The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
Below [selected quotes and a comment, followed by the complete article] one of the Economist's 27 November 1999 Leaders argues that "Rich economies are also less dependent on oil than they were [in '73]."M Responds:"Energy conservation, a shift to other fuels and a decline in the importance of heavy, energy-intensive industries has reduced oil consumption.
Software, consultancy and mobile telephones use far less oil than steel or car production.
For each dollar of GDP (in constant prices) rich economies now use nearly 50% less oil than in 1973."
"On the other hand, oil-importing emerging economies-to which heavy industry has shifted-have become more energy intensive, and so could be more seriously squeezed."
This is material worth mulling over while listening to or reading sermons on how the Middle East is the permanent and unalterable keystone for U.S. and Western European energy security.
The point is that whether or not the 'Middle East is a permanent and unalterable keystone for U.S and western European energy sercurity', it remains a permanent and unalterable keystone for U.S and western European exploitation and profit making and while it does so, it will continue to remain the former.
In a relationship where the west and its clients hold all the cards (and guns for that matter) and at the expense of the vast majority of people in the Middle East we exploit their natural resources (and perhaps condenm future generations to poverty) to line the pockets of the military-industrial-business elite in the US/West. Further, renewable energy sources will not be fully realised (as they most certainly could be) while this situation remains in existence i.e. as long as it remains profitable. (Even with the imagination of US business it is hard to see how they could regulate the energy production of the sun, for instance).
The linking of 'energy' and 'sercurity' is also telling. The tales of Soviet expansionism in the region (always a lie) now no longer sustainable, reveals the real 'sercurity' threat to US interests (though not fully admitted) to be indigenous nationalism, and it always has been,
Finally the assumption (by the west and its media apparatus) that because the the Middle East is a prize of geat material wealth we can assume responsibility over it because of our 'energy security' needs, displays the western leaders utter arrogance, perceived racial superiority and colonial instincts at their disgusting worst. The situation that emerged in Iraq (whole sale slaughter and economic warfare) is the logical conclusion of this policy attitude.
M