http://truth-out.org/news/item/24834-twenty-first-century-energy-wars
[multiple links in on-line article]
Twenty-First Century Energy Wars: Global Conflicts Are Fueled by the
Desire for Oil
Tuesday, 08 July 2014 10:07 By Michael T Klare, TomDispatch | News Analysis
Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, South Sudan, Ukraine, the East and South China
Seas: wherever you look, the world is aflame with new or intensifying
conflicts. At first glance, these upheavals appear to be independent
events, driven by their own unique and idiosyncratic circumstances. But
look more closely and they share several key characteristics -- notably,
a witch’s brew of ethnic, religious, and national antagonisms that have
been stirred to the boiling point by a fixation on energy.
In each of these conflicts, the fighting is driven in large part by the
eruption of long-standing historic antagonisms among neighboring (often
intermingled) tribes, sects, and peoples. In Iraq and Syria, it is a
clash among Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Turkmen, and others; in Nigeria,
among Muslims, Christians, and assorted tribal groupings; in South
Sudan, between the Dinka and Nuer; in Ukraine, between Ukrainian
loyalists and Russian-speakers aligned with Moscow; in the East and
South China Sea, among the Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Filipinos, and
others. It would be easy to attribute all this to age-old hatreds, as
suggested by many analysts; but while such hostilities do help drive
these conflicts, they are fueled by a most modern impulse as well: the
desire to control valuable oil and natural gas assets. Make no mistake
about it, these are twenty-first-century energy wars.
It should surprise no one that energy plays such a significant role in
these conflicts. Oil and gas are, after all, the world’s most important
and valuable commodities and constitute a major source of income for the
governments and corporations that control their production and
distribution. Indeed, the governments of Iraq, Nigeria, Russia, South
Sudan, and Syria derive the great bulk of their revenues from oil sales,
while the major energy firms (many state-owned) exercise immense power
in these and the other countries involved. Whoever controls these
states, or the oil- and gas-producing areas within them, also controls
the collection and allocation of crucial revenues. Despite the patina
of historical enmities, many of these conflicts, then, are really
struggles for control over the principal source of national income.
Moreover, we live in an energy-centric world where control over oil and
gas resources (and their means of delivery) translates into geopolitical
clout for some and economic vulnerability for others. Because so many
countries are dependent on energy imports, nations with surpluses to
export -- including Iraq, Nigeria, Russia, and South Sudan -- often
exercise disproportionate influence on the world stage. What happens in
these countries sometimes matters as much to the rest of us as to the
people living in them, and so the risk of external involvement in their
conflicts -- whether in the form of direct intervention, arms transfers,
the sending in of military advisers, or economic assistance -- is
greater than almost anywhere else.
The struggle over energy resources has been a conspicuous factor in many
recent conflicts, including the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-1988, the Gulf War
of 1990-1991, and the Sudanese Civil War of 1983-2005. On first glance,
the fossil-fuel factor in the most recent outbreaks of tension and
fighting may seem less evident. But look more closely and you’ll see
that each of these conflicts is, at heart, an energy war.
Iraq, Syria, and ISIS
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the Sunni extremist group
that controls large chunks of western Syria and northern Iraq, is a
well-armed militia intent on creating an Islamic caliphate in the areas
it controls. In some respects, it is a fanatical, sectarian religious
organization, seeking to reproduce the pure, uncorrupted piety of the
early Islamic era. At the same time, it is engaged in a conventional
nation-building project, seeking to create a fully functioning state
with all its attributes.
As the United States learned to its dismay in Iraq and Afghanistan,
nation-building is expensive: institutions must be created and financed,
armies recruited and paid, weapons and fuel procured, and infrastructure
maintained. Without oil (or some other lucrative source of income),
ISIS could never hope to accomplish its ambitious goals. However, as it
now occupies key oil-producing areas of Syria and oil-refining
facilities in Iraq, it is in a unique position to do so. Oil, then, is
absolutely essential to the organization’s grand strategy.
Syria was never a major oil producer, but its prewar production of some
400,000 barrels per day did provide the regime of Bashar al-Assad with a
major source of income. Now, most of the country’s oil fields are under
the control of rebel groups, including ISIS, the al-Qaeda-linked Nusra
Front, and local Kurdish militias. Although production from the fields
has dropped significantly, enough is being extracted and sold through
various clandestine channels to provide the rebels with income and
operating funds. “Syria is an oil country and has resources, but in the
past they were all stolen by the regime,” said Abu Nizar, an
anti-government activist. “Now they are being stolen by those who are
profiting from the revolution.”
At first, many rebel groups were involved in these extractive
activities, but since January, when it assumed control of Raqqa, the
capital of the province of that name, ISIS has been the dominant player
in the oil fields. In addition, it has seized fields in neighboring
Deir al-Zour Province along the Iraq border. Indeed, many of the
U.S.-supplied weapons it acquired from the fleeing Iraqi army after its
recent drive into Mosul and other northern Iraqi cities have been moved
into Deir al-Zour to help in the organization’s campaign to take full
control of the region. In Iraq, ISIS is fighting to gain control over
Iraq’s largest refinery at Baiji in the central part of the country.
It appears that ISIS sells oil from the fields it controls to shadowy
middlemen who in turn arrange for its transport -- mostly by tanker
trucks -- to buyers in Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. These sales are said to
provide the organization with the funds needed to pay its troops and
acquire its vast stockpiles of arms and ammunition. Many observers also
claim that ISIS is selling oil to the Assad regime in return for
immunity from government air strikes of the sort being launched against
other rebel groups. “Many locals in Raqqa accuse ISIS of collaborating
with the Syrian regime,” a Kurdish journalist, Sirwan Kajjo, reported in
early June. “Locals say that while other rebel groups in Raqqa have
been under attack by regime air strikes on a regular basis, ISIS
headquarters have not once been attacked.”
However the present fighting in northern Iraq plays out, it is obvious
that there, too, oil is a central factor. ISIS seeks both to deny
petroleum supplies and oil revenue to the Baghdad government and to
bolster its own coffers, enhancing its capacity for nation-building and
further military advances. At the same time, the Kurds and various
Sunni tribes -- some allied with ISIS -- want control over oil fields
located in the areas under their control and a greater share of the
nation’s oil wealth.
Ukraine, the Crimea, and Russia
The present crisis in Ukraine began in November 2013 when President
Viktor Yanukovych repudiated an agreement for closer economic and
political ties with the European Union (EU), opting instead for closer
ties with Russia. That act touched off fierce anti-government protests
in Kiev and eventually led to Yanukovych’s flight from the capital.
With Moscow’s principal ally pushed from the scene and pro-EU forces in
control of the capital, Russian President Vladimir Putin moved to seize
control of the Crimea and foment a separatist drive in eastern Ukraine.
For both sides, the resulting struggle has been about political
legitimacy and national identity -- but as in other recent conflicts, it
has also been about energy.
Ukraine is not itself a significant energy producer. It is, however, a
major transit route for the delivery of Russian natural gas to Europe.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Europe
obtained 30% of its gas from Russia in 2013 -- most of it from the
state-controlled gas giant Gazprom -- and approximately half of this was
transported by pipelines crossing Ukraine. As a result, that country
plays a critical role in the complex energy relationship between Europe
and Russia, one that has proved incredibly lucrative for the shadowy
elites and oligarchswho control the flow of gas, whille at the same time
provoking intense controversy. Disputes over the price Ukraine pays for
its own imports of Russian gas twice provoked a cutoff in deliveries by
Gazprom, leading to diminished supplies in Europe as well.
Given this background, it is not surprising that a key objective of the
“association agreement” between the EU and Ukraine that was repudiated
by Yanukovych (and has now been signed by the new Ukrainian government)
calls for the extension of EU energy rules to Ukraine’s energy system --
essentially eliminating the cozy deals between Ukrainian elites and
Gazprom. By entering into the agreement, EU officials claim, Ukraine
will begin “a process of approximating its energy legislation to the EU
norms and standards, thus facilitating internal market reforms.”
Russian leaders have many reasons to despise the association agreement.
For one thing, it will move Ukraine, a country on its border, into a
closer political and economic embrace with the West. Of special
concern, however, are the provisions about energy, given Russia’s
economic reliance on gas sales to Europe -- not to mention the threat
they pose to the personal fortunes of well-connected Russian elites. In
late2013 Yanukovych came under immense pressure from Vladimir Putin to
turn his back on the EU and agree instead to an economic union with
Russia and Belarus, an arrangement that would have protected the
privileged status of elites in both countries. However, by moving in
this direction, Yanukovych put a bright spotlight on the crony politics
that had long plaguedUkraine’s energy system, thereby triggering
protests in Kiev’s Independence Square (the Maidan) -- that led to his
downfall.
Once the protests began, a cascade of events led to the current
standoff, with the Crimea in Russian hands, large parts of the east
under the control of pro-Russian separatists, and the rump western areas
moving ever closer to the EU. In this ongoing struggle, identity
politics has come to play a prominent role, with leaders on all sides
appealing to national and ethnic loyalties. Energy, nevertheless,
remains a major factor in the equation. Gazprom has repeatedly raised
the price it charges Ukraine for its imports of natural gas, and on June
16th cut off its supply entirely, claiming non-payment for past
deliveries. A day later, an explosion damaged one of the main pipelines
carrying Russian gas to Ukraine -- an event still being investigated.
Negotiations over the gas price remain a major issue in the ongoing
negotiations between Ukraine’s newly elected president, Petro
Poroshenko, and Vladimir Putin.
Energy also played a key role in Russia’s determination to take the
Crimea by military means. By annexing that region, Russia virtually
doubled the offshore territory it controls in the Black Sea, which is
thought to house billions of barrels of oil and vast reserves of natural
gas. Prior to the crisis, several Western oil firms, including
ExxonMobil, were negotiating with Ukraine for access to those reserves.
Now, they will be negotiating with Moscow. “It’s a big deal,” said
Carol Saivetz, a Eurasian expert at MIT. “It deprives Ukraine of the
possibility of developing these resources and gives them to Russia.”
Nigeria and South Sudan
The conflicts in South Sudan and Nigeria are distinctive in many
respects, yet both share a key common factor: widespread anger and
distrust towards government officials who have become wealthy, corrupt,
and autocratic thanks to access to abundant oil revenues.
In Nigeria, the insurgent group Boko Haram is fighting to overthrow the
existing political system and establish a puritanical, Muslim-ruled
state. Although most Nigerians decry the group’s violent methods
(including the kidnapping of hundreds of teenage girls from a state-run
school), it has drawn strength from disgust in the poverty-stricken
northern part of the country with the corruption-riddledcentral
government in distant Abuja, the capital.
Nigeria is the largest oil producer in Africa, pumping out some 2.5
million barrels per day. With oil selling at around $100 per barrel,
this represents a potentially staggering source of wealth for the
nation, even after the private companies involved in the day-to-day
extractive operations take their share. Were these revenues --
estimated in the tens of billions of dollars per year -- used to spur
development and improve the lot of the population, Nigeria could be a
great beacon of hope for Africa. Instead, much of the money disappears
into the pockets (and foreign bank accounts) of Nigeria’s well-connected
elites.
In February, the governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Lamido Sanusi,
told a parliamentary investigating committee that the state-owned
Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) had failed to transfer
some $20 billion in proceeds from oil sales to the national treasury, as
required by law. It had all evidently been diverted to private
accounts. “A substantial amount of money has gone,” he told the New
York Times. “I wasn’t just talking about numbers. I showed it was a scam.”
For many Nigerians -- a majority of whom subsist on less than $2 per day
-- the corruption in Abuja, when combined with the wanton brutality of
the government’s security forces, is a source of abiding anger and
resentment, generating recruits for insurgent groups like Boko Haram and
winning them begrudging admiration. “They know well the frustration
that would drive someone to take up arms against the state,” said
National Geographic reporter James Verini of people he interviewed in
battle-scarred areas of northern Nigeria. At this stage, the government
has displayed zero capacity to overcome the insurgency, while its
ineptitude and heavy-handed military tactics have only further alienated
ordinary Nigerians.
The conflict in South Sudan has different roots, but shares a common
link to energy. Indeed, the very formation of South Sudan is a product
of oil politics. A civil war in Sudan that lasted from 1955 to 1972
only ended when the Muslim-dominated government in the north agreed to
grant more autonomy to the peoples of the southern part of the country,
largely practitioners of traditional African religions or Christianity.
However, when oil was discovered in the south, the rulers of northern
Sudan repudiated many of their earlier promises and sought to gain
control over the oil fields, sparking a second civil war, which lasted
from 1983 to 2005. An estimated two million people lost their lives in
this round of fighting. In the end, the south was granted full autonomy
and the right to vote on secession. Following a January 2011 referendum
in which 98.8% of southerners voted to secede, the country became
independent on that July 9th.
The new state had barely been established, however, when conflict with
the north over its oil resumed. While South Sudan has a plethora of
oil, the only pipeline allowing the country to export its energy
stretches across North Sudan to the Red Sea. This ensured that the
south would be dependent on the north for the major source of government
revenues. Furious at the loss of the fields, the northerners charged
excessively high rates for transporting the oil, precipitating a cutoff
in oil deliveries by the south and sporadic violence along the two
countries’ still-disputed border. Finally, in August 2012, the two
sides agreed to a formula for sharing the wealth and the flow of oil
resumed. Fighting has, however, continued in certain border areas
controlled by the north but populated by groups linked to the south.
With the flow of oil income assured, the leader of South Sudan,
President Salva Kiir, sought to consolidate his control over the country
and all those oil revenues. Claiming an imminent coup attempt by his
rivals, led by Vice President Riek Machar, he disbanded his multiethnic
government on July 24, 2013, and began arresting allies of Machar. The
resulting power struggle quickly turned into an ethnic civil war, with
the kin of President Kiir, a Dinka, battling members of the Nuer group,
of which Machar is a member. Despite several attempts to negotiate a
cease-fire, fighting has been under way since December, with thousands
of people killed and hundreds of thousands forced to flee their homes.
As in Syria and Iraq, much of the fighting in South Sudan has centered
around the vital oil fields, with both sides determined to control them
and collect the revenues they generate. As of March, while still under
government control, the Paloch field in Upper Nile State was producing
some 150,000 barrels a day, worth about $15 million to the government
and participating oil companies. The rebel forces, led by former Vice
President Machar, are trying to seize those fields to deny this revenue
to the government. “The presence of forces loyal to Salva Kiir in
Paloch, to buy more arms to kill our people... is not acceptable to us,”
Machar said in April. “We want to take control of the oil field. It’s
our oil.” As of now, the field remains in government hands, with rebel
forces reportedly making gains in the vicinity.
The South China Sea
In both the East China and South China seas, China and its neighbors
claim assorted atolls and islands that sit astride vast undersea oil and
gas reserves. The waters of both have been the site of recurring naval
clashes over the past few years, with the South China Sea recently
grabbing the spotlight.
An energy-rich offshoot of the western Pacific, that sea, long a focus
of contention, is rimmed by China, Vietnam, the island of Borneo, and
the Philippine Islands. Tensions peaked in May when the Chinese
deployed their largest deepwater drilling rig, the HD-981, in waters
claimed by Vietnam. Once in the drilling area, about 120 nautical miles
off the coast of Vietnam, the Chinese surrounded the HD-981 with a large
flotilla of navy and coast guard ships. When Vietnamese coast guard
vessels attempted to penetrate this defensive ring in an effort to drive
off the rig, they were rammed by Chinese ships and pummeled by water
cannon. No lives have yet been lost in these encounters, but
anti-Chinese rioting in Vietnam in response to the sea-borne
encroachment left several dead and the clashes at sea are expected to
continue for several months until the Chinese move the rig to another
(possibly equally contested) location.
The riots and clashes sparked by the deployment of HD-981 have been
driven in large part by nationalism and resentment over past
humiliations. The Chinese, insisting that various tiny islands in the
South China Sea were once ruled by their country, still seek to overcome
the territorial losses and humiliations they suffered at the hands the
Western powers and Imperial Japan. The Vietnamese, long accustomed to
Chinese invasions, seek to protect what they view as their sovereign
territory. For common citizens in both countries, demonstrating resolve
in the dispute is a matter of national pride.
But to view the Chinese drive in the South China Sea as a simple matter
of nationalistic impulses would be a mistake. The owner of HD-981, the
China National Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC), has conducted extensive
seismic testing in the disputed area and evidently believes there is a
large reservoir of energy there. “The South China Sea is estimated to
have 23 billion tonsto 30 billion tons of oil and 16 trillion cubic
meters of natural gas, accounting for one-third of China's total oil and
gas resources,” the Chinese news agency Xinhua noted. Moreover, China
announced in June that it was deploying a second drilling rig to the
contested waters of the South China Sea, this time at the mouth of the
Gulf of Tonkin.
As the world’s biggest consumer of energy, China is desperate to acquire
fresh fossil fuel supplies wherever it can. Although its leaders are
prepared to make increasingly large purchases of African, Russian, and
Middle Eastern oil and gas to satisfy the nation’s growing energy
requirements, they not surprisingly prefer to develop and exploit
domestic supplies. For them, the South China Sea is not a “foreign”
source of energy but a Chinese one, and they appear determined to use
whatever means necessary to secure it. Because other countries,
including Vietnam and the Philippines, also seek to exploit these oil
and gas reserves, further clashes, at increasing levels of violence,
seem almost inevitable.
No End to Fighting
As these conflicts and others like them suggest, fighting for control
over key energy assets or the distribution of oil revenues is a critical
factor in most contemporary warfare. While ethnic and religious
divisions may provide the political and ideological fuel for these
battles, it isthe potential for mammoth oil profits that keeps the
struggles alive. Without the promise of such resources, many of these
conflicts would eventually die out for lack of funds to buy arms and pay
troops. So long as the oil keeps flowing, however, the belligerents
have both the means and incentive to keep fighting.
In a fossil-fuel world, control over oil and gas reserves is an
essential component of national power. “Oil fuels more than automobiles
and airplanes,” Robert Ebel of the Center for Strategic and
International Studies told a State Department audience in 2002. “Oil
fuels military power, national treasuries, and international politics.”
Far more than an ordinary trade commodity, “it is a determinant of
well being, of national security, and international power for those who
possess this vital resource, and the converse for those who do not.”
If anything, that’s even truer today, and as energy wars expand, the
truth of this will only become more evident. Someday, perhaps, the
development of renewable sources of energy may invalidate this dictum.
But in our present world, if you see a conflict developing, look for the
energy. It’ll be there somewhere on this fossil-fueled planet of ours.
_______________________________________________
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel