Taikun,
In brief, Holland's ideology is reflected by this view: "Understanding ....is to grasp the sometimes intricate dance that is modern neocolonialism. The Iraq oil-grab is a classic case study."
Conventional neo-Marxist cant, but it fails my skeptical view.
Since oil is fungible, why would the US give one rat's ass who owned the oil? The eventual owners, under any regime, would seek to produce oil and monetize wealth. The oil would find its way to international markets for consumption. Is ownership of the oil fields a vital interest to the US or BP, Exxon, et.al.? Of course not.
I would never expect that those who did not support the US vis-a-vis Saddam would be among those who would be invited first to discuss future production with any sovereign Iraqi government, political instability notwithstanding. Would BP receive an invitation before Total? Yes, I think so, but does that imply BP 'needs' Iraqi oil? No.
Second, let us assume Holland's understanding of neo-colonialism is accurate. How would he explain the failure of the US to destroy OPEC for three decades? NO other organization has 'exploited' the developed world more than OPEC. NO other institution as done more to distort world economic growth than OPEC. NO other organization has done more to create foreign policy problems for consuming nations, both poor and rich. Hell, the US didn't even initiate a boycott of technology or other 'western' gems that OPEC nations could never have developed for themselves. US foreign policy toward OPEC has been inept, uncreative, and passive. It has only cost us XXXXX billions.
Finally, if one really desires to reach a higher consciousness about the dialectics of neo-colonialism, it seems to me there are many contradictions that must be resolved. Why, for example, would the US undertake military police action in the Balkans, but ignore such against Sudan? Why would the US ever agree to non-discriminatory freight charges through the Panama Canal?
If neo-colonialism---if one can even define the ISM--is a valid analytical tool for understanding US foreign policy, why do so many tree-huggers protest US free trade policies and globalization? As you know, under free trade, the winners are not always US corporations. Samsung, Komatsu, Sony, etc., have done quite well under 'neo-colonialism.'
Whatever Iraq was, or has become, it not a simple resource play by US/British corporate interests for greater profits. The CEO's of Exxon, BP, HAL, etc., have never lost a minute of sleep over the question of who might own Iraq's oil fields. To be sure, if these companies could make money there, I think from a risk-balanced perspective, they would have an interest in Iraqi production. Is the prospect vital to their future corporate interests? In my mind, not at all.
wp |
