Bush, Oil, Economy and Elections (1025 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 0.57 on 9 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by <erminator.at.hotmail.com> (View user info) at 2003-07-06 20:12:18 EDT
======EDIT======
This is a pretty long read - It's not by me. Since there are a lot of people on Ubersite who's opinion I respect, I'd like to find out what they think about this. (source coming up)
======EDIT======
Bush and Oil, Why? - Economy and Elections!
It's quite apparent that Bush & Associates start wars and basically do belligerent things around the world for oil but why is this? Few seem to have stopped to analyze why it's oil and not water or gold some other important commodity.
The latest world news features President Bush planning to send Marines into Liberia, one of those chronically festering sores in West Africa and not surprisingly the humanitarian aspect gets the most airtime. But if this is an effort to help the suffering it seems awfully capricious, I mean really, Is Bush just inherently jingoistic or is there a pattern?
Think about this: west Africa is rich in oil, much of it in Nigeria, an OPEC nation, and needless to say if they remain politically unstable it makes getting that oil out all the more difficult. Liberia, Ivory Coast (which has offshore oil fields) and Sierra Leone are all located near Nigeria which is the world's eighth largest petroleum exporter. All are about as rich in resources as they are in political and social instability.
"[President Charles] Taylor himself, if not disarmed or imprisoned, has the potential to re-arm and re-group. In six years of being president, he has spurred rebel groups in each of Liberia's neighboring states: Guinea, Ivory Coast and Sierra Leone."
[2] French military forces have already been sucked into the Ivory Coast (Cóte D'Ivoire) and British forces into Sierra Leone and now the U$ may well follow them into Liberia all in the effort to limit the spread of instability and maintain the steady export of crucial commodities. Notice that all six nations have been neatly matched with their original colonial parents - this isn't new colonialism it's old colonialism!
Chevron, now called ChevronTexaco, has been active in exploiting west African oil, while Royal Dutch Shell dominates Nigerian oil production. Regardless of who owns the sign out front the business fundamentals remain the same - you've got to pump the oil out of the ground, put it into a pipeline and get it onto a ship. The entire production line is very vulnerable to sabotage, worker strikes, etc. and as far as the business' are concerned it doesn't matter who the regional dictator is, how corrupt he is or how benevolent he is towards the public just as long as he keeps the locals in line and the rebels at bay. Now let us take the next flight out of this steamy hellhole for the slightly safer venue of the industrialized world.
Oil is a key issue in West Africa as are other resources but nevertheless oil is likely America's primary interest. But again, what is the reason? Oil is the blood of the modern economy, it's the basis of industrial production and damn near everything we use on a daily basis is connected to petroleum in one way or another. High oil costs are like friction in the machine of economy, it makes everything more costly, and a weak economy is a recipe for failure at the polls - the electorate is notoriously disinclined to vote for the incumbent if they are unemployed and have a pessimistic outlook of the near future.
This is why wars for oil are so broadly supported by industry and business leaders because they know they're all in trouble financially if oil prices rise over $40 and in danger mode between $20-30 a barrel. $20 a barrel is supposed to be about the reasonable ideal price for oil and even OPEC has a vague target in this range yet oil is still a commodity of finite supply and the available quantity at any given moment is mostly what determines actual price. "If we do lose Nigerian exports then the hope for rebuilding inventories isn't going to happen, and we certainly need more rebuilding in the U.S.," said Steve Turner of investment bank Commerzbank." [1]
But liquid oil isn't the only fuel source. The Bush team and the Department of Energy have been in panic mode over the high prices of natural gas recently. This is no idle concern because they well know that high gas prices depresses the entire economy and at the worst possible time, right when it is trying to recover. A plastics industry analyst was questioned recently:
ACC's Swift said manufacturers are slow to buy as they use up stockpiles. He hopes plastic demand is poised for recovery but remains cautious, especially given the shrinking production of natural-gas derived ethylene, the key ingredient of plastic.
The high cost of natural gas is altering the competitive landscape for plastics and petrochemicals in the United States, he said. Recently, he gave a speech naming the industry's three biggest challenges. "Energy, energy, energy," he joked.
America doesn't have a whole lot in competitive advantages against other countries of the world but one of the few remaining is that of cheap energy costs. Low gasoline prices as compared to other countries makes long distance transportation much more affordable for instance, but nearly all industrial manufacturing is cheaper for the likes of plastics or aluminum which requires large quantities of electricity to make.
The irony of the Iraq war is that they're now producing less oil for world markets than with Saddam in power and oil exports under UN regulation! The war planners in the Bush Administration did not plan for wide scale looting or even any sizable Iraqi resistance both of which have seriously impinged upon post-war oil production. "Iraq oil output is stuck at about a quarter of pre-war levels, and analysts are becoming increasingly incredulous of official growth targets." [1]
So while it's easy to laugh at the ridiculously shoddy planning for postwar Iraq, there's a very real danger that Bush & Associates in desperation will need to foment another war in order to divert attention from the previous failure. This new war would have to be on an even larger scale than the last just as Iraq was bigger than Afghanistan; I'm sure Iran is looking very tempting right now from their perspective but then again Liberia itself may suffice as the war of distraction Bush needs.
But a new war will only depress the domestic economy at the worst possible time, right when it is trying to recover, a recovery which was already building before it was scuttled by the war run-up against Iraq last fall. This is the tangled web they've made for themselves and the more they struggle the more they're stuck. Bush & Associates are like bumbling surgeons who are so desperate to save their patient of the American economy they run the real risk of killing it! 03/04.07.03
Sources:
1. Oil Up on Threat to Halt Nigerian Exports, By Neil Chatterjee, Reuters, July 3, 2003.
2. ANALYSIS: Dangerous Liberia awaits U.S. forces, By Jonathone Paye-Layleh, Friday, July 4, 2003, AP.
***
Every people, to which its situation gives no choice save that between commerce and war, is weak in itself: it depends on its neighbors, and on circumstances; its existence can never he more than short and uncertain. It either conquers others, and changes its situation, or it is conquered and becomes nothing. Only insignificance or greatness can keep it free. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 1762.
User Reviews
Submitted by Hairsphincter (user info) at 2003-07-07 21:16:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I love it when people say "US assistance is given"... it's never "given", there is always payment in one form or another. It's a trade agreement in the simplest view of the law.
That's why the poor-ass sandgrabbers in Africa are left to kill each other while other nations get the help.
Anybody... anybody... East Timor??? Solomon Islands??? US help???
C'mon.
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2003-07-07 10:51:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
turveytopsey:
"Because Liberia was founded by freed American slaves in 1847 and was a staunch U.S. ally during the Cold War, particularly in the 1980s, many people in Africa and other parts of the globe see the country as an American responsibility."
Furthermore, the people who criticize the US often aren't the people who also 'collectively look to the US for assistance'.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2003-07-07 10:34:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
hair, we get raped on a daily basis.
Submitted by turveytopsy (user info) at 2003-07-07 10:26:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It was a push by the UN for the United States to send troops there in the first place. The world collectively looks to the United States for assistance and when it's given, people criticize the US' actions.
Sounds to me like the dog is biting the hand which is feeding it.
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2003-07-07 07:44:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'd vote to impeach, but I'm not an American citizen so I can't.
Submitted by Hairsphincter (user info) at 2003-07-06 21:44:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
So, Iqqdq, if rape is inevitable, lay back and enjoy it?
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2003-07-06 21:26:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
awesome article.
i have a mate of mine i go and have beers with every couple of weeks. hes about 50 and has known, (and still does) some pretty interesting people in his time, and we get to talking about nissues like this, and the things he has to say, pretty much kill any youthful idealistic ideas of making a difference in the world. dont get me wrong, hes not some morose motherfucker who has given up, he just lays out facts, and things that hes seen, and leaves the interpretation up to me.
after hearing that, and reading articles like this, im of the opinion, that theres not much we can really do, the world got carved up a loooong time ago, so just sit back and enjoy the ride, cos to get yourself into a position where you actually CAN make some sort of difference, you have to be OWNED.
as for the quote by rousseau at the end: choose insignificance - youre much more free if no-one cares about you.
Submitted by Hairsphincter (user info) at 2003-07-06 20:35:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It's also a Petro-Dollar issue, macro economics are fun!
Why didn't the last Bush administration "finish the job"? The EU wasn't in its current form and the Euro had not been seen as success... and possibly an alternative currency with wich to trade oil.
Scary news if your country has a monopoly on oil trade, isn't it? Especailly when it leverages its foreign debt off US reserves held by all petrolium purchasing countries... now imagine if the changed to Euro or traded 50/50? Bye Bye US as we know it, hello North Mexico.
Submitted by Cymensen (user info) at 2003-07-06 20:22:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Very interesting. Now I see why Bush wants another war. What a cock. I hope his ass get's impeached... http://www.votetoimpeach.org