|
|
|
| |
| |
Life Onboard |
LAST UPDATE
July 19, 2005
|
|
| site design imagesparkle.com |
| August 30, 2004 |
"War on Oil or Survival: Time for sustainable
alternatives" – Andreas Zumach |
|
| |
 |
| Andreas Zumach addressing Peace Boat participants |
In August of 2000, Saddam Hussein announced to the world his intention to trade Iraqi oil exports
in Euros and break from the US dollar. Andreas Zumach, a journalist based in Geneva, reporting on
the United Nations and other stories around the globe, argues that if others followed this action
would have devastating economic effects on the US economy. "As long as the US dollar remains
the world's leading currency, the US can continue to transfer the burden of its national deficit onto
the world's shoulders," said Zumach. During several lectures onboard Peace Boat, Zumach outlined
why not only oil dependency, but the geo-political strategies (such as the Iraq War) to control this
oil, are short-term thinking. |
|
|
 |
| "In my opinion, the war with Iraq was a war with the rest of the world." |
BThe US has a long history of control over Middle Eastern oil, and many people see the war in Iraq
as another example of the US action to ensure its continued control. With the second largest oil reserves
in the world (after Saudi Arabia), the most strategic location for pipelines, the cheapest oil extraction,
and the only country yet to reach its peak production, the immediate economic benefits of controlling
Iraqi oil are immense. "In my opinion, the war with Iraq was a war with the rest of the world;
with Europe, with Japan, with Russia, with South Korea...to ensure oil control," said Zumach.
But this was not a reason given for going to war by the Bush Administration. Instead, before the war
began, Bush gave a number of very different justifications, including Saddam's alleged link to al-Qaeda,
to September 11th, and to his possession of weapons of mass destruction - none of which have been
substantiated. In addition Bush argued that, "We need to bring democracy to this region, because
this region has never had democracy." |
| |
 |
| Outlining Iraq's strategic benefits |
On this point, Zumach says that either Bush didn't know better or was lying, explaining that historically
countries in this region have had their own democratic experiences. Iran is just one example. Zumach
explained that when Britain left Iran in the early 1960s, the country elected both a parliament and
its first Prime Minister. But Iran soon made a strategic mistake and nationalized all the British-controlled
oil. To lose control of Iran's oil was unacceptable to certain interests in the west, and within two
years the US and the UK overthrew the democratically elected leader and replaced him with the Shah's
bloody dictatorship. From the 1962 overthrow to 1979 Iran was the US's most important partner in the
Middle East. He [the Shah] promised to deliver oil, and in turn the US delivered weapons and support.
But the Shah could not control the uprising against the dictatorship within his country and was overthrown
by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. After the overthrow of Iran a new oil-rich partner was needed by the
world and that new partner became Iraq. |
| |
 |
| The time to switch to renewable energies is now, says Zumach |
For eleven years "we" - collectively defined by Zumach as the US, UK, Germany, China and
the Soviet Union - supported Saddam Hussein with whatever he wanted, including arms and biological
weapons. "We were arming up Saddam. During this time, Iraq fought an 8-year war with Iran and
in 1990 attacked Kuwait. After this attack and the first Gulf War that followed, the US moved its
partnership to Saudi Arabia. However, in Washington, the partnership with Saudi Arabia caused some
apprehension. Washington came to a new analysis, and the analysis was that sooner or later there would
be an Islamic revolution in Saudi Arabia, the same way there was in Iran," said Zumach. "The
conclusion was - we have to find another partner in the region. And Iraq became the number one choice." In
1997 Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearl, Donald Rumsfeld and six other members of the think-tank, "The
Project for a New American Century" came forward to President Clinton calling for a regime change
to again make Iraq the strategic partner for US oil control. Zumach notes that President Clinton did
not make this change, but that in 2001 all of the aforementioned policy makers were given leading
positions in the Bush Administration. Following the attacks of September 11th, Bush and these policy
makers claimed the war with Iraq was an essential part of the war on terror, and put this call for
regime change into action. |
| |
Zumach believes that going to war with Iraq clearly shows the wrong, short-sighted thinking in the
US strategy of oil dominance. To look at what shaped this strategy he again recounted recent events
in history. Before 1974 oil was thought of as limitless, but in 1974 people realized that oil shortages
would be inevitable. In the following year OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) sharply
drove up prices causing the infamous US oil shock. "At this time the policy thinkers said, 'this
can never happen to us again - we need to develop a geo-political strategy to ensure cheap oil'",
and Zumach believes that political thinking has been influenced by this ever since. "At the same
time new strategies to counter oil shortages were taking place in Western Europe. These countries
were trying to save energy, while looking at ways to develop energy alternatives like water, solar,
and wind." Zumach stated with confidence that such types of energy are the only alternatives,
and emphasized that within the next fifty years oil control will no longer be an option. "Now
we know that 98% of all oil fields in the world have been found. There will be no big surprises anymore."
Recent International media reports also show that if we continue at the current rate of oil consumption, which is estimated to go up by 50% until 2050, (namely due to population growth and expanding lifestyle demands, especially in countries such as China) all oil will be gone by roughly 2040. "At this point the potential for wars [in all countries] will become bigger and bigger. The only alternative is the development of renewable energies that are relatively safe." Emphasizing that these renewable energies do exist, Zumach said, "This is not a question of technical ability, whether your politicians say it is or not. It is only a question of political will. We must make significant shifts in our own countries to replace oil with renewable policies and technologies, while also changing the thinking of politicians. Instead of using the argument to lower your lifestyle, make the argument to improve your lifestyle and guarantee a healthy future," said Zumach. All countries, not just the US must be self-critical, including the European Union, which recently adopted a similar military strategy to the Bush Administration's. Their long-term reason, Zumach said, is to compete with the US oil dominance in the future. But, he argued, that like the war in Iraq, "This whole concept doesn't work, it's an absolute disaster, and if alternatives aren't seriously considered, the prospect will be wars for years to come." |
| |
|
|
|
