The following is an extended version of my posting of
yesterday:
----
192. ... that dare not speak its name
Over the past year or so, there has been one political incident which has
puzzled me more than any other. I've thought the obvious thought, and
then brushed it away. But the puzzlement remained. I've thought about it
again and pushed it away again. But it still remained. Yesterday, after
reading Arthur Cordell, a member of this list, making a comparison of
Clinton and Bush, the thought has been triggered again.
Just over a year ago, ex-president Clinton came over here at Blair's
invitation to speak to the annual conference of the Trade Union
Congress. This was at the time that the US and UK were trying to finagle
some sort of resolution through the UN Security Council that would
legitimse the invasion of Iraq. It was obvious at that stage from the
evasive language that Blair was using that he had already decided that he
was going to support Bush come what may.
Why did Blair invite Clinton? I assumed at the time (as everybody else
did) that Clinton was there to help Blair at the conference because he's
very popular with trade unionists and Blair was having a sticky time with
them. Opposition to the way he was lining up with Bush could easily have
erupted. During Clinton's speech -- short, humorous, colloquial -- he had
the delegates eating out of his hand within minutes. Towards the end of
his homily he added, almost as an aside: "And, of course, we've all
got to support Bush". He'd no need to say any more -- his audience
took the bait hook line and sinker. Not a murmur from anyone. This is an
old rhetorical trick -- which modern psychologists call cognitive
dissonance -- and Clinton pulled it off to perfection.
So what does all this mean? There is, of course, a convention that former
presidents don't bad-name existing presidents but then they don't feel
obliged to conjure up support for them either. I don't know for certain,
but I don't suppose for a minute that Clinton goes around America telling
his audiences what a wonderful leader Bush is. But there's one thing I'm
sure about: Clinton didn't come over here just to help a friend out.
Clinton came because he, and all the top strata of the American
administration (as well as our own) know very well that the putative
invasion was about oil.
Oil is the cause which dare not speak its name.
This is the great secret which is not such a secret among those who can
easily speak openly about it -- ordinary Iraqis. This comes up time and
again when journalists interview Iraqis in the street. But to speak of
oil as the cause in this country or America makes the invasion seems so
blatantly imperialist that it seems to be a breach of good manners to
mention it. But the evidence of omission is very persuasive. Senior
politicians of both the left and the right in this country and America
mention the word as frequently as Bush does -- that is, never. Even
journalists are inhibited. When, occasionally, the word does come up when
they interview the 'great and the good', political and
establishmentarian, the possibility is gently pooh-poohed. And the
conversation turns quickly away.
Clinton's support for Bush was American patriotism in action. I am sure
that Clinton has little time for Bush -- on intellectual as well as
political grounds -- and is fully aware that a great deal of undesirable,
if not corrupt, dealings are going on regarding former business
associates of Bush and Cheney in the reconstruction projects in Iraq.
Nevertheless, there is still the much larger matter that America is very
highly dependent on Middle East oil, and will be even more so as the
years roll by. If oil could only be mentioned in public by senior
politicians -- as it surely is in private -- then the invasion of Iraq
would be seen quite simply as America and the UK sensibly looking after
their own long-term interests. In that sense Bush has been acting
patriotically.
Saddam Hussein, besides being a nasty dictator, was also a foolish man.
He should have had the nous to allow one or two US and UK oil
corporations to share in the development of the vast oilfields of
northern Iraq. But he excluded them. Provocatively, he made contracts
with French, Chinese and Russian oil corporations. The western oil
corporations could do nothing about this themselves and it could be
argued that they must have been putting some pressure on the American
administration over the years. But not at any price. Their developmental
horizons are too long for that. Now that the American troops are
occupying Iraq without the only source of legitimacy that's available
these days -- the UN Security Council -- then the western oil
corporations have declined to take advantage for fear of legal reprisals
later and the possible imposition of very heavy damages.
If we think about the present situation clearly, a Saddam-free future for
Iraq could be solved very quickly. There are two main solutions. The
country could be divided into the three main cultural groups -- the
Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shias -- and placed under the protection of the
UN. For a while, troops would be needed to guard the frontiers between
new Kurdistan and Turkey, new Sunnistan and new Shiastan, and, probably,
new Shiastan and Iran. No doubt also, many Iraqis would wish to be
resettled in the new country of their choice. The large minority of Shias
in Baghdad might want to migrate southwards to Basra. The resettlements
costs would be relatively small compared with the ongoing military costs
of the present occupation. The Ottoman Empire ruled Iraq peacefully for
600 years by keeping these cultures separate. In time -- probably fairly
soon -- the protectorates would hold elections and could become fully
functioning independent nation-states. If Saddam happened to reappear as
the ruler of Sunnistan, so what? Without the oil revenues from the
northern and southern oilfields of Iraq, he would not be able to re-arm
in any substantial way. He could be contained relatively easily -- just
as he was in actuality before the invasion.
The other solution, a much more difficult one, is for the UN to supervise
elections for a constitutional assembly which, in turn, could organise
full-scale elections for a Parliament in due course. This would bring
Ayatollah Sistani and the Shias right onside immediately -- as also a
large part of the Baathists who only joined the party for reasons of
their professional careers. Pretty well all the professional classes were
Baathists in exactly the same way as all the Soviet scientists and
professionals were members of the Communist Party in Stalinist times.
They couldn't have a job otherwise. Such a course would obviously bring
about a Shia majority and an Iraqi army under such control would soon
find, and probably execute, Saddam and would be be able to contain Sunni
extremists.
From the American point of view, however, both solutions would not
guarantee that US and UK oil corporations would have a chance of
tendering for development and production oil contracts. For this
reason, if the oil thesis is correct, neither solution, both eminently
sensible and practical, will be attempted in the near future.
Let's grant that Bush has acted from patriotic motives. But this doesn't
excuse him for ignoring advice from the CIA and the State Department.
There is more than sufficient evidence that Arabic experts from both
entities advised against the invasion. It is frequently said that Bush
II's motivation for invading Iraq was to compensate for Bush I's failure
to defeat Saddam Hussein at the time of the Gulf War. But it is more
likely that Bush II's previous experience -- albeit unsuccessful -- of
oil exploration in Texas has dominated his mind all through his
presidency. Within days, if not hours, of the attack on the Trade Center
on 11 September 2001, Bush would have known that Osama bin Laden and Al
Qaeda extremists were behind it, reminding him of the unstable condition
of Saudi Arabia and the possibility of oil being cut off from that
country at some point in the future. And, of course, that possibility
still exists. While the shock of 9/11 reverberated around America -- and
still continues -- Bush could, and did, devise almost any plan he wanted.
Invading Iraq would not only remove a relatively minor thorn in his
flelsh but also bring about the development of the second largest oil and
gas reserves in the world.
Any sensible extrapolation of future oil requirements by the major
economic blocs around the world would clearly show that, in 10-15 years
time and onwards there will not be enough .oil and gas for all -- and, in
particular not enough Middle East resources. China and America alone will
be able to absorb all of it in 20 years' time, particularly if China
maintains its extraordinary rate of economic growth. And there is no
reason to think that it might not be able to do so. Indeed, instead of
China's rate of economic growth slowing down in recent years, as most
economists hasd been confidently forecasting, it has been growing.
Although America is militarily stronger than China at the present time,
particularly in satellite-directed missile technology, this will not be
the case for much longer. The recent launch of China's astronaut and its
declared aim of launching world-wide satellite system in the next
decade means that China is already becoming too dangerous for America to
fall out with. Besides, American business has too much invested in China
already. And China has too much money invested in US Treasury
bills.
It is clearly the case that America's natural ally in the future,
militarily and economically, is China and not Japan, Russia or
Europe. There is no need for Bush to proclaim the fact, but the way that
Rumsfeld has spoken of Europe with derision -- this would have been
unbelievable only five years ago -- is eloquent testimony that America
already regards Europe as fairly unimportant and on its way out, perhaps
useful only as a buffer just in case Russia resurges. But this is
unlikely. America maintains friendly relations with Japan and Russia but
it is a partonising relationship and no more than that.
America already consumes 60% of the world's resources. China, with four
times America's population -- and consequent consumer demand -- will
equate fairly quickly. Within 20 years, America and China will together
be able to absorb all the world's resources. The rest of the world will
be heavily squeezed. There can be no other relatively peaceful scenario,
even though millions of the world will suffer, just as the Iraqis are
doing so today. But I am already going beyond the limit of my crystal
ball. Whether the rest of the world will be anything more than wild life
reservations and tourist attractions with interesting traditional crafts
on display remains to be seen by younger readers of this posting.
Keith Hudson
Keith Hudson, Bath, England,
<www.evolutionary-economics.org>
