Hmmmm....don't think U.S. foreign policy under Bush is motivated by oil and is instead motivated by the desire to spread democracy throughout the world? Think again.
Case in point No. 1: "US accused of bid to oust Chvez with secret funds" http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,1860867,00.html
The administration will respond by saying Chavez, a democratically elected leader I might add, is wacko and a threat to the U.S. The term "U.S." in this context however is is just secret code for U.S. oil interests. I guarantee the administration could care less about Chavez if he hadn't nationalized Venezuela's oil reserves and ... GASP!!! ... used the profits to aid Venezuela's poor population. (Buy Citgo gas by the way; they're Venezuelan.) After reading this Guardian article, Chavez's claims that the Bush administration has made attempts on his life doesn't sound so crazy anymore.
Case in point No. 2: Iran, 1941 to present
From Wikipedia:
"During World War II, Britain and the USSR invaded Iran from August 25 to September 17, 1941, to stop an Axis-supported coup and secure Iran's petroleum infrastructure. The Allies of World War II forced the shah to abdicate in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whom they hoped would be more supportive. In 1951, an eccentric pro-democratic nationalist, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh rose to prominence in Iran and was ELECTED its first Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, Mossadegh alarmed the West by his nationalization of Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later renamed BP), which controlled all of the country's oil reserves. Britain immediately put an embargo on Iran. Members of the British Intelligence Service approached the United States under President Eisenhower in 1953 to join them in Operation Ajax, a coup against Mossadegh. President Eisenhower agreed, and authorized the CIA to assist the BIS in overthrowing Mossadegh. The Shah at first attempted to formally dismiss Mossadegh, but this backfired and Mossadegh convinced the Shah to flee to Baghdad.
"Regardless of this setback, the covert operation soon went into full swing, conducted from US Embassy in Tehran under the leadership of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr.. Agents were hired to facilitate violence; and, as a result, protests broke out across the nation. Anti- and pro-monarchy protestors violently clashed in the streets, leaving almost 300 dead. The operation was successful in triggering a coup, and within days, pro-Shah tanks stormed the capital and bombarded the Prime Minister's residence. Mossadegh surrendered, and was arrested on August 19, 1953. He was tried for treason, and sentenced to three years in prison.
"Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was then reinstated as Shah. His rule became increasingly autocratic in the following years and soon Iran became a model police state. With strong support from the US and UK, the Shah further modernized Iranian industry, but simultaneously crushed all forms of political opposition with his intelligence agency, SAVAK. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini became an active critic of the Shah's reign and publicly denounced the government. Khomeini, who was popular in Iran as a religious leader, was arrested and imprisoned for 18 months. After his release in 1964, Khomeini publicly criticized the United States government. Instead of executing of Khomeini, the Shah was persuaded to send him into exile by General Hassan Pakravan. Khomeini was sent first to Turkey and then to Iraq. While in exile, he continued to denounce the Shah and gained more popularity among Iranians.
"By the late 1970s, it became apparent that the Shah was losing his hold over the country. In 1978, when protests against his rule grew louder, the shah instituted martial law. Despite this period, on September 8, mass but peaceful protests around the country were held. This came to an abrupt end when the Shah sent in the military to suppress the demonstrations. As a result, several hundred protesters died in what many Iranians today call Black Friday, an event that quashed most support for the Shah in the country.
"1979 saw an increase in protests against both the Shah and citizens of the United States, culminating in the Iranian Revolution."
So, Iran can thank the greed for oil by the U.S. and Britain for its current regime and we can thank Eisenhower for Iran's hatred of the U.S. (and nearly every President since WWII for the U.S.'s blind support of Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories).
Case in point #3: Chile, 1973
On September 11, 1973, with major help from the U.S., Chile's democratically elected president, Salvador Allende, was overthrown by a coup and replaced by one of the most brutal dictators in history, Augusto Pinochet. After Allende had been elected in 1970, he proceeded to nationalize many of Chile's major industustries, including the oil industry. The U.S. was having none of that and, under the supervision of Henry Kissinger, backed the military coup. Granted, there were likely other reasons for backing the coup - Allende's strong ties to Cuba and the USSR and the nationalization of foreign (i.e., U.S.) owned copper mines. But the fact remains Allende was democratically elected and deprived U.S. corporations of ownership in Chile's major industries, including the oil industry.
Case in point #4: Saudi Arabia, 1938 to present
The discovery of oil in Saudi Arabia in 1938 and the rise of communism in the East led to the formation of an oil-for-security relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. No doubt with the fall of the Soviet empire, if Saudi Arabia had no oil, the U.S. would ignore it in the same way it has ignored the decades of atrocities and brutal military regimes in Africa. Some might point to the U.S.'s friendly relations with non-oil-producing middle east countries like Jordan, Israel and Egypt, but support of those nations provides the U.S. with a "buffer zone" and a launch pad to protect its oil interests in the region ala the first and second gulf war. What other motivation would they have for advocating democracy in non-friendly oil-producing states while ignoring strategically-placed repressive but U.S.-friendly regimes in the region like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.?
Case in point #5: Afghanistan, 1990s
The U.S. didn't give a shit about the Taliban until 9/11/01. In fact, while the Taliban were busy executing women in the Kabul soccer stadium for showing their wrists or teaching their daughters to read, Shell Oil, through coordination with the U.S. government, was negotiating with the Taliban for the construction of an oil pipeline through northern Afghanistan. The Taliban balked shortly before 9/11. 9/11 then gave Shell and the U.S. a reason to ditch those negotiations. This isn't to say that the U.S. shouldn't have gotten rid of the Taliban. I'm absolutely glad they did. They shouldn't have ditched Afghanistan in 1989. My point is that the history of U.S. foreign policy shows a trend of favoring domestic oil interests over a professed desire for democracy in the rest of the world. Just ask Iran and Venezuela.
Of course, oil isn't the only economic interest motivating U.S. foreign policy. Installation of friendly governments - non-democratic are the best since the U.S. can exercise greater control through blackmail by the use of "foreign aid" and turning a blind-eye to human rights abuses - also facilitates free trade. Free trade demolishes locally-owned businesses in favor of U.S. mega-corporations who can come in and sell their goods more cheaply than small, locally-owned businesses. "Cheap" goods may sound like a good deal on first glance, but it takes business ownership out of local hands and leads to an increased and perpetual lower class and an inability of the government to repay massive debt obligations.
I have debates about these and other issues with family friends and the typical response is, "If you don't like this country, move to France." The only response I can give them is that I love my country, but our Government can fuck off. With all its money and power, the U.S. has such potential for facilitating postive change throughout the world. I don't think it can do that without a wholesale change in its self-centered foreign policy. The current administration has been one of the worst offenders.
Case in point No. 1: "US accused of bid to oust Chvez with secret funds" http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,1860867,00.html
The administration will respond by saying Chavez, a democratically elected leader I might add, is wacko and a threat to the U.S. The term "U.S." in this context however is is just secret code for U.S. oil interests. I guarantee the administration could care less about Chavez if he hadn't nationalized Venezuela's oil reserves and ... GASP!!! ... used the profits to aid Venezuela's poor population. (Buy Citgo gas by the way; they're Venezuelan.) After reading this Guardian article, Chavez's claims that the Bush administration has made attempts on his life doesn't sound so crazy anymore.
Case in point No. 2: Iran, 1941 to present
From Wikipedia:
"During World War II, Britain and the USSR invaded Iran from August 25 to September 17, 1941, to stop an Axis-supported coup and secure Iran's petroleum infrastructure. The Allies of World War II forced the shah to abdicate in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whom they hoped would be more supportive. In 1951, an eccentric pro-democratic nationalist, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh rose to prominence in Iran and was ELECTED its first Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, Mossadegh alarmed the West by his nationalization of Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later renamed BP), which controlled all of the country's oil reserves. Britain immediately put an embargo on Iran. Members of the British Intelligence Service approached the United States under President Eisenhower in 1953 to join them in Operation Ajax, a coup against Mossadegh. President Eisenhower agreed, and authorized the CIA to assist the BIS in overthrowing Mossadegh. The Shah at first attempted to formally dismiss Mossadegh, but this backfired and Mossadegh convinced the Shah to flee to Baghdad.
"Regardless of this setback, the covert operation soon went into full swing, conducted from US Embassy in Tehran under the leadership of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr.. Agents were hired to facilitate violence; and, as a result, protests broke out across the nation. Anti- and pro-monarchy protestors violently clashed in the streets, leaving almost 300 dead. The operation was successful in triggering a coup, and within days, pro-Shah tanks stormed the capital and bombarded the Prime Minister's residence. Mossadegh surrendered, and was arrested on August 19, 1953. He was tried for treason, and sentenced to three years in prison.
"Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was then reinstated as Shah. His rule became increasingly autocratic in the following years and soon Iran became a model police state. With strong support from the US and UK, the Shah further modernized Iranian industry, but simultaneously crushed all forms of political opposition with his intelligence agency, SAVAK. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini became an active critic of the Shah's reign and publicly denounced the government. Khomeini, who was popular in Iran as a religious leader, was arrested and imprisoned for 18 months. After his release in 1964, Khomeini publicly criticized the United States government. Instead of executing of Khomeini, the Shah was persuaded to send him into exile by General Hassan Pakravan. Khomeini was sent first to Turkey and then to Iraq. While in exile, he continued to denounce the Shah and gained more popularity among Iranians.
"By the late 1970s, it became apparent that the Shah was losing his hold over the country. In 1978, when protests against his rule grew louder, the shah instituted martial law. Despite this period, on September 8, mass but peaceful protests around the country were held. This came to an abrupt end when the Shah sent in the military to suppress the demonstrations. As a result, several hundred protesters died in what many Iranians today call Black Friday, an event that quashed most support for the Shah in the country.
"1979 saw an increase in protests against both the Shah and citizens of the United States, culminating in the Iranian Revolution."
So, Iran can thank the greed for oil by the U.S. and Britain for its current regime and we can thank Eisenhower for Iran's hatred of the U.S. (and nearly every President since WWII for the U.S.'s blind support of Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories).
Case in point #3: Chile, 1973
On September 11, 1973, with major help from the U.S., Chile's democratically elected president, Salvador Allende, was overthrown by a coup and replaced by one of the most brutal dictators in history, Augusto Pinochet. After Allende had been elected in 1970, he proceeded to nationalize many of Chile's major industustries, including the oil industry. The U.S. was having none of that and, under the supervision of Henry Kissinger, backed the military coup. Granted, there were likely other reasons for backing the coup - Allende's strong ties to Cuba and the USSR and the nationalization of foreign (i.e., U.S.) owned copper mines. But the fact remains Allende was democratically elected and deprived U.S. corporations of ownership in Chile's major industries, including the oil industry.
Case in point #4: Saudi Arabia, 1938 to present
The discovery of oil in Saudi Arabia in 1938 and the rise of communism in the East led to the formation of an oil-for-security relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. No doubt with the fall of the Soviet empire, if Saudi Arabia had no oil, the U.S. would ignore it in the same way it has ignored the decades of atrocities and brutal military regimes in Africa. Some might point to the U.S.'s friendly relations with non-oil-producing middle east countries like Jordan, Israel and Egypt, but support of those nations provides the U.S. with a "buffer zone" and a launch pad to protect its oil interests in the region ala the first and second gulf war. What other motivation would they have for advocating democracy in non-friendly oil-producing states while ignoring strategically-placed repressive but U.S.-friendly regimes in the region like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.?
Case in point #5: Afghanistan, 1990s
The U.S. didn't give a shit about the Taliban until 9/11/01. In fact, while the Taliban were busy executing women in the Kabul soccer stadium for showing their wrists or teaching their daughters to read, Shell Oil, through coordination with the U.S. government, was negotiating with the Taliban for the construction of an oil pipeline through northern Afghanistan. The Taliban balked shortly before 9/11. 9/11 then gave Shell and the U.S. a reason to ditch those negotiations. This isn't to say that the U.S. shouldn't have gotten rid of the Taliban. I'm absolutely glad they did. They shouldn't have ditched Afghanistan in 1989. My point is that the history of U.S. foreign policy shows a trend of favoring domestic oil interests over a professed desire for democracy in the rest of the world. Just ask Iran and Venezuela.
Of course, oil isn't the only economic interest motivating U.S. foreign policy. Installation of friendly governments - non-democratic are the best since the U.S. can exercise greater control through blackmail by the use of "foreign aid" and turning a blind-eye to human rights abuses - also facilitates free trade. Free trade demolishes locally-owned businesses in favor of U.S. mega-corporations who can come in and sell their goods more cheaply than small, locally-owned businesses. "Cheap" goods may sound like a good deal on first glance, but it takes business ownership out of local hands and leads to an increased and perpetual lower class and an inability of the government to repay massive debt obligations.
I have debates about these and other issues with family friends and the typical response is, "If you don't like this country, move to France." The only response I can give them is that I love my country, but our Government can fuck off. With all its money and power, the U.S. has such potential for facilitating postive change throughout the world. I don't think it can do that without a wholesale change in its self-centered foreign policy. The current administration has been one of the worst offenders.
and btw... excellent post. *tips hat*