dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

DEEP STATE TAKE

The limits of energy independence

EVEN WHEN American policy in the Middle East has been about more than oil, it has been about oil. That has sometimes been jarringly obvious, as when Dwight Eisenhower justified his decision to send troops to the region in 1958 on the basis that it was the “birthplace of three great religions”, as well as having “two-thirds of the presently known oil deposits”. At other times the oiliness of America’s policy has been more subtle, or partial. George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003 for several reasons: to secure its weapons of mass destruction, to spread democracy, and, his would-be successor John McCain acknowledged, to guarantee America’s oil supply.

Both oil-related struts of his Middle East policy looked shaky even before the meltdown in oil markets that began last month. A spike in the oil price in September, after a drone strike on a Saudi installation, was a reminder that America is still at the mercy of the global oil market and therefore Middle Eastern instability. The Saudis have proved to be an embarrassing proxy. They have additionally failed to make good on almost any of the arms deals the president trumpeted. And the more he has pushed the bilateral relationship, the more politically toxic it has become.The coming decimation of America’s shale-oil firms could eventually lead to renewed dependence on Saudi oil. American production is predicted to fall to 10m barrels a day, around half the country’s pre-pandemic consumption. In the meantime near-universal anti-Saudi feeling in Washington is putting the bilateral relationship under great strain. Last month Republican senators in oil-producing states, who had been almost the Saudis’ last defenders on the Hill, turned furiously against the kingdom. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota and Dan Sullivan of Alaska introduced legislation to withdraw American troops and missile-defence systems if it did not cut its oil production. Reports this week that a fleet of laden Saudi tankers was en route to oil-glutted America caused fresh fury. Mr Trump suggested he might close the country’s ports to it. The notion of American-Saudi co-operation to reorder the Middle East has rarely looked more fanciful.

Meanwhile a region whose stability America has considered supremely important for seven decades is experiencing two black swans in one swoop. Oil-poor countries such as Egypt, Jordan and Bahrain are facing a health-care crisis which their oil-rich neighbours would in normal times send them cash to stave off. Yet the Saudis, in need of an oil price of around $80 a barrel to balance their budget, are focused on fiscal problems at home. A normal American administration might be expected to rally multilateral agencies to make up the shortfall for the poorer Arab states. Mr Trump is instead trying to defund the World Health Organisation.

This represents a threat of instability that Iran will try to exploit. All in all, the chances of a regional blowout, which America will either be drawn into or castigated for neglecting, are rising again. A couple of lessons can already be drawn from this troubling prospect. One is that America’s reduced dependence on the Middle East is not making its regional policymaking any easier. Quite the contrary: where there was once bipartisan backing for bold interventions, finding support for modest commitments would now be hard even if Mr Trump had not politicised every aspect of his foreign policy. Instead of bragging of “American energy dominance”, a phrase that now looks especially foolish, a wiser administration would have sought to build support for a more nuanced Middle East policy: more modest than Mr Bush’s, more resolute than Mr Obama’s, and consistent in its aims.

Another lesson is that a lighter American footprint in the region requires broad-based alliances, not headstrong proxies. The first are a means to rise above the region’s interminable petty rivalries, the second almost a guarantee of being dragged into them. America has a rich legacy of the right sort of partnership, including the trans-Atlantic ones behind Mr Obama’s nuclear deal and a patchwork of regional allies. But Mr Trump has squandered them.

The trans-Atlantic pact has foundered on his attack on the nuclear deal. And when asked on American television who was helping his country through the pandemic, King Abdullah of Jordan, a longtime ally, gave a startling answer. He was grateful, he said, to the United Arab Emirates and the Chinese entrepreneur Jack Ma.

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/04/23/the-limits-of-energy-independence

https://archive.is/xXl6i

Gothenburg axes twin city agreement with Shanghai as Sweden closes all Confucius Institutes

Sweden’s second-largest city has ended its twin-city agreement with Shanghai, according to local media. The move comes as the Scandanavian country closed all of China’s state-run language and cultural institutes.

Sweden’s Gothenburg mayor Axel Josefson told public broadcaster Radio Sweden that there has not been much exchange between the two cities: “Exchange in the past two to three years has been minimal,” he said. “And considering the times we are in, we don’t find it suitable to extend the twin-city agreement.”

Gothenburg signed the agreement 34 years ago and, in 2003, expanded the memorandum of understanding to include exchanges in culture, economics, trade and sport.

The agreement has been renewed continuously but officially expired at the end of last year. The ruling Social Democratic Party suggested that renewal should be considered later on, though other parties proposed a complete halt to the link-up.

The municipal trade authority and port authority will be allowed to continue their relations with Shanghai and China.

Gothenburg is among many other Swedish cities that have axed their twin-city relationships with China in recent months. Linköping severed ties with China’s Guangzhou, as did Luleå and Xi’an, and Västerås with Jinan.

Linköping mayor Lars Vikinge told Swedish newspaper Dagens Samhalle in February that they were breaking all political contact with China: “This is due to the threats that the Chinese embassy has directed towards the Swedish government.

Sweden also closed the last of its classrooms sponsored by the Chinese state last week after the final Confucius Institute closed last year. The school is considered a cultural export with Chinese language and cultural programmes, though some perceive it to be part of Beijing’s propaganda network.

https://hongkongfp.com/2020/04/24/gothenburg-axes-twin-city-agreement-with-shanghai-as-sweden-closes-all-confucius-institutes/