Dan Minette wrote
I guess what really struck me was how Bush was criticized for
going the UN route in Sudan and not going it in Iraq. ...
Likely Bush figured that the US Army is stretched enough in Iraq that
it makes little sense to offend China and India, both of which have
investments in Sudan.
While the current US Administration thinks of China as an enemy, it is
trying to persuade India to side with the US, rather than make an
alliance with its `strategic competitor'.
While there is *thought* to be oil in the Darfur region (according to
a Sudanese I talked with on Easter; he figures we are seeing a
`resource war), there is *known* to be oil in the Middle East and
Central Asia.
>From a political point of view, there are only three ways to deal with
energy shortages: cut use domestically, reduce foreigners use of it,
or advance technologically, so as to provide alternatives.
The Bush Administration is against or does not concern itself with
long term technological development (that is what being neutral about
or favoring `intelligent design' means economically over the long
term). Secondly, the Bush Administration can hinder US energy use
only so much. When the US domestic price of gasoline goes above $5 or
$10 per gallon (1.30 - 2.60 US dollars per liter) previously pro-Bush
voters are likely to figure he goofed and shift their political
support.
Hence, the Bush Administration must focus its attention on resource
wars with high expected payoffs to the US.
As far as I can see, the Sudan is expected to have less oil and
natural gas than the Middle East and Central Asia. So the US will
focus on them (and on western Africa).
>From a Bush administration point of view, it is fine if the UN manages
to provide Sudanese oil to all, including the US, and manages to
ensure that locals get some of the revenue. But if the UN fails, that
means that China and India get a bit of oil that the US is not
expecting to get anyhow, and that the US has the opportunity to point
out again not only that the UN is unrepresentative of people and
money, but is also incompetent.
(Currently, the UN is representative of history: the five main
`munitioning areas' of WWII have vetoes in the Security Council. And
it is representative of sovereignty: each country has one vote. The
UN lacks a `house' based on population, like the European parliament,
and it lacks one based on monies paid. While no contemporary
government has a legislative branch based on monies paid officially,
such a branch might help settle disputes peacefully as entities'
power, and ability or willingness to pay, changes over the
generations.)
--
Robert J. Chassell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
