webmaster
© Copyright DEHAI-Eritrea OnLine, 1993-2010
All rights reserved
From: wolda002@umn.edu
Date: Sat Dec 18 2010 - 04:37:49 EST
Oil or Terrorism: Which Motivates U.S. Policy More?
By Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, December 15, 2010
Among the batch of classified diplomatic cables recently released by the
controversial whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks, several have highlighted
the vast extent of the financial infrastructure of Islamist
terrorism<http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/12/06/wikileaks.terrorism.funding/index.html?eref=edition>sponsored
by key U.S. allies in the ongoing "War on Terror."
One cable by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in December 2009 notes
that “donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of
funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.” Despite this, “Riyadh has
taken only limited action to disrupt fundraising for the UN 1267-listed
Taliban and LeT [Lashkar e-Tayyiba] groups that are also aligned with
al-Qaeda.”
Clinton raises similar concerns about other states in the Gulf and Central
Asia. Kuwait remains reluctant “to take action against Kuwait-based
financiers and facilitators plotting attacks outside of Kuwait.” The United
Arab Emirates is “vulnerable to abuse by terrorist financiers and
facilitation networks” due to lack of regulatory oversight. Qatar’s
cooperation with U.S. counter-terrorism is the “worst in the region,” and
authorities are “hesitant to act against known terrorists.” Pakistani
military intelligence officials “continue to maintain ties with a wide array
of extremist organizations, in particular the Taliban [and the] LeT.”
Despite such extensive knowledge of these terrorism financing activities,
successive U.S. administrations have not only failed to exert military or
economic pressure on these countries, but in fact have actively protected
them, funnelling billions of dollars of military and economic assistance.
The reason is oil.
It's the Hydrocarbons, Stupid
Oil has always been an overwhelming Western interest in the region,
beginning with Britain’s discovery of it in Persia in 1908. Britain
controlled most Middle East oil until the end of World War II, after which
the United States secured its sphere of influence in Saudi Arabia. After
some pushback, Britain eventually accepted the United States as the lead
player in the region. “US-UK agreement upon the broad, forward-looking
pattern for the development and utilisation of petroleum resources under the
control of nationals of the two countries is of the highest strategic and
commercial importance”, reads a 1945 memo from the chief of the State
Department’s Petroleum Division.
Anglo-U.S. geo-strategy exerted this control through alliances with the
region’s most authoritarian regimes to ensure a cheap and stable supply of
petroleum to Western markets. Recently declassified secret British Foreign
Office files<http://markcurtis.wordpress.com/2007/02/13/britains-postwar-foreign-policy-a-web-of-deceit/>from
the 1940s and 1950s confirm that the Gulf sheikhdoms were largely
created to retain British influence in the Middle East. Britain pledged to
protect them from external attack and to “counter hostile influence and
propaganda within the countries themselves.” Police and military training
would help in “maintaining internal security.” Similarly, in 1958 a U.S.
State Department
official<http://nafeez.blogspot.com/2007/12/hidden-holocaust-our-civilizational.html>noted
that the Gulf sheikhdoms should be modernized without undermining “the
fundamental authority of the ruling groups.”
The protection of some of the world’s most virulent authoritarian regimes
thus became integral to maintaining Anglo-U.S. geopolitical control of the
world’s strategic hydrocarbon energy reserves. Our governments have
willingly paid a high price for this access – *the price of national
security*.
Still Funding Radicalism
One of al-Qaeda’s chief grievances against the West is what Osama bin Laden
dubs the “Crusader-Jewish” presence in the lands of Islam, including support
for repressive Arab regimes. Under U.S. direction and sponsorship, many of
these allies played a central role in financing and supporting bin Laden’s
mujahideen networks in Afghanistan to counter Soviet influence. It is
perhaps less well understood that elements of the same regimes continued to
support bin Laden’s networks long after the Cold War – and that they have
frequently done so in
collusion<http://www.gregpalast.com/did-bush-turn-a-blind-eye-to-terrorism-bbc/>with
U.S. intelligence services for short-sighted geopolitical interests.
In fact, Afghanistan provides a rather revealing example. From 1994 to 2001,
assisted by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the Clinton and Bush II
administrations covertly sponsored, flirted and negotiated with the Taliban
as a vehicle of regional influence. Congressman Dana
Rohrabacher<http://www.newint.org/features/2009/10/01/blowback-extended-version/>,
former White House Special Assistant to Ronald Reagan, also testified before
the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on South Asia about the “covert
policy that has empowered the Taliban,” in the hopes of bringing sufficient
stability to “permit the building of oil pipelines from Central Asia through
Afghanistan to Pakistan.”
The Great Game is still in full swing. “Since the U.S.-led offensive that
ousted the Taliban from power, the project has been revived and drawn strong
U.S. support” reported the Associated
Press<http://www.energybulletin.net/node/4089>in 2005. “The pipeline
would allow formerly Soviet Central Asian nations to
export rich energy resources without relying on Russian routes. The
project’s main sponsor is the Asian Development Bank” – in which the United
States is the largest shareholder
<http://www.adb.org/About/membership.asp>alongside Japan. It so
happens that the southern section of the proposed
pipeline runs through territory still under *de facto* Taliban control,
where NATO war efforts are focused.
Other evidence demonstrates that control of the world’s strategic energy
reserves has always been a key factor in the direction of the "War on
Terror". For instance, the April 2001 study commissioned by then-Vice
President Dick Cheney<http://pubrecord.org/nation/2430/eager-to-tap-iraqs-vast-oil-reserves-industry-execs-suggested-invasion/>confirmed
official fears of an impending global oil
supply crunch <http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3636.htm>,
energy shortages, and “the need for military intervention” in the Middle
East to maintain stability.
Energy and Iran
Other diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks show clearly that oil now
remains central to U.S. policy toward Iran, depicting an administration
desperate to “wean the
world<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/8182532/How-the-US-aims-to-reduce-Irans-oil-barter-power.html>”
off Iran’s oil supply, according to the London *Telegraph*. With world
conventional oil production most likely having peaked around
2006<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2010/11/101109-peak-oil-iea-world-energy-outlook/>,
Iran is one of few major suppliers that can potentially
boost<http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0411-21.htm>oil output by
another 3 million barrels, and natural gas output by even
more. The nuclear question is not the real issue, but provides ample
pretext<http://iprd.org.uk/wp-content/plugins/downloads-manager/upload/The%20Iran%20Threat%20An%20Assessment%20of%20the%20Middle%20East%20Nuclear%20Stalemate.pdf>for
isolating Iran.
But the U.S. anti-Iran stance has been highly counterproductive. In a series
of dispatches for the *New Yorker*, Seymour
Hersh<http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh>cited
U.S. government and intelligence officials confirming that the CIA and
the Pentagon have funnelled millions of dollars via Saudi Arabia to
al-Qaeda-affiliated Sunni extremist groups across the Middle East and
Central Asia. The policy – officially confirmed by a U.S. Presidential
Finding <http://www.counterpunch.org/andrew05022008.html> in early 2008 –
began in 2003 and has spilled over into regions like Iraq and Lebanon,
fuelling Sunni-Shi’ite sectarian conflict.
Not only did no Democratic members of the House ever contest the policy but
President Obama reappointed the architect of the policy – Robert Gates – as
his defence secretary. As former National Security Council staffers Flynt
and Hillary Mann Leverett observe, Obama’s
decision<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/world/25military.html>earlier
this year to step up covert military operations in North Africa and
the Middle East marked an
“intensification<http://www.raceforiran.com/obama-steps-up-america%E2%80%99s-covert-war-against-iran>of
America’s covert war against Iran.”
This anti-Iran directive, which extends covert U.S. support for anti-Shi’ite
Islamist militant networks linked to al-Qaeda, hardly fits neatly into the
stated objectives of the "War on Terror." Unless we recognize that
controlling access to energy, not fighting terror, is the primary motive.
Beyond Dependency
While classified covert operations continue to bolster terrorist activity,
the Obama administration struggles vainly to deal with the geopolitical
fall-out. Getting out of this impasse requires, first, recognition of our *
over-dependence* on hydrocarbon energy sources to the detriment of real
national security. Beholden to the industry lobbyists and the geopolitical
dominance that control of oil provides, Western governments have supported
dictatorial regimes that fuel widespread resentment in the Muslim world.
Worse, the West has tolerated and until recently colluded in the sponsorship
of al-Qaeda terrorist activity by these regimes precisely to maintain the
existing global energy system.
Given the convergence of peak oil and climate change, it is imperative to
transition <http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6342> to a new, renewable energy
system. Such a transition will mitigate the impact of hydrocarbon energy
depletion, help prevent the worst effects of anthropogenic global warming,
and contribute to economic stability through infrastructure development and
job creation.
By weaning us off our reliance on dubious foreign regimes, a shift to
renewables and away from supporting oil dictatorships will also make us
safer.
*Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy
Research & Development <http://www.iprd.org.uk/> in **London** and a
contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus. His latest book is A User’s Guide to
the Crisis of Civilization: And How to Save
It<http://www.plutobooks.com/display.asp?K=9780745330532>(2010). He
blogs at The
Cutting Edge <http://nafeez.blogspot.com/>.*
Recommended Citation:
Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, "Oil or Terrorism: Which Motivates U.S. Policy More?"
(Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, December 15, 2010)
Showing comments
Sort by Popular now Best rating Newest first Oldest first Subscribe by
email<http://www.fpif.org/articles/oil_or_terrorism_which_motivates_us_policy_more#>
Subscribe by RSS <http://fpif.disqus.com/thread_75602/latest.rss>
-
<http://disqus.com/barkeshli/>
barkeshli 2 days
ago<http://www.fpif.org/articles/oil_or_terrorism_which_motivates_us_policy_more#comment-112457947>
<http://www.fpif.org/articles/oil_or_terrorism_which_motivates_us_policy_more#>
Thank you very much Mr.Ahmad for your interesting and thought-provoking
article.United States has sanctioned several important oil producing nations
during the last 36 years.By mid-1990's, five oil producing countries
including Lybia,Iraq,Nigeria,Iran and Angola were under oil sanction by the
US.Those countries combined held 35% of world oil reserves.As such
insufficient investments took place in the sanctioned countries and the
world oil market faced shortage of production capacity.United States
virtually contorls world crude oil supply using its sanction tool.Having
said that the US is in practice controlling world oil capacity build-up at
its own advantage.That is one reason that EU and other US allies are
intimidated into supporting the US in its energy adventures.
Flag<http://www.fpif.org/articles/oil_or_terrorism_which_motivates_us_policy_more#>
1 person liked this. Like ReplyReply
Reactions
- <http://www.reddit.com/user/violetplanet> violetplanet 1 day ago
From reddit
<http://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/en1xz/oil_or_terrorism_which_motivates_us_policy_more/c19cuuo>
via BackType<http://www.backtype.com/search?q=http%3A//www.fpif.org/articles/oil_or_terrorism_which_motivates_us_policy_more>
yes, yes and yes.!
- <http://www.reddit.com/user/newsens> newsens 1 day ago
From reddit
<http://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/en1xz/oil_or_terrorism_which_motivates_us_policy_more/c19crtu>
via BackType<http://www.backtype.com/search?q=http%3A//www.fpif.org/articles/oil_or_terrorism_which_motivates_us_policy_more>
What motivates US policy? 1. Israel 2. Israel 3. Israel
- <http://twitter.com/ItsNotMoron/> ItsNotMoron 1 day ago
From twitter
<http://twitter.com/ItsNotMoron/status/15526885433802752> via
BackType<http://www.backtype.com/search?q=http%3A//www.fpif.org/articles/oil_or_terrorism_which_motivates_us_policy_more>
RT @FPIF: The U.S. is more interested in access to #oil than fighting
#terrorism. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed at FPIF: http://t.co/BXFGhRQ#MiddleEast
- <http://twitter.com/ThePINPoint/> ThePINPoint 1 day ago
From twitter
<http://twitter.com/ThePINPoint/status/15522538205478912> via
BackType<http://www.backtype.com/search?q=http%3A//www.fpif.org/articles/oil_or_terrorism_which_motivates_us_policy_more>
RT @IPSdc_dotorg #Oil or #Terrorism: which motivates U.S. policy more?
http://ow.ly/3pPKl @fpif
- <http://twitter.com/quinnelk/> quinnelk 1 day ago
From twitter <http://twitter.com/quinnelk/status/15453486049132545>
via BackType<http://www.backtype.com/search?q=http%3A//www.fpif.org/articles/oil_or_terrorism_which_motivates_us_policy_more>
Oil or Terrorism: Which Motivates U.S. Policy More?:
http://www.fpif.org/articles/oil_or_terrorism_which_motivates_us_policy_more
- <http://twitter.com/lionfromccs/> lionfromccs 2 days ago
From twitter
<http://twitter.com/lionfromccs/status/15233242584055809> via
BackType<http://www.backtype.com/search?q=http%3A//www.fpif.org/articles/oil_or_terrorism_which_motivates_us_policy_more>
Oil or Terrorism:Which Motivates U.S. Policy More?:
http://www.fpif.org/articles/oil_or_terrorism_which_motivates_us_policy_more#venezuela
- <http://twitter.com/NafeezAhmed/> NafeezAhmed 2 days ago
From twitter
<http://twitter.com/NafeezAhmed/status/15082929659060224> via
BackType<http://www.backtype.com/search?q=http%3A//www.fpif.org/articles/oil_or_terrorism_which_motivates_us_policy_more>
Oil or Terrorism: Which motivates U.S. foreign policy more? my piece in
Foreign Policy In Focus http://bit.ly/hv5DMv #wikileaks
- <http://twitter.com/sharonjones328/> sharonjones328 2 days ago
From twitter
<http://twitter.com/sharonjones328/status/15070804790214656> via
BackType<http://www.backtype.com/search?q=http%3A//www.fpif.org/articles/oil_or_terrorism_which_motivates_us_policy_more>
Foreign Policy In Focus | Oil or Terrorism: Which Motivates U.S. ...:
The United States is more interested in ac... http://bit.ly/hmO6i3
----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----