At 08:45 16/04/02 -0700, you wrote:
(HP)
<<<<
It depends whether or not the oil market is freed as to whether the US
suffers severely, or it's an inconvenience.
People will make their adjustments while governments are still arranging a
committee meeting.
>>>>
I agree. What I'm saying, however, is that the oil-exporting states that
are crucial to America's ongoing economy, can't be relied upon. Excluding
Venezuela and Nigeria (themselves with unstable regimes which could change
tack at a moment's notice) the bulk of cheap oil and gas comes from the
Moslem Gulf states of the Middle East.
Furthermore, I'm suggesting that the powers-that-be in America (State
Department, Bush Senior/Cheney, advisors, etc) have come to the conclusion
that the Moslem culture is too backward and antipathetic to the west to be
relied upon during the next 20/30 years when continuity of economic growth
has to be relied upon if new alternative energy technologies are to develop
smoothly and gradually take over.
At the present time, led by Saudi Arabia, the big swing-producer, OPEC
can't be relied upon. The dictatorship Saudi royal family is amenable to
America, but could be overthrown at any time in the near or medium future
by fundamentalist Moslem clerics -- as happened in Iran. The other sizeable
oil producers, Iraq, Kuwait and the smaller Gulf states, are all Moslem
dictatorships with very uncertain futures.
Until fairly recently (Sept 11 was the big turning point, of course) I
think the Americans thought they could largely control or appease the OPEC
countries so that US imports (50% of its requirements) could be relied upon
at sensible prices for the next 20/30 years (and afterwards, of course, as
production [of cheap oil] starts tailing off). I believe now that the
Americans have decided that this is most unlikely and that OPEC must be
busted so that something approximating to a free market can operate.
I think the evidence for this is now very strong from the two recent visits
of Cheney and Powell . When Cheney went around the Middle East three weeks
ago, he was told in no uncertain terms that there was no possibility of
support for America's plans against Iraq unless the Israel-Palestine
problem was solved. Poltical opinion in Europe and some strong intellectual
opinion in the US was the same. This pressure was strong enough for Cheney
to tack on a second visit to Israel at the end of his tour, but not strong
enough for him (and Bush Senior and Junior) to read the Riot Act to the
Israelis sufficient to stop the savagery.
Then, when Colin Powell went (taking his time while the Israelis continued
to invade the Palestine areas) he didn't impose any solution either. The
radio news this morning is saying that Powell's visit was "ignominious".
Well, I don't think his visit was ever intended to impose a solution but to
continue to allow the Israelis to get on with it -- just in case the Moslem
countries could be cowed into silence.
The Americans must know that all this dilly-dallying is stoking up a risk
of an uprising by fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states
sooner rather than later, but I think they have considered that this will
happen anyway. If such uprisings (particularly in Saudi Arabia) do, in
fact, occur before the Americans have completed their plans for the
invasion of Iraq (and thus to be close to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia), then
America could threaten nuclear bombing (about which Bush Junior has already
given hints in recent months).
What has this got to do with Futurework? It's vitally important. The jobs
and prosperity of the western world depend on America's economy. This is
already in a bad way with huge company and consumer debts and a large trade
deficit which will have to correct itself fairly soon (with a big
devaluation of the dollar). If, in addition, the Muslim countries threaten
America's oil supplies with an oil strike (which they are increasingly in a
mood to) then we could be on the verge of an economic recession that would
make the Depression of the 1930s fairly benign in comparison. We would all
be affected (FWers as well!).
Keith
__________________________________________________________
�Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in
order to discover if they have something to say.� John D. Barrow
_________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________
