| Front Page |
Gulf News, 01-08-2003
The publicity machine of the White House would have one believe that U.S. President George W. Bush's recent visit to Africa was inspired by a desire for humanitarian initiatives. Bush made a lot of promises during his five-nation swing through the continent. He proposed a $15 billion programme to tackle HIV/AIDS and pledged to help Africa find its way out of poverty. The depth of Bush's commitment to the world's poorest countries is hard to assess, but it is not difficult to understand the true motives which prompted the tour to a region that has long been forgotten.
Since the 1973 Arab oil embargo the U.S. has been trying to reduce its reliance on Middle East oil. It has also been attempting to loosen Opec's stranglehold on petroleum prices.
Conservative circles
Little success has been achieved in these two areas. For the U.S., oil is not scarce, but most of it lies beneath the sands of the volatile Middle East. In addition, conservative circles in Washington argue, the health of the U.S. economy has always been hostage to Opec's tight control of the oil market. However, with a carrot and stick approach the U.S. has managed to cope with this situation until recently.
The September 11, 2001, attacks dealt a severe blow to U.S. security and also exposed its vulnerability in the energy sector. Security and oil became inextricably intertwined in the minds of many Americans.
On the one hand, the U.S. held some oil-rich countries responsible for tolerating the activities of anti-American militancy, while others, such as Iraq and Iran, were accused of using their wealth to develop Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). On the other hand, it became extremely difficult to decide whether the U.S. reaction to the September 11 attacks was driven by security motives - i.e. targeting "terrorism" and regimes that seek to acquire WMD - or by the drive to establish control over the world's largest oil reserves.
For example, the invasion of Afghanistan has resulted in the destruction of a key shelter for Al Qaida and also made it easier for the U.S. to reach the oil resources of Central Asia and the Caspian Sea. In the past two years, U.S. oil companies are believed to have bought rights to almost 75 per cent of the region's oil and gas output. Similarly, the occupation of Iraq puts the globe's second largest oil reserves under U.S. control. Bush's visit to Africa was probably the last episode in a relentless effort to solve the energy question.
For years, the U.S. has been closely monitoring the expansion of Africa's oil output.
The intervention in Somalia in 1992 was widely understood to be part of a U.S. effort to control the continent's mineral wealth. Since then Africa has become the source of 15 per cent of U.S. oil imports. It is estimated that by 2005 Africa's share in the U.S. oil market will rise to 25 per cent.
In addition, the U.S. finds African oil more tempting due to its high quality and its location at a shorter distance from the Atlantic coast compared to the Middle East. Africa, U.S. officials believe, could also contribute to breaking Opec's hold on the oil market. To this end, Bush has exerted tremendous pressure to convince Nigeria - the largest oil producer in Africa - that its interests lie with Washington not with Opec. If Lagos left the oil cartel, then Bush's African expedition would have yielded a significant gain for the U.S.
Africa's share of U.S. oil imports, however, could by no means replace the Middle East's. Equally, it is Opec - with or without Nigeria - that can bring the American economy to its knees. For example, the three Middle Eastern oil crises - 1973, 1979 and 1990 - cost America $7 trillion and the U.S. economy could suffer even more if Opec members agree to counteract Washington's attempts to destroy the oil cartel.
Yet, with Iraq and Afghanistan already under U.S. control, an alliance between African oil producers and Washington could deal a fatal blow to Opec's dominance and prestige in the international market. The other major objective of Bush's tour to Africa was to expand the U.S. military presence in order to combat "terrorism". The U.S. claims that Africa's large uncontrolled, ungoverned areas are becoming havens for terrorist activities. U.S. officials argue that African countries are extremely poor and have inadequate resources to monitor their borders or patrol their remote interiors.
Since the end of the war on Iraq, Washington has diverted reconnaissance aircraft and satellites to watch the region more closely and provide valuable information to local governments. During his Africa expedition, Bush sought to strengthen military ties with many countries to enable the U.S. army to operate in the region.
Understandings
He tried to convince Senegal and Uganda to agree to aircraft refuelling understandings for enhancing the mobility of more than 1,800 U.S. troops already stationed in Djibouti to conduct counterterrorism operations in the Horn of Africa.
The global "war on terrorism" and the attempt to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil have put Africa on the U.S. radar. Bush's visit to the continent must be understood within this context and be seen as a true reflection of superpower politics.
America's message was simple: give me oil and military bases, I will get you aid for HIV/AIDS victims and enhanced access to U.S. markets.
The author is a Scholar in International Relationsin the UK
Home | Contact us | Links | Archives