[Vision2020] Michael Klare: "Oil Wars on the Horizon"

[Ted Moffett]

MIchael Klare, professor of peace and world security studies, director
of the Five College Program in Peace and World Security Studies at
Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts, and also author of "The
Race for What's Left: the Global Scramble for the World's Last
Resources," lectured this weekend on CSpan2 BookTV.
http://www.booktv.org/Program/13330/The+Race+for+Whats+Left+The+Global+Scramble+for+the+Worlds+Last+Resources.aspx

He was asked about human over population and responded that car over
population was more of a problem, indicating that China's rapid huge
expansion of its gas powered car fleet alone will place great pressure
(I am paraphrasing) on the competition for the world's oil resources.

I found the following article by Klare, pasted in below, at several
different websites, that presents an analysis of the potential for
military conflict over global oil (or other energy) resources.

For those wishing to promote peace, perhaps one of the most important
acts is to avoid as much as possible using fossil fuels.  Every time
someone fills their tank, or takes a flight, regardless of what they
intend, they are supporting the oil war machine, as the easy cheap oil
is used up, leaving increasingly expensive non-alternative oil as the
option as global demand skyrockets.

The title "Oil Wars on the Horizon" is Tom Englehardt's, who writes an
introduction to Klare's article pasted in below, an introduction that
can be read at these websites, which discusses current military
deployments in the Persian Gulf that are alarming.

It's interesting that of the six energy clashes Klare discusses, he
saves clashes with Iran for the end:

Thu May 10, 2012 at 07:28 AM PDT

Michael Klare: Oil Wars on the Horizon

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/10/1090392/-Michael-Klare-Oil-Wars-on-the-Horizon
---------------------
The Energy Wars Heat Up
Six Recent Clashes and Conflicts on a Planet Heading Into Energy Overdrive
By Michael T. Klare

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Michael-Klare-Oil-Wars-on-by-Tom-Engelhardt-120510-971.html

Conflict and intrigue over valuable energy supplies have been features
of the international landscape for a long time. Major wars over oil
have been fought every decade or so since World War I, and smaller
engagements have erupted every few years; a flare-up or two in 2012,
then, would be part of the normal scheme of things. Instead, what we
are now seeing is a whole cluster of oil-related clashes stretching
across the globe, involving a dozen or so countries, with more popping
up all the time. Consider these flash-points as signals that we are
entering an era of intensified conflict over energy.

>From the Atlantic to the Pacific, Argentina to the Philippines, here
are the six areas of conflict -- all tied to energy supplies -- that
have made news in just the first few months of 2012:

* A brewing war between Sudan and South Sudan: On April 10th, forces
from the newly independent state of South Sudan occupied the oil
center of Heglig, a town granted to Sudan as part of a peace
settlement that allowed the southerners to secede in 2011. The
northerners, based in Khartoum, then mobilized their own forces and
drove the South Sudanese out of Heglig. Fighting has since erupted all
along the contested border between the two countries, accompanied by
air strikes on towns in South Sudan. Although the fighting has not yet
reached the level of a full-scale war, international efforts to
negotiate a cease-fire and a peaceful resolution to the dispute have
yet to meet with success.

This conflict is being fueled by many factors, including economic
disparities between the two Sudans and an abiding animosity between
the southerners (who are mostly black Africans and Christians or
animists) and the northerners (mostly Arabs and Muslims). But oil --
and the revenues produced by oil -- remains at the heart of the
matter. When Sudan was divided in 2011, the most prolific oil fields
wound up in the south, while the only pipeline capable of transporting
the south's oil to international markets (and thus generating revenue)
remained in the hands of the northerners. They have been demanding
exceptionally high "transit fees" -- $32-$36 per barrel compared to
the common rate of $1 per barrel -- for the privilege of bringing the
South's oil to market. When the southerners refused to accept such
rates, the northerners confiscated money they had already collected
from the south's oil exports, its only significant source of funds. In
response, the southerners stopped producing oil altogether and, it
appears, launched their military action against the north. The
situation remains explosive.

* Naval clash in the South China Sea: On April 7th, a Philippine naval
warship, the 378-foot Gregorio del Pilar, arrived at Scarborough
Shoal, a small island in the South China Sea, and detained eight
Chinese fishing boats anchored there, accusing them of illegal fishing
activities in Filipino sovereign waters. China promptly sent two naval
vessels of its own to the area, claiming that the Gregorio del Pilar
was harassing Chinese ships in Chinese, not Filipino waters. The
fishing boats were eventually allowed to depart without further
incident and tensions have eased somewhat. However, neither side has
displayed any inclination to surrender its claim to the island, and
both sides continue to deploy warships in the contested area.

As in Sudan, multiple factors are driving this clash, but energy is
the dominant motive. The South China Sea is thought to harbor large
deposits of oil and natural gas, and all the countries that encircle
it, including China and the Philippines, want to exploit these
reserves. Manila claims a 200-nautical mile "exclusive economic zone"
stretching into the South China Sea from its western shores, an area
it calls the West Philippine Sea; Filipino companies say they have
found large natural gas reserves in this area and have announced plans
to begin exploiting them. Claiming the many small islands that dot the
South China Sea (including Scarborough Shoal) as its own, Beijing has
asserted sovereignty over the entire region, including the waters
claimed by Manila; it, too, has announced plans to drill in the area.
Despite years of talks, no solution has yet been found to the dispute
and further clashes are likely.

* Egypt cuts off the natural gas flow to Israel: On April 22nd, the
Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation and Egyptian Natural Gas
Holding Company informed Israeli energy officials that they were
"terminating the gas and purchase agreement" under which Egypt had
been supplying gas to Israel. This followed months of demonstrations
in Cairo by the youthful protestors who succeeded in deposing autocrat
Hosni Mubarak and are now seeking a more independent Egyptian foreign
policy -- one less beholden to the United States and Israel. It also
followed scores of attacks on the pipelines carrying the gas across
the Negev Desert to Israel, which the Egyptian military has seemed
powerless to prevent.

Ostensibly, the decision was taken in response to a dispute over
Israeli payments for Egyptian gas, but all parties involved have
interpreted it as part of a drive by Egypt's new government to
demonstrate greater distance from the ousted Mubarak regime and his
(U.S.-encouraged) policy of cooperation with Israel. The
Egyptian-Israeli gas link was one of the most significant outcomes of
the 1979 peace treaty between the two countries, and its annulment
clearly signals a period of greater discord; it may also cause energy
shortages in Israel, especially during peak summer demand periods. On
a larger scale, the cutoff suggests a new inclination to use energy
(or its denial) as a form of political warfare and coercion.

* Argentina seizes YPF: On April 16th, Argentina's president, Cristina
Fernández de Kirchner, announced that her government would seize a
majority stake in YPF, the nation's largest oil company. Under
President Kirchner's plans, which she detailed on national television,
the government would take a 51% controlling stake in YPF, which is now
majority-owned by Spain's largest corporation, the energy firm Repsol
YPF. The seizure of its Argentinean subsidiary is seen in Madrid (and
other European capitals) as a major threat that must now be combated.
Spain's foreign minister, José Manuel García Margallo, said that
Kirchner's move "broke the climate of cordiality and friendship that
presided over relations between Spain and Argentina." Several days
later, in what is reported to be only the first of several retaliatory
steps, Spain announced that it would stop importing biofuels from
Argentina, its principal supplier -- a trade worth nearly $1 billion a
year to the Argentineans.

As in the other conflicts, this clash is driven by many urges,
including a powerful strain of nationalism stretching back to the
Peronist era, along with Kirchner's apparent desire to boost her
standing in the polls. Just as important, however, is Argentina's urge
to derive greater economic and political benefit from its energy
reserves, which include the world's third-largest deposits of shale
gas. While long-term rival Brazil is gaining immense power and
prestige from the development of its offshore "pre-salt" petroleum
reserves, Argentina has seen its energy production languish. Repsol
may not be to blame for this, but many Argentineans evidently believe
that, with YPF under government control, it will now be possible to
accelerate development of the country's energy endowment, possibly in
collaboration with a more aggressive foreign partner like BP or
ExxonMobil.

* Argentina re-ignites the Falklands crisis: At an April 15th-16th
Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia -- the one at which U.S.
Secret Service agents were caught fraternizing with prostitutes --
Argentina sought fresh hemispheric condemnation of Britain's continued
occupation of the Falkland Islands (called Las Malvinas by the
Argentineans). It won strong support from every country present save
(predictably) Canada and the United States. Argentina, which says the
islands are part of its sovereign territory, has been raising this
issue ever since it lost a war over the Falklands in 1982, but has
recently stepped up its campaign on several fronts -- denouncing
London in numerous international venues and preventing British cruise
ships that visit the Falklands from docking in Argentinean harbors.
The British have responded by beefing up their military forces in the
region and warning the Argentineans to avoid any rash moves.

When Argentina and the U.K. fought their war over the Falklands,
little was at stake save national pride, the stature of the country's
respective leaders (Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher vs. an unpopular
military junta), and a few sparsely populated islands. Since then, the
stakes have risen immeasurably as a result of recent seismic surveys
of the waters surrounding the islands that indicated the existence of
massive deposits of oil and natural gas. Several UK-based energy
firms, including Desire Petroleum and Rockhopper Exploration, have
begun off-shore drilling in the area and have reported promising
discoveries. Desperate to duplicate Brazil's success in the
development of offshore oil and gas, Argentina claims the discoveries
lie in its sovereign territory and that the drilling there is illegal;
the British, of course, insist that it's their territory. No one knows
how this simmering potential crisis will unfold, but a replay of the
1982 war -- this time over energy -- is hardly out of the question.

* U.S. forces mobilize for war with Iran: Throughout the winter and
early spring, it appeared that an armed clash of some sort pitting
Iran against Israel and/or the United States was almost inevitable.
Neither side seemed prepared to back down on key demands, especially
on Iran's nuclear program, and any talk of a compromise solution was
deemed unrealistic. Today, however, the risk of war has diminished
somewhat -- at least through this election year in the U.S. -- as
talks have finally gotten under way between the major powers and Iran,
and as both have adopted (slightly) more accommodating stances. In
addition, U.S. officials have been tamping down war talk and figures
in the Israeli military and intelligence communities have spoken out
against rash military actions. However, the Iranians continue to
enrich uranium, and leaders on all sides say they are fully prepared
to employ force if the peace talks fail.

For the Iranians, this means blocking the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow
channel through which one-third of the world's tradable oil passes
every day. The U.S., for its part, has insisted that it will keep the
Strait open and, if necessary, eliminate Iranian nuclear capabilities.
Whether to intimidate Iran, prepare for the real thing, or possibly
both, the U.S. has been building up its military capabilities in the
Persian Gulf area, deploying two aircraft carrier battle groups in the
neighborhood along with an assortment of air and amphibious-assault
capabilities.

One can debate the extent to which Washington's long-running feud with
Iran is driven by oil, but there is no question that the current
crisis bears heavily on global oil supply prospects, both through
Iran's threats to close the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for
forthcoming sanctions on Iranian oil exports, and the likelihood that
any air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities will lead to the same
thing. Either way, the U.S. military would undoubtedly assume the lead
role in destroying Iranian military capabilities and restoring oil
traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. This is the energy-driven crisis
that just won't go away.

How Energy Drives the World

All of these disputes have one thing in common: the conviction of
ruling elites around the world that the possession of energy assets --
especially oil and gas deposits -- is essential to prop up national
wealth, power, and prestige.

This is hardly a new phenomenon. Early in the last century, Winston
Churchill was perhaps the first prominent leader to appreciate the
strategic importance of oil. As First Lord of the Admiralty, he
converted British warships from coal to oil and then persuaded the
cabinet to nationalize the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, the forerunner
of British Petroleum (now BP). The pursuit of energy supplies for both
industry and war-fighting played a major role in the diplomacy of the
period between the World Wars, as well as in the strategic planning of
the Axis powers during World War II. It also explains America's
long-term drive to remain the dominant power in the Persian Gulf that
culminated in the first Gulf War of 1990-91 and its inevitable sequel,
the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The years since World War II have seen a variety of changes in the
energy industry, including a shift in many areas from private to state
ownership of oil and natural gas reserves. By and large, however, the
industry has been able to deliver ever-increasing quantities of fuel
to satisfy the ever-growing needs of a globalizing economy and an
expanding, rapidly urbanizing world population. So long as supplies
were abundant and prices remained relatively affordable, energy
consumers around the world, including most governments, were largely
content with the existing system of collaboration among private and
state-owned energy leviathans.

But that energy equation is changing ominously as the challenge of
fueling the planet grows more difficult. Many of the giant oil and gas
fields that quenched the world's energy thirst in years past are being
depleted at a rapid pace. The new fields being brought on line to take
their place are, on average, smaller and harder to exploit. Many of
the most promising new sources of energy -- like Brazil's "pre-salt"
petroleum reserves deep beneath the Atlantic Ocean, Canadian tar
sands, and American shale gas -- require the utilization of
sophisticated and costly technologies. Though global energy supplies
are continuing to grow, they are doing so at a slower pace than in the
past and are continually falling short of demand. All this adds to the
upward pressure on prices, causing anxiety among countries lacking
adequate domestic reserves (and joy among those with an abundance).

The world has long been bifurcated between energy-surplus and
energy-deficit states, with the former deriving enormous political and
economic advantages from their privileged condition and the latter
struggling mightily to escape their subordinate position. Now, that
bifurcation is looking more like a chasm. In such a global
environment, friction and conflict over oil and gas reserves --
leading to energy conflicts of all sorts -- is only likely to
increase.

Looking, again, at April's six energy disputes, one can see clear
evidence of these underlying forces in every case. South Sudan is
desperate to sell its oil in order to acquire the income needed to
kick-start its economy; Sudan, on the other hand, resents the loss of
oil revenues it controlled when the nation was still united, and
appears no less determined to keep as much of the South's oil money as
it can for itself. China and the Philippines both want the right to
develop oil and gas reserves in the South China Sea, and even if the
deposits around Scarborough Shoal prove meager, China is unwilling to
back down in any localized dispute that might undermine its claim to
sovereignty over the entire region.

Egypt, although not a major energy producer, clearly seeks to employ
its oil and gas supplies for maximum political and economic advantage
-- an approach sure to be copied by other small and mid-sized
suppliers. Israel, heavily dependent on imports for its energy, must
now turn elsewhere for vital supplies or accelerate the development of
disputed, newly discovered offshore gas fields, a move that could
provoke fresh conflict with Lebanon, which says they lie in its own
territorial waters. And Argentina, jealous of Brazil's growing clout,
appears determined to extract greater advantage from its own energy
resources, even if this means inflaming tensions with Spain and Great
Britain.

And these are just some of the countries involved in significant
disputes over energy. Any clash with Iran -- whatever the motivation
-- is bound to jeopardize the petroleum supply of every oil-importing
country, sparking a major international crisis with unforeseeable
consequences. China's determination to control its offshore
hydrocarbon reserves has pushed it into conflict with other countries
with offshore claims in the South China Sea, and into a similar
dispute with Japan in the East China Sea. Energy-related disputes of
this sort can also be found in the Caspian Sea and in globally
warming, increasingly ice-free Arctic regions.

The seeds of energy conflicts and war sprouting in so many places
simultaneously suggest that we are entering a new period in which key
state actors will be more inclined to employ force -- or the threat of
force -- to gain control over valuable deposits of oil and natural
gas. In other words, we're now on a planet heading into energy
overdrive.

Michael Klare is a TomDispatch regular, professor of peace and world
security studies at Hampshire College, and the author, most recently,
of The Race for What's Left: The Global Scramble for the World's Last
Resources. To listen to Timothy MacBain's latest Tomcast audio
interview in which Klare discusses global energy conflicts, click here
or download it to your iPod here.
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett