The gift of U.S. universal
hegemony seems to have arrived early inside the Beltway. Like impatient
children, neo-conservative aficionados have shaken the box, ripped the
wrapping and are dreaming of a brave new world where they will both rule
and profit. With hegemonic anxiety, CNN’s Lou Dobbs, the
nation's preeminent business news journalist, recently whined rhetoric
about Iran, with "Why do they need nuclear power?"
You may have already heard
this question from neo-conservative know-it-alls. I know I have. The first
time was in the Pentagon, when I worked the North Africa policy desk under
Doug Feith and Bill Luti. It annoyed me, as I was still under the illusion
that sovereignty of others mattered to the U.S. Today, of course, I am
more accustomed to Washington’s disrespect for state sovereignty,
whether in France, Germany, Russia, Iraq, Taiwan, or Alabama and South
Carolina.
But in the spirit of the
season, perhaps there is a positive way to see this query as to why
country X needs nuclear power, more goats and fewer sheep, or whatever. In
truth, this unnatural concern for what other sovereign nations need or
don’t need is nothing short of heartwarming. And we have a great
humanitarian organization to thank for it, too. The Foundation for the
Defense of Democracies! They published a
backgrounder on Iran and nuclear weapons, earlier this year, which
contended:
Iran claims to seek a
nuclear energy-generating capacity to keep pace with the electricity
demands of its growing population. But such claims don't hold up:
The oil and gas-rich nation announced the discovery of the world's
second largest oil field on July 14th (estimated at 38 billion
barrels), and had an estimated 90 billion barrels in reserves even
before the recent discovery. Given Iran's failing economy (16%
unemployment, 40% of the population under the poverty line) and the
abundance of petroleum resources, a nuclear program is unnecessary and
wasteful.
It’s not like they might
actually want to sell or hold in reserve their oil and gas, and develop
cleaner or more sustainable energy sources! What kind of national
craziness would that be! George? Dick?
Clearly, I’m not in the
same league as FDD Distinguished
Advisors Newt Gingrich and James Woolsey, or even FDD Non-Distinguished
Advisors Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Richard Perle or Frank
Gaffney, but two things occur to me. It is really our business? And who
made us the oracle of how much and what kind of domestic energy is needed
or not needed in Iran?
While these questions are
not insightful, the answers might be.
Is it our business? Well,
actually, in the case of Iran, no, it’s not. Instead, the Russians have
the business. They are building the nuclear plants, a long-lasting and
highly profitable process, I might add. Now, long-lasting and profitable
are important words for American companies, and it’s really too bad the
Iran-Libya Sanctions Act has prevented American companies from profiting
in Iran. Sanctions are a new kind of spiked shoe, except when activated,
they poison our own feet instead of capping our opponent. Even Rosa Klebb,
with all of her loyalty and dedication to SPECTRE, would not have worn
these babies. This of course doesn’t mean the American Enterprise(?)
Institute wouldn’t order them up in droves.
And how do we know how much
energy is needed anywhere? Well, we know because of the careful analysis
and deep research done by highly qualified and highly placed people in
government circles. Consider the detailed work that was done to justify
the Central Asia Gas Pipeline, and to gain World Bank funding. Now here
was a project
to behold. Set aside the fact that we
couldn’t get the pipeline project moved forward and funded with the
Taliban in charge. Set aside the current maneuverings of the United
States puppet in Kabul, former UNOCAL consultant Hamid Karzai, to
do what the Taliban couldn’t. Hold the cynicism for a second, and
try to understand how American politicians and their closest friends know
just what energy is needed, why, when and how, anywhere in the world.
While holding that cynicism,
also try to forget real world market factors. Lack of security remains a
primary barrier to global funding for the trans-Afghanistan pipeline, but
it is not the only one. Oil and gas prices, and the existence of other
functional outlets for Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan gas are also factors.
The current deal in the works includes Pakistan, with
an option to go to India. Because Washington experts and insiders from
the AEI to the White House so enjoy pronouncing who needs what energy,
why, when and how, it is enlightening to look at the original
pipeline project, which from the beginning included India.
The
original project called for an extension of the pipeline across Pakistan
into India, to the city of Dabhol. Dabhol is significant, because it is
the site of the idle
Dabhol Power Project, brought to you by the equally idle and
definitely uglier Enron Corporation.
A major "selling
point" of the original project was to provide cheap gas to run
Enron’s $3 billion power plant. If you want the timeline, it
is really good reading.
I use this example to show
you how U.S. government key players, whether Clinton Era or Dubya era,
play the game of market oracle. For India, gas-driven Enron turbines would
produce almost 3000 MW of power to local Indian economy. Power that, had
it been produced, would have profited very little, given the sorry state
of national electrification and central energy management in India. A
scientific (as opposed to political/fund-raising) branch of the U.S.
government reports,
…all of [India State
Electricity Boards] are
bankrupt … Almost all of this is due to power theft (often
referred to as "non-technical losses") and a pricing
structure that heavily subsidizes agriculture. Of all the electricity
generated in India, only about 55% is even billed and slightly more
than 40% is regularly paid for.
Uncle Sam "Slick"
and Auntie Beltway "Backshish" actually understand nothing about
who needs what energy, and couldn’t care less. But they do understand
precisely what they and their cronies need to do to profit from publicly
funded monstrosities, domestically and globally. And if they can’t
profit from it the easy way, then threats and military deployments are in
order. Enter George W. Bush, rainmaker extraordinaire. Tehran understands
perfectly what went on in Afghanistan, and what is going on in Afghanistan
today. Map the U.S.
military bases against the pipeline map, and you see that the U.S.
fascism – muscular national socialism – is on the march. Thus
neo-fascist mouthpieces everywhere opine, "Why do they need nuclear
power built by Russian contractors, when they could have Enron and
Halliburton and Bechtel with U.S. military protection work on a nice
publicly funded gas fueled electrical plant for them?"
Iran’s publicly funded
socialist economy is undoubtedly wasting as much as India’s in the
creation of white elephants. But beyond the national or regional security
façade, it is only the feeling of being shut out of this potential hog
trough that so annoys modern American imperialists in the Bush/Cheney
administration. At least now we are both annoyed.
Let me sum up. You can find
and experience real market forces driving local and global economies,
unleashing real creativity, generating real solutions to real problems all
over the world. You really can, as Brad Edmonds illustrates
so wonderfully in the case of another typical government monstrosity.
But don’t expect them under this year’s Christmas tree. In 2003 and
2004, you won’t find real market forces discussed on Lou Dobbs Tonight,
you won’t scare up freedom at the American Enterprise Institute, and you
can’t have either in George W. Bush’s America.
December
22, 2003
Karen Kwiatkowski [send
her mail] is a recently retired USAF lieutenant colonel, who spent her
final four and a half years in uniform working at the Pentagon. She now
lives with her freedom-loving family in the Shenandoah Valley.