Tuesday, October 04, 2005

The Thirst for Oil (1)

It’s another story about oil and gas. Again, it involves an awakening and thirsty giant, China.

For years, the USA, Europe and Japan, and to some extent, the former USSR, have monopolised the squabble over fossil fuels. The Europeans, particularly the Brits and French, had the original lion share until superpower USA placed them forcefully in a subordinate role.

The case of British controlled Iran slipping into the complete grasp of the Americans was such an example – many may not even be aware that when it came to Iranian and other Gulf nation’s oil, the Americans were shafting it right up the Brits’ you-now-what. Indeed, on matters of oil there was no love lost between the transatlantic cousins.

Since then, the Americans have dominated the Gulf region and its oil resources. Its economic engines hummed along on cheap oil from its Gulf 'colonies', headed by US-approved dictators or so called royal families like the al-Sabah and Pahlavi dynasties.

Then Iran sprung the US shackles. It got rid of the Shah and the Americans. Things have never settled down between the two nations since. Next, a megalomaniac Saddam got a little too big for his Iraqi boots, and had to be smacked down hard after it dared to invade oil-rich Kuwait, a resource that the Americans considered as its very own preserve. That the Americans misled Saddam (many believe deliberately) into believing the USA would condone such an invasion didn’t alter the status quo – namely, American continued dominance of Iraq’s oil.

In other words, even with the defeat of Saddam Hussein in the 1st Gulf War, the Americans were quite happy to leave that Mother of all dictators in place. In fact, after President Bush (the senior one) urged the southern Iraqis, the marsh people, to rise up in rebellion against Saddam, he then suddenly and without warning left them high and dry to Saddam’s punitive measures.

Someone must have tapped senior President Bush on the shoulder and reminded him not to let the southern Shiites get the better of Saddam, oh no sir, not with a hostile Shiite Iran just across the border. To serve US interest, Iraq must remained under the reliable and heavy hands of good ole Saddam Hussein. Iraq oil would continue to flow mainly to the USA but more importantly, a Sunni dominated Iraq under murderous Saddam would continue to serve as an important buffer state between hostile Iran and that wonderful US-owned treasure trove called Saudi Arabia (including Kuwait and other Gulf dominions).

So the marsh Iraqis were sacrificed to Saddam after they had been instigated by Bush senior to rise up in rebellion.

The inevitable massacre, confirmed by mass graves after the 2nd Gulf War invasion and occupation, has to be attributed to the diabolical US strategic interest. The victims were betrayed by Bush senior. Saddam might have pull the trigger but the Americans handed him the cocked gun.

Maybe Bush senior could have been sincere in wanting a southern rebellion against Saddam to succeed, but his advisors would have reminded him which was the oleaginous side of the bread.

Whatever, the end result? A postwar massacre of those impertinent Shiite Iraqis.

To be continued ........

No comments:

Post a Comment