Maps of the world have clearly defined lines marking the end
of one country and the start of the next. On paper, it all seems easy enough to
understand. The reality is slightly harder to define. Countries interfere with
each other’s agendas for their own benefit regardless of where their boarders
lie. History is full colonialism, imperialism, and spheres of influence. Have
these counties overstepped their bounds? What qualifies for intervention and
does it matter how justified a country is in their actions? The United States
and some of its presidents have come to the conclusion that economics is just
as much a matter of national security as any threat of direct physical harm (Klare, 2005). This position is well
outlined in a text entitled Blood and
Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America’s Growing Dependency on Imported
Petroleum, by Michael Klare. The main economic commodity Klare examines is
petroleum, as the title of his book no doubt hints. The United States has left
its boarders behind in the name of its own security in ways that are invasive
and yet devious enough to ensure the flow of their economic lifeblood without
complete occupation or control.
The most
obvious show of security has been the creation of military bases around the
world. Tampa, Florida is the location of the U.S. Central Command or Centcom
and it oversees all military action in the Persian Gulf (Klare, 2005). These
actions generally have to do with the continued flow of oil. Klare outlines
four other commands around the world including “the Southern Command, based in
Miami; the European Command, based in Stuttgart; the Pacific Command, based in
Honolulu; and the Northern Command, based in Colorado Springs.” (2005, P.1).
While these Commands provide a definite sense of security, it should be asked
weather action should be taken through any of them for economic gain. No matter
the reasons given for entering conflicts, a significant number of interventions
seem to occur in oil regions. These conflicts include the Iraq War, Afghanistan
War, Persian Gulf War, and Iran-Iraq War (Klare, 2005).
The United
States of American and its leaders are addicted to oil. In 2005, when this book
was written, Klare wrote that: “Petroleum provides approximately 40 percent of
the nation’s total energy supply – far more than any other source.” (2005, p.
7). The United State’s actions abroad are largely due to the fact that the peak
for U.S. oil production occurred in 1972 (Klare, 2005). Rather than look to less versatile, yet local
energy sources, the U.S. has bet its economic growth in the future on the
continued use of oil. This is a problem because many of the regions with oil
are unstable and therefore subjects the U.S. economy to any form of turbulence
within these regions. In this way, the United States economy has become at
least partly out of U.S. control. In his book, Klare quotes the Center for
Strategic and International Studies conclusion that “As the world’s only
superpower, [the United States] must accept its special responsibility for
preserving access to worldwide energy supply.” (2005, p. 14). This is a pompous
and metaling statement to make as it implies that the U.S. has the right to
interfere in other countries affairs because it is in the best position to do
so. It is with this kind of rationalization that the U.S. has strove forward as
a sort of world police, regardless of weather any other countries agree.
Many former
Presidents of the United States have contributed to foreign interventions
through acts and doctrines that serve energy interests. Roosevelt’s use of the
Lend-Lease Act to trade protection for oil access basically allowed the U.S. to
trade guns for oil (Klare, 2005). It is hard to imagine how giving protection
and arms to unstable regions stabilizes them in the long run or is in the best
interests of the other countries around the world. The Truman, Eisenhower, and
Nixon Doctrines all served to protect foreign interests through military aide
(Klare, 2005). This type of interaction may seem to diffuse possible unstable
situations, but the discontent it creates is far more damaging.
What
country’s people wouldn’t despise a foreign enforcer that favors stability over
justice? Many of the leaders the U.S. has helped have oppressed their people.
In this sense, the U.S. is acting less like a world Police and more like a
selfish entity committed to its own interests at the expense of others.
Terrorism may not be a diplomatic approach to solving western interference, but
countries cannot interfere as invasively as the U.S. has without consequences.
On top of that, going against foreign religious ideals invites violence on a
very personal level. This is why it is not surprising that Bin Laden would do
the things he did. The United States violated religious values and stepped
within borders for their own personal interests, Al Qaeda attacks were bound to
happen as indeed they did. The SANG headquarters, Khobar Towers, and other
attacks may be travesties, but they do not appear to have been unprovoked
(Klare, 2005). The United State’s indignation over these acts of violence seems
misplaced when so much unwanted interference has been allowed.
The United
States may be a world police of sorts, but they appear not to see justice as
there most important objective. It would seem that they are police of their own
interests and those of other westernized countries. This is just another name
and technique for previous forms of imperialism used to acquire other nations
wealth for those who have over exploited their own. It should not be up to the
United States or any other country to exert this kind of control. The United
States needs to mind its own business and stop further unbalancing other parts
of the world. This is most definitely easier said then done, but necessary if
for moral reasons if nothing else.
References
No comments:
Post a Comment