Defense & Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy, June-July 2000

Grand Strategy
By Yossef Bodansky, Senior Editor

The Great Game for OIL

EXCERPT

During the last quarter of the 20th Century, in the aftermath of the oil 
crisis of the mid-1970s, the United States Government has relentlessly 
sought to ensure control over the key energy resources feeding the US 
and Western markets. . . .

It has since the mid-1970s continuously engaged in a series of 
undeclared wars, as well as the declared Gulf War of 1990-91, in order 
to ensure the West's access to, and hegemony over, the key energy 
resources of the Persian Gulf, and, more recently, Central Asia and the 
Caspian Sea Basin (commonly known as "The Persian Gulf of the 21st 
Century"). . . .

In the 1990s, Russia and the US were once again facing each other over 
energy resources, this time in the quest for the access to the resources 
of the Caucasus, the Caspian Sea Basin and Central Asia. And once again, 
the US was - and is, as the 21st Century dawns - encouraging its allies 
to support the irregular Islamist forces fighting the Russians, while 
providing strategic and diplomatic umbrella, and reviving radical 
militancy in the process.

In all three cases, the US sought to intervene and manipulate the 
geo-strategic struggle between Russia (Soviet Union) and militant 
Islamism in order to ensure the West's control over regional oil and gas 
resources. The US intervention has always been on the side of Islam, and 
the US's primary instruments of confronting Russia have been radical 
Muslim forces - either Islamist mujahedin (in the cases of Afghanistan 
and Chechnya) or radical-revolutionary Ba'athism (in the case of the 
Iran-Iraq War) - even though these US-supported militants have always 
been virulently anti-US. . . .

Part Two
. . . . Meanwhile, the US under the Reagan Administration was 
appropriately preoccupied with meeting the growing Soviet threat. During 
the 1980s, Washington was paying close attention to the Soviet military 
buildup and growing capabilities worldwide to the point of examining all 
world events through the prism of US-Soviet bipolarity. Consequently, 
all the unfolding in the developing world, if noticed by Washington at 
all, were reacted-to on the basis of their real, potential or imaginary 
contribution to the Soviet strategic posture. Hence the evolution of the 
Reagan Doctrine to "roll back" the USSR (as well as Cuba and Vietnam) 
from strategic locals in the Third World.

In this context, the US and Western allies assisted a host of savory, 
not-so-savory and completely unsavory characters such as the Afghan 
mujahedin, Saddam Hussein, Angola's Jonas Savimbi and his UNITA 
movement, as well as the Nicaraguan Contras. The complex character of, 
and inherent problems with, these "freedom fighters" were known but 
essentially ignored in Washington because they were "rolling back" the 
"Evil Empire."In the Reagan Administration's Washington, nobody really 
bothered about the long-term ramifications of the US-assisted 
empowerment of these "freedom fighters" over their countries.

. . . .The early 1990s saw the end of the Cold War and the ensuing US 
assertion as "World Leader" through intervention in the intra-Arab 
crisis in the Persian Gulf which became the US-dominated Gulf War and 
the intervention in the collapse of Yugoslavia which led to US direct 
military intervention and to the still unfolding fratricidal wars and 
seething hatred throughout the Balkans. . . .

President Clinton's so-called foreign policy has taken the quest for 
instant political gratification to extremes. For the Clinton White 
House, two subjects dominate US "foreign policy" - cheap oil and cheap 
consumer goods - in order to increase popularity among average 
Americans, irrespective of corruption scandals and other mayhem. . . . 
The quest for cheap oil means the dominance of "Muslim interests" over 
US policy vis-a-vis any "cause" involving Muslims such as the Middle 
East, the Balkans and the Caucasus. Hence, the Clinton Administration 
did its utmost to ensure that Bosnia-Herzegovina would became a Muslim 
state, and bombed the civilian-economic infrastructure of Yugoslavia to 
empower the Kosovo Albanians. . . .

NATO's expansion eastward (despite US President George Bush's commitment 
to Soviet Pres. Gorbachev that NATO would not advance beyond a unified 
Germany) and subsequent meddling in the Baltics and Caucasus raise a 
credible doubt as to the end of confrontationalism in Europe. Moreover, 
the US interventionist policy in the Balkans, particularly the 
demonization of the Serbs, touched a raw nerve over the viability of the 
US "clash of civilizations" doctrine in which the Eastern Churches are 
on the "wrong side" of the divide. . . .

Washington is once again seeking to support and empower the most 
virulent anti-Western Islamist forces. The US crossed the line in 
mid-December 1999, when US officials participated in a formal meeting in 
Azerbaijan in which specific programs for the training and equipping of 
mujahedin from the Caucasus, Central/South Asia and the Arab world were 
discussed and agreed upon. . . .

Washington's motivation is oil pipeline politics and the economy. 
Essentially, Washington is determined to deprive Russia of a viable 
pipeline route through spiraling violence and terrorism, the political 
fallout of media accusations of Russian war crimes. . . .

And so, in the Summer of 2000, the Clinton Administration keeps fanning 
the flames of the Islamist jihad in the Caucasus through covert 
assistance, tacit encouragement of allies to actively support the 
mujahedin, as well as the orchestrating of an intense media campaign 
against Russia and its conduct in Chechnya.

The Clinton Administration's obsession with short-term gains, including 
the escalation in the Caucasus, cannot alter the overriding trends 
affecting the long-term and vital interests of both the United States 
and Russia. As a result, it is important for both Washington and Moscow 
to re-examine the basic premise of their relations. . . .
- - - - -
Defense & Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy is published by the 
International Strategic Studies Association
(ISSA), Alexandria VA 22320. www.StrategicStudies.org
- - - - -
I


Одговори путем е-поште