Posted on 12/30/2007 7:16:30 AM PST by nuconvert
Why We're in the Persian Gulf
December 27, 2007
WSJ
Walter Russell Mead
-excerpt-
The U.S. today depends on the Middle East for only a small portion of its energy supplies.
-Excerpt-
Imports account for 35% of U.S. energy consumption versus 56% for the European Union and 80% for Japan.
-excerpt-
Only 17% of U.S. oil imports and less than 0.5% of our natural gas come from the Persian Gulf; 80% of Japan's imports come from the Gulf, and by 2015 70% of China's oil will come from the same source.
-excerpt-
... a global economic and political system has been slowly taking shape under first British and then American leadership. As a vital element of that system, the leading global power -- with help from allies and other parties -- maintains the security of world trade over the seas and air while also ensuring that international economic transactions take place in an orderly way. Thanks to the American umbrella, Germany, Japan, China, Korea and India do not need to maintain the military strength to project forces into the Middle East to defend their access to energy. Nor must each country's navy protect the supertankers carrying oil and liquefied national gas (LNG).
For this system to work, the Americans must prevent any power from dominating the Persian Gulf while retaining the ability to protect the safe passage of ships through its waters. The Soviets had to be kept out during the Cold War, and the security and independence of the oil sheikdoms had to be protected from ambitious Arab leaders like Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser and Iraq's Saddam Hussein. During the Cold War Americans forged alliances with Turkey, Israel and (until 1979) Iran, three non-Arab states that had their own reasons for opposing both the Soviets and any pan-Arab state.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
“Only 17% of U.S. oil imports and less than 0.5% of our natural gas come from the Persian Gulf”
How much do we get from Venezuela/Chavez?
Why do all the oil exporting countries become either terrorist, communist or socialist?
Bad luck partly. But I think it is also the case that authoritarian governments are more willing to allow drilling anywhere the geologists want to drill.
Because the leaders of those countries..."..want to take those profits ..."
......”Why do all the oil exporting countries become either terrorist, communist or socialist?” ....
They don’t.
None of the Gulf States are terrorists, communists or socialist. Neither is Mexico, Canada, or Brazil.
Resource-poor countries, on the other hand, have to ensure that sound financial and legal systems are in place that allow their citizens to trade with other countries. So the integrity of the process is the single biggest factor in determining the wealth of any individual or group. This is why some of the wealthiest countries in the world are those with little or no natural resources (Japan, Singapore, Luxembourg, etc.).
Oh, good. Our tax dollars are subsidizing their energy supply and keeping them from having to spend as many tax dollars to protect those supplies.
“How much do we get from Venezuela/Chavez?”
According one source I found....”around 1.4 million barrels per day, which is one-ninth of U.S. oil imports, and a bit less than 8 percent of the 20.4 million barrels of oil Americans burn each day. (Canada is the top source, at 2.2 million barrels a day, followed by Mexico at 1.8 million;”
Interesting question & I think there's a lot of truth to what you're saying.
The common denominator is that such countries, by definition, are sitting on unearned wealth. Whether they go terror-supporting or socialist-leaning seems to depend on the elites of that country (whoever they may be - every country has elites) and what their chosen method of exploiting/siphoning that wealth is.
In terror-supporting countries the elites usually choose to treat the wealth as, in effect, their family money. If this is fully grasped by the commoners in that country, however, the commoners will revolt, or at least will be attracted to some "populist" who promises them a bigger cut. So these elites live in constant fear of overthrow and losing power to some rival family/warlord or to general chaos. Hence, the attraction of an international terrorist movement: give the commoners something else to do, some other external enemy to hate, and send them abroad to blow themselves up.
In socialist-leaning countries, meanwhile, the elites have chosen to simply try to bribe the people into complacency, making sure that in the process the elites will be able to siphon off a comfortable sinecure for themselves. This requires nurturing an ideology of state-as-family as well as an attitude of near-religious faith in technocracy (so that the commoners accept that the elites, by virtue of their brilliance, deserve to be running things).
There can be significant overlap between the two approaches, of course. Most terror-supporting oil countries have significant socialist safety nets at the same time. Some socialist countries (think USSR, or Venezuela today) have supported terrorism and/or nurtured an ideology of hatred/paranoia of external enemies.
But what the common factor seems to be is: a lot of unearned wealth, and elites grasping for ways to exploit it as much as they can. Nobody seems to have found solutions that are much better than either displacing peoples' envy (=supporting terror) or bribing them with just enough to get by (=socialism). If someone can think of a better solution it would be a huge benefit to the world!
“Oh, good. Our tax dollars are subsidizing their energy supply and keeping them from having to spend as many tax dollars to protect those supplies.”
You have to look at the big picture.
“Nor must each country’s navy protect the supertankers carrying oil and liquefied national gas”
This is a good thing.
This means that the other countries don’t have to have much of a navy (and they don’t anymore) which gives the U.S. superiority on the seas. And it makes the other countries dependent upon us, which helps to keep the U.S. the superpower that it is.
The reality is that THIS is the real reason why the U.S. has a major military presence in the Middle East.
ding ding ding. Someone on FR that gets it.
Another great post.
I think it’s also that in resource-poor countries, people have to earn and living by creative work involving lots of added value and skill. They can’t sit back and rack in profits while indulging in polygamy, 7th-century cultism, and corruption. Countries like Switzerland and Japan have traditions of order, hard work, and discipline going back for centuries.
We’re in the Persian Gulf because we can’t afford to let the terrorists have direct access to that income stream!
Oops. Make that “have to earn a living” and “rake in profits...”
China is building a blue-water navy anyway. And what benefit is there to being a superpower, now that our manufacturing is being offshored, our currency is in unprecedented decline, and our nation is now the world's biggest debtor, with an enormous trade deficit?
Are you an isolationist or Ron Paul supporter?
(not that I disagree that too much of our “manufacturing is being offshored”)
Canada and Brazil?? Lots of socialism there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.