Home
Will end of energy crisis mean end of war?
Share
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Stumble Upon
Technorati
Mixx
Sphinn
Twitter
SphereIt
Propeller
Gmarks
Newsvine
Yahoo! My Web
Live Journal
Blinklist
E-mailMade Popular Dec 11 2007
# High oil prices, threats of terrorist attacks, instability in many oil-exporting countries and the rise in so-called ‘oil nationalism’ have raised serious concerns about the security of oil supplies.
# Anti-war humanitarian Professor Noam Chomsky writes in one of his articles that the huge energy resources of the Mid East were recognized by Washington sixty years ago as a ’stupendous source of strategic power.’
# While thin evidence supports the notion that US military action against Iraq was economically motivated, it is probable that oil security played a major role in the final decision to invade Iraq as it is said that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.
# The conflict in the Arctic over its undersea resources between Russia and other Arctic powers is actually pointing towards the imminent war.
# With high energy prices, threat of military conflicts between different nations and mounting concerns over human-induced climate change renewable energy recourses may save the whole Planet.
Add Images and Videos
Close X
Recommended Tags or Keywords
Search by Tags or Keywords
Selected Media ( You can Upload only Six media )
Sorry no picture found for this combination of tags. Try to search minimum number of tags at once
RSS 
Vikas Shekhawat
instablogs.com
Dec 11 2007
Churu, Rajasthan,
India
War can never be a ‘solution provider’; however, harbingers of peace are in complete oblivion that any one factor can be the reason behind war. If oil is gone, those who want war will definitely find other reasons and enough bullets and rationale to justify it. Energy is important – we can’t imagine life without it, also, at present it is fueling the overall power game, but to prophesize that the end of energy crisis will end war too is a mistake.
Comment Link
Energy has been the major cause of geo-politics and conflicts. However, to blame it on energy needs for all wars is a bit too lopsided. Terrorism fermenting out of religious intolerance and fundamentalism is the theme of wars these days. Religious fundamentalism has resulting in terrorism has its roots in historical blunders by powers that mattered and still matter. For example, the creation of Israel out of Biblical references in order to atone for the crimes committed towards the Jews for centuries by Christians that culminated with the Holocaust during WW II. Blunder wasn’t the creation of Israel, but blunder was in the form of supporting Israel to occupy Palestine in what had been a volatile and outraged region as Israel was curved out of Arab lands.
Though oil has a major role in the West’s especially the US’s blind support to Israel, which provides the much needed strategic depth to the superpower in the oil rich region most of which found patronage in the USSR, America’s cold war adversary.
With the change of the geo-political landscape following the collapse of the Soviet Union, lingering issues that should have been settled were being ignored like a permanent settlement of the Palestinian cause. This gave the US -backed anti-Soviet fighters in Afghanistan to find new causes for Jehad. Then Saddam Hussein provided a different reason altogether to fight a new war by annexing Kuwait.
The Balkan Wars were not due to Energy, but to ethnic intolerance. This has also sucked in religious mercenaries to fight for religion brothers.
Causes for wars have become more and more complex with perhaps no simple solution around.
Lastly, I would like to point out that the 4th point on the debate table that says; The conflict in the Arctic over its undersea resources between Russia and other Arctic powers is actually pointing towards the imminent war, is baseless, irrelevant and without any merit. It is a figment of imagination of a few fantasizers.
Though oil has a major role in the West’s especially the US’s blind support to Israel, which provides the much needed strategic depth to the superpower in the oil rich region most of which found patronage in the USSR, America’s cold war adversary.
With the change of the geo-political landscape following the collapse of the Soviet Union, lingering issues that should have been settled were being ignored like a permanent settlement of the Palestinian cause. This gave the US -backed anti-Soviet fighters in Afghanistan to find new causes for Jehad. Then Saddam Hussein provided a different reason altogether to fight a new war by annexing Kuwait.
The Balkan Wars were not due to Energy, but to ethnic intolerance. This has also sucked in religious mercenaries to fight for religion brothers.
Causes for wars have become more and more complex with perhaps no simple solution around.
Lastly, I would like to point out that the 4th point on the debate table that says; The conflict in the Arctic over its undersea resources between Russia and other Arctic powers is actually pointing towards the imminent war, is baseless, irrelevant and without any merit. It is a figment of imagination of a few fantasizers.
The issue of solving energy crisis is far from end of war. But easing this problem will truly create a greater impact in the long standing global conflicts among nations.
Leaders among ”superpower” nations should talk about the ongoing crises that the world faces and be an instrument in creating possible solutions.
Differences in cultures, beliefs, traditions and decision-making must be addressed and settled so that clashing issues are given remedies and several factors contributing to instances of waging war are reduced.
War is a result of unsettled disputes. If only people will look into diplomacy as a means to reconcile differences, then we could save lives and make this place a better world for the generations to come.
Maynard Delfin
Manila, Philippines
Leaders among ”superpower” nations should talk about the ongoing crises that the world faces and be an instrument in creating possible solutions.
Differences in cultures, beliefs, traditions and decision-making must be addressed and settled so that clashing issues are given remedies and several factors contributing to instances of waging war are reduced.
War is a result of unsettled disputes. If only people will look into diplomacy as a means to reconcile differences, then we could save lives and make this place a better world for the generations to come.
Maynard Delfin
Manila, Philippines
The crisis in Kosovo, Darfur or in Somalia has nothing to do with oil.
Yes, is there any doubt? It’s a well know fact that US came Iraq not for the emancipation of Iraqis from Saddam but for the oil and natural resource – something that it discovered 60 years ago Iraq is rich with. If we keep oil off the track, US was and is hell bothered what happened or happening to Iraqis and this is something that everyone is witnessing in Iraq. It was US interests only and soul reason why it ignored the whole world in general and UN in particular when went on striking Iraq? So, oil is too alluring, and US will not settle down until and unless it will suck the last drop of oil form Iraq and for every drop, Iraqis are paying with a head.
So when the energy crises will be over this mad race to have or occupy the maximum will also be over naturally. And perhaps all the conflicts with the energy rich countries will be over and Iran is one of them. Mind you, US mercilessly pursuing Iran is not because of fear of being attacked, for US is far advanced technically to avert any Iranian threat. But after Iraqi oil now US eyes Iranian gas and crude oil more while pursuing it with the arguments of security threats. So, with all this, I think, there hardly remains any doubt that oil and gas rule the roosts of present conflict in Mideast.
So when the energy crises will be over this mad race to have or occupy the maximum will also be over naturally. And perhaps all the conflicts with the energy rich countries will be over and Iran is one of them. Mind you, US mercilessly pursuing Iran is not because of fear of being attacked, for US is far advanced technically to avert any Iranian threat. But after Iraqi oil now US eyes Iranian gas and crude oil more while pursuing it with the arguments of security threats. So, with all this, I think, there hardly remains any doubt that oil and gas rule the roosts of present conflict in Mideast.
@ balbhadra
Let’s first clear your conjecture about Kosovo crisis...as you said was not because of oil but i think readers of Kosovo crisis need to wear a seat belt. Kosovo crisis was the real damage to the natives in which they were used as pawns in a deadly game of political and multi-national corporate interest that resorted to ecological poison and then genocide by sanctions. It was the cruelest hoax against humanity in which 70 million perished in the name of creating a better world. In the process of creating yet another NATO base in Europe was actually disguised to defend Caspian oil routes through the Balkans while the biggest reward came as the Trepca coal mines in Kosovo with enough coal to last 400 years, a prize worth billions.
Now you have a serious misunderstanding of the fact that Darfur genocide in Sudan has nothing to do with oil. I feel so miserable after looking at your one-liner comment and also going thorough your profile as you have been a regular contributor as the political writer for the network. How could someone who writes all the time about world affairs not know about the real cause of Darfur genocide and the Chinese support for the Islamist government in Khartoum?
Anyways going down the line to clear your facts about Darfur…the Chinese protect the Khartoum government, who are killers, and they will not allow a vote in the UN Security Council, thanks to Beijing’s stance to its oil ties with Sudan. Beijing’s state-controlled China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) owns 40 percent of Sudan’s biggest oil operation. An estimated 6 to 7 percent of China’s oil imports come from Sudan, a figure expected to rise along with the genocide as the industry expands.
@ maynard_delfin (site:maynard_delfin.insta…)
Very well said Maynard but I think the diplomacy in this geopolitical world more or less revolves around OIL and other energy resources.
Leaders among “superpower” nations should talk about the ongoing crises that the world faces and be an instrument in creating possible solutions.
But these leaders are more concerned about the economy of their own nations and the economy’s biggest drivers – Energy resources.
@ Jonty (site:instablogs.com)
Expectations are that rule of international law will prevail in coming battles over Arctic sovereignty. Okay — but what about that other law, with something about nine-tenths in it? Of course, the story of the Arctic is still one of the future. Currently, it’s a frozen hinterland, but with the polar ice caps melting, countries are going to have to fight over this not necessarily in a military sense. How that process will play out remains anyone’s guess, because no claim has yet been resolved but a looming war is on its way.
The crisis in Kosovo, Darfur or in Somalia has nothing to do with oil.
Let’s first clear your conjecture about Kosovo crisis...as you said was not because of oil but i think readers of Kosovo crisis need to wear a seat belt. Kosovo crisis was the real damage to the natives in which they were used as pawns in a deadly game of political and multi-national corporate interest that resorted to ecological poison and then genocide by sanctions. It was the cruelest hoax against humanity in which 70 million perished in the name of creating a better world. In the process of creating yet another NATO base in Europe was actually disguised to defend Caspian oil routes through the Balkans while the biggest reward came as the Trepca coal mines in Kosovo with enough coal to last 400 years, a prize worth billions.
Now you have a serious misunderstanding of the fact that Darfur genocide in Sudan has nothing to do with oil. I feel so miserable after looking at your one-liner comment and also going thorough your profile as you have been a regular contributor as the political writer for the network. How could someone who writes all the time about world affairs not know about the real cause of Darfur genocide and the Chinese support for the Islamist government in Khartoum?
Anyways going down the line to clear your facts about Darfur…the Chinese protect the Khartoum government, who are killers, and they will not allow a vote in the UN Security Council, thanks to Beijing’s stance to its oil ties with Sudan. Beijing’s state-controlled China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) owns 40 percent of Sudan’s biggest oil operation. An estimated 6 to 7 percent of China’s oil imports come from Sudan, a figure expected to rise along with the genocide as the industry expands.
@ maynard_delfin (site:maynard_delfin.insta…)
War is a result of unsettled disputes. If only people will look into diplomacy as a means to reconcile differences, then we could save lives and make this place a better world for the generations to come.
Very well said Maynard but I think the diplomacy in this geopolitical world more or less revolves around OIL and other energy resources.
Leaders among “superpower” nations should talk about the ongoing crises that the world faces and be an instrument in creating possible solutions.
But these leaders are more concerned about the economy of their own nations and the economy’s biggest drivers – Energy resources.
@ Jonty (site:instablogs.com)
Conflict in the Arctic over its undersea resources between Russia and other Arctic powers is actually pointing towards the imminent war, is baseless, irrelevant and without any merit. It is a figment of imagination of a few fantasizers.
Expectations are that rule of international law will prevail in coming battles over Arctic sovereignty. Okay — but what about that other law, with something about nine-tenths in it? Of course, the story of the Arctic is still one of the future. Currently, it’s a frozen hinterland, but with the polar ice caps melting, countries are going to have to fight over this not necessarily in a military sense. How that process will play out remains anyone’s guess, because no claim has yet been resolved but a looming war is on its way.
Jonty has given the long list of points in his support, but I must say here that he lacks the farsightedness for sure. at present, we are at the brink of a conflict where from if the issues will not be settled down, Which i don’t think will be, a violent breakup is imminent. though all the time it’s not oil or energy resources that are governing the conflict e.g ( as balbhadra pointed out)Kosovo, but here even somewhere US drive to outdo Russian influence is at the root of the conflict.
In Darfur even the energy resources are at the root of the conflict and China, who can play a great strategic role to solve the conflict, is dumb and even blocking the UN resolution to solve the issue for the reason being simple: China exports 70% oil from Sudan. So balbhadra what you will call it or can you deny the fact?
Jonty, we all know that how arctic chill is leading the five nearby nations to a fierce conflict. again, no farsightedness can we wait for the spark to the similar one that was provided by the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria? can we wait for the conflict to spill over and go out of control. well jonty make hey while sunshine has some meaning! ain’t it?
In Darfur even the energy resources are at the root of the conflict and China, who can play a great strategic role to solve the conflict, is dumb and even blocking the UN resolution to solve the issue for the reason being simple: China exports 70% oil from Sudan. So balbhadra what you will call it or can you deny the fact?
Jonty, we all know that how arctic chill is leading the five nearby nations to a fierce conflict. again, no farsightedness can we wait for the spark to the similar one that was provided by the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria? can we wait for the conflict to spill over and go out of control. well jonty make hey while sunshine has some meaning! ain’t it?
The question asked seems to be incomplete, as which war are we talking about ? As most of other participants in this debate has taken question as end of all wars, including the future ones, I would also see the question in that perspective.
I agree with what Vikas and Balbhadra have said above.
Today oil has a great importance in any developed country’s foreign policy and everybody wishes to get control over oil to keep their economy running smoothly. But very few wars have been fought for this reason; after Second World War among the following wars Vietnam war, Iraq-Iran war, Balkan war, intra and inter wars in African countries, Korean war, India-Pakistan war, India-China war, and many more none has been fought with oil as the main reason.
War is fought when two countries differ so much over an issue that they feel the power should decide who is right. Many times war is also fought to make other country realise who is more powerful and would have a bigger importance in geo-politics.
Thinking that US went into Iraq only for oil would be wrong, the last straw was when Iraq said that it would deal in Euro rather than Dollar, taking away the monopoly of US over foreign currency. So even the Iraq war was not fought on oil but power over currency.
I agree with what Vikas and Balbhadra have said above.
Today oil has a great importance in any developed country’s foreign policy and everybody wishes to get control over oil to keep their economy running smoothly. But very few wars have been fought for this reason; after Second World War among the following wars Vietnam war, Iraq-Iran war, Balkan war, intra and inter wars in African countries, Korean war, India-Pakistan war, India-China war, and many more none has been fought with oil as the main reason.
War is fought when two countries differ so much over an issue that they feel the power should decide who is right. Many times war is also fought to make other country realise who is more powerful and would have a bigger importance in geo-politics.
Thinking that US went into Iraq only for oil would be wrong, the last straw was when Iraq said that it would deal in Euro rather than Dollar, taking away the monopoly of US over foreign currency. So even the Iraq war was not fought on oil but power over currency.
@ Laureate
There is never going to be a war in Europe in the next 100 years, at least not because of oil.
The theory that Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s assassination started the first World War is debated hotly around the world. The prevalent alliance system then, ultra-nationalism giving rise to arms race and weapons hoarding etc., were the main causes. His assassination merely acted as a catalyst and not the cause itself!
So, Mr./Mrs./Ms. Laureate, please get your history lessons right. It is not your farsightedness but your myopia that doesn’t allow you to look at the bigger picture.
Oil cannot be a catalyst for a war, but the cause, the reason behind war. That cause will be defeated in Europe sooner or later by agreements and treaties.
Anyway, thanks a lot for your pearls of wisdom here.
There is never going to be a war in Europe in the next 100 years, at least not because of oil.
The theory that Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s assassination started the first World War is debated hotly around the world. The prevalent alliance system then, ultra-nationalism giving rise to arms race and weapons hoarding etc., were the main causes. His assassination merely acted as a catalyst and not the cause itself!
So, Mr./Mrs./Ms. Laureate, please get your history lessons right. It is not your farsightedness but your myopia that doesn’t allow you to look at the bigger picture.
Oil cannot be a catalyst for a war, but the cause, the reason behind war. That cause will be defeated in Europe sooner or later by agreements and treaties.
Anyway, thanks a lot for your pearls of wisdom here.
Add your Comment
