Article Links and excerpts showing that the US's post-war foreign policy has always been tied to the premise of oil as a key strategic resource of limited supply that the US is willing to go to enormous extremes to control --and which has enormous consequences for the world, as the US has provoked conflicts and sold arms to unstable governments with severe human rights violations and supported many dozens of autocratic regimes, as well as planning and supporting coups and propping-up repressive regimes and waging genocide and subverting genuine democratic movements -- all for the sake of protecting access to foreign oil. <br>Starman<br>***<br>General Articles on US Economic Expansion - Empire? - Global ...<br>Foreign Policy in Focus believes links between the war and corporate ... As Threats to Oil Facilities Rise, US Military Becomes Protector (June 30, 2004) ...
www.globalpolicy.org/empire/economy/generalindex.htm <br>--excerpt--<br>’Matt Simmons Bombshell: The Impending Decline of Saudi Oil Output (June 27, 2005) <../../security/natres/oil/2005/0627saudipeak.htm><br>The Bush administration and US oil experts base their energy strategy on one simple mantra: that Saudi Arabia’s oil fields can satisfy rising demand. But author and oil investor Matt Simmons refutes these claims soundly, arguing instead that Saudi Arabian oil output will inevitably decline in the near future. In this book review, Michael Klare warns that no other country has the reserves to match Saudi oil production. Ignoring such signs could fuel conflict and further devastate the world economy. (TomDispatch) <br><br>What Drives Support for This Torturer (May 16, 2005) <2005/0516uzbek.htm><br>Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray argues that US oil and gas interests in Central Asia steer Washington’s strong support for the repressive Uzbek government. In 2002, the US gave $200 million in military and security aid to Uzbekistan, a country where human rights violations and torture are widespread. (Guardian) <br>The Intensifying Global Struggle for Energy (May 9, 2005) <2005/0509energy.htm><br><br>With booming global energy consumption and decreasing world supplies of oil and natural gas, the international competition for energy intensifies. This TomDispatch article warns that these increasing pressures on energy sources could provoke new conflicts and wars in the near future. <br><br>Ring Them Bells (May 2005) <../../security/issues/sudan/2005/0500gosh.htm><br>This article draws attention to Washington’s oil interests in Sudan and the motives of proponents of a US intervention. President George Bush’s close ties with Sudan’s intelligence chief Salah Abdallah Gosh expose US hypocrisy over what the Bush administration has labeled genocide in Darfur. Although Gosh’s own government has accused him of directing attacks against civilians, Bush has forged close ties with him in the “fight against terrorism.” Gosh, described as “Osama’s designated minder in the 1990’s” could become a useful US ally, enabling Washington to chase oil profits in the name of humanitarian intervention. (Moscow Times) <br><br>Oil, Geopolitics, and the Coming War with Iran (April 11, 2005) <../intervention/iran/economy/2005/0411bloodoiliran.htm><br>Iran’s vast oil and gas reserves will play a large factor in the “world’s future energy equation” and dictate the Bush administration’s Iran policy, says author Michael Klare. Competitors China, India and Japan have all tapped into Iranian resources, but US firms still do not have access. While the US government may have evidence to support their claims over Iran’s nuclear capabilities, Klare warns that Washington used such an excuse in Iraq. These geopolitical oil concerns, he says, will likely make Iran the next target for the US. (TomDispatch) <br><br>Crude Politics: the United States, China and the Race for Oil Security (April 1, 2005) <2005/0401crudepolitics.pdf><br>The need for oil security has shaped historical events such as Pearl Harbor, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and other foreign interventions. The Atlantic Monthly contends China’s increasingly common oil deals with “rogue states” such as Iran pose a new challenge to US economic power. This article and map demonstrate the competing interests between the US and China, warning that the two countries could “come to blows” if the cost and demand for oil continue to increase. <br><br>Why Wolfowitz? (March 17, 2005) <2005/0317whywolfowitz.htm><br>The tradition of the US choosing the World Bank President has allowed US corporations to have privileged access to developing countries, and the US has constantly fought efforts to democratize the world institution in order to maintain global economic power. Jim Vallette of the Institute for Policy Studies demonstrates that Paul Wolfowitz, the Bush administration’s latest choice for the top spot, is “steeped in blood and oil” and will only further increase US control over oil reserves. (TomPaine) <br><br>Green Imperialism: Wolfowitz, Wars and the Wearing Down of Sovereign States (March 17, 2005) <2005/0317greenimperialism.htm><br>The World Bank, the main organizer of development funds, can “make or break nations,” and US President George Bush’s nomination of Paul Wolfowitz as the Bank’s President signals yet another move of US strategic interest. This Common Dreams author believes “the World Bank is an indispensable tool of foreign policy that this administration wants to employ to the fullest extent to break the sovereign will of the third world,” by withholding aid to countries that fail to align themselves with US policy. <br><br>Playing the Democracy Card (March 17, 2005) <2005/0317democracycard.htm><br>Author Dilip Hiro draws upon examples of US involvement in the Middle East from the 1930s to the present, demonstrating that the US promotes democracy only for economic, military or strategic interests—such as oil or presence of US military bases. The obvious double standard, “blatant myopia” in Hiro’s terms, parallels past US foreign policy in Central and South America as well. (TomDispatch) <br><br>A Game As Old As Empire (February 16, 2005) <2005/0216oldgame.htm><br>In an AlterNet interview, John Perkins declares that Washington’s perpetual desire to control oil resources led the US to intervene in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and also caused the 9/11 attacks. Pointing out that several US corporations beat out countries on the world’s largest economies list, Perkins laments that Washington has gone against the principles of democracy by overtaking foreign oil industries. “Oil is a curse to the world,” he says, yet too few US citizens understand how or why. <br><br>The Axis of Oil (January 31, 2005) <2005/0131oilaxis.htm><br>Access to cheap oil has often dominated and given leverage to US international policy. But as Washington’s attention remains focused on the Middle East and the Iraq insurgency, India and China have crept up on traditional US oil strongholds worldwide. This In These Times article warns of an inevitable “clash” as China and India let their energy needs dictate ties with Russia as well as Iran and other countries with strained US relations. <br><br>Oil, Guns and Money (September 2, 2004) <../analysis/2004/0902yeomans.htm><br>In an excerpt from Oil: Anatomy of an Industry the author argues that US troop redeployment is not about "fighting terrorism" and "ensuring global stability" but "making sure no one messes with American access to global energy resources." Considering the unstable nature of oil-rich regions and a less-than-favorable international climate, America may get the oil it needs, but at what cost? (Salon.com) <br><br>Deadlock in Georgia: An Incremental Gain for Russia (August 16, 2004) <../analysis/2004/0816deadlock.htm><br>The United States has established a military presence in the former Soviet republic of Georgia to protect its access to the vital oil resources of the Caucasus. Conflict over the region's energy supplies could eventually lead to overt confrontation between the US and Russia, but in the short term the rival powers seem content with preserving the status quo. (Power and Interest News Report) <br><br>US and France Begin a Great Game in Africa (August 11, 2004) <../../security/natres/oil/2004/0811competition.htm><br>France and the United States have engaged in a growing competition for favors in oil- rich North and West Africa. Both Paris and Washington are supporting African military dictators while seeking access to their natural resources. According to many analysts, “over the next five years a quarter of non-Gulf oil on the world market will come from sub-Saharan Africa.” (Inter Press Service) <br><br>Reinventing US Foreign Aid at Millennium Challenge Corp. (August 10, 2004) <../../socecon/develop/oda/2004/usaid.htm><br>The US takes a new approach in foreign aid through the Millennium Challenge Corp., an enterprise combining Wall Street savvy and conservative ideology to regulate and monitor impoverished countries’ use of US aid money. To receive foreign aid, countries must “qualify” in accordance with strict criteria. (Washington Post) <br><br>As Threats to Oil Facilities Rise, US Military Becomes Protector (June 30, 2004) <../../security/natres/oil/2004/0630protector.htm><br>Claiming to protect offshore oil wells from sabotage by terrorists, the United States assumed the role of “oil police” in the Persian Gulf. The Wall Street Journal argues that the US Coast Guard’s presence in the Gulf is only one part of a “globe-spanning and open-ended US campaign” to guard the world’s oil resources, a campaign that involves the work of US military forces in the Caucusus, Columbia and Yemen. <br><br>Dumping Crude (March 12, 2004) <../../security/natres/oil/2004/0312dumping.htm><br>This article argues that US insatiable need for oil from oil-rich regions, and its desire to protect its self-interest, have contributed to the political instability and conflicts in these regions, in turn fueling global terrorism. (TomPaine.com) <br><br>Conservatives Use Oil to Keep Heat on Mideast (March 9, 2004) <../../security/natres/oil/2004/0309heat.htm><br>In order to secure its long-term oil interests and to weaken the Middle East's oil dominance, Washington conspired to launch a "cutting world oil prices campaign" and to steer away from the region's oil. This article argues such a campaign could eliminate the possibility of an Arab oil "threat" to the US and therefore strengthen US hegemony in the region. (Inter Press Service) <br><br>Storm Brews Over US Trade Policies (February 16, 2004) <2004/0216storm.htm> <br>Former World Bank Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz suggests that when it comes to international trade, the US commitment is not to free trade, but instead to “getting other countries to give access to American producers to their markets.” (BBC) <br><br>In Quest for Energy Security, US Makes New Bet: on Democracy (February 4, 2004) <../../security/natres/oil/2004/0204quest.htm><br>With US companies trying to secure long-term energy supplies, Washington has changed its Middle East strategy from maintaining political stability in the region to changing the political system in individual countries. The US uses the war on terror as an excuse to put “reliable” regime into place, as the case of Iraq has illustrated. (Wall Street Journal) <br>********<br>Africa Action: Africa Policy Outlook 2004<br>In the past year, the Bush Administration’s foreign policy priorities have ... value in terms of oil and access to military bases, and describing US-Africa ...
www.africaaction.org/resources/ outlook/2004policyoutlook.php <br>--excerpt--<br>In 2004, despite the fact that two African Americans occupy both of the major foreign policy posts in the U.S. government, Washington will not give Africa the attention it deserves and requires. The U.S.’ Africa policy will continue to be characterized by a duplicity that has emerged as the principal hallmark of the Bush Administration approach to the continent. On the one hand, Africa’s priorities are being marginalized and undermined by a U.S. foreign policy preoccupied with other parts of the world. On the other hand, the Bush White House is callously manipulating Africa, claiming to champion the continent’s needs with its compassionate conservative agenda. <br><br>In the past year, the Bush Administration’s foreign policy priorities have negatively impacted upon Africa, both directly and indirectly. The U.S. preoccupation with the “war on terrorism”, alleged weapons of mass destruction, and Washington’s military misadventure in Iraq, has hurt Africa directly in economic and political terms. The White House has also turned Africa into geo-strategic real estate, defining the continent’s value in terms of oil and access to military bases, and describing U.S.-Africa relations once more in a Cold War era model. <br><br>More broadly, to the extent that U.S. actions undermine the very notion of multilateralism, they are directly at odds with Africa’s interests. Africa’s priorities – the fight against HIV/AIDS and poverty – are being ignored, as U.S. unilateralism threatens the principle of international cooperation. <br><br>At the same time, in the past year, the Bush Administration has sought to place Africa at the center of its compassionate conservative agenda. Starting with the 2003 State of the Union promise on AIDS, and continuing with the President’s first trip to Africa in July, this Administration has misled the people of the U.S., and the people of Africa. It claims to be taking action on African priorities, while in reality it is demonstrating the most negative leadership, masking broken promises and harmful policies with high-sounding rhetoric. <br>. . .<br>Oil & Strategic Military Relations<br>Under the Bush Administration, the real priorities in U.S. Africa policy are oil and strategic military relations, and this will continue to be the case in 2004. The Bush Administration will continue to deal with Africa on its own terms, and its policies will be driven by its interests in these areas in the context of the “war on terrorism”. <br><br>In recent years, the U.S. has become increasingly interested in African oil resources as an alternative to the Middle East, and the U.S. now defines African oil as a strategic national interest. The U.S. preoccupation with “energy security” makes certain African countries – like Nigeria, Angola and Gabon – important sources of oil. At present, sub-Saharan Africa supplies almost one-fifth of U.S. oil imports. The National Intelligence Council projects that U.S. oil supplies from West Africa will increase to 25% by 2015. This would surpass U.S. oil imports from the entire Persian Gulf. Studies indicate that the greatest increase in oil production globally in the next decade is likely to come from West Africa, and the U.S. is following this trend closely. In 2004, U.S. policies will continue to further its plans to secure access to this oil supply.<br><br>Increased U.S. interest in projecting military force into the Persian Gulf has led to a massive increase in the U.S. military presence in the Horn of Africa, and elsewhere. The Bush Administration is concerned with the counter-terrorism efforts of African countries, to the extent that they provide security for U.S. interests. In June 2003, Bush announced a new $100 million initiative to help East African countries increase their counter-terrorism efforts. In 2004, U.S. pre-occupation with security in Africa is sure to continue. While it remains uncertain whether or not the U.S. will establish a military base on the island of Sao Tome & Principe, as was rumored last year, it is certain that U.S. relations with Africa will become increasingly militarized, with a focus on energy security and terrorism concerns.<br><br>The trend that has become apparent since 2001, with these two agendas – oil security and counter-terrorism – forming the backbone of U.S. Africa policy under the Bush Administration, will be further reinforced in 2004.<br>(end excerpt)<br>****<br>The Dirty little War for Oil & Commerce<br>Foreign policy is made by default to private military consultants motivated ...<br>into a Transamazonian oil grab represent the darkest side of the US economy: ...<br>www.unii.net/dirtylittlewar.html <br><br>DRUGS - The Dirty little War for Oil & Commerce <br>The United States imports more oil from Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador than from all Persian Gulf countries combined. Thousands of Amazonian Indigenous people and peasant farmers are being driven off their land. -- And U.S taxpayers and consumers are paying the bill. <br><br>The main purpose of the United States Military in the Amazon is to secure access to oil. Without the "black gold" the U.S. economy would be totally unsustainable, living standards would plummet, the dollar would weaken, the available investment and loan capital would shrink and Washington would not be able to sustain its global empire. <br><br>Many transnational companies are leading the fight for U.S. military intervention in the Amazon nations enabling them to secure control of all future Amazonian oil fields. Transnational oil companies are eager to secure their exploration and production activities with U.S. military might, <br><br>Colombia's petroleum production today rivals Kuwait's on the eve of the Gulf War. And recently Colombia announced its largest oil discovery to date, with many other potential lucrative fields marked for exploration and exploitation across the entire northwest Amazon region. <br><br>Colombia is the world's third-largest recipient of U.S. military assistance. In 1996, BP Amoco and Occidental joined Enron Corporation, a Houston-based energy firm, and other corporations to form the U.S. -Colombia Business Partnership. Since then, backed by hefty oil and defense industry donations to political candidates, the partnership has lobbied hard for increased military intervention. They not only pushed for Plan Colombia, but have urged to extend military aid to the entire northwest Amazon region in order to "augment security for oil development operations." <br><br>The paramilitary phenomenon... is the spearhead of Plan Colombia: This is a terror tactic. The US, with the help of the ruling elites & governments, is waging yet another dirty war in Latin America to create territorial control and to control the civilian population. The US envisages a new inter-oceanic canal through the north of Colombia, to bypass the congested Panama canal. Its companies have identified billions of dollars' worth of oil and mineral deposits. So, to insure control of these resources, soldiers and paramilitaries have been murdering community leaders and expelling local people. The places identified for economic development by Plan Colombia are the places now being savaged by the paramilitaries. <br> <br>U.S. “counter-drug operations” in the Andean region have bloomed into a lucrative money making campaign that today brings about $1 billion a year to the private firms that take on the role of the U.S. military intervention in the Andes “drug war”. Far from eliminating drug production, this war will only make it worse. Plan Colombia funds the aerial spraying of coca and opium fields with Roundup, the broad-spectrum herbicide patented by Monsanto. Roundup destroys almost everything it touches, wiping out legal crops alongside illegal ones, poisoning rivers, shattering one of the most fragile and biodiverse forest ecosystems on Earth, precipitating both acute and chronic human diseases. It is the Agent Orange of America's new Vietnam. (Agent Orange, interestingly, was also a Monsanto product.) Now the US administration wants to take this ecocide a step further, by spraying the jungle with a genetically engineered fungus, fusarium oxysporum, a mycoherbicide which produces deadly toxins. <br><br>The “drug war” is a subsidy from U.S. taxpayers to U.S. firms to provide support for third world dictators who dutifully remove all democratic opposition to transnational resource extraction. <br><br> It can't be a drug program. If it was a drug program, it wouldn't be done this way, especially when the Colombian & Peruvian military are involved with drug and arms trafficking. <br><br> The Colombian & Peruvian military are involved with narco-trafficking and even the American army is. Just a year or so ago, they had to pull out the Colonel who was running the U.S. counterinsurgency program there because his wife was caught narco-trafficking. You just can't be in the elite in that system unless you're part of this. The military is in it and the paramilitaries are in control of a large part of it. <br><br>They have very harshly extended support for the whole counterinsurgency and repression programs using paramilitaries and terror against what used to be called "known Communist proponents" - which in the Latin American context means….anybody: peasants, human rights workers, priests, anybody who is out of line. <br><br> This has all interacted with the ongoing peasant uprisings and guerilla movements of not only Colombia, but Ecuador & Peru as well, which all have long histories of struggle for the rights to their land. And now in Colombia, the insurgency is out of control. FARC, the main guerilla movement, is very big and all over the place and even runs a large part of the country. You can argue about what this is, but officially, it is a kind of social democratic program which is enough to scare the daylights out of the ruling Colombian business community and the United States investment groups. So, they naturally impose a type of counterinsurgency program, and since you can't blame it on the Russians anymore, it's drugs. <br> <br>In Peru for 10 years the human rights movement was completely shut down by the harsh “anti-terrorist” measures of the dictatorial regime of Fujimori, and in Ecuador the emerging strength and social support for the Indigenous and peasant groups seeking legitimate rights to their land has the U.S. rapidly expanding Plan Colombia into “The Andean Initiative”, in an attempt to quickly squash out Ecuador’s citizen based Democratic uprising. <br><br>The Indigenous people & peasants in the drug producing areas and even the leadership of the FARC are saying 'look, we prefer to do alternative crops but we need some support. The only thing we can make money on is drugs. We don't want to produce drugs.' <br><br> One way to deal with that is to provide support for alternative crop programs. The U.S. is providing nothing. It's providing some, but not in the areas with guerilla control. In the areas of guerilla control not a penny goes to alternative crop program. <br><br>So, they were driven into drug production. <br><br>That's a consequence of the U.S. drug policy and is one of the main reasons why the whole land is blowing up. And then of course, the Colombian military, trained and funded by the U.S., comes in and kills everyone. <br><br>Private firms take on the role of U.S. military in Andes “drug war”. <br><br> As U.S. efforts to reduce “drug trafficking” out of the Andes escalate, more U.S. supplied equipment is flowing into the region and more Americans are becoming involved -- and occasionally coming under fire. But because of the growing privatization of U.S. military efforts abroad, their presence is often unseen. Increasingly, the U.S. government is contracting or licensing private American firms to carry out quasi-military functions in a practice known as ``outsourcing,'' a practice that critics brand as the hiring of mercenaries. <br>Congress and the American people don't want any servicemen killed overseas, so if contractors want to risk their lives, they get the job. <br>Opponents emphasize the dangers of carrying out foreign policy through private firms, claiming it is fraught with waste and conducted largely outside Congressional supervision or the public's view. There is little or no accountability in this process of outsourcing. This is a way of funding secret wars with taxpayers' money that has gotten us into a Vietnam-like conflict. Most of those involved in outsourcing know it is marred by occasional kickbacks and padding of bills sent to Washington, as well as back-scratching between firms and U.S. officials who supervise their contracts but hope to land a job with the firms after government retirement. <br><br> There's a lot of taxpayers money being wasted on counter-narcotics, and every kind of contractor and business executive imaginable is trying to get a shot at the feeding frenzy. Money, indeed, is what attracts the private companies, <br><br>There is just too much money coming down the pike to control this thing, <br><br>Privatization is a way of going around Congress and not telling the public. Foreign policy is made by default to private military consultants motivated by bottom-line profits, The Department of Defense is now estimated to have 700,000 full and part-time contractors on its rolls. <br><br>This is done primarily because the U.S. lacks popular support at home to commit military forces for these kinds of things <br><br>It is simply an attempt by the executive branch to escape Congressional supervision of the growing U.S. involvement in South America where the civil war in Colombia has claimed some 35,000 lives in the past decade, and during the same time period Peru lost 30,000 civilians to the fanaticisms of the U.S. supported Dictator and his U.S. trained fugitive spymaster; Fujumori & Montesinos, who between them managed to steal 2 billion U.$ dollars during their reign of economic terror which imposed deep poverty upon the Peruvian citizens and received praiseworthy support from the international community of transnational business magnates. <br><br>Countless U.S. firms are actively lobbying the U.S. government and giving hefty campaign contributions across the board to the Executive branch, the whole Senate and all of Congress in order to procure lucrative contracts in the National Disgrace known as Military Corporate Welfare. <br><br>A few of the Beneficiaries of US Government corporate welfare through Plan Colombia (Andean Initiative) are: <br> <br>United Technologies Corporation * Sikorsky Aircraft * Bell Helicopter * Textron * Honeywell* Kaman Aerospace Corporation* Northrop Grumman Corporation * Airborne Reconnaissance * Schweizer Aircraft Corporation * Ayres Corporation * DynCorp * Military Professional Resources Inc * Lockheed – Martin * DuPont * Monsanto * Agricultural Biological Control * Occidental Petroleum * Texaco * BP * Catepillar * Bechtel * Pfizer * AirScan * Aviation Development Corp. * Enron * <br><br>These new funding endeavors to expand the war into a Transamazonian oil grab represent the darkest side of the U.S. economy: <br><br>Blackhawk Helicopters * Huey II helicopters * T53 high altitude performance Engines * K-MAX heavylift helicopters * RC-7 Airborne Reconnaissance Low Multifunction aircraft * SA 2-37A surveillance aircraft * Glyphosate * herbicide * fusarium oxysporum, a mycoherbicide * early radar warning systems * S2R T-65 herbicide spray aircraft * Gattling guns* fumigation services * maintenance and support for drug crop eradication flights* Police training * Private military companies contracted to train troops * <br><br>This type of corporate welfare translates into: <br><br>The death of our earth’s miraculously diverse ethnic heritage, <br>The destruction of Biodiversity and <br>The displacement of countless peaceable communities. <br><br>For Americans it means “Jobs” and the continuation of a lifestyle known as the “American Way” <br><br> The U,S, and its corporate sponsors are desperately seeking ways to make the US invasion look like something rather different. <br><br> In other words, the US administrations have been desperately seeking political credibility ever since they initiated their plan, the participating governments are trying to disguise a program of state terror as humanitarian aid. <br><br>Mass killings, ecocide and the seizure of resources do not have a financial solution, but a political one. You cannot buy human rights, least of all from a scheme that's responsible for their abuse. The only help foreign intervention can offer the South American people is intense diplomatic pressure, exposing the atrocities of their governments and armies, denouncing the schemes which coordinates them and isolates its supporters. Instead, U.S. taxpayers have chosen to collaborate. At its best, the taxpayer funding is a waste of money. <br><br>At its worst, it amounts to complicity in crimes against humanity. How many of us would have agreed that our money should be used like this? <br> <br>PETROVIOLENCE <br> Transnational extraction of natural resources from the Third World promotes not economic and political stability, but violence and lawlessness. From Indonesia to Nigeria to the Amazon, mining and oil drilling have spurred the growth of leftist insurgencies, criminal gangs and rightist militias bestowing the unwanted gift of premature death upon millions of human beings while guaranteeing that the U.S. economy sustain its global empire for a few years more. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>