Conspiracy Theories
There's one kind of argument that's guaranteed to put my back up, and that's labelling someone as a 'conspiracy theorist' for arguing a case that is not compatible with the mainstream orthodoxy. It's lazy, it's insulting, and most frustrating of all, it's a spectacularly effective way of completely undermining even the most well researched or impeccably argued point of view.
The effectiveness of the 'conspiracy theory' label has been realised by the Bush administration - it was one of Rumsfeld's chief ways of dismissing valid questions about the motivations for the Iraq conflict. No-one wants to be seen as a paranoid kook, and dismissing something as being a conspiracy theory tends to cause the more orthodox thinkers and journalists to shy away from participating in a further investigation.
Consider how often Noam Chomsky is dismissed as a conspiracy theorist... this is much easier (and quicker) than countering his usually immaculately researched and documented assertions. Whether Chomsky is genuinely right in his analysis of foreign affairs is a different question - there are many facts, and these can all be argued from a huge number of different perspectives - but it does him a disservice to lump him into the same category as David Icke and other such figures.
A conversation with someone on Discworld MUD included a dismissal of the 'Iraq is all about oil' theory as 'conspiracy'. A colleague at work similarly dismissed the Iraqi Oil Theory as being naive (this colleague later changed his mind and remarked at one point a few months later 'It's obviously all about oil', but I digress). I understand the reaction - the last thing that we want to believe is that the people who have power and influence over all spheres of our lives are so morally bankrupt that they will send thousands of their sons and daughters to fight a war they were sold on the basis of lies and falsehoods. No father or mother *wants* to believe that their elected representatives have weighed up the risks and rewards and decided that human lives are expendable on the basis of naked profiteering.
Personally, I believe it's all about oil - but I don't believe Bush and Cheney went to war in Iraq to line their pockets and the pockets of their supporters. That's just a perk.
In our modern society, Oil is Power... and Power is valuable. Currently the west has control over the very profitable oil fields of Saudi Arabia, a close ally. However, the Saud royal family is cruel and corrupt, and hated by their populace... the British and American military presence in Saudi Arabia is being phased out... a military presence that, despite its primary aims (ostensibly to patrol the no-fly zone over Iraq), also helped to legitimise the rule of the House of Saud. The growing unease in Saudi Arabia, precipitated in part by the American military presence, has made it difficult to justify the current strategy of protecting Saudi oil.
The House of Saud is destined to fall... and what happens after that? It seems likely that a new Islamic state will be born out of the ashes of Saudi Arabia - a state that will welcome Osama Bin Laden as a hero. In such a case, it is unlikely that the US can hope to maintain warm relationships with the new government... a problem since Saudi Arabia has a quarter of the world's proven oil reserves. The conquest of Iraq, however, has now guaranteed Western control of a country which has the second largest oil reserves in the world, as well as an estimated 110 trillion cubic metres of natural gas. Remember however that these are proven reserves only... long years of war and sanctions have left around 90% of Iraq as being unexplored as far as potential oil reserves are concerned. It's likely that there are still huge untapped fields to be discovered - experts estimate that there could be around 100 billion barrels worth under those blood-stained desert sands. The conquest of Iraq has ensured a friendly administration working hand and hand with American oil concerns... the overall trend in Western oil control looks to be downwards, but at least this ensures that it is a slope downwards rather than a plummet.
The increasing power of OPEC should a hostile Islamic Saudi state appear is likely to make it more difficult for the US to meet its rising energy demands... Western control of Iraq also ensures a friendly voice will be heard during deliberations.
To me, this is a plausible (indeed, understandable) reason to conquer Iraq... and call me Mister Cynical, but I think it would be instructive if there was a referendum with a secret ballot, which had the following choices:
a) We do not go to war, and thus suffer higher prices for goods, fuel and a severe general slump in Western fortunes because of reduced oil availability.
b) We go to war to maintain our standard of living.
I'd like to think that the majority of people would vote A, but I don't really believe that would be the case. Most people find it difficult to defend abstracts like human rights and international justice when doing so has a powerful negative effect on their way of life. It's all well and good to say 'I'd definitely vote A!', but until the question is posed as something other than a hypothetical, that answer is pointless. I'd like to think that I would vote A, but it's never a case of someone holding a gun to your head - it's a slow, gradual process of favouring one over the other.
Anyway, rant over.
The effectiveness of the 'conspiracy theory' label has been realised by the Bush administration - it was one of Rumsfeld's chief ways of dismissing valid questions about the motivations for the Iraq conflict. No-one wants to be seen as a paranoid kook, and dismissing something as being a conspiracy theory tends to cause the more orthodox thinkers and journalists to shy away from participating in a further investigation.
Consider how often Noam Chomsky is dismissed as a conspiracy theorist... this is much easier (and quicker) than countering his usually immaculately researched and documented assertions. Whether Chomsky is genuinely right in his analysis of foreign affairs is a different question - there are many facts, and these can all be argued from a huge number of different perspectives - but it does him a disservice to lump him into the same category as David Icke and other such figures.
A conversation with someone on Discworld MUD included a dismissal of the 'Iraq is all about oil' theory as 'conspiracy'. A colleague at work similarly dismissed the Iraqi Oil Theory as being naive (this colleague later changed his mind and remarked at one point a few months later 'It's obviously all about oil', but I digress). I understand the reaction - the last thing that we want to believe is that the people who have power and influence over all spheres of our lives are so morally bankrupt that they will send thousands of their sons and daughters to fight a war they were sold on the basis of lies and falsehoods. No father or mother *wants* to believe that their elected representatives have weighed up the risks and rewards and decided that human lives are expendable on the basis of naked profiteering.
Personally, I believe it's all about oil - but I don't believe Bush and Cheney went to war in Iraq to line their pockets and the pockets of their supporters. That's just a perk.
In our modern society, Oil is Power... and Power is valuable. Currently the west has control over the very profitable oil fields of Saudi Arabia, a close ally. However, the Saud royal family is cruel and corrupt, and hated by their populace... the British and American military presence in Saudi Arabia is being phased out... a military presence that, despite its primary aims (ostensibly to patrol the no-fly zone over Iraq), also helped to legitimise the rule of the House of Saud. The growing unease in Saudi Arabia, precipitated in part by the American military presence, has made it difficult to justify the current strategy of protecting Saudi oil.
The House of Saud is destined to fall... and what happens after that? It seems likely that a new Islamic state will be born out of the ashes of Saudi Arabia - a state that will welcome Osama Bin Laden as a hero. In such a case, it is unlikely that the US can hope to maintain warm relationships with the new government... a problem since Saudi Arabia has a quarter of the world's proven oil reserves. The conquest of Iraq, however, has now guaranteed Western control of a country which has the second largest oil reserves in the world, as well as an estimated 110 trillion cubic metres of natural gas. Remember however that these are proven reserves only... long years of war and sanctions have left around 90% of Iraq as being unexplored as far as potential oil reserves are concerned. It's likely that there are still huge untapped fields to be discovered - experts estimate that there could be around 100 billion barrels worth under those blood-stained desert sands. The conquest of Iraq has ensured a friendly administration working hand and hand with American oil concerns... the overall trend in Western oil control looks to be downwards, but at least this ensures that it is a slope downwards rather than a plummet.
The increasing power of OPEC should a hostile Islamic Saudi state appear is likely to make it more difficult for the US to meet its rising energy demands... Western control of Iraq also ensures a friendly voice will be heard during deliberations.
To me, this is a plausible (indeed, understandable) reason to conquer Iraq... and call me Mister Cynical, but I think it would be instructive if there was a referendum with a secret ballot, which had the following choices:
a) We do not go to war, and thus suffer higher prices for goods, fuel and a severe general slump in Western fortunes because of reduced oil availability.
b) We go to war to maintain our standard of living.
I'd like to think that the majority of people would vote A, but I don't really believe that would be the case. Most people find it difficult to defend abstracts like human rights and international justice when doing so has a powerful negative effect on their way of life. It's all well and good to say 'I'd definitely vote A!', but until the question is posed as something other than a hypothetical, that answer is pointless. I'd like to think that I would vote A, but it's never a case of someone holding a gun to your head - it's a slow, gradual process of favouring one over the other.
Anyway, rant over.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home