The Greenspan Oil Doctrine

Straight from the Monthly Review's latest issue.

Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan’s new book The Age of Turbulence (Penguin 2007)set off a firestorm in mid-September with its dramatic statement on the Iraq War: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: that the Iraq war is largely about oil” (p. 463). The fact that someone of Greenspan’s stature in the establishment—one of the figures at the very apex of monopoly-finance capital—should issue such a twenty word statement, going against the official truths on the war, and openly voicing what “everyone knows,” was remarkable enough. Yet, his actual argument was far more significant, and since this has been almost completely ignored it deserves extended treatment here.

Greenspan’s statement came in a chapter entitled “The Long-Term Energy Squeeze.” Here he argues that “as long as the United States is beholden to potentially unfriendly sources of oil and gas, we are vulnerable to economic crises over which we have little control.” This is the product, he claims, of an overriding fact of today’s global economy: “[W]orld growth over the next quarter century at rates commensurate with the past quarter century will require between one-fourth and two-fifths more oil than we use today” (p. 462). Moreover, Greenspan insists that:

the intense attention of the developed world to Middle Eastern political affairs has always been critically tied to oil security. The reaction to, and reversal of, Mossadeq’s nationalization of Anglo-Iranian Oil in 1951 and the aborted effort of Britain and France to reverse Nasser’s takeover of the key Suez Canal link for oil flows to Europe in 1956 are two prominent examples. And whatever their publicized angst over Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction,” American and British authorities were also concerned about violence in an area that harbors a resource indispensable for the functioning of the world economy....[P]rojections of world oil supply and demand that do not note the highly precarious environment of the Middle East are avoiding the eight-hundred-pound gorilla that could bring world economic growth to a halt. (p. 463)

Greenspan thus historically connected the U.S. invasion of Iraq to the CIA’s overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mossadeq and his government in 1953 and the placing of the Shah in power and to Britain and France’s invasion (along with Israel) of Egypt in 1956—after which the United States took over the role of the leading imperialist power in the region. Greenspan’s explanation for the war, which sees it as part of the Western search for “oil security”—not on behalf of the “world economy” as a whole, as his statement might suggest, but on behalf of the dominant interests in a hierarchical world economy—is thus not far removed from the account that first appeared in these pages in December 2002 before the Iraq War began. There we said “Military, political, and economic aspects are intertwined in all stages of imperialism, as well as capitalism in general. However, oil is the single most important strategic factor governing U.S. ambitions in the Middle East....The U.S. Department of Energy projects that global oil demand could grow from the current 77 million barrels a day to as much as 120 million barrels a day in the next twenty years....For this reason the security and availability of oil supplies has become a growing issue for U.S. corporations and U.S. strategic interests” (pp. 9–11; see also John Bellamy Foster, Naked Imperialism, pp. 92–93).

After the release of his book Greenspan was pressed by the Bush administration to say that it had not gone to war over oil. Greenspan cagily responded with a Hegelian ruse of history (wherein the real logic operates behind the backs of the actors): “I’m not saying that they believed it was about oil. I’m saying it is about oil and that I believe it was necessary to get Saddam out of there.” For Greenspan it was all about oil and the capitalist world economy, and the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq was therefore justified, in his eyes, in order for the United States to gain control of the world oil supply on behalf of the “developed world”—in line with a long history of economic empire. There could hardly be a better statement on economic imperialism by a person better positioned to know. As Robert Ebel, senior adviser in the Energy Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who has worked with the CIA and the State Department’s “Future of Iraq Project,” explained: “When we went into Iraq, I said it’s about getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Once we got rid of Saddam Hussein, then the day after it would be about oil” (UPI, “Analysis: Iraq, Oil, and Greenspan’s Gospel,” September 19, 2007, http://www.upi.com). This whole dynamic might be given a name “The Greenspan Oil Doctrine.”

Syrians Against Censored Syria

Reposted from Golaniya's Decentering Damascus.
Facebook is blocked in Syria, would I sound naïve if I said I didn’t see it coming? Why should I? How are the Syrians facebooking? Launching opposition campaigns? What's Facebook in Syria anyway? Active civil society? Syrian groups calling to overthrow the Syria regime? What's so dangerous about Syrian facebookers that they shouldn't be using it anymore? Or perhaps because the site is American so it should be blocked? Or maybe the Syrian officials have no idea what's Facebook except that it's an American and it's getting popular in Syria? All the above?

My theory? I think the Syrian officials don’t have a thorough idea how Syrians are facebooking, I think they did not block Facebook–the-site, but the unfamiliar reaction to this site, the unknown consequences of this reaction that might be very much, uncontrolled!

Even though I am not a big fan of this website but I along with some users learned how to use it to promote my projects. More than once I tried permanently to deactivate my account, but I always come back and always for a new different reason.

Ok so Ammar Abd El Hamid used to blog on Blogger, but he's not anymore god damn it! Youtube has opposition videos downloaded, opposition sites are opposition "no good" sites, Israel is the "enemy", but what's really the deal with Facebook? And how come Myspace, Hi5, Hi-Syria, and I don’t know what, aren’t blocked in Syria? Why just Facebook?

United Nations estimated the population in Syria year 2003 at 17,800,000. How many of those do we have on Facebook? It says that there are only 28,079 facebookers that affiliated to the "Syria" regional network. Of course there are many Syrian Facebookers who don’t affiliate with the Syrian regional network simply because they don’t live in Syria. So generally speaking those who affiliate to the Syrian network live in Syria at the moment. So out of millions we have only 28,079 Syrian Facebookers.

Compared to Syria, Lebanon which was estimated in 2003 by the United Nations at 3,653,000 has 150,966 facebooker users affiliated to its regional network.

Looks like Facebook isn’t popular in Syria as Hi5 or Hi-Syria , yet it is the first and only social website that was blocked in Syria. Again, why?

Let's take a look at the popular groups in Syria at its second day of the blockage:

أغلظ 100 شخصية في سوريا

الإعلان السوري .....إلى متى هذا الإنحطاط ؟؟؟

لمسة عشق على ارض دمشق

بحبك يا شام

أصابيع رجلين البنات عشقها الشباب _ Fingers feet

Anti-Shawi ~...Die Shawi Die!!!...~

Syrian Single Girls

لا لسجن سلطان الطرب

The Great Facebook Race – Syria

احلى النكت الحمصية

Very…dangerous I'd say! None of these groups are political or even close to demanding political or social change in Syria. So it must be not the majority's interests that concerns the Syrian officials but rather the minority's interests and activism in the site:

FREE ANWAR BUNNI

Freedom for Michel Kilo

Syrian Gays Rights

لا .. لحجب مواقع الانترنت في سوريا

For Civil Marriage in Syria


Facebook's events and groups are not just what's processing the Syrian people's awareness, but also its causes. For the past 40 years the Syrian officials are the only ones who can speak of Golan Heights, I once wanted to write my seminar and I asked for a map of Golan Heights but they told me I cannot for "security reasons". Ayman Haykal, a Syrian citizen and the father of the Syrian bloggers made an attempt to transfer the strictly formal representation of Golan Heights to people when he created the cause Free Golan. It's the people who make causes happen, not officials, and certainly not elected ones. Yaser Arafat died, but he wasn’t the cause, Palestine, Palestinians are, the Palestinian cause will always live as long as there are living Palestinians.

Another cause on Facebook is Saving Old Damascus, that is from Syrian Regime itself.

It is worth to note that a couple days ago Syrian Facebookers have launched a campaign to save a girl from a potential "honour" crime. Dania Sharif wrote the petition and addressed it to Syrian authorities to act and stop honour crimes in Syria. Not sure if this was the reason or not, but it could be.

These groups are not popular, not because their cases are not supported but their unpopularity stems from fear. Nevertheless, these political and unorthodox groups are not the reason of the blockage of the site, I think.

Who lives in Syria knows that it's the country of "nothing's going on" except to hang out in old Damascus' cafes, but recently there has been a cultural awakening; people are starting to organize their interests in concerts, galleries, conferences, plays, screenings…etc. and Facebook is facilitating the process which is very hard to do in an inactive militarily controlled society. There are no cultural institutions in Syria, no private independent NGOs, no civic institutions, who represent the populations except the government? Syrian Facebookers are trying now to represent themselves. Those who cannot be activists in a "real" Syria can be one in a virtual Syria. Facebook is becoming a tool to bring together these very individuals to promote their socially, religiously and politically prohibited thoughts. We are not talking about blocking of a social networking tool, we are talking about blocking an awareness networking tool, a chance to express, to finally speak and do something about it.

It's high time to demand our right to seek ALL and ANY information regardless of its source, we have the mind to decide for ourselves what we should/should not read or believe.

We have the right to organize ourselves and activate our numb citizenship. We want to be socially and politically active. We want to campaign for human rights, we want to be civilians instead of abstract "Syrians," instead of mere Muslims and Christians.

We want to engage in building our nation.

We don’t want to be permitted to act; we want to be voluntarily and spontaneously acting.

We want to be doers and actors.

We want Syria uncensored!

Schizophrenic president

What is at stake is not the actual person of the president, but the political agenda to follow. The result?

"You are trying to choose a president who will be acceptable to two camps who really have opposed political programmes," [Paul Salem] said. "So almost by definition, any president they agree on will be at best a schizophrenic president."

Not that such candidates are not around...

برهان غليون عن الدين والسياسة

يكتب برهان غليون هنا عن الدين والسياسة. وبينما أرحب بتحليله، أرى تناقضًا في نظرته إلى الفكر الماركسي والدين. فهو من ناحية يرى أن

يصدم هذا الدور المتجدد للدين. . . بشكل أقوى أولئك الذين اعتقدوا، على خطى ماركس والفلسفات المادية، بأن الدين أفيون الشعوب، وأنه سينحسر لا محالة مع انهيار نظم السيطرة والاستعباد الطبقية، وزوال استغلال الانسان للانسان، والحاجة إلى عزاء من طبيعة سحرية.

سؤالي هو: هل انهارت نظم السيطرة والاستعباد الطبقية، وزال استغلال الانسان للانسان؟
الجواب في النص نفسه.

وتستند معظم حركات المعارضة العربية والاسلامية وأكبرها اليوم على الذاكرة والتعبئة الدينية في نشاطها الرامي إلى تغيير الأوضاع او مواجهة النظم القمعية والفردية.

ويضيف:

فالدين يستعاد هنا كمورد أو مصدر لتعزيز موقف فئات اجتماعية معينة في صراعها ضد البؤس أو الفقر أو البطالة أو التهميش أو العدوان الخارجي. ويشكل الدين هنا مصدرا لتاكيد هوية جمعية أو عقيدة كفاحية تشجع على التضحية، أو تفعيلا لقيم التضامن الاجتماعي والانساني. ومن هنا يمكن القول إن الدين لم يعد بعد أن انحسر وإنما أعيد تاهيله وتجديد أفكاره وقيمه ليقوم بأدوار جديدة. فالمادة التي يستخدمها الدين المجدد قديمة، تتعامل بالأفكار والمفاهيم والمصطلحات والطقوس ذاتها، لكنها وضعت في صورة جديدة أوحت بها حاجات المجتمعات وتحديات الحداثة.

للتذكير كتب ماركس :

الإنسان يصنع الدين، وليس الدين الذي يصنع الإنسان. . .

البؤس الديني هو في آن تعبير عن البؤس الحقيقي واعتراض على البؤس الحقيقي. الدين هو تنهيدة المخلوق المضطهد، عقل عالم بلا قلب، كما هو روح زمن بلا روح. هو أفيون الناس.

إلغاء الدين بصفته سعادة الناس الوهمية هو مطالبة بسعادتهم الحقيقية. وما دعوتهم إلى التخلّي عن الأوهام المحيطة بواقعهم إلاّ دعوة إلى التخلّي عن واقع يحتاج إلى أوهام. . .
لذا فمهمة التاريخ، بعد زوال حقيقة العالم الآخر، تأسيس حقيقة العالم الحاضر. والمهمة الأولى للفلسفة، التي هي في خدمة التاريخ، تكمن في إسقاط القناع عن تغريب الذات في أشكاله المدنسة بعد إسقاط القناع عن تغريب الذات في شكله المقدس. هكذا يتحول نقد السماء إلى نقد الأرض، ونقد الدين إلى نقد القانون، ونقد اللاهوت إلى نقد السياسة.

من هنا أرى أن غليون من ناحية يتبنى نظرة ماركس للدين، ومن ناحية أخرى ينقض النظرة السائدة عنها، والتي يبدو أنه يخلط بينها وبين ما قدّمه ماركس فعلاً. وهو محق في نقض النظرة السائدة لكن مخطئ في اعتبار نقضه موجّهًا نحو الفركة الأصلية لماركس. هكذا أفهم قوله، على رغم تبنيه مفهوم ماركس للدين كما أوردت:

من هنا لم يعد هناك معنى لوصف هذه الأديان، كما فعل ماركس، بأنها أفيون الشعوب أو أداة تخديرها، ولا لعزو انتشار الفكر الديني إلى جهل العامة أو غياب المعرفة العقلية.

ومن هذه المغالطة يطرح غليون الحلّ للمسألة في الدين، بدلاً من أن يطرحه في السياسة، كما طرح ماركس وكما هو مجدٍ فعلاً في رأيي:

في نظري، لا يكمن الجواب على هذه المفارقة التاريخية في الدعوة إلى استبعاد الدين من السياسة، وإنما في السعي إلى تعميق مفهوم الدين بمعنى الإخلاص، بوصفه نكرانا للذات في سبيل المباديء الإنسانية، التي هي مقاصد إلهية أيضا، على حساب استغلاله لتأكيد نفوذ الطائفة أو القببلة أو الامة، مما يشكل مصدر الخطر الرئيسي على أي تجرية سياسية دينية معاصرة. عندئذ يمكن للدين المساوي للإخلاص والقائم على مباديء الحق والعدالة والمساواة، أن يكون عاملا رئيسيا في بناء دولة القانون والديمقراطية العربية او الاسلامية المنشودة.

أليس ذلك طريقًا مقطوعًا نحو "انهيار نظم السيطرة والاستعباد الطبقية، وزوال استغلال الانسان للانسان؟"

Iraqi refugees in Lebanon

Iraqis fleeing violence in their homeland are increasingly detained in Lebanon and jailed alongside "common criminals," a U.S. refugee protection group said Monday. . .
The report, however, highlighted the plight of the estimated 50,000 Iraqis who have reached Lebanon.

It said authorities have been "systematically arresting and detaining those who are in Lebanon illegally" since May, when government troops battled al-Qaida inspired militants holed up in a Palestinian refugee camp in the country's north.

"The government has taken to detaining Iraqis, placing them in jail with common criminals," the report said.

Lebanese government did not immediately comment on the report. But security officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to media, said about half of the estimated 1,000 jailed illegal migrants were Iraqi. Most of them likely face deportation because of prison overcrowding, the officials said.

The Iraqis are picked up for overstaying their visas or for entering the country illegally, the report said.

Stephane Jaquemet, the regional representative for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, said Iraqis in Lebanon are not recognized by the government as refugees because there "is no mechanism in the law" for that status. He put the number of Iraqis currently in jail at about 580.

Jaquemet said the UNHCR has unsuccessfully tried to get Lebanese authorities to legalize the Iraqi refugees.

Michel Kassarji, head of the Lebanese Chaldean Church, which has a following in Iraq, put the number of Iraqis in Lebanon at about 80,000. Kassarji urged for international pressure on Lebanon to give the refugees temporary residence.

P.S. In my mind the reflex of urging for "international pressure on Lebanon" is an indicator of the failure of the Lebanese political system, the weakness of dissenting groups, and the hegemony of foreign powers.

Old trainers for new battles

Someone should really investigate the evolution of relations between the US and Lebanese military.
See this, for instance, from AFP:

The United States is planning to donate old training aircraft to the Lebanese Air Force, bypassing restrictions on arms transfers to Lebanon, the US weekly Defense News reported.

An unnamed US diplomat in Beirut and a senior Lebanese military official told the weekly that "about three" TA-3 jets, the trainer version of the A-3 Skywarrior attack bomber, could be given to Beirut.

"For some reason, US policy does not permit providing Lebanon with offensive weapons, especially air power," the Lebanese official told the weekly.

"But there is no problem with providing Lebanon with trainers, and hence we have decided to go for this option as a start."

The Lebanese official said the air force wants trainers capable of carrying bombs and attacking ground targets.

"We hope this would be the first step before the US is ready to supply us with F-16s," the official added.

The Lebanese official said they were aware that the aircraft are old.

"But for us it would be better than nothing," the official said.

"Besides, the trainers would be given to the LAF more or less for free."

Defense News also said Lebanon was in discussions to acquire attack helicopters from the United States.

The reason is obvious of course. As I had posted before,

"The larger question is: Who is their enemy? Are they looking at Israel? Al Qaeda? Syria? . . . In our minds, this is the army that sooner or later will have to stand up to the armed branch of Hezbollah. . . . And right now, it's a military [whose equipment] may be too large and too heavily armored for the threats around them," [Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, a top military planner] said.