From: Charlie Stross (charlie@antipope.org)
Date: Thu Dec 26 2002 - 13:36:05 MST
On Thu, Dec 26, 2002 at 02:27:17PM -0500, Spudboy100@aol.com wrote:
>
> I would submit for those who wish for a longer term peace that
>
> a) It is a fact that Saudi Arabians funds propaganda, and jihadi movements.
>
> b) They possess a lot of the world petroleum.
>
> c) Iraq also possesses a lot of the world's petroleum.
Agreed with all of the above.
(I'd like to add that you might want to look at *why* Saudi Arabia funds
wahabite propaganda and terrorism, and *who* is doing it, and ask yourself
why the US government hasn't moved against them many years ago. It's
extremely dirty ...)
> d) Depose Saddam's regime and one free's up another petroleum source.
Aha. Now the problem here is that you're implicitly assuming that the
petroleum resource belongs to the US, or the west in general, and that
deposing Saddam's regime is a necessary precondition to freeing up that
resource. It isn't; Saddam's been screaming for years to be allowed to
sell more oil in order to fund reconstruction of the infrastructure that
was bombed to bits in 1992 (and subnsequently).
I'm going to emphasize this point: buying Iraqi oil is not, and never has
been, a problem. The problem is what the Iraqi government-in-being might
do with the money they get for the oil. Forcing a change of government
is one way of dealing with this problem. Unfortunately it's also morally
equivalent to expropriating the oil -- theft, in other words. ("We're
going to enter into this voluntary arrangement whereby you give us oil
and we give you money. Except we're going to tell you what you can buy
with this money at the company store. Don't mind these bombers, they're
just there to ensure that you don't try spending it with anyone else.")
Western dependence on middle-eastern oil doesn't just render us vulnerable
to middle-eastern dictators; it's morally corrupting in the same manner
as slavery.
> e) New petroleum source undermines the Saudi economy enough, to perhaps
> effect their funding of jihadi guerilla movements. This is a good thing,
> as Martha
> Stewart might say.
Er, no. You need to take a closer look at Saudi Arabia before you make such
blanket statements.
Saudi Arabia is a really unpleasant hereditary totalitarian dictatorship.
There is no freedom of speech, religion, or behaviour there. Torture and
judicial execution are routine and there has *never* been a democratic
tradition in that nation. That's for starters. The roughly 1000 princes
in the royal family occupy almost all the top executive posts (both public
and private sector) in the country, and promotion for outsiders is almost
impossible without a royal partner in the picture.
Now it's time to get alarmist. The Saudi population has doubled in size
since 1980; the average age is around 20. However, the economy is entirely
dependent on oil production, which is subject to international treaty
quotas established by OPEC. Per-capita GDP has fallen from US $20K/year
in 1990 to roughly US $8K/year today, partly due to population growth
but largely due to the falling price of oil.
Get this: the *one* area where young Saudis are free to demonstrate
enthusiasm is the stern wahabite strain of Islam that's preached in Arabia
and institutionalised by the royal family. This strain is reformist --
in the same way that Martin Luther or Calvin were reformist. That doesn't
mean it's modernist, it means it's fundamentalist and confrontational.
The strain of Islam practiced in Arabia is comparable to the strain
of Christianity espoused by the Aryan Nations. And it's got large-scale
financial support from the monarchy, which is terrified that if it doesn't
continue to support the mosques it will be overthrown in a revolution.
(There *are* reformist and modernist strains within Islam, from the
Shiite Bohras to various Sufi sects. The Wahabite response to these
is "kill the heretics!" Friendly folks.)
Anyway. Here's the upshot: scenario (a) is turning off the money pipes
to the corrupt Kingdom. This will probably provoke a revolution there
that will be more extreme than the one in Iran. Scenario (b), pumping
more money into the Kingdom, will enable more money to reach the barking
nutjob bampots who like flying airliners into skyscrapers. The stick is
cleft: there is *no* optimal strategy for the west, as long as we think
only in terms of buying and selling oil.
Worse. Let us assume a successful US invasion and occupation of Iraq. I'm
not going to speculate on what would happen if Saddam puts up a strong
resistance, or nukes Tel Aviv, or whatever, because those aren't the
worst outcomes. *Any* successor regime in Iraq is going to want to sell
oil because Iraq is a real mess and needs to rebuild a generation's worth
of infrastructure. This will depress the price of oil, leading to
scenario (a). A Wahabite revolution in Arabia might well spread its
tentacles afield, replacing alfresco Al Qaida terrorism with the big
bucks of State terrorism. Worse, it might catalyse a similar revolution
in Pakistan (which has nukes and the means to deliver them) or Algeria
or Yemen. And it'll do this when the US military is tied up occupying
Iraq.
To figure out a solution to this problem is not going to be easy. And
to repeat: I don't think it can be done as long as we restrict ourselves
to the tools of 19th century Realpolitik or 20th century Oil diplomacy.
-- Charlie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:54 MST