> Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 16:14:20 -0400 (EDT) > From: "Fred B. Moseley" <fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu> > Hi Rakesh (finally a chance to reply briefly), > > I don't understand why US troops are necessary to ensure that > petrodollars flow into US banks and securities, rather than > elsewhere. Would you please explain this point further? > > US troops were sent to the Middle East in the Gulf War and never left > completely. The Gulf War was about OIL - specifically the oil in Kuwait > that Iraq tried to grab. The troops were sent to protect Kuwaiti oil from > Iraq, not to guarantee the recycling of petrodollars. That recycling had > been worked out long ago by US State and Treasury officials, as Spiro > describes, without the use of troops. > > I am not arguing that the recycling of petrodollars is not important to US > hegemony. I am just arguing that it does not require US troops, which is > the source of so much conflict in the Middle East. > > Also, I am not justifying US military presence in the Middle East. I am > just saying why the troops were sent there and why they remain. Instead, > I would raise a more fundamental question: how can we reduce our > dependence on Mideast oil, so that the need for a US military presence > would be reduced? Such a reduction of dependence on Mideast oil would > seem to require both a change of our life-styles and also a change in our > economic system. But these fundamental changes may be what is necessary > to avoid continual wars and terrorism and destruction (and also to avoid > environmental degradation). > > A good new book on the oil basis of the US military presence in the > Middle East is *Resource Wars* by Michael Klare. (By the way, Rakesh, > Klare teaches at Hampshire College, where Egbal Ahmed used to teach. You > are certainly right that we miss him dearly, especially now). > > Comradely, > Fred > > > > On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: > > > Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 11:57:50 -0700 (PDT) > > From: Rakesh Bhandari <rakeshb@stanford.edu> > > Reply-To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu > > To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu > > Cc: michael@ECST.CSUCHICO.EDU > > Subject: [OPE-L:6038] petrodollarism, not oilism: reply to Fred > > > > > > I am not subbed to pen-l, and just saw fred's reply. i'll put my reply on > > ope-l and cc a message to michael. > > > > Basically Fred does not agree with Cyrus Bina when the latter writes > > "The real U.S. incentive, > > however, can be explained in terms of the channeling of massive Saudi oil > > revenues toward the U.S. regional (Middle East) as well as global strategic > > objectives." > > > > > > Fred writes: > > > > I agree that petrodollars are crucial to US hegemony, and thanks for the > > reminder of this important point. > > _______ > > Fred, those petrodollars were important in staving off the falling US profit > > rate in the 70s and 80s. While as you have importantly shown the US has been > > able to rely on market forces for a stimulative inflow of capital in recent > > years, Spiro shows how the US had to in effect use state coercion to ensure > > that oil remained priced in dollars and that petrodollars were recycled in > > accordance with US objectives in the 70s and 80s. The internatinal operation of > > the imperialist state in staving off the US profit rate has not been recognized > > by you before. > > ____________ > > Fred writes: But the actual oil itself is essential > > for the very existence of the US economy (as least in its current > > form). > > _________ > > Yes, and as Marx emphasized, the value of raw material forms > > an ever growing component of the value of the commodity product...which does > > mean that low price of raw materials are important for the industrial > > economies. But it is far from clear the US state has always pushed for low > > prices. In fact Spiro provides evidence of how the US opted out of coalitions > > to put pressure on OPEC; the Nixon doctrine required a high price of oil so > > that client regimes could engage in orgies of military spending. > > > > ________ > > Fred writes: If the supplies of Middle Eastern oil were cut off, then the US > > economy could not continue for very long as it normally does. > > __________ > > but why would a radical arab islamicist regime cut off supply--it would need > > revenue to carry out its self proclaimed revolutionary objectives. without oil > > revenue, how would food be purchased--the arab world has suffered from the > > worst kind of dependent development. a radical regime may even increase the > > supply of oil. > > > > And it is the US that has worked to cut off or at least control the voluminous > > Iraqi supply of oil. Has Iran cut off its supply of oil since the overthrow > > of the Shah? > > > > as for price, according to bina--if I have understood him--the > > internationalization of the oil industry is such today that even control of > > Saudi Arabia is not sufficient to determine prices at the global level. So I > > do not think there is a threat of a radical Arab regime in Saudi Arabia hiking > > the price of oil. > > > > worries about supply and price seem to me to be secondary to the problem of > > channeling massive the revenue from dollar denominated oil, as bina has argued. > > this is also clear from spiro's account as well. > > > > __________ > > > > Fred writes: > > > > > > This was > > the lesson of the Arab oil boycott of 1973-74 and the ensueing > > recession. > > __________ > > > > According to Spiro, the rise in the price of oil then was mostly a result of > > OPEC members turning to independents and circumventing the Seven Sisters who > > had successfully conspired in suppressing the purchasing price of crude only to > > make super profits at the pump. The recession was a result of the seven sisters > > attempting to maintain their super-profits. To the extent that there was an > > attempt to choke off the supply of oil, this was a result of Arab-Israeli > > tensions: US military presence there actually exacerbates the threat of a > > supply cut-off. > > > > ____________ > > Fred writes: > > > > > > From which followed the "Kissinger Doctrine" and the "Carter > > Doctrine", according to which US troops should be stationed in the Middle > > East and should be deployed as necessary to guarantee the outflow of > > oil. > > > > __________ > > You make it sound as if the US was doing the world a service in guaranteeing > > the flow of oil...i think you are playing on fears here that without US > > millitary occupation OPEC would choke the world to death. > > > > ________ > > Fred writes: > > > > > > Which in turn has led to so much resentment and conflict. > > > > ___________ > > > > You are not clear as to what has caused resentment and conflict. Simply the US > > presence at the holy sites. But then why does Osama bin Laden rail...with much > > popular support...about the US robbery of oil wealt as well? Why did the > > terrorists attack a major economic symbol? > > US troops are not in Saudi Arabia to ensure the flow of oil--that's the story > > the US tells the world; the troops are there to ensure that the House of Saud > > continues to rob the Arabs for the benefit of American capital. > > __________ > > > > Fred writes: > > The US military forces are in the Middle East to enforce the ouflow of oil > > to US refineries and markets, not to enforce the flow of petrodollars > > through US banks. Troops are not necessary for the latter. > > _________ > > > > I don't know why you say this. I think you underestimate the popular > > resentment against the outflow of wealth to the US. > > > > Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Nov 02 2001 - 00:00:03 EST