The Globe and Mail’s story today, “To defeat bin Laden, first you have to understand him“, could lead one to assume that the Bush government actually wants to defeat Osama bin Laden.
I would disagree, and submit that this is the last thing that they want.
Without Osama bin Laden “somewhere out there”, providing a focal point for Bush’s “war on terrorism”, the administration would have to find a new reason to sell to the American public for maintaining it’s military presence in the Middle East, which would seriously undermine the U.S. take over of the oil resources in the region which is, after all, the whole point of being there.
Linda McQuaig’s book, “War, Big Oil, and the Fight for the Planet” outlines the past 100 years history of Washington’s intervention into the workings of oil producing nations, and breaks down all of the usual counter arguments about dimantling dictatorships, promoting democracy, or saving an oppressed population. Instead, she presents a very persuasive argument that the entire endeavor is about securing oil resources and ultimately about the transfer of wealth, whether from the populations of Middle Eastern countries, or from the American people themselves, into the coffers of a select group of American corporations and their leaders. There are many books and authors (though very few mainstream media personalities, curiously) who present strong arguments that the Iraq war is entirely about oil, against the thin sheen of denial from the White House, but McQuaig’s book is the best collection of those arguments I’ve read to date.
Does anyone think Canada is immune to this? Just exactly what do you think that the NAFTA rules on energy and the ongoing reduced royalty rates from the federal and Alberta governments are doing? Our governments reduced royalties at the request of the industry, ostensibly to “encourage investment and development of the tar sands” when oil prices were below $20 per barrel, but have kept them low despite the booming economy, high oil prices, Alberta labour shortages, and a high dollar hurting the rest of the Canadian economy, all while the industry is recording record profits. Higher royalty rates would offset other sources of government incomes, or in another word, taxes. In effect, reduced royalty payments from the oil & gas industry (along with direct subisides for future projects) amounts to a transfer of wealth from ordinary Canadian taxpayers directly into the coffers of those corporations.
al-Qaeda’s attacks on the West are not based on “who we are,” but because of “what we do” in foreign lands. Mr. Sheuer is highly critical of American leaders for lying to the American people about al-Qaeda’s true motivation.
As for terrorism, there is little doubt in my mind that Canada, while we were likely not much of a terrorist target before 9/11, by participating in the Afghanistan mission have certainly become one.
The only difference between Osama bin Laden and followers vs Joe Canadian Public, is that the former seem to understand how much they are being ripped off, have been pushed to the breaking point so they feel they have no recourse left, and are attempting to do something about it while we remain blissfully ignorant.
The war on terrorism cannot be “won.” Even if Osama bin Laden is found or defeated, he is merely the symbol of the movement. And the only way to eliminate the movement is to begin to conduct that inward examination of foreign policy and an honest review of the effect of our actions, past and present.
Does this mean I advocate terrorism? No, of course not. Nothing justifies those actions. But I believe we can’t just blindly continue to ignore the reasons behind the actions just because we find the actions reprehensible.
