we dont create a solution to the enormous potential gap between our inherent

We dont create a solution to the enormous potential

This preview shows page 55 - 57 out of 57 pages.

we don’t create a solution to the enormous potential gap between our inherent demand for energy and the availability of energy we will have the nastiest and last war we’ll ever fight. I mean a literal war .”39 In January 2008 Carlos Pascual, vice president of the Brookings Institution and former director of the Bush administration’s Office of Reconstruction and Stabilization, released an analysis of “The Geopolitics of Energy” that highlighted U.S. capitalism’s de facto dependence on oil production in “Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Kazakhstan”—all posing major security threats. “Due to commercial disputes, local instability, or ideology, Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Nigeria and Iraq are not investing in new long-term production capacity.” This then was both an economic and a military problem for Washington.40 Especially disturbing in this new phase of energy imperialism is the lack of resistance from populations within central capitalist countries themselves . Thus left-liberal publications in the wealthy nations often
Image of page 55
play on the prejudices of their readers (who are buffeted by rising gasoline prices), encouraging them to support oil imperialism designed to safeguard Western capitalism. D avid Litvin, writing on “Oil, Gas and Imperialism” in 2006 for the Guardian in London, claimed that “the inevitability of modern energy imperialism needs to be recognized.” Threats from Russia, OPEC, Venezuela, and Bolivia were highlighted. The United States invaded Iraq, we were told, partly for “oil security.” Clearly sympathizing with that form of energy imperialism that “involves consumer states launching political or military” interventions “to secure supplies,” Litvin concluded: “Energy imperialism is here to stay, and efforts should [therefore] focus on making it a more benign force .”41 Likewise Joshua Kurlantzick, a contributing writer for Mother Jones,wrote a piece entitled “ Put a Tyrant in Your Tank ” for the May–June 2008 issue of that magazine which attributed oil supply problems to national oil companies, and argued—referring to the Baker Institute report on “The Changing Role of National Oil Companies”—that oil would be better safeguarded if placed in the hands of multinational oil companies as of old. The latter, readers were told, “may cozy up to nasty regimes…but they are at least obligated to respond to public criticism.” Kurlantzick presented repeated criticisms of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela for his “resource nationalism,” going so far as to compare Venezuela to Burma and Russia, as “authoritarian and corrupt ,” citing a study from the neoconservative, largely U.S. government-funded, Freedom House. The Mother Jones article also gave credence to the 2006 internal study conducted by the Pentagon’s Southern Command, pinpointing the national security dangers to the United States of resource nationalism in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador. Other petrostates that
Image of page 56
Image of page 57

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture