A century ago no one cared. The nations of Persia, Arabia and North Africa were dismissed as being tribal populations of countries whose main economic activity was limited to the cotton, spice and textlile trades. None were taken seriously as important components of the world community. None even had a seat at Versailles in 1919. The post-WW1 treaty divided them up as "protectorates" mostly between Britian and France. They were an afterthought.
Oil changed all that. The foreign policies, political and economic alignments, military alliances, and corporate behaviors since that first gusher have all mastesized into an overwhelmingly complex set of problems that one could only describe as being a "conundrum". Regardless of the pundits screaming at each other over what we should or should not be doing in Libya or elsewhere, there are serious consequences no matter what policy we pursue. The notion that we even NEED a policy speaks volumes about us and our past complicity in the events leading up to the current middle east situation.
Anyone who believes this is not about oil needs to consider the following larger view: On the one hand, at least as of today, the global economic system CANNOT survive without oil from the mideast. It shouldn't be any surprise that France, who gets a large portion of their oil from Libya, is leading the charge against Gaddafi. On the other hand, the autocratic leaders of the Arab nations know that if the oil can't be gotten out of the ground and shipped it is worth absolulely ZERO, and without oil income their regimes are finished. As is the case in countries like Saudi Arabia, if they lose the ability to "buy off" their people, more populist revolts are inevitable. You don't need to be an economics graduate to understand the strains a situation like this puts on any political solution.
What we are seeing is the possible systemic failure of the global oil-based economy. Add to that the tribal and religious conflicts, the Israeli -Palestinian issue, and the threats of terrorism. The complexity of problems grows to staggering proportions, making the argument over the Libyan "no-fly zone" almost a silly elementary excercise. I'm quite sure we'll be spending the next few months, if not years, debating details of policy and military response in the region, all the while ignoring the underlying larger problem.
We entered the middle east conflict when we purchased that first barrel of oil. We had no "end game" then and we still don't. After decades of intervention in their affairs we want to wash our hands of all of it. It has all become a moot argument. We can debate the constitutional legality of our presidents' military actions, question the loyalties of the rebel forces, espouse our moral and humanitarian obligations, and argue who should be in charge of enforcing U.N. resolutions. We can conduct our polls, square off in our usual partisan entrenchments, and muse about "political risk". We can blame whoever we want. In the end I fear none of this maneuvering will be of any substantial consequence. There are still no substantive discussions or movement towards a world-wide non-oil energy solution. Nor are there any global efforts to insure that policies toward the middle east have at their core a concern for the people of those nations or of their need for transition to a non-oil based economy. We need to recognize that the citizens in the streets of countries like Libya are possibly the biggest victims of the oil debacle.
Whether or not we and our allies pursue a policy of action or of inaction the reality is upon us. It's too late to take our ball and go home. The oil juggernaut does not care if we are conservative or liberal, isolationists or nation builders, hawks or doves. We ARE involved in the Middle East. We just are.
Watching members of our do-nothing Congress pine over not being consulted before Obama committed the US to the Libyan conflict is laughable. While I believe that given enough time the President should have consulted them, I can't help believing that Congress is secretly happy that he didn't. With the possible exception of Kucinich and Paul, none of them really would want to put their name on an up or down vote. It's easy for them to now say how they "would" have voted. Several of them have changed or qualified their position at least once in just the past week. Congress has no political risk in the outcome whatsoever. Let's face it. Obama, and to a lesser extent Secy. Clinton, have taken all the political risk on this decision. If things work out well Obama will be viewed as a master of foreign policy and will almost guarantee him a second term. On the other hand, if the situation degrades Libya could define his presidency and he could be in big trouble come 2012. No one knows this better than he does.
ReplyDelete