Content from : Resource Wars by Michael T. Klare
Conflict over valuable resources, and the power and wealth they bring, has become a prominent feature of the global landscape.
In one of the most extraordinary episodes in modern American history, Pres. Franklin Roosevelt met with King Abdel-Aziz, founder of the modern Saudi dynasty, on his return from the Allied summit conference in Yalta. Details of this meeting have never been made public but it is strongly believed that Abdel-Aziz offered unlimited access to Saudi oil in exchange for a US pledge to protect the royal family against internal and external attack. The US has served as Saudi Arabia’s principal protector ever since.
The importance of that event today?
Motivated though they may of been by religious zeal, the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US were part of a global network whose ultimate objective is the overthrow of the pro- Western Saudi monarchy and the installation of a doctrinaire Islamic regime
(which would give it control over 1/4 of the world’s remaining supply of oil). If this would ever happen, the US would lose its major source of wealth and power. The pledge by FDR in the 1940’s has led the US into deep involvement in Middle East politics and has made Washington the enemy of those who, like Osama bin Laden, seek to overthrow the Saudi monarchy.
The new US interest:
Operation CENTRAZBAT 97 was the longest airborne operation in history. What was CENTRAZBAT 97? The Pentagon landed American troops (a flight of 7,700 miles) from Fort Bragg, North Carolina to the Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgystan area. Why there? The Pentagon stated it wanted to demonstrate American support for peace and stability in this area of former Soviet republics. The REAL reason? New geological surveys discovered vast amounts of oil and gas reserves and US officials want to ensure that much of this energy will eventually flow to the West.
According to the US Dept. of Energy (DoE), the Caspian Sea basin (made up of Azerbaijian, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, along with parts of Russia and Iran) harbors 270 billion barrels of oil (1/5 of the world’s proven reserves). The DoE also estimates that the Caspian Sea houses 665 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (1/8 of the world’s gas reserves). Until 1992, these oil and gas reserves (except those held by Iran) were the exclusive property of the Soviet Union. With the breakup of the USSR, however, much of that supply came under the control of the new nations of the Caspian----all of which now seek to export their energy sources to the West.
Because of the continuing risk of Middle East conflict, Washington hopes to convert the Caspian basin into an alternative source of energy if oil deliveries from the Gulf are blocked.
The “Carter Doctrine”
President Jimmy Carter made it clear, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1980, that “An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assult on the vital interests of the United States of America, and will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force”.
This “Carter Doctrine” pledge has been used as justification of American military presence in three (and possibily four) areas since 1980:
1. 1980 Afghanistan 2. 1992 Kuwait (Desert Storm) 3. CENTRAZBAT 97
4. 2002 / 2003 Iraq?
Since CENTRAZBAT 97 a second CENTRAZBAT exercise took place in 1998 which brought hundreds of US soldiers from Fort Drum, N.Y. to Tashkent, Uzbekistan. Talks between Washington and Azerbaijani officials have been conducted over the possibility of a permanent US military base in Azerbaijan.
U.S. Strategy Change “Econocentric Approach”
For over forty years, from the late 1940’s until 1990, “containment” of communism was the US mission in foreign policy. The US did this through a system of worldwide alliances. Since the end of the Cold War, the need for this alliance system seemed less urgent and the need shifted to promoting America’s own security interests. Groups like NATO remain important but, America has changed its strategic agenda. Dominating the US military policy is the determination to ensure US access to overseas supplies of vital resources. Where weapons technology and alliance politics once dominated military affairs, the American strategy now focuses on oil-field protection and the defense of maritime trade routes.
This approach became the official policy when the Clinton administration took office in early 1993 noting that the world had entered a period in which “economic competition is eclipsing ideological rivalry”. Bill Clinton never tired of expressing his beliefs that “our economic and security interests are inextricably linked”.
Energy became a primary issue of the 2000 Presidential campaign. The two candidates debated over their strategies for reducing US reliance on imported petroleum. Al Gore favored the development of alternative energy technologies, George Bush favored the exploitation of oil reserves in the wilderness areas of Alaska. Both, however, agreed that protecting the nation’s energy supply was a prime concern of national security.
Resources are tangible assets that can be exposed to risk by political turmoil and conflict abroad thus, they require physical protection. While economic sanctions can be effective in promoting other economic goals, only military power can ensure the continued flow of oil from distant areas in times of crisis.
Importance of Resources
Many analysts have tried to identify the central defining principle of this new international environment. Thomas Friedman of The New York Times termed it as “The One Big Thing”. Although many examples of ethnic and religious clashes can be sited, it seems that resource interests outweigh all other considerations. In the Caspian area, the US has aligned with three Muslim states: Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Turkmenistan and aligned against two predominantly Christian ones: Armenia and Russia. Although resources many not be this “One Big Thing”, it helps to explain much of what is going on in the world.
Demand
Global demand for many key resources is growing at an unsustainable rate. The US alone consumes 30% of all raw materials used by the human population in any given year. The demand for resources has grown because of the dramatic increase in human numbers. During the past 50 years alone, the world population has grown by over 3 billion people. Population increase only accounts for part of the explosion in demand. Just as important is the spread of industrialization. Industrialization has increased personal wealth worldwide producing a large appetite for energy (automobiles, building materials, household appliances.......)
Between 1950 and 1999 the gross world product soared by 583% from $6 trillion to $41 trillion. Automobile ownership jumped from 53 million in 1950 to 520 million in 1999. The ownership of refrigerators, TV’s, air conditioners, and computers has grown at a similar rate. Because the production and utilization of these products entails the consumption of vast amounts of energy, the global requirements for many basic commodities has consistently exceeded the rate of population growth.
In China, the economy has grown an extraordinary 93% between 1990 and 1996 alone. This has produced an explosive demand for autos and appliances. In 1985, fewer than one urban Chinese household in five had a TV; by 1998, the average home had more than one. Similar patterns in possessions of refrigerators, VCR’s, indoor showers, and air-conditioning units can be seen. To produce and power all of these items, China has consumed vast quanities of oil, coal, timber, and minerals. The DoE estimates that energy consumption will grow in China 4.3% per year through the year 2020--- that is roughly four times the rate in Europe and the US. This will entail an increase in oil consumption of 150%, an increase in coal consumption of 158%, and an increase in natural gas consumption of over 1,100%.
Other industrializing nations such as India, Mexico, and Brazil will also follow a similar pattern in energy consumption.
Another factor: in the US, auto owners are driving greater distances---from 1.5 trillion miles in 1982 to 2.5 trillion in 1995 and in larger and less fuel-efficient vehicles. And, the average American home has grown in size by 1/3 since the early 1970’s.
Risk of Shortages
The world suppy of certain materials is quite limited. Between 1970 and 1995, one study concludes, the earth lost nearly 1/3 of its natural wealth, more than any other period in history. (study conducted by the World Wildlife Fund)
The two most significant materials that fall into this shortage category are oil and water.
At the beginning of 2000, the world’s proven reserves of petroleum stood at 1,033 billion barrels, or enough oil to sustain global consumption (at the then rate of 73 million barrels per day) for 40 years. If, however, oil consumption rises by 2% per year- as predicted by the DoE- the existing supply will disappear in 25-30 years, not 40.
The water equation is similar. Less than 3% of the planet’s total water is fresh water, and much of that is locked up in the polar ice caps and glaciers. 1/2 of the current water supply is currently being used. If population growth and higher standards of living are constantly boosting the global demand for water, total human usage will approach 100% by 2050. This will produce severe shortages and intense competition for this valued product.
When key deposits of these two valued products (oil and water) are shared by two or more nations, conflicts will arise. The Nile River, for example, carries water through nine countries. the Mekong River through five, and the Euphrates River through three.
Upstream countries are always in a position to control the flow to downstream states which can cause conflict. (see maps in atlas)
Africa’s Nile River is an example of the conflict potential. Nine countries-- Burundi, Congo, Egypt, Ethopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda--are all served by the Nile River. The river flows south to north originating in the Great Lakes region of Central Africa. (map). As the Nile enters Egypt, the northernmost country affected by the Nile, it travels 475 miles to the Mediterranean Sea. Along this 6-10 miles wide river, most of Egypt’s population lives and the bulk of its food is grown. Beginning in ancient times, the Egyptians have attempted to control the flow of water into Egypt. Ancient Egyptians had periodic military campaigns to conquer present-day Sudan to try to control attempts by upstream nations to interrupt the Nile’s flow. Egypt, which contributes nothing to the Nile’s annual flow, has been the beneficary of economically weak upstream nations that have not had the financial resources to construct dams and irrigation projects that would restrict the flow of water into Egypt.
Egypt currently possesses sufficient military strength to deter its neighbors from interrupting the Nile’s flow and Egypt would consider any attempt to do so as a threat to it’s national security. Prior to WW II, Great Britain and other European nations controlled this area so Egypt had an agreement with the British gov’t called the Nile Waters Agreement of 1929 (the first of its kind in the region) saying that no upstream project could be constructed without Cairo’s approval. After WW II the Sudan and other British-controlled colonies of Central Africa became independent. All of these new nations were quick in stating the importance of water development in their country and they accordingly declared the 1929 Nile Warters Agreement void.
Cairo became alarmed by these new developments and began speaking openly about water being a “national security matter”. Thus, plans to build the Aswan High Dam began. This dam assured Egypt a reserve of 160 billion cubic meters of water. Egypt sent in troops to settle a border dispute with Sudan, to show its strength, when the Sudanese began water development programs of their own. It was economic pressure, however, that forcedSudan signed a new Nile waters agreement in 1959. In this new agreement, Egypt was given 55.5 billion cubic meters of water (about 2/3 of its annual flow). This agreement had a significant flaw: it had no provisions for the nations laying farther upstream. Fearing this, Egyptian President Anwar in the 1970’s threatened to bomb water facilities in Ethiopia if they implemented a plan to divert the waters of the Nile. In the 1980’s, a statement was made by Egypt’s minister of state for foreign affairs that showed the importance of water in this region.........”The next war in our region will be over the waters of the Nile”.
Currently, both Ethiopia and Uganda are planning irrigation and hydroelectric projects. This is especially troubling to Egypt as their population expands and their urbanization continues thus increasing their annual water requirements. In 1922, when Egypt gained it’s independence from England, the population was 13.5 million; by 1960 it was 30 million and currently stands at 71 million (projection is 115 million by 2050).
With this being the case, Egypt will likely prove even more antagonistic to any upstream projects that may have the affect of reducing their access to water.
What makes this situation so potentially explosive is the fact that other states in the region are also facing high population growth. (Ethiopia 3.2% per year, Uganda 2.6%,
Kenya, and Sudan 2.2%). Ethiopia’s population will grow from 62 million in 1998 to 212 million in the year 2050 ( that 150 million person increase is equivalent to twice the total population of Egypt currently). By 2050, Sudan will grow from 29 to 60 million, Kenya from 29 to 66 million, and Uganda from 21 to 66 million.
These staggering numbers, suggest two things: 1. Ethiopia, Sudan, and Uganda will not be able to feed an additional 225 million people without irrigating more land and the only major source of water in this area is the Nile and its tributaries.
2. Clearly, the leaders of this area will proceed with long-delayed plans to build dams and divert additional Nile waters to domestic irrigation projects.
Will the water issue cause war in Africa?
Another issue: When two nations border a large underground oil basin and one extracts a disproportionate share of the total petroleum supply. This is the exact situation that caused conflict and eventually war between Iraq and Kuwait in the late 1980’s. Baghdad claimed that the Kuwaitis were extracting more than their rightful share of oil from the shared Rumaila field.
A second type of conflict arises over contested claims to offshore areas that harbor significant energy or mineral resources. The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea allows ocean-bordering states to claim an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) extending off-shore for up to 200 miles and they have sole rights to exploit marine life and undersea resources. This causes alot of friction in situations where several nations border on an inland sea such as the Caspian Sea. In these cases, EEZ’s overlap and disputs arise. Another excellent example is the South China Sea where a total of seven states----Brunei, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam----have all laid claim to large areas of water.
Finally, disputes can arise over bodies of water considered essential for shipping resources to a nations-----the Persian Gulf, Suez Canal, Strait of Hormuz are all vital for shipping from the Persian Gulf area to Europe, Japan, and the US. The Strait of Malacca (between Indonesia and Malaysia) and the Red Sea are other examples of a key shipping lanes. Free passage of ships through these waters is considered essential for the uninterrupted flow of materials and major importing states have always resisted when these waters are blocked or restricted.
Oil and water are two resources that are so important to national survival or economic well-being that the US will never allow the Persian Gulf to fall under control of hostile powers. Additionally, it is unthinkable that Egypt will ever allow Sudan or Ethiopia to gain control over the flow of the Nile. In these situations, national security considerations will always prevail.
One major economic problem is now considered the “landscape of global conflict”.........Resource Wars:
“The disribution of {economic} competitiveness is now uneven. This pattern raises the disturbing prospect of a ‘globalization gap’ between winners and losers.....Leaders of the losers often blame outsiders or unpopular insiders for economic hardship. Some foment crises to distract domestic attention from joblessness and hungar.”
RELATED QUESTIONS TO READING
1. Locate and label Yalta and Saudi Arabia on map 2.
2. Describe the significance of FDR’s meeting with Abdel-Aziz.
3. Expalin the importance of the FDR / Aziz meeting today.
4. Locate and label Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgystan (map #2)
5. Locate and label the Caspian Sea (map #2)
6. What was CENTRAZBAT 97
Why did it take place?
a.) Pentagon’s explanation:
b.) Real reason:
7. Locate and label Afghanistan, Kuwait, and Iraq (map #2)
8. What is the Carter Doctrine?
9. Locate and label Tashkent, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan (map #2)
10. Describe the term “econocentric” and apply that definition to the “new” American military policy.
Definition:
Application:
What historical event caused the policy to change? (explain)
11. Apply “econocentric” to the last two presidential platforms / debates.
12. What is “The One Big Thing”?
13. What % of the world’s raw materials does the U.S. consume in any given year?
_____________
14. Global demand for energy is at an all time high. Why? (explain each)
a.)
b.)
c.)
15. What two significant raw materials fall into the category of being “at risk” shortages?
____________________ __________________
16. What is the direction of flow of the Nile River?
17. Locate and label the 9 countries that the Nile River flows through.
(shade 9 different colors)
18. Explain the three major reasons that Egypt has been able to deter upstream nations from significantly altering the flow of the Nile River into their country:
a.)
b.)
c.)
19. In the future, why will Egypt be even more hostile to upstream nations diverting the Nile?
20. Explain “ disproportionate extraction” and how it could lead to conflict.
21. Describe EEZ and explain how this could lead to conflict.
22. What is the potential danger to U.S. energy resources that are located in the Middle East or Southwest Asia.