In the UK I pay $6 a gallon for petrol, $4 of which goes to the government. Yet they still blame the producing countries for the price of oil.
September 14, 2005 (Press Release) --
I watched yesterday’s evening news as Gordon Brown, UK Chancellor of the Exchequer berated producing countries for supply shortages and the skyrocketing price of oil. I quickly searched last week’s stack of newspapers and found what I was looking for; a table in the Sunday Times showing the price of oil with and without taxes. There in plain view I could see that for every $6 a gallon I pay for petrol in the UK, Mr. Brown takes $4 in taxes. Such hypocrisy is breathtaking.
The UK is not alone in its adoption of such exploitative pricing. France Germany, Italy, and much of the rest of Western Europe have similar regimes. The US has an entirely different approach and taxes are at a minimum. While I would agree with many environmentalists that higher prices reduce demand, the current regime is an injustice to developing country suppliers. It represents a massive transfer of wealth from poor producers to wealthy consumers. Remember, not all oil-producing countries are rich Arab sheikdoms.
Rather than announcing grand aid schemes amounting to a few million dollars, European nations would be far more honest if they simply repaid poor oil producers such as Angola and Nigeria, the billions and billions of dollars they rake in from the taxes they collect on their product.
Like the colonials of old, the current system allows developed countries to claim how benevolent they are in giving aid, while simultaneously raping the resources of the developing world.
God save us from liberal do-gooders!
Oil producers should step up their prices, not their production. They should allow their own market prices to influence supply, demand and the rush to fuel-efficiency – not hand over their surplus to rich countries that have hijacked their product. In doing so, they would silence once and for all, the demands of both environmentalists and free marketers – leaving disingenuous politicians like Brown and others of his ilk to bear the consequences.
It is travesties such as this that result in the demand for fairer trade, not aid. It is travesties such as this, and the unwillingness to appreciate the perspective of those that are less fortunate, that dominates the relationship between rich and poor.
Last week the former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad created a ruckus amongst a gathering of international diplomats in Kuala Lumpur. While never a real tyrant, Dr. Mohamed did several things that were less than worthy, and for which many western observers roundly criticized him. His most notorious act was that of locking up his political opponent, Ibrahim Anwar on trumped up charges of sodomy and corruption. It was an odious act, but trifling compared to much of what else has happened in the world.
That is precisely why Dr. Mohamad decided to take the opportunity the gathering afforded him, to exact revenge on his sanctimonious critics. In doing so, he presented to his erstwhile detractors a philosophy that is well known in the Christian world – let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
He compared his schoolboy misdemeanors to the blatant lies used to invade and occupy Iraq, and how the latter had done far more damage and killed far more people than anything he had ever done. He further rammed home his arguments by pointing out how sanctions imposed on Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, and maintained at the insistence of the US and the UK, caused the deaths of almost a million Iraqis – mainly children.
Jonathan Ledwidge is the author of the book A Mannequin for President.
At this point, the UK Ambassador along with many of his western counterparts walked out – disgusted at such an affront to their sensitivities.
Yet this is no mere difference of opinion, it goes to the very heart of the relationship between rich and poor, Christianity and Islam, the haves and the have nots, and more importantly – those with power and those without.
To many outside the west, what passes for criminality seems to be entirely dependent on who perpetrated it. This week’s events at the United Nations would have totally confirmed that belief.
Paul Volcker, a former Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, completed his report on the Iraq oil for food program. There was justifiable criticism of the corruption that swirled around Secretary General Kofi Anan, and yes much of that criticism was deserved. If someone has stolen money, and there does appear to be a strong case, then they should be punished.
However, why spend time and energy bringing a thief to justice when those who committed a far greater transgression are not even asked to account for their immoral deeds?
Will anyone ever be brought to justice or will anyone ever be made accountable for a program that brought death to so many? Will anyone ever bear responsibility for the inhumane policies that the major powers forced the UN to adopt and maintain despite the international outcry?
The Volcker inquiry is a sham. It is tantamount to the application of a plaster to a severed leg. It will do the patient no good, and what is more those who applied it are fully cognizant of that fact. The true criminals demanded and sat in judgement of minor functionaries. It was as if we were back in the Soviet era where Stalin and his henchmen Beria and Yagoda, heads of the secret police and architects of the gulags, had directed the trial of a minor official for stealing party funds.
There is another aspect to this tawdry tale of perverted justice. It is true that Anan’s leadership has been less than dynamic. Nevertheless, he made a stand when certain powers decided that they wanted to invade Iraq for their own selfish reasons. The corruption inquiry is simply payback for his impertinence.
There is no question that the UN is a bureaucratic bungle that often comes across as being ineffectual. However that bureaucratic bungle is a function of the member states themselves, and in particular those powers that have a right of veto in the Security Council – that is the US, the UK, Russia, France and China. Power is exercised in the pursuit of narrow self-interests.
The Chinese have systematically ravaged Tibet.
It is now ten years since the Rwandan genocide. The major powers refused to even acknowledge that it was genocide, as it would have placed an onus on them to act to prevent it.
The tragedy that is Darfur continues to bedevil the conscience of most reasonable people because the major powers are unable to look beyond Sudan’s oil reserves.
The US has vetoed every single Security Council resolution calling for Israel to return to its 1967 borders. This single conflict continues to exact lives on both sides and is a major source of global hostilities.
So who are the criminals?
If your answer is respectively the People’s Liberation Army, Hutu rebels, the Janjaweed, Israeli soldiers, or Arab terrorists, does that not make each of the great powers at least accessories to the facts?
In their feeble attempts to counter criticisms on Iraq, western governments talk about moral equivalency – meaning you cannot compare the destruction wrought by uniformed soldiers with supporting navy, airforce and artillery, with that of a suicide bomber.
Laughable, were it not so tragic.
Hands up all those who would prefer to be labeled “collateral damage” as against “victims of a suicide bomb”.
On the other hand, let me express that another way. Would you feel better if you died knowing that the perpetrators of your death were after terrorists, and that although you lived in a residential area, your death was deemed totally accidental? Or that you died because of a crazy suicide bomber who simply did not care who or how many he killed?
There is a very fine line between crass negligence and criminal intent, and launching aggressive war has been a crime since 1945.
In 1918, the British took over the Ottoman region of Mesopotamia, now Iraq. Despite the original promises to its Kurdish and Arab inhabitants, it proceeded to colonize the territory, in order to control the oil of the region.
Surprise, surprise! The more things change the more they remain the same.
Naturally, the people rebelled. The British Colonial Secretary of the time was one Winston Churchill. In order to suppress the uprising he authorized the bombing and use of chemical agents, mostly mustard gas, against tribal villages. Many thousands died.
The fact that this took place after the horrors of World War I by which time the major powers had decided that gas attacks were an inhumane way of conducting warfare caused some dissent. Churchill was undeterred, and as he explained; "I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favor of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes."
Churchill, a hero to many in the West is thus hated by many in the East. In some ways, it is symptomatic of the divide that still exists today. There is however one notable exception. At least Churchill was honest.
The UK is not alone in its adoption of such exploitative pricing. France Germany, Italy, and much of the rest of Western Europe have similar regimes. The US has an entirely different approach and taxes are at a minimum. While I would agree with many environmentalists that higher prices reduce demand, the current regime is an injustice to developing country suppliers. It represents a massive transfer of wealth from poor producers to wealthy consumers. Remember, not all oil-producing countries are rich Arab sheikdoms.
Rather than announcing grand aid schemes amounting to a few million dollars, European nations would be far more honest if they simply repaid poor oil producers such as Angola and Nigeria, the billions and billions of dollars they rake in from the taxes they collect on their product.
Like the colonials of old, the current system allows developed countries to claim how benevolent they are in giving aid, while simultaneously raping the resources of the developing world.
God save us from liberal do-gooders!
Oil producers should step up their prices, not their production. They should allow their own market prices to influence supply, demand and the rush to fuel-efficiency – not hand over their surplus to rich countries that have hijacked their product. In doing so, they would silence once and for all, the demands of both environmentalists and free marketers – leaving disingenuous politicians like Brown and others of his ilk to bear the consequences.
It is travesties such as this that result in the demand for fairer trade, not aid. It is travesties such as this, and the unwillingness to appreciate the perspective of those that are less fortunate, that dominates the relationship between rich and poor.
Last week the former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad created a ruckus amongst a gathering of international diplomats in Kuala Lumpur. While never a real tyrant, Dr. Mohamed did several things that were less than worthy, and for which many western observers roundly criticized him. His most notorious act was that of locking up his political opponent, Ibrahim Anwar on trumped up charges of sodomy and corruption. It was an odious act, but trifling compared to much of what else has happened in the world.
That is precisely why Dr. Mohamad decided to take the opportunity the gathering afforded him, to exact revenge on his sanctimonious critics. In doing so, he presented to his erstwhile detractors a philosophy that is well known in the Christian world – let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
He compared his schoolboy misdemeanors to the blatant lies used to invade and occupy Iraq, and how the latter had done far more damage and killed far more people than anything he had ever done. He further rammed home his arguments by pointing out how sanctions imposed on Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, and maintained at the insistence of the US and the UK, caused the deaths of almost a million Iraqis – mainly children.
Jonathan Ledwidge is the author of the book A Mannequin for President.
At this point, the UK Ambassador along with many of his western counterparts walked out – disgusted at such an affront to their sensitivities.
Yet this is no mere difference of opinion, it goes to the very heart of the relationship between rich and poor, Christianity and Islam, the haves and the have nots, and more importantly – those with power and those without.
To many outside the west, what passes for criminality seems to be entirely dependent on who perpetrated it. This week’s events at the United Nations would have totally confirmed that belief.
Paul Volcker, a former Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, completed his report on the Iraq oil for food program. There was justifiable criticism of the corruption that swirled around Secretary General Kofi Anan, and yes much of that criticism was deserved. If someone has stolen money, and there does appear to be a strong case, then they should be punished.
However, why spend time and energy bringing a thief to justice when those who committed a far greater transgression are not even asked to account for their immoral deeds?
Will anyone ever be brought to justice or will anyone ever be made accountable for a program that brought death to so many? Will anyone ever bear responsibility for the inhumane policies that the major powers forced the UN to adopt and maintain despite the international outcry?
The Volcker inquiry is a sham. It is tantamount to the application of a plaster to a severed leg. It will do the patient no good, and what is more those who applied it are fully cognizant of that fact. The true criminals demanded and sat in judgement of minor functionaries. It was as if we were back in the Soviet era where Stalin and his henchmen Beria and Yagoda, heads of the secret police and architects of the gulags, had directed the trial of a minor official for stealing party funds.
There is another aspect to this tawdry tale of perverted justice. It is true that Anan’s leadership has been less than dynamic. Nevertheless, he made a stand when certain powers decided that they wanted to invade Iraq for their own selfish reasons. The corruption inquiry is simply payback for his impertinence.
There is no question that the UN is a bureaucratic bungle that often comes across as being ineffectual. However that bureaucratic bungle is a function of the member states themselves, and in particular those powers that have a right of veto in the Security Council – that is the US, the UK, Russia, France and China. Power is exercised in the pursuit of narrow self-interests.
The Chinese have systematically ravaged Tibet.
It is now ten years since the Rwandan genocide. The major powers refused to even acknowledge that it was genocide, as it would have placed an onus on them to act to prevent it.
The tragedy that is Darfur continues to bedevil the conscience of most reasonable people because the major powers are unable to look beyond Sudan’s oil reserves.
The US has vetoed every single Security Council resolution calling for Israel to return to its 1967 borders. This single conflict continues to exact lives on both sides and is a major source of global hostilities.
So who are the criminals?
If your answer is respectively the People’s Liberation Army, Hutu rebels, the Janjaweed, Israeli soldiers, or Arab terrorists, does that not make each of the great powers at least accessories to the facts?
In their feeble attempts to counter criticisms on Iraq, western governments talk about moral equivalency – meaning you cannot compare the destruction wrought by uniformed soldiers with supporting navy, airforce and artillery, with that of a suicide bomber.
Laughable, were it not so tragic.
Hands up all those who would prefer to be labeled “collateral damage” as against “victims of a suicide bomb”.
On the other hand, let me express that another way. Would you feel better if you died knowing that the perpetrators of your death were after terrorists, and that although you lived in a residential area, your death was deemed totally accidental? Or that you died because of a crazy suicide bomber who simply did not care who or how many he killed?
There is a very fine line between crass negligence and criminal intent, and launching aggressive war has been a crime since 1945.
In 1918, the British took over the Ottoman region of Mesopotamia, now Iraq. Despite the original promises to its Kurdish and Arab inhabitants, it proceeded to colonize the territory, in order to control the oil of the region.
Surprise, surprise! The more things change the more they remain the same.
Naturally, the people rebelled. The British Colonial Secretary of the time was one Winston Churchill. In order to suppress the uprising he authorized the bombing and use of chemical agents, mostly mustard gas, against tribal villages. Many thousands died.
The fact that this took place after the horrors of World War I by which time the major powers had decided that gas attacks were an inhumane way of conducting warfare caused some dissent. Churchill was undeterred, and as he explained; "I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favor of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes."
Churchill, a hero to many in the West is thus hated by many in the East. In some ways, it is symptomatic of the divide that still exists today. There is however one notable exception. At least Churchill was honest.
Email
Print
Download
SPAM
LEAVE A COMMENT
