic skills, as a result, became central to vital American Oil interests in the Middle-East.
Kissinger�s step-by-step diplomacy and implementation of Security Council resolution 242, is directly attributed to the lifting of the Oil Embargo by the Arab States. Although the resolution did not tackle serious questions concerning the status of Jerusalem or a homeland for the Palestinians , it did secure America�s vital Oil interests when on March 18, 1974 the Arab states lifted the Oil embargo and vital oil shipments to Europe resumed. Kissinger�s ability to adopt an even handed approach towards both sides is of crucial importance to this achievement. To the Israelis he said �All the world is against you, and you cannot stand against the whole world�. To the Arabs he said �Only the United States can persuade Israel to retreat from the conquered territory, but you cannot expect the United States to invest so much time and energy in an operation that is so clearly in the Arab interest as long as you withhold your oil�. Washington now focused primary attention on maintaining its Oil interests throughout the Middle East. This legacy of Oil dependence would continue through the Carter presidency.
Jimmy Carter was elected to the American presidency in November 1976 and vital Oil interests in the Middle East undoubtedly remained. Although Carter played a pivotal role in bringing about a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, Iran remained the US entrance into Middle Eastern Oil. Carter praised the Shah for offering �enlightened leadership� to Iran, to which America was bound with �unbreakable ties� and an �unshakeable� economic pact. This was predominantly reflected through the fact that American oil companies were largely providing the Iranians with technicians, financing and general guidance. This essentially followed the Nixon and Kissinger legacy, who maintained that the Shah was central to American Oil interests in the Middle East. Although Carter was full of praise for the Shah, when he stated in his visit to Tehran on New Years Eve 1977 that �Iran is an island of stability in one of the most troubled areas of the world� he failed to realise that what was brewing at this time in Iran, was a state of full revolutionary activity. This not only jeopardised America�s vital Oil interests, but also its sanctity.
The Carter Administration hardly knew what to make of the Ayatollah Khomeini and clearly failed to adjust to the impending fundamentalist religious revolution that had been in the process. A week after Carter�s visit, on 9 January 1978, demonstrations broke out in the holy city of Qom after the publication of a government article scorning Khomeini. Iran was now in full revolutionary activity and Carter responded quickly by imposing complete economic embargo against Iran and severing diplomatic relations. This consequently ruptured America�s Oil interests in Iran, while Carter�s immediate failure to deal with the hostage situation, where a total of sixty-three Americans were held in the Tehran embassy, essentially depicted the United States as a �pitiful helpless giant�. In September 1980, Kohmeini stated four conditions for the release of the hostages: The United States must (1) return the Shah�s wealth (2) cancel all financial claims against Iran (3) free Iranian assets frozen in the United States and promise (4) promise never to interfere in Iranian affairs. With seemingly no short term end to the crisis and the added fact that by 1980 the bill for imported oil had reached $73 billion , Carter needed to implement a new strategy to secure his Oil interests. This was achieved through the development of strategies which aimed at seeking alternative sources of energy. However, as President Carter was ousted from his duty and replaced by Ronald Reagan in 1980, a deal was brokered with the American�s on the release of the hostages. This coincided with a slip in oil prices and the various energy saving programs dropped by the Reagan administration. Vital United States oil interests in the Middle East continued throughout the 1980�s.
In conclusion, it can be seen that throughout the Nixon and Carter Presidencies, vital American interests throughout the Middle East resided in securing Oil. Although the outbreak of the Fifth Arab Israeli War and the Great Arab Oil embargo of 1973 momentarily threatened America�s vital interests, Henry Kissinger was evidently able to bring his diplomatic skills to the fore, and regain America�s foothold into Arab Oil. The Carter Presidency also aimed to secure America�s vital Oil interests in the Middle East and this was predominantly achieved through his close relationship with the Shah of Iran. Yet, his failure to deal with the ominous threat of Ayatollah Khomeini significantly destabilised America�s prime import. Carter�s eventual removal from the Presidency in 1980 and the implementation of the Reagan administration re-asserted America�s vital Oil interests in the Middle East.
very interesting reads rupert and s_madis
$1.5 Billion Giveaway Secretly Slipped into Energy Bill, Waxman Says
Author: Rep. Henry Waxman
Published on July 27, 2005, 15:40
In a letter to Speaker Hastert, Rep. Waxman writes that after the energy legislation was closed to further amendment in the recently concluded conference, a $1.5 billion provision benefiting oil and gas companies, Halliburton, and Sugar Land, Texas, was mysteriously inserted in the text.
The text of the letter is below:
The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert
Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives
H232 Capitol
Washington, DC 20515-6501
Dear Mr. Speaker:
I am writing to draw to your attention a provision in the Energy Conference Report that raises serious procedural and substantive concerns. At its essence, this provision is a $1.5 billion giveaway to the oil industry, Halliburton, and Sugar Land, Texas. The provision was inserted into the energy legislation after the conference was closed, so members of the conference committee had no opportunity to consider or reject this measure. Before the final energy legislation is brought to the House floor, this provision should be deleted.
The provision at issue is a 30-page subtitle called "Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Resources." This subtitle, which was taken from the House-passed energy bill, was mysteriously inserted in the final energy legislation after the legislation was closed to further amendment. The conferees were told that they would have the opportunity to consider and vote on the provisions in the conference report. But the subtitle was not included in the base text circulated to conferees, and it was never offered as an amendment.
Instead, the new subtitle first appeared in the text of the energy legislation only after Chairman Barton had gaveled the conference over. Obviously, it would be a serious abuse to secretly slip such a costly and controversial provision into the energy legislation.
On the merits, the subtitle is an indefensible giveaway to one of the most profitable industries in America. The provision establishes a $1.5 billion fund, up to $550 million of which would be dedicated direct spending, which is not subject to the normal congressional appropriations process. Although the name of the subtitle refers to "ultra-deepwater and unconventional natural gas," it appears that the $1.5 billion fund created by the subtitle can in fact be used for many oil and gas projects. According to the language of the subtitle, oil and gas companies can apply for funds for a wide variety of activities, including activities involving "innovative exploration and production techniques" or "enhanced recovery techniques." While oil and gas companies could be required to contribute to the costs of their projects, the subtitle expressly provides that the Department has discretion to reduce or eliminate any such contribution.
The subtitle appears to steer the administration of 75% of the $1.5 billion fund to a private consortium located in the district of Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Ordinarily, a large fund like this would be administered directly by the government. The subtitle, however, directs the Department to "contract with a corporation that is constructed as a consortium." The leading contender for this contract appears to be the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA) consortium, housed in the Texas Energy Center in Sugar Land, Texas. Halliburton is a member of RPSEA and sits on the board, as does Marathon Oil Company. The subtitle provides that the consortium can keep up to 10% of the funds - in this case, over $100 million - in administrative expenses.
The subtitle further provides that members of the consortium, such as Halliburton and Marathon Oil, can receive awards from the over $1 billion fund administered by the consortium.
In short, the subtitle provides that taxpayers will hire a private consortium controlled by the oil and gas industry to hand out over $1 billion to oil and gas companies. There is no conceivable rationale for this extraordinary largess. The oil and gas industry is reporting record income and profits. According to one analyst, the net income of the top oil companies will total $230 billion in 2005. If Congress has an extra $1.5 billion to give away, the money should be used to help families struggling to pay for soaring gasoline prices - not to further enrich oil and gas companies that are rolling in profits.
In recent years, Congress has been repeatedly embarrassed by the mysterious insertion of provisions in omnibus legislation. Last year, for example, we learned only after House action that the 3,000 page, $388 billion omnibus spending bill allowed members and staff of the Appropriations Committee to examine the tax returns of ordinary Americans. We should not allow this to happen again. The Energy Conference Report should not be brought to the House floor until this objectionable provision is deleted and there is ample opportunity for members to read the legislation and delete any other problematic provisions.
Thank you for your attention to this problem.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman
Ranking Minority Member
cc: The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
| quote: |
| "Treat the Earth not as if it was given to you by your parents, but as if it was lent to you by your children." - Kenyan Proverb |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider I can honestly say, without a doubt, that my examination of this particular conflict has lead me to conclude that it simply cannot be a war over oil as a primary cause. It's simply too unsubstantiated by any relevant facts which by all other indicators support a different theory and cause. |
| quote: |
| Ok Rupert, I've read your post completely. Only once, but I'm going to put forth my premature argument now. You lay out a very good geopolitical background that may support your case, however, you're still missing a very major component. |
| quote: |
| You raise the issue of Israel as being a very significant component of US foreign policy that requires US support despite the fact that it goes against the entire oil argument because what's important is national relations as opposed to general public sentiment (however this alone disputes your argument of the significance of the composition of the 9/11 Saudi Arabian hijackers and general Saudi sentiment, because apparentely that IS important). Furthermore, primary Saudi hostility of the US came not from US antagonism towards Saddam, but the fact that US troops were based in Saudi Arabia. |
| quote: |
| The major component you're missing however, is the driving force behind action. My argument is that 9/11 resulted in an irrational perceived threat of terrorism that provoked a war that was seemingly beneficial in the face of a genuine or imagined wmd. This same action hwoever, would be woefully cost ineffective in any other regard including as a means of securing oil reserves which logically eliminates such an argument. I know you've written history papers. They generally consist of specific theses with supporting arguments. So what event made such a proposition economically worthwhile? Or are you insisiting that it was always worthwile despite the fact that at the end of the first gulf war bush decided to NOT invade Iraq? Or was it so worthwile despite the fact that Bush II made no effort to ratchet up the case against Iraq only until a year after 9/11? |
| quote: |
| I've written extensive case studies on 19th and 20th century European warfare. I've studied many long term effects and short term fuses that result in wars. I can honestly say, without a doubt, that my examination of this particular conflict has lead me to conclude that it simply cannot be a war over oil as a primary cause. It's simply too unsubstantiated by any relevant facts which by all other indicators support a different theory and cause. |
| quote: |
| I find it strange Rupert's post speaks entirely within the context of the Middle East as a grand-geo-strategic situation, and then flinches and somewhat avoids drawing grand-geo-strategic conclusions (I nonetheless appreciate his logistical perspective, and have only minor quibbles with his narration). |
| quote: |
| I think many political commentators today have fallen into the "classical" mode of warfare analysis, which dictates that where an army goes it does only because there is booty to be plundered. This is simplistic, and misunderstands the complexities of grand strategy and some of the most important reasons to possess a regular, standing army. Military expendature viewed only through the lens of conquest is positively Roman Republican, and we live in a time of the late Caesarian Empire. Armies are a political beast, now. (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?) |
| quote: |
| f you don't mind my saying, thinking it's oil nicely underestimates the intelligence of the parties involved as well. Oil isn't all that rare. It isn't all that hard to get a hold of either -- there are major deposits in North America being held pristine. It's there if we really need it, but we just don't -- yet. |
| quote: |
| If one really did want oil, there are many ways to get it that don't involve destroying a country's infrastructure (optionally removing its dictator and dispersing its armies), managing the resultant insurgency, and then being forced to rebuild and secure said infrastructure as a condition of getting the oil via furnishing an indefinitely needed occupation force, all the while trying to maintain public-international face while simultaneously governing the occupied country according to a culturally alien and irrelevant paradigm, which one then has to politically reeducate the people in. Kinda messy. |
Blood and money:
Halliburton 3 year performance
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ogvh5150 Blood and money: Halliburton 3 year performance |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka That is just piss poor. Talk about creating an argument to fit the agenda. Check out the 5 year chart and look at the performance of HAL from when Dubya took office. Stock was around $55 then, now at $58. Hardly a good conspiracy if you ask me. HAL 5 year chart You'd be much better off trying to create a "housing and money" argument. Look at the 5 year chart of Lennar, Pulte, KB Home, Toll Brothers, etc. They are much better conspiracy charts. It's all about the HOMEBUILDERS!!! NO MORE BLOOD FOR HOUSING!!! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by rupert No rudeness was intended by my initial failure to reply. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by rupert Likely the US administration did believe Iraq had WMD and given the post 9/11 environment did not want to take any chances with a regime they intended to get rid of anyway. So they needed something to sell the war on and WMD was it. Wolfowitz admitted as much at one stage. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by rupert So the Bush administration probably believes all of its rhetoric about democracy, freedom, war on terror etc because that is a narrative that the mind can accept as giving meaning to ones actions. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by rupert So the Bush II administration had 9/11 fall into its lap and as Bob Woodward recounted the first thing they tried to do was try and see if they could tie Iraq to it. Maybe they thought Iraq was partially responsible or they could see that taking action against Iraq would lead to the realisation of a strategic objective if they did. Who knows? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by rupert Essentially Kaplan calls for a new containment policy to prevent the growth of China by working with allies in East-Asia. It is quite easy to see how controlling the supply of oil to an oil dependant China could form part of a containment strategy. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by rupert The USA had tried to get rid of Saddam without war eg supporting coup attempts during the Clinton administration, the sanctions regime etc) but had failed. The only way to remove the regime was through force, all other methods had tried and failed. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by rupert The USA government sold the message ( and no doubt believed) that it was going to be an easy war and the insurgency were just dead enders from the old regime and would be finished when Saddam was captured (another example of Cognitive dissonance no doubt). The USA neoconservatives believed if they could have a quick war and then set up a western style regime everything would be peachy creamy and would teach all the up and comers a lesson in US power. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by rupert Unfortunately, oil is not that widely accessible. Easily extractable oil is contained in only a few areas and can be divided into OPEC countries and non-OPEC countries. With the dwindling of oil reserves in non-opec countries this has increasingly put OPEC into the drivers seat. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by rupert This is one of the reasons for the drive to increase the level of biofuels (biodiesel and ethanol) production in the EU and USA. All the major economies (including China) are making a BIG push in this direction and given the expense of biofuel production compared to oil extraction they obviously are looking ahead to the future. A future when the supply of oil is called into question. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by rupert No amount of improved technology or increase in the price of oil can change the fact there is only so much oil in the ground (are you listening Economist magazine?). |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by rupert The easily extracted oil gets extracted first which means as reserves diminish the cost of extraction goes up and this is set against a backdrop of increasing demand for oil. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by rupert It is naieve to think that Bush and his associates or the oil majors don�t have an appreciation of the potential of peak oil, Texas is a demonstration about how peak oil actually works. However they are unlikely to go broadcasting this due to the unsettling effect that this would have on the economy, so it makes sense to try and secure future supplies of energy while working on alternatives to crude oil. And that is exactly what they have been doing. In the future historians will no doubt see the Iraq war as one of the first conflicts over access to energy supplies which will occur in the coming decades. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by TheNobleEu Some of the "keep us safe at home by meeting the enemy on their soil, rather than allowing them to come and meet us on ours"-rhetoric really isn't. I agree with you that some of it is ad hoc 9-11 opportunism. Cheers, -N |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ogvh5150 |
Shite! All those long posts!....well, kid yourself all you want, it IS about oil. Iraq has a lot, the world needs it, Saddam was NOT the guy to control it, and that's about as simple as it gets, eom.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by donnybrasco Shite! All those long posts!....well, kid yourself all you want, it IS about oil. Iraq has a lot, the world needs it, Saddam was NOT the guy to control it, and that's about as simple as it gets, eom. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.