Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 05:42:00 +0100 (MET)
Subject: M-G: UNITE! Info #62en: 1/6 US etc: Blood instead of oil


UNITE! Info #62en: 1/6 US etc: Blood instead of oil
[Posted: 01.03.98 - to M-G 28.02.98 Jefferson Mean Time]

Note / Anmerkung / Note / Nota / Anm=E4rkning:
On the UNITE! / VEREINIGT EUCH! / UNISSEZ-VOUS! /
=A1UNIOS! /  F=D6RENA ER! Info en/de/fr/es/se series:
See information on the last page / Siehe Information auf der
letzten Seite / Verrez information =E0 la derni=E8re page / Ver
informaci=F3n en la =FAltima p=E1gina / Se information p=E5 sista sidan.


INTRO NOTE:

In this Info, which is sent to newsgroups and (in part) to the
besieged M-G list in instalments beginning today, I'm continuing
a debate on that list with Juan Fajardo, <fajardos-AT-ix.netcom.
com>, in connection with the recent war threat against Iraq by
US imperialism, which we both opposed, and am reproducing our
earlier postings in this connection.  

One posting, not by either of us, IMO is of particular interest
concerning this war threat and the opposition to it in the USA
itself, namely one by Riad Bahhur <bahhur.1-AT-osu.edu>, of Colum-
bus, Ohio. It was on the "town meeting" in that city on 18.02
which got such large and well-deserved attention international-
ly. Though it has no direct bearing on this debate by us others,
I'm reproducing it in part 6/6 as forwarded to the M-G list by
Hugh Rodwell.

In parts 3-5/6 are the earlier postings by Juan F. and me. I'm
replying directly below, in parts 1-3/6, to his latest. Only
those 3 parts will be posted to (ex-)M-G, since the things re-
produced in the others already have appeared there. 

End of Intro Note


1. A "TRADITIONAL" POLICY, OR BEASTLY
   "PROMISE", BY IMPERIALISM

Hello Juan Fajardo,

In connection with the now (for this time) averted war threat
against Iraq, we've been dicussing the question of possible
inter-imperialist rivalry and above all the one, whether it to
any important extent was or is "blood for oil" that the imperia-
lists want(ed).

You used that expression, above all in the sense that you sup-
ported people's saying "No blood for oil!" And such protests I
absolutely support too . But in reply to your latest posting, on
24.02, subject '"Blood for Oil" and the threat of war', in which
you're arguing the importance of that raw material for imperia-
lism in connection with the Middle East in particular, I'd like
to explain once more and now in some detail why I hold that this
very "obvious-sounding" expression has actually become more and
more misleading, as a description of what present-day imperia-
lism is about, and why one today might even be justified in re-
placing it by "blood instead of oil", which of course is some-
thing, if possible, even worse.

"Blood *instead of* oil": That's how bad is the international
social and economic system of today, present-day imperialism.

The Iraqi people is suffering gravely as a result of the war ac-
tions of 1991 and the sanctions and the blockade since then.
You rightly wrote:

>For over half a decade now, Iraq has been a beseiged country,
>and the people of Iraq have borne the brunt of that siege:
>destroyed infrastructure, raised infant mortality, shortages of
>food, near total lack of medicines, lack even of disinfectant
>to sanitize hospital wards!  The sanctions and the blockade
>have been the real weapons of mass destruction, and they have
>been in daily use for seven years.

It's known, as e.g. Riad Bahhur wrote:

>... United Nations statistics about the number of Iraqi
>children who die each month as a direct result of our previous
>bombing campaigns and seven years of inhumane sanctions: a
>devastating 4,500 dead Iraqi children under the age of five
>each month.  This is clearly mass destruction.

These sanctions and this blockade must be strongly opposed. This
is clear. They by no means CAN be justified by the earlier
wrongdoings of the Saddam Hussein regime against some of its own
people and against other peoples. Concerning the question we're
discussing: Have they resulted in more oil for export to other
countries?

They haven't, of course. One important part of the sanctions
precisely is a ban for Iraq to export oil, a ban to which there
have been only small exceptions. So the blood of the war in
1991 and that of the continued sanctions hasn't produced any
oil for consumers in for instance the imperialist countries
either.

You wrote, Juan:

>But insofar as oil plays its part, it's not necessarily oil for
>today that's being played for, but access to it in the future,
>and perhaps just as importantly, denial of access to one's
>rivals.  How many times have we seen capitalists patent and
>copyright things they never intend to produce, just so others
>won't have that market? How many times have we seen them buy or
>seize resources and property they won't use in order to shut
>down a competitor or shut them out?

That's quite true, and no doubt an important element in US go-
vernment planning: Control, i.a. for possible denial to others.
"Blood for control of oil", then.

The somewhat different expression "blood for oil" seems to me
to convey a certain message to "ordinary people" in the USA and
in those other "rich" countries whose rulers largely depend on
the military power of that state to keep up their particularly
profitable exploitation of the peoples of the third world:

"If you go along with us and support and participate in armed
actions against some oil-producing states, you'll help making
oil cheaper and more plentiful for consumers back home. You may
not like it and may even hold it to be basically immoral, but
that's how the world works."

That *was* "how the world worked" too, some decades ago. Today,
even this - beastly - "promise" by the imperialists to the
peoples in their "home" countries is becoming less and less one
which they intend to keep.

One action that has resulted in there coming *less* oil on the
world market instead of more precisely has been the war plus
sanctions against Iraq. But this is not the only or the main
way in which important forces of imperialism actually are com-
bating the use of that raw material, which is a vital energy
source today of course and one of the most modern there is.


2. IMPERIALISM'S GROWING *AVERSION* TO OIL
   (AND OTHER MODERN ENERGY SOURCES)

A very well-known - or rather, infamous - phenomenon in the
world today, since one or two decades back at least, is a mas-
sive propaganda by the main imperialists according to which
there's a dangerous "man-made global warming" due to the use of
"fossil" fuels - as oil, natural gas and coal constanly are
being called, in another big propaganda lie intended to convey
the impression that they're "scarce", or that at least the two
first-mentioned are.

This propaganda - which it's possible to demonstrate *is* a lie,
but I shall not go into this question here - has been at least
as omnipresent and almost as intensive as was the recent hys-
teria for war against Iraq, and has gone on for a much longer
time. And it has been followed by important actions and conven-
tions by the "leading" countries in the world for curbing the
use of the purportedly "fossil" fuels, putting large extra
taxes on petrol, heating oil etc for industries and individual
consumers, which has had very detrimental effects for the
peoples of the world already; this is getting steadily worse.

What are the real motives behind this propaganda and these ac-
tions? On this I've written in several earlier Infos; I shall
return to this further below. At any rate, one must view the
war propaganda against oil-producing Iraq in early 1998 also in
the light of the propaganda of, for instance, the two big con-
ferences, purportedly "on environmental effects of - e.g. -
oil", in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and in Kyoto in 1997, in which
more or less precisely the same forces played the main roles.

The real motives behind these things have to do with a fact
that's obscured by another of those "catch-phrases" which you
brought, Juan, the one that says "the business of the United
States IS business." This is actually a misleading "popular
phrase" too, since the business of that state, the USA, is also,
and not least, to keep up the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie,
on its "own" territory and, in important respects, elsewhere
too, as the necessary prerequisite for the capitalists to go
about their kind of business, that based on exploitation, in the
first place. Today, the whole international system is in-
creasingly being put into question by its own contradictions,
and the bourgeoisie in the world are very much aware of this
and act accordingly.

Do these actions in order on purpose to *curb* oil use mean that
the US etc imperialists etc no longer have an interest in con-
trolling the particularly cheap oil of the Middle East? No, that
"traditional" imperialist interest still remains to one extent
or another. I didn't mean to imply that it had gone altogether,
Juan. But clearly it has been reduced and today is not nearly as
vital anymore as it once was. This has to do with the advance of
oil extraction technology and with the fact that there are not
only some relatively big fields of oil and natural gas in many
other countries today, but also quite enormous deposits of them
that could be exploited but are not.

One factor which makes the Middle East important to the impe-
rialists of course is its strategic location, in a place where
three continents meet. The oil fields there still are important
but not nearly as "crucial" as a certain propaganda makes out.

[Continued in part 2/6]



     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---