Before It’s News – by Tom Dennen, the paranoid historian
US Department of Energy study projected that African oil production would rise 91 percent between 2002 and 2025.
The United States is the largest consumer of oil in the world, China the second largest – is there going to be a fight over African oil?
South Africa is already part of the Brazil, Russia, India, China & South Africa (BRICS) alliance…
BACKGROUND
Saudi Arabia supplies about 160 million barrels of crude oil annually, but a lesser known fact is that about the same amount of oil is imported from Mexico. Other countries from which the United States imports oil are: Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq, the United Kingdom, Norway, Angola, Algeria and Colombia.
In 1980, 28% of the oil consumed in the United States was imported “Today” nearly 60% of the oil utilized and consumed in the United States is imported from other countries, but ‘plummeting’ due to the exploitation of internal resources.
The United States imported about forty percent of its oil in 2012 – click here for map
Angola oil rig -Ten years ago President George W Bush visited Africa to launch HIV/Aids, development and anti-terrorism initiatives.
But his visit has also highlighted the growing importance of oil imports for the United States.
At that time the US imported two thirds of its oil needs.
Bush said that about 15% of that amount comes from West Africa and that figure was “projected to rise to 25% in the next 10 years.”
Now.
Also around that time, IHS Energy, an oil and gas consulting firm, “believes that Africa will supply 30 percent of the world’s growth in hydrocarbon production by 2010 while a US Department of Energy study projected that African oil production would rise 91 percent between 2002 and 2025.”
What do they know that we don’t? The discovery of huge oil and natural gas plus other strategic resources throughout East and Central Africa may be key and while claims on US oil imports can be easily sourced, the real figures are quite possibly classified in strategic terms, but “The 53 countries in Africa possess only 9 percent of the world’s proven petroleum reserves compared to almost 62 percent for the Middle East…(however) Africa remains largely unexplored and may well be the location of significant future oil and gas discoveries.
Today “25 percent” of US oil imports come from the African continent, which quite possibly brings the deepening crisis of world capitalism closer to Africa.
But why all the fuss over South Africa?
South Africa is also a major source of gold and other strategic minerals, but is seen in come circles as sitting on the fence in the Great Economic War between NATO-led ‘Shock & Awe” and the Chinese expansion policy of “Trade & Aid” – a war over the global economic shift to Chinese hegemony.
“CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS” OR CLASH OF ECONOMIC SYSTEMS?
.jpg?w=960)
It is now beyond doubt that the capitalist system is not providing real solutions to the problems in Europe and North America – or Africa.
China is sitting on US$D three trillion US Treasury notes – the price for control of the world’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart?
Another answer to “Ambassador” Obama’s visit (and Michelle’s and Hillary’s – Oprah’s good will tour’s been over & gone long ago) may lie in the thinking that South Africa is either avoiding a major decision or playing the two sides ‘against’ each other – local pundits ask: “Why is South Africa included in the BRICS developing economies alliance? It’s too small! Oh, and what was SA President Zuma really doing with Putin last week?
But SA may be a chess-piece on the African batlle-board and if so, must eventually either continue with the same trading partners that supported the old Apartheid regime,(see “APARTHEID DEBT” below); and supported that regime’s legacy to allow unhindered growth of the National Debt – now over $US90bn; they can watch the debt-to-GDP ratio climb to Anglo-Euro-US levels… or pull out.
WHILE THE WEST SHOOTS ITSELF IN THE FOOT, CHINA WAITS
The NATO bloc remains in deep recession with the PIIG countries facing astronomical unemployment. Even in France, Britain and Germany, the economic crisis has drained the national reserves (debt-servicing) “compelling the central banks to bail out financial institutions in order to stave off a total collapse” while a preponderance of evidence suggests that lending more Keynesian fiat money into an economy creates more debt to ‘service’ like an insatiable cow, does not bail out anything, instead pushes the edge of the fiscal cliff a short time further into the future.
.jpg?w=960)
In the ‘Richest Nation in the World’ the rates of poverty and unemployment in real terms are staggering. Nearly half of the people there consider themselves to be living in poverty or near poverty and almost fifty million of them are living on government ‘food stamp’ charity.
From a speech by Abayomi Azikiwe, Editor, Pan-African News Wire delivered at the Africa & U.S. Imperialism Conference held in Detroit, Michegan, USA, on May 18, 2013.
“This economic crisis has become a political one since the White House, Congress, Downing Street, Brussels and Paris are providing no alternative ideas on how to extricate the capitalist system from the economic malaise impacting hundreds of millions of workers, farmers and youth. The only proposals coming out of the halls of the ruling class and their surrogates in government call for greater austerity measures and mechanisms to limit any semblance of democratic debate, discussion and collective action.
“Our task relates to political education, mobilization and organization of the masses of people to work towards the solutions of these challenges…
“In Africa there has been a tremendous degree of movement towards alliances with other states on the continent and throughout the so-called Global South. The Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) has held five summits since 2000 resulting in an escalation of both economic and political cooperation between the two regions. Africa is now the largest trading partner with the People’s Republic of China.
“In Zimbabwe the ZANU-PF government in 2000 took decisive action by seizing the land which the people fought long years for during the armed revolutionary struggle. The government of President Robert Mugabe was vilified by the West and its allies where today research has shown that the land seizures have improved both productivity and income for the African agricultural workers and farmers.”
(A South African columnist, Max duPreez recently shocked readers by preempting this ‘revelation’ in his Pale Native column).
“South Africa has the largest and most organized working class on the continent. The unrest in the mining industry and the agricultural sector is pushing the country towards looking at nationalization and seizure of the land and the means of production…” a country whose government fired two million, four hundred thousand agricultural workers between 1997 and 2007 turning SA into a net food-importing nation whose food distribution system is controlled by Wal-Mart?
Is nationalisation of anything viable in a country where even basic service delivery is shockingly malmanaged?
By ‘pulling out’ I mean invoking the South African Reserve Bank’s original mandate, which carries the authority to issue gold-backed Sound Money for general commerce and stop using real-wealth GDP revenues to service fiat debt and continue in the spiral down into a European-style debt sink.
BRICS may be ‘second-best’, but better than NATO-style bankruptcy.
And Obama might just find that out in South Africa.
· Debts contracted by dictatorships and repressive regimes, and used to strengthen the hold of these regimes are illegitimate.
· Debt contracted by formally democratic but corrupt governments, which was stolen by leaders or senior officials, is illegitimate.
· Debts contracted and used by improperly designed projects and programs are illegitimate.
· Debt that swelled because of high interest rates and other conditions imposed by creditor governments and banks are illegitimate.
· All debt owed by the South to the North can be considered illegitimate. The argument here is ‘who owes what to whom?’ Africa Action and Jubilee South maintain that the countries of the South are in fact creditors of an historical, social and ecological debt, which Northern countries refuse to recognize.
Advocates of repudiation of debt incurred by the apartheid South African regime argue that apartheid was the equivalent of a racial dictatorship, condemned as such by the international community for many years.
South Africa was forced to leave the British Commonwealh in 1961. In 1973, the United Nations called apartheid a crime against humanity.
The struggle of the South African people was recognized as a struggle for national liberation. In 1977, the United Nations imposed a mandatory arms embargo and in 1985 the United Nations Security Council imposed trade sanctions on the apartheid regime.
Despite this, the regime continued to borrow from private banks throughout the 1980s. In July 1985, the Government declared a state of emergency and on 1 September South Africa defaulted and stopped paying its creditors.
In order to accelerate the end of the regime, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, among others, called on the banks not to reschedule South Africa’s debts and advocated the confiscation of South African assets abroad instead.
Nevertheless, a settlement was reached in 1987 with 14 major banks from Germany, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States and France.
After being elected president of South Africa, Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress came under heavy pressure not to renounce apartheid debt (Hanlon, 2002).
The new Government distanced itself from calls to nullify its apartheid-era debts. It was considered important not to default on debts in order to attract critical foreign investment.
However, Hanlon (2002: 28) is typical of observers who argue that the promise of foreign investment has not been kept. “Foreign direct investment has been tiny – only two thirds of the profits repatriated by companies on investments they made in the apartheid State. And new lending has not kept up with repayments – over six years South Africa paid out $3.7 billion more than it received. Thus, promises have not been kept and policy advice was wrong.
If South Africa had frozen profits on apartheid-era investments and simply repudiated the odious apartheid debt – or even if it had demanded a ten year moratorium – it would have been $10 billion better off. Foreign aid during this period was only $1.1 billion, so even if aid had been cut off, South Africa would have profited by $8.9 billion.”
Meanwhile, on 12 November 2002, a suit was filed in the New York Eastern District Court for apartheid reparations against eight banks and 12 oil, transport, communications technology and armaments companies from Germany, Switzerland, Britain, the United States, the Netherlands and France. The suit was filed on behalf of the Khulumani Support Group, representing 32,000 individual “victims of state-sanctioned torture, murder, rape, arbitrary detention and inhumane 14 treatment”, by the Apartheid Debt and Reparations Campaign of Jubilee South Africa. 9 The suit was brought pursuant to the Alien Torts Claims Act (ATCA) which allows any non-United States citizen to bring a claim for damages against any other person who has violated customary international law.
The Government of South Africa continues to distance itself from the popular movement to cancel the apartheid debt.
For example, its top ministers denounced the lawsuit seeking reparations from banks that loaned to the apartheid regime because “we are talking to those very companies named on the lawsuits about investing in post-apartheid South Africa.”
10 Others argue that the United Nations Security Council should have gone farther in 1985 and declared that “it would not consider debt incurred by the apartheid Government as a legitimate obligation of any successor Government” (Jayachandran and Kremer, 2005).
The private banks would not have been willing to make the loans that effectively kept South Africa afloat for a few more years. Similar action could have been taken after major shareholders forced the International Monetary Fund to cut all lending to the former President of Croatia, Franjo Tudjman, in 1997, after he was accused of resorting to political violence and appropriating public funds. However, in the absence of international action at the level of the United National Security Council, private commercial banks continued to lend Croatia a further $2 billion until Tudjman’s death in 1999.
Sent to us by the author.
You do know Oprah is one of the Elite, don’;t you? Perhaps a token Black and a Woman, but she does attend, has attended secret meetings of the Elite on how to control Humanity.
I, certainly, don’t trust her.
BWT Opraqh’s famous school, has had child sex scandals.