The history of the struggle of the world powers for the control of oil in the Gulf began at the turn of the last century. Although it has taken different forms and has varied in intensity over time, the struggle is still very much with us today. It abates only to flare up again.
Today it is violent, vicious and clear in its objectives. It is driven by the United States, the world’s single dominating power. Starting with Iraq, America’s aim is to control the world’s oil supplies, with the ultimate objective of separating oil policies from political issues. Washington aims to sidestep international organizations, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) being the most important of them, and to subject oil entirely to market forces. This will result in putting the oil-producing countries under the directives of the United States. More importantly, it will place the oil supplies to the industrialized world — namely, Europe and Japan — under US oversight.
America’s means of reaching this aim is through the threat of, or use of, its superior military power. This necessitates the spread of US military bases through the region — Israel being one of them. In turn the removal of all capability for weapons of deterrence (or weapons of mass destruction, as they are called) from the Middle East is required, to assure that none of its bases will be threatened by them. Thus, beginning with Egypt, the US is accomplishing the removal of all capability to acquire weapons of deterrence from the Middle East. At the same time it protects Israel and ensures its deterrent superiority by denying the states of the region any weapons which would give them strategic parity with Israel.
US military presence in this region is for one reason: oil. Oil is intimately involved with America’s security and its people’s wellbeing. It supports the foundation of today’s civilization. It allows for life’s movement and forward advancement. America has shown that it is always ready to go to war to defend its interests in this region, and the present military operation offers no better proof of its intention to defend its interests.
A recent report commissioned before Sept. 11 by Vice President Dick Cheney, and prepared by James A. Baker Institute at Rice University in Houston, Texas, states: “Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East.” And: “The United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq, including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments.” Later: “The United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma suffering on a recurring basis from the negative consequences of sporadic energy shortages. These consequences can include recession, social dislocation of the poorest Americans, and at the extremes, a need for military intervention.”
This US approach is not unfamiliar. In its management of international relations, America has long deployed the policy of dealing with the present situation, or exploiting it, to serve its interests; in other words, the policy of expediency. This policy has little regard for friendship or human rights, or even freedom and democracy. It is a policy of provocation and incitement, with flagrant contradictions and double standards. Clearly such behavior requires a certain kind of power, and, yes, arrogance; a power and arrogance that fail to take into consideration the attitudes and concerns of friends and allies.
One such example is Iran in the 1950s. At the time America’s British ally had total control over Iranian oil. The United States wanted to break up that monopoly; hence American provocation (the story of the then Assistant Secretary of State George C. McGhee) prompted a people’s uprising in Iran which led to the nationalization of oil, from which Iran emerged bankrupt and exhausted, to sign an agreement by which America received 40 percent of its oil. The rest was apportioned amongst the British, the Dutch and the French.
Each night is similar to the previous one. Iraq fell into a trap through American enticement. The story of April Glaspie, the US ambassador to Iraq, before the invasion of Kuwait, has not yet been settled; to this date the US Department of State has not denied that Glaspie signaled the US would not intervene if Iraq invaded.
Iraq’s foolishness plunged the area into wars and chaos, with no end in sight. Those on the inside suggest that the end is a rearrangement of the map of the region. Iraq’s foolishness created a new situation which changed the priorities of the governments as well as the people of the region. It killed the dream of Arab unity; it even killed the dream of Arab solidarity.
Iraq’s foolishness provided the justification for America’s military presence in the Gulf, a presence on land, sea and sky and even in space. And America is there in order to control the most extensive reserves of oil in the world. Its oil is the easiest to extract, the cheapest to produce. There is no substitute for oil, today, or in the near future. In 2000 the Gulf region had 672 billion barrels of proven reserves, or 80 percent of the total world reserves. It also had 1.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves, or 34 percent of the world’s reserves. The region maintained a production capacity of 23.8 million barrels per day, or 30 percent of the world’ s capacity, leaving a surplus capacity estimated to equal 70 percent of the world’s.
The effectiveness of surplus capacity as a means for limiting the producing countries’ power and independence of decision in their oil industries is of crucial importance, and it may be one of the main reasons for America’s invasion of Iraq.
In 2001, the oil consumption of the United States was estimated at 19.6 million barrels per day, or 30 percent of her total energy consumption. America imported 11.6 million barrels per day, or some 69 percent of its oil needs. Of this, 47 percent came from OPEC countries, of which 23 percent came from the Gulf.
For Europe and the United Kingdom, in 2000 oil provided 55 percent of their energy needs. Europe imported 7.8 million barrels per day, of which 41 percent or 3.24 million barrels per day came from the Gulf region.
Japan’s oil consumption in 2001 was estimated at 52 percent of her total energy needs. It consumed 5.44 million barrels per day, 75-80 percent of it from the Gulf.
The United States wants to quench its thirst for oil, for itself and the global industrial world it influences. But it won’t be easy. For it is not easy for the Arab to pay twice the price for the crimes of the West: once, when the English took over their land; the second time when the Arabs were forced to pay the price of Nazi Germany’s policy toward the Jews by ceding their land to house foreigners to assuage the conscience of Europe. No matter how America shuffles the cards, Palestinians will continue bleeding, nourishing bitterness, and swallowing poison. No one — ruling class or common folk — dares to forget the uprooting of a whole society from its homeland. The core of the Middle East rage is the Palestinian problem; and America will be forever guilty for delegating others to cool the fires by killing children, demolishing houses, bulldozing farms, and uprooting trees. America will not be able to glorify herself by saying things such as: “The core of the conflict is that the people of the area hate freedom and democracy.” Or: “They are jealous of the standard of living of the American people.” Such beliefs result from a doctrine of pragmatism or utilitarianism which makes the fearless use of double standards possible.
The United States counters grievances with slogans, which is tantamount to oppression and humiliation.
Sept. 11 provided the US with media justification to remove all sources of discomfort, i.e., conflicts in the Middle East, once and for all. America charges itself with the responsibilities of being the world leader, and the world leader of democracy and freedom. But after Sept. 11, rather than waking up to the consequences of its policies, rather than searching seriously for causes and effects, America unleashed a global policy of innuendo, intimidation and provocation, whereby one nation is an “enemy,” the other is “a rogue state,” a third is a member of the “axis of evil,” and so on.
The United States is the sole super power in the world, a new and unique situation. Why not then exploit this new situation to clear up the “discomforts” and thus establish security and peace in the Middle East?
The first of these “discomforts” is the Palestinian conflict. This problem has resisted all “peaceful solutions,” for all these “peaceful solutions” have failed to dissociate themselves from Zionist racism, i.e., having Palestine, all of Palestine, for the Jewish people. When no peaceful solution could be achieved, the problem was handed to Ariel Sharon to do whatever is necessary — which meant uprooting people, homes, businesses, even trees and stones.
Thus the US put aside the Palestinian problem and moved on to Iraq. The Iraq issue was meant to be about removing its weapons of mass destruction. All other troubles were set aside to urgently get into the business of the protection of vital interests, with massive forces, to rid Saddam Hussein of his military deterrents.
Long before that, however, Egypt set the precedent. It was removed from the circle of conflict by the Camp David treaty, and lately, in 1995, “the United States has been pressuring Egypt to sign up for the extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.” Egypt refused unless Israel signed as well, but it was reported in the media that “it is possible that some (American) legislators may seek to withdraw some portion of US aid if Egypt continues its independent campaign to get Israel to sign the NPT.”
The London-based Guardian newspaper noted the “arm-twisting” used with Egypt, and asked the question: “How could Egypt, the world’s second largest recipient of US foreign aid, oppose Washington, even when it had strong concerns about Israel?”
The proliferation of nuclear weapons in Israel has been justified because it is said that it is surrounded by neighbors dedicated to its destruction. Israel destroys, but the opportunity is denied to others. The heart of this US policy is to prevent the establishment of any strategic parity between any state in the region and America’s strategic ally Israel. Iraq floats on the second largest known oil reserves in the world, after Saudi Arabia, and discovery is still in its infancy. Iraq’s proven oil reserves are estimated at 112.5 billion barrels, or 10.8 percent of the world’s proven reserves. The struggle revolves around this resource.
Many other areas of the world are inflamed. North Korea, for example. But we don’t hear or see the massive military deployment there that we saw around Iraq. Why? US Secretary of State Colin Powell, on NBC’s Meet the Press, said recently: “North Korea is a slightly different situation (from Iraq). It is a broken economy without access to resources, the way (Iraq) has access to resources.” And Victor A. Kremenyuk, deputy director of the US-Canada Institute in Moscow, stated: “It becomes clear that resolving the Iraqi problem is all about the rivalry around one of the richest oil countries in the world.” In his talk about Iraq’s attempts to conclude deals with states from East and West to win their support, Robert Mabro, the head of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, said, “There’s not much left in Iraq for the Americans.” The Economist has said: “The big prize is control of the country’s oil reserves.”
The US has pursued two tracks in achieving that objective. The first was to confiscate from Iraq her weapons of deterrence, so that no US military base, including Israel, will risk a hit from such weapons. While justifying anti-ballistic missiles, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said: “We’ve seen this proliferation of technologies and other countries are getting weapons of mass destruction and we cannot remain vulnerable to that.” At another point he said: “Take, for example, some nation in the Middle East is developing a weapon of mass destruction, and then threatening the United States if we move troops into the area to protect an ally.” He continued to state that the possession by these countries of weapons of mass destruction “also affects our foreign policy. It could be used as an attempt to isolate America and we’re not going to let that happen.”
These statements all were made before Sept. 11. Then came Sept. 11, and words changed to action. But is it enough to purge the region of its weapons of deterrence to control the oil, or the supply of oil? There are “rogue” states which have become members of the “axis of evil”, and each of these states is challenging the US hegemony by independently formulating its own policies and its own decision-making mechanisms. Iraq, for example, had a commitment to support the Palestinians. The Economist said of Saddam Hussein: “He is busy boosting his own international support by doling out Iraqi oil to anybody he thinks will rally to his cause.” It is to no avail, however, doling out, or forming relationships with others — local or international, Arabs or non-Arabs, Eastern or Western — for they will not be able to stand against the sole superpower eager to remove any regime that dares to challenge its authority.
Iraq found no one to trust. It became the victim of a puzzle: “If Iraq said that it doesn’t possess weapons of mass destruction, but America insists it does, then it is a liar. And it has to be punished. On the other hand, if it says it possesses them, and thus speaks the truth, it still has to be punished.”
What then, was the way out of this puzzle? There was no solution except destroying the regime, for this regime had already exhausted its purpose and had become a liability. People would do well to heed recent history. Before blowing up the Iraqi regime, there was the blowing up of the Shah. And before the Shah, there was Mohammed Mossadeq. There were others elsewhere, and there will be more. All of them are expendable when they outlive their usefulness; all of them become liabilities. All of them have to be punished. The US, then, is going on to establish its hegemony in the area, beginning with the removal of Egypt and Iraq from the equation, either by peaceful submission or by an obliterating war. It knows neither friend nor ally. Its policy: “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.”
America says it wants for the Middle East security, peace, freedom and democracy. Is it conceivable that the means could be so vastly different from the ends? Is it likely that from under the heap of ashes and the corpses of the Iraqi and Palestinian children we will reap security and peace and freedom and democracy?
