File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2001/lyotard.0110, message 117

Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 20:20:28 -0500
Subject: gas

Steve wrote,

no no no - what it shows is the opposite, it confirms the meaning of 
globalisation as being precisely for 'development'.  Nation state 
globalisation is the current operational form of globalisation, with a 
few extra-national organisations. The purpose of globalisation is 1) 
development and  2) continuing dominance of G20 countries... why did you 
think it was different?


I wrote as I did, based on the suspicion that, as this war lingers on,
(with estimates that as many as 6,000,000 civilians may risk death this
winter) it is not really about terrorism after all and that Afghanistan
is merely a proxy.

What really seems to be at stake here is Saudi Arabia and the strategic
interests of the US in maintaining the control of the oil fields in the
Middle East.  It is no secret that the goal of Osama bin Laden is to
replace the wealthy pro-US royal family with a pro-Islamic regime. Of
course, this turn of events would be devastating to a US civilization
which remains the largest consumer of energy in the world, thanks to the
neo-colonialist relationship which allows it easy access to oil through
a classic form of colonial exploitation.  

You see the media is right.  It is about civilization.  Our civilization
is based upon exploitation of the weak and the poor just as Greek
civilization was based upon exploitation of its slaves.  Our leaders and
pundits tell us, cynically, things cannot be otherwise.  

A united Islamic government in the Middle East would end this hegemony
and the lack of availibility for cheap crude would bring about an
economic disaster for the US.  The real terror is the potential that the
US might lose this privileged access before other sources become
available. (That is why Bush is so frantic about drilling in the Arctic
Circle and on public lands.  It isn't about conservation at all, but
about the control of the petro-dollars.)

Ask yourself the following question.  If a peaceful Islamic movement
arose that requested that requested a democratic government,
self-determination and an end to sanctions and the military presence of
the US in the Middle East, would this ever be granted by the US?

The short answer is - only when the oil fields are depleted and there is
nothing left to take.  Then, the desert will be gladly returned in to
the people (except in the case of Israeli settlements, of course!)

That is why I agree we must examine these events from a globalist
perspective, but the specificity of what is occurring points more to
nationalist and colonial  hegemony than to globalism per se.  There are
unique players and unique stakes that make this situation different from
other events.



Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005