| Other
Publications by John W. Warnock The Geopolitics of Oil in the Era of Peak Oil by John W. Warnock Opening presentation to the workshop on "Peace in the Era of Peak Oil" at the Fourth Annual Making Peace Conference, Saskatoon, SK, October 28-30, 2005. Oil is a very special natural resource, Since the invention of the internal combustion engine, oil has been the energy source that has driven economic growth. Transportation, agriculture, manufacturing, urban living - none would exist in their current form without oil and natural gas. And as we all know too well, it is oil which fuels the world's military machines. The oil industry has been historically dominated by very large corporations closely linked to the governments of the United States and Great Britain. On a world wide basis, the western imperial powers, the major consumers of oil and gas, have sought to dominate and control the sources which are primarily in the less developed countries. The cartel of the infamous Seven Sisters dominated the industry until the collapse of the old colonial system. The former colonies with oil resources have sought to gain control over their industry through nationalist policies, the creation of state-owned national oil companies, and the formation of OPEC. The western powers have replied by creating the International Energy Agency and using the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization and other organizations to try to impose a free market-free trade model on the less developed countries, one which would again open their oil reserves to penetration by the major private oil corporations. The imperial focus on North Africa and the Middle East Shortly before World War I the United Kingdom switched its naval fleet from coal to oil. However, in contrast to the United States, it had no domestic source of oil. The same was true for France. This began their long imperial intervention in North Africa and the Middle East as both sought to control this important source of oil. For both countries, this was the key to defence of their imperial and colonial systems. Oil was an important factor in World War II. The Japanese invasion of Dutch East Indies was to gain access to this key energy. The Germans sought oil in Russia and North Africa. The success of the United States and Great Britain in the war was to a large extent due to their control over oil. As oil sources in the United States began to peak, the government and its key corporations sought overseas sources in Venezuela and the Middle East. The key to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has been the alliance with the Saudi royal family and the political-commercial links with the U.S. oil super majors. U.S. foreign policy from the time of the Truman Doctrine, through the Eisenhower Doctrine and the Carter Doctrine, has declared that free access to oil in the Middle East as essential to U.S. national security. After the disaster of the French-UK-Israeli attack on Suez in 1956, the United States took on the role as chief neo-colonial power in the area. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, a central goal of the U.S. government has been to guarantee access to oil supplies through Saudi Arabia and OPEC, and to manage the price of oil within a band that guarantees a good return to the producing countries while allowing the super majors profits in higher cost areas like North America and the North Sea. U.S. policy and Iraq The British government had a long history of imperial and colonial penetration of the Persian Gulf, Iran and Iraq. The French government constantly sought a position in Iraq. The United States pushed the UK government into the background after they engineered a coup against the elected government in Iran in 1953. Few remember how the U.S. government used the Baghdad Pact to defend its interests in Iraq and Iran. The U.S. government developed a close political alliance with Saddam Hussain, who seized power in Iraq in 1978. The revolution against the puppet regime in Iran in 1979 forced the U.S. government to develop even closer ties with Hussain and Iraq. In the Iran-Iraq war (1980-8), the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Germany backed Iraq. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the U.S. mobilized the former imperial powers to intervene to protect their economic and political position in the Persian Gulf area. But fearing a radical Shiite government in Iraq, the U.S. government did not remove Saddam Hussain from power. Between 1991 and 2003 the U.S. and UK governments enforced a blockade on the Iraq economy, patrolled Iraq's air space, and launched four major air and cruise missile attacks on military targets. The key US and UK oil corporations supported the oil embargo because Saddam Hussain's government was developing a close relationship with French, Russian, Japanese and Chinese oil corporations, and they were being shut out. Why did the United States decide to invade Iraq in 2003? The issue has been obscured by the largely phony debate created by the U.S. and UK governments and supported by the mass media. The focus on "weapons of mass destruction" is a red herring. The western powers provided Saddam Hussain with such weapons and technologies during the Iran-Iraq war. The other reason commonly cited was to remove a mad dictator and create a democracy in Iraq. But the U.S. and UK governments long supported Hussain and other vicious dictators in the Middle East and elsewhere. The U.S. government had first hired Hussain back in 1959 to assassinate the Iraqi Prime Minister Abd el-Karim Qasim. The most ridiculous excuse was that Hussain's regime had aided al-Qaeda. In fact, Hussain's government, basically a secular regime, had long opposed and repressed Islamic fundamentalism. The administration of George W. Bush had specific objectives when they launched this war, and it was fully consistent with U.S. policy in the region for many years. That is why the vast majority of Democrats in Congress supported the war, including John Kerry and Hilary Clinton. The basic goals were as follows. (1) Continue the support for the Saudi royal family, their close links to the U.S. government, and their domination of OPEC. (2) Replace the Hussain government with one which would have close ties to the U.S. government. This would require the application of controlled "elections" as the U.S. government has managed since the collapse of the Soviet Union. (3) A new Iraq government would give preference to U.S. and UK oil companies in developing their very substantial oil reserves. This would reduce the growing presence and influence of China in the region. In a world facing peak oil and the decline of easy access to new oil by U.S. oil corporations, the vast oil reserves in Iraq are a key strategic resource. (4) The U.S. would establish several new military bases in Iraq which would increase their influence in the area and allow them to remove the U.S. military from Saudi Arabia and reduce the pressure from the Islamic fundamentalists. Many find it easy to put all the blame for the Iraq war on the administration of George W. Bush. But the war is fully consistent with the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton. As the war drags on and victory for the US-UK forces seems ever more remote, support for the war is falling rather dramatically. But President Bush argues that the U.S. cannot withdraw without victory. Otherwise, the broad U.S. policy objectives would have to be abandoned. The "Great Transformation" of Social Democracy. by John W. Warnock A feature review of Gerassimos Moschonas, In the Name of Social Democracy: The Great Transformation 1945 to the Present. London: Verso Books, 2002. Briarpatch Magazine, Vo. 34, No. 5, August 2005, pp. 26 - 28. Extract: The historic core of social democracy The triumph of social democracy came in the thirty years after World War II (the trente glorieuses - the thirty glorious years). The parties at that time were mass organizations, closely linked to the blue collar trade union movement. They dominated the left in all European countries, even managing to form governments in a number of countries. They stressed the "social democratic compromise" between the working class, the capitalist class and the state. A common policy framework and ideology emerged during th is period. The four pillars were the promotion of working-class unity through wage solidarity, a push towards full employment, the redistribution of income and wealth, and a shift in balance of power to include the trade unions and the wage-earning class. Social democratic parties promoted a humane capitalist society rooted in a commitment to universal social programs, and standing on the side of the disadvantaged. This is the general approach we identify with the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) in Saskatchewan after 1945. However, as Moschonas stresses, social democracy had completely abandoned its roots in the struggle for socialism. The movement was transformed by capitalism, until the vision of a qualitatively different society was completely abandoned for that of "mediocre happiness," a term that the author borrows from Alexis de Tocqueville's description of the United States. The vision of social democracy had morphed into that of Adam Smith: we endure boring if not hazardous work, must adjust to a hierarchical command society, and are rewarded with family life and consumerism. * * * * * * * * * * * * What is to be done? by John W. Warnock Samir Amin Obsolescent Capitalism: contemporary politics and global disorder London: Zed Books, 2003 Review article for Canadian Dimension Magazine. Extract: How can we create an alternative? It is for all these reasons that capitalism must be replaced. But how can we do that? What is to be done? The second part of the book provides an overall plan. We no longer have the political parties of the left with a model to follow. There is widespread cynicism about what the existing parties and institutions like trade unions can do. They have "lost much if not all of their legitimacy; the people no longer ‘believe' in them." They are being replaced by a variety of "movements" like the Greens, Women, organizations demanding social justice and democracy, and others which are based on religious or ethnic identities. There must be, and will be, a transformation to a post-capitalist world based on socialism. Amin argues that this will be a lengthy process. It will require "a plural inventive imagination." It must begin with the "construction of democratic relations in every sphere of social life." The process will produce a "polycentric, democratic world system." It will be a humanist globalism, based on democratization as an open-ended multidimensional process. An internationalism of the peoples will emerge as a counterweight to the transnationalism of capital. Capital rules in the international market. But there is also the reality of the political, territorial state. And within these state boundaries people can mobilize against national and international capital. Thus "the principle of respect for the sovereignty of nations must remain the cornerstone of international law." The United Nations must be reformed and democratized, but it remains the only institution where the people of the world have any voice. The U.S. government and NATO are challenging the principle of national sovereignty to justify their military intervention, preemptive wars and "regime changes." For the capitalist First World, the major struggles over the past fifteen years have been with the marginalized peoples in the periphery. This will continue. Opposition to the unipolar world will be strongest in these areas. Broad national populist movements are present in all these states and resistance will increase. This will be pluralistic, and the left must respect and support these different developments. Amin insists that diversity must be the rule. Dogmatism must be combated. What we need is a proliferation of "creative Utopianism," and "a plural inventive imagination." All our organizations must emphasize a radical critique of capitalism and globalization. The resistance to the neoliberal world will also depend on the ability of the less developed countries to "delink" from the First World and build regional systems and networks of support. "A multipolar world is first and foremost a regionalized world." In building the national movements and coalitions, emphasis must be on an "emancipatory logic." The expansion of democracy goes hand in hand with liberation. Thus, the demand of women for equality with men must be supported. Within the Green movement, there must be support for social justice and a strong critique of capitalism. How do we approach the issue of religious and ethnic demands and identities? Amin argues that "the basic democratic principle of respect for national, ethnic, religious, cultural and ideological diversity must not be violated." But "culturalism" as it advocated by many religious and ethnic movements is the antitheses of democracy. "Those demands which link up with the fight against social exploitation and for greater democracy in every dimension are progressive; those demands which are not part of any social program and are not hostile to globalization (on the grounds that both are ‘unimportant'), and a fortiori those that regard democracy as an alien ‘Western' concept, are frankly reactionary tools serving the aims of the dominant capital." Political Islam calls for submission, not emancipation. For the mass of ordinary people around the world, having been left out of the system and denied their citizenship, they are drawn into their "community." But for Amin this is "an invitation to obscurantism, ethnic or religious fanaticism, racist hatred, and in the end, ‘ethnic cleansing.'" What is the role for political parties? From my perspective there is one chapter that is missing from this book. What is the role for political parties? Canadians on the left are well aware of the limitations of popular alliances like the Action Canada Network, the provincial coalitions for social justice and mass mobilizations for one-time demonstrations. The original direction of the World Social Forum was to promote popular movements and ignore and downplay the role of political parties. However, significant change cannot come without achieving political power. Today we can see how this is working in Venezuela but has failed in Brazil. In many countries there are broad popular movements, and they must interact with political parties, elections and governments. Amin skips this important process. In Mexico the National Democratic Front was very successful in 1988, an electoral coalition between political parties and popular movements. In Mexico City the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) has been successful by forming electoral alliances with the broad popular groups, even letting them nominate one-half of their candidates. By dodging this key issue Amin leaves the reader believing that he supports the original WSF position, which has produced only limited change. What is the challenge for us in the First World? Amin insists that the left must push democratization. It must advance the critique of capitalism in all organizations. It must expose and critique globalization. It must resist U.S. military imperialism. It must advance radical feminism and radical ecology. It must combat the national bourgeoisie which follows the leadership of U.S. capital and U.S. imperialism. While Amin does not go into it here, it is hard to believe that he would support the "lesser evilism" embraced by much of the U.S. and Canadian left during the elections of 2004. What is absolutely necessary is building a movement that opposes the neoliberal state. In Europe this would include support for the "European project" and the development of a multipolar world. Those of us in the First World are impelled to say loud and clear that a different system must be invented. Amin argues that It will be "one in which human beings individually (their health, education and inventiveness), people collectively, and nature and its resources are not treated as commodities." The choice today is no different than it was in 1918 when Rosa Luxemburg stated it was "socialism or barbarism." John W. Warnock is a political activist and political economist living in Regina and author of Saskatchewan: The Roots of Discontent and Protest (2004). Coalitions, Labour and the Political Left by John W. Warnock Priaire Forum, Vol. 31, No. 2, Fall 2006, pp. 427-439. Special Issue: The Legacy of Labour In Saskatchewan and Beyond. Edited by Lorne Brown and Robert Stirling. Symposium originally held at the University of Regina, November 22-24, 2002. Extract: Why have we seen the rise of political coalitions? Over the last twenty years we have witnessed the dramatic rise in political coaltions both in Canada and abroad. These new alliances have generally been between trade unions and a wide range of popular organizations. The 1980s saw the development of more general political coalitions in the industrialized countries. In Canada there was the formation of the Solidarity Coalition in British Columbia in 1983 and the Solidarite populaire Quebec in 1984. The Pro-Canada Network was formed in 1986 to oppose the free trade agreement with the United States. It continued as the Action Canada Network, which mobilized to oppose the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and then the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI). By the end of the 1980s there were general social justice coalitions in all the provinces except New Brunswick. The Action Canada Network broadened into a general coalition, taking on the neo-conservative agenda of the federal Tory government. Why have these coalitions developed? First, there in an enormous vacuum on the political left. The old communist parties, based on Marxism-Leninism, have collapsed. Second, there has been a repositioning of social democracy, a move significantly to the political right. As a minimum one would expect the social democratic parties to support the principles and policies of the Keynesian welfare state, including progressive taxation, but this is no longer the case. The third reason for the growth of coalitions is the popular demand for democracy. Everywhere people are faced with elected government which ignore public opinion. For example, Margaret Thatcher's Tory government never got more than 42% of the popular vote, the polls showsedthat she never had majority support for any of her major programs designed to repeal the welfare state, yet her government radically changed Great Britain. The left has depended on social democratic parties and governments. But these parties have become strictly electoral parties, confining their opposition to debates in empty legislatures where no one hears them. Organizations which join coalitions believe that politics requires popular mobilization. The trade union movement recognized that their influence and membership was waning, and they needed support elsewhere to protect the interests of their members. Coalitions were needed, especially in Canada, to try to combat the power that big business has over governments. Canada and the New
World
Order by John W. Warnock *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* * Canadian Foreign Policy |
|