25 June 2005

It's the oil, stupid!

For years now, British Petroleum (BP) has published a fascinating annual report entitled Statistical Review of World Energy. Publicly available on their website, this report provides excellent insight into the sources and uses of fossil fuel energy around the world. Now what does this report have to do with the political issues canvassed on this blog? As it turns out, quite a bit.

When dinner party talk around the world turns to the behaviour of the neo-con controlled Bush regime, people tend to fall into two broad groups, pro-Dubya or anti-Dubya. The pro-Dubya group believes Bush's desire to spread neo-con democracy and freedom is unadulterated altruism of messianic proportions. On the other hand, the anti-Dubya group believes that Bush uses the cloak of democracy and freedom to further an agenda driven by oil.

Certainly, in so far as the illegal invasion of Iraq is concerned, the sound trashing of the original claims of Saddam's NBC weapons laid open the bare-faced pack of lies Dubya and his mates, Blair and Howard, peddled around the world over this war. But now that Team Neo-Con has well and truly trashed Iraq, who do we think is next on their agenda?

We all have our suspicions that Iran is more likely to be next to get it in the neck than North Korea. But we may not have evidence beyond our gut feelings. Or do we? Judge for yourself, after reviewing the following analysis based on BP's goldmine of information.

Let's travel back in time to the year 2000 when Dubya moved into the White House after stealing the presidency through a finagled Florida ballot. His neo-con priests would have impressed upon him, the need for America to control directly or by proxy, global oil supplies.

For a modern industrial society like America cannot allow others to dictate terms of America's very existence by possessing the ability to turn off the oil tap. Don't believe this? Remember the oil crisis in the 1970s? That was sparked by an Arab oil embargo against the US for supporting Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur war.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with a nation wishing to obtain energy security. But when does legitimate protection of energy supply become an excuse for controlling global energy supply through illegal acts of war? Not an issue, I hear some say - it's part and parcel of global politics. Remember one of the key reasons for Japan going to war in the Pacific? It was because they were denied access to oil and other raw materials by the Western powers of the day, including the US.

Japan believed they had legitimate reasons to launch their four year campaign of rampage, pillage and terror throughout the Western Pacific. If it was wrong then for Japan to go to war over blockades, then surely it must be even less justifiable for the US to launch a war based on a pack of lies.

But I digress.

The pie graph below shows the regions around the world from which the US imported oil in 2000. Notice that nearly 50% came from the Middle Eastern and Central & South American regions combined. North America (ie domestic US, Canada and Mexico) accounted for just under a further 30% of oil imports.


Source: BP p.l.c.

Now the following pie graph below shows proved global oil reserves by region in 2000. Notice that the US drew only 27% of its oil from the Middle East despite the region having a whopping 63% of proved global reserves. Contrast this with the fact that the US drew 20% of its oil from Central & South America despite that region having only 9% of proved global oil reserves. So you can see that back in 2000, the Middle Eastern region didn't have overwhelming leverage over the US in terms of oil supply. But the rest of the world was in fact far more dependent on Middle Eastern oil than the US.


Source: BP p.l.c.

Just how dependent other countries are on Middle Eastern oil (in contrast to the US) is easy to see in the following table of exports against imports by region. In this case, the data are from 2003, as 2000 figures are no longer available. The standout dependencies on Middle Eastern oil are China (40%), Japan (79%) and Other Asia Pacific (72%).

Remember what Dubya said of China when he first gained office? For those who've forgotten, he identified China as a strategic competitor to the US. Only China has shown itself to be prepared to shove back when shoved by America. With China on a path to becoming a superpower capable of challenging US control of the Pacific inside this century, it's now obvious why the neo-cons are so eager to resort even to illegal wars to ensure America controls directly or by proxy, Middle Eastern oil supplies.

If the neo-cons succeed, they believe that they can control China by threatening to turn off the Middle Eastern oil tap. Don't believe this proposition? Then stay tuned for more evidence.

As for Japan, it looks like they aren't going to pursue a less obseqious foreign policy towards the US any time soon, huh? And if any of the other Asian and Indian sub-continent natives get too uppity, well they'll just have to be reminded who controls their energy lifeblood.

Turning to Europe, notice that it imports about the same proportion of its oil as the US, from the Middle East. A far greater proportion of oil sourced is from within Europe (Norway) and Eurasia (Russia and former Soviet Republics such as Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan). So it's more difficult for Europe to be influenced via the oil lever.



Source: BP p.l.c.

The next table shows proved oil reserves by country in the Middle East region in 2000. Countries politically unsympathetic to the US are highlighted in red text while those that are politically sympathetic or under proxy control are highlighted in blue text. Notice that Iraq and Iran have the second and third largest proved oil reserves after Saudi Arabia. We all know what happened to Iraq in 2003. Guess who controls their oil resources now?

Since seizing control of Iraq, isn't it interesting how Team Neo-Con has now been emitting bellicose noises at Iran? Officially, the Bush regime claims that Iran's nuclear program is capable of military applications. But why is this more of an immediate threat than North Korea's admitted possession of nuclear weapons and very public test firings of missiles designed to deliver nuclear warheads?

If it was good enough for Dubya to fabricate evidence of NBC weapons to invade Iraq, why isn't it good enough for him to invade North Korea, given their admissions? Instead, we find the neo-cons' focus is on Iran with its probable nascent nuclear program. Interesting lack of consistency, isn't it?

That's why we shouldn't be surprised if some sort of confrontation with Iran occurs before the end of Dubya's presidency. And if, perish the thought, another Republican sits in the White House, expect more of the same.

By the way, even though Syria is one of the founding members of Dubya's Axis of Evil, they can still sleep easy. They are very, very unlikely to be invaded by the neo-cons any time soon. Just like that bleak death camp, North Korea, I suspect Syria has little of something called oil to warrant an invasion. I mean, Team Neo-Con doesn't just go to war over a small drop of oil, you know!


Source: BP p.l.c.

As the table below shows, Venezuela has the absolute lion's share of proved oil reserves in the Central & South American region. What's the significance of this fact? Well, as the very first pie graph in this post shows, the US imports a fifth of its oil from Venezuela. This means that the US would have particularly strong reasons to ensure a politically pliable Venezuelan leadership holds office down south.

But in 1999, Venezuelans voted to replace a corrupt pro-US leader with a leftist ex-paratrooper. Sickened by corrupt politicians and the elite lining their own pockets, voters decided to back Hugo Chavez because he promised tough political and social reforms. After taking office, Chavez began to pursue a foreign policy far less aligned towards the US.

Unsurprisingly, the Bush White House then began to run a line that Chavez wasn't acting in the best interests of Venezuela. Along the way, an unsuccessful Right wing led coup against Chavez fortuitously arose out of nowhere but sparked little adverse comment from the neo-cons. Strange, huh?


Source: BP p.l.c.

Now to Africa. As the very first pie graph of this post shows, the African region accounted for 15% of America's oil imports in 2000. And as the table below shows, Nigeria and Libya together have 70% of the region's proved oil reserves. And what a surprise to find American involvement or interest in both countries' affairs to the exclusion of attention on other more wretched humanitarian disasters in Africa. No significant oil in those other places - that's their problem.


Source: BP p.l.c.

The last region of note is collectively known as Europe and Eurasia. Here, Russia has the lion's share of proved oil reserves. Now as the red text highlights, the Russian government isn't politically pliable nor sympathetic to the neo-con agenda. So instead, why not cosy up to the Russian oil companies that control the drilling rights?

Unfortunately for the neo-cons, Putin wised up to their support of the former Yukos chief, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and found a way to remove him. Now before we get all teary-eyed over the anti-democratic actions against Khodorkovsky, as Team Neo-Con wants us to be, we need to understand how this man became an oil tycoon in the first place.

When the former USSR disintegrated into its various republics today, state assets such as oil exploration and production rights, were bought for ridiculously low prices by individuals like Khodorkovsky with no proper legal and financial frameworks to ensure Russian citizens (in this case) received commercial prices for their former state-owned assets.

Often, the individuals buying the assets were the same officials charged with selling the assets, or were close relatives of those officials. After all, how else could a 30+ year old man in a country where individual private wealth didn't exist, suddenly become a multi-billionaire overnight? Through his family fortune and business talents previously non-existent in a command economy? Give us a break! We should save our tears for someone more deserving.


Source: BP p.l.c.

Notice that even though the US sourced only 7% of oil imports from this region, Eurasia (comprised of a number of former Soviet republics) has about 35% of proved global gas reserves (in addition to significant proved oil reserves). So why is it that despite not importing significant quantities of gas or oil from Eurasia or Central Asia, the US still has military bases in Kyrgyzstan (landlocked country which borders China), Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan; and has struck direct unspecified military cooperation agreements with Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan?

What is the underlying strategic intent behind this unprecedented move into a region of zero historical connection and interest to the US?

Is it really in support of the so-called "War on Terror" in Afghanistan, as claimed by the Bush regime? Isn't it a little odd that so much money is being spent on bases all around this region, to find one guy - Osama Bin Laden? And despite the enormous resources expended, they still can't find this guy. Maybe they don't want to find him. After all, if Bin Laden is found, what publicly acceptable reason is there for the US bases to remain in Central Asia?

On the other hand, if these bases remain, direct or proxy control of these resource rich countries places a powerful choke hold on energy supplies to the neo-cons' next big future enemy - China. Now there's a really plausible reason for spending billions of taxpayers' dollars...

Don't see the point? Take out a map of the Asian continent. Make sure you can see from China and Japan in the east, to Iraq and Turkey in the west. Imagine you are President Hu Jin Tao sitting in Beijing. You know your fast growing economy needs reliable energy supplies to fuel its growth.

At present 40% of your oil is from the Middle East, a region under the American thumb. Another 30% of your supply is from the Asia Pacific region, another American lake. While only 10% is from Eurasia (Central Asia), this region has vast resources which could supply a far greater proportion of your energy needs than it does now. And since this region is adjacent to your western borders, perhaps you can achieve better security over these supplies. After all, Middle Eastern oil must pass through waters controlled by the US Navy, as does oil from the Asia Pacific. You know it but unfortunately, so do the Americans.

So their Central Asian bases not only pose a threat to your desire for greater energy security, they also pose a threat of military encirclement. You see, US bases on your western borders (Central Asian republics), US bases on your southern borders (Pakistan, Thailand and Singapore) and US bases on your eastern borders (Taiwan, South Korea and Japan) aren't there to spread neo-con democracy and freedom. They are there to contain you. But ironically, if the shoe was on the other foot - ie Chinese bases in Mexico, Cuba and Canada, to name a few countries, imagine the McCarthy type campaign that would be running rampant in Fort Dubya now!

In summary, Team Neo-Con has a deep agenda in relation to oil. This agenda extends beyond legitimate protection of US energy supply, over to direct or proxy control of global energy supply in the form of a publicly unrecognised Cold War. Under the guise of promoting freedom and democracy, the neo-cons believe they can forestall the inevitable decline of Pax Americana through fair means or foul.

They have already demonstrated their preparedness to prosecute illegal and immoral wars to achieve their ends, and have duped most of their own citizens in the same way Big Brother did in George Orwell's classic novel, 1984. Even though the neo-cons have succeeded in subverting the high principles upon which their own nation was founded, they haven't yet accomplished the same mission outside America.

Let's hope they fail miserably.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?