World Tribune.com


The geopolitics of oil and the politics of Washington


See the John Metzler archive

By John Metzler
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM

Friday, February 3, 2006

UNITED NATIONS — Proposing a broad-brush and bi-partisan political agenda to keep the U.S. economically competitive, militarily secure and politically dynamic, President George W. Bush presented his annual State of the Union Address. The signature sound bite “America is addicted to oil,” tells the truth but also reveals the long-term dilemma over America’s petroleum dependency and the dangerous diplomatic, defense and developmental ramifications resulting from it.

“Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. Here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology, ” President Bush asserted.

He added, “We must also change how we power our automobiles. We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen…. We will also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years. Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment ... move beyond a petroleum-based economy ... and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past.”

Let’s face it—Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) serve as the enablers to America’s addiction to the proverbial “cheap gas.” It appears that OPEC, and especially Arab suppliers among them, ironically don’t serve themselves by giving us higher prices, but rather lower prices, precisely to lure us away from alternative fuels. In direct proportion to higher energy costs and supply risks, America shall increasingly strive for energy independence through developing new sources of fuel.

Canada’s extraordinary tar sands oil resources or Brazil’s notable efforts to mainstream ethanol into vehicle use serve as creative examples.

Just don’t blame the Arabs who supply 20 percent of U.S. oil — let’s add Mexico (8 percent), Nigeria (5.5 percent) and Venezuela (7 percent), Russia (2 percent) who all have a shared interest in keeping the black gold flowing to American consumers.

Concerns over the free flow of imported petroleum are nothing new. I recall President Richard Nixon somberly telling Americans the gloomy wake of the 1973 Arab oil boycott that we will strive for Project Independence—something that nicely dovetailed with the upcoming 1976 Bicentennial (remember?). But the best laid plans of Presidents, to paraphrase, have usually gone agley.

Naturally the petroleum addiction goes beyond price to geopolitical risks to supplies. The annual pulse of the nation address rung with familiar Bush themes but equally offered bold challenges the entire political spectrum to look beyond partisanship to seek surprisingly new economic and political vistas.

A key criticism of the Bush Administration and its Republican Congressional majority is that it encourages political division and that “Washington has become such a political place.” What else is new? By their very nature political parties are going to be political, sometimes confrontational, and often shrill. Sadly there’s enough of that on both sides of the aisle, but surprise over Washington being “so political” is like going to Las Vegas and expressing moral shock that gambling abounds! Is this insight, or another form of partisanship?

Bush implored, “You and I will make choices that determine both the future and the character of our country. We will choose to act confidently in pursuing the enemies of freedom — or retreat from our duties in the hope of an easier life. We will choose to build our prosperity by leading the world economy — or shut ourselves off from trade and opportunity….the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting — yet it ends in danger and decline.”

Addressing the clear and present danger resulting from the Islamic Republic of Iran, Bush described Iran as “a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people.” He warned “The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions — and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons.”

American and European diplomats are working through UN channels to defuse Teheran’s nuclear proliferation efforts. Sure, the Security Council will debate the issue but don’t expect substantive results.

During the address, the President offered many political olive branches to the Democrats while at the same time staying laser-focused on key national security issues facing the Republic. Confronting and fixing those challenges will require political stamina rarely seen in Washington.


John J. Metzler is a U.N. correspondent covering diplomatic and defense issues. He writes weekly for World Tribune.com.