Newsgroup: it.fan.culo
Titolo: In yankeelandia un tizio scrive ...

Drowning Freedom in Oil
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN[1]
On a recent tour of India, I was visiting with an Indian Muslim community 
leader, Syed Shahabuddin, and the conversation drifted to the question of 
why the Muslim world seems so angry with the West. "Whenever I am in 
America," he said, "people ask me, `Why do they hate us?' They don't hate 
you. If they hated you, would they send their kids to be educated by you? 
Would they look up to you as a model? They hate that you are monopolizing 
all the nonrenewable resources [oil]. And because you want to do that, you 
need to keep in power all your collaborators. As a consequence, you support 
feudal elements who are trying to stave off the march of democracy."
The more I've traveled in the Muslim world since 9/11, the more it has 
struck me how true this statement is: Nothing has subverted Middle East 
democracy more than the Arab world's and Iran's dependence on oil, and 
nothing will restrict America's ability to tell the truth in the Middle 
East and promote democracy there more than our continued dependence on oil.
Yet, since Sept. 11, the Bush-Cheney team has not lifted a finger to make 
us, or the Arab-Islamic world, less dependent on oil. Too bad. Because 
politics in countries dependent on oil becomes totally focused on who 
controls the oil revenues — rather than on how to improve the skills and 
education of both their men and women, how to build a rule of law and a 
legitimate state in which people feel some ownership, and how to build an 
honest economy that is open and attractive to investors.
In short, countries with oil can flourish under repression — as long as 
they just drill a hole in the right place. Think of Saudi Arabia, Libya or 
Iraq. Countries without oil can flourish only if they drill their own 
people's minds and unlock their energies with the keys of freedom. Think of 
Japan, Taiwan or India.
Do you think the unpopular mullahs in Iran would be able to hold power 
today if they didn't have huge oil revenues to finance their merchant 
cronies and security services? Do you think Saudi Arabia would be able to 
keep most of its women unemployed and behind veils if it didn't have 
petrodollars to replace their energies? Do you think it is an accident that 
the most open and democratizing Arab countries — Lebanon, Jordan, Bahrain, 
Morocco, Dubai and Qatar — are those with either no oil or dwindling oil 
reserves? They've had to learn how to tap the talents of their people 
rather than their sand dunes.
The Pentagon is now debating whether Saudi Arabia is our enemy. Yes and no. 
There is a secularized, U.S.-educated, pro-American elite and middle class 
in Saudi Arabia, who are not America's enemies. They are good people, and 
you can't visit Saudi Arabia without meeting them. We should never forget 
that.
But the Saudi ruling family stays in power not by a democratic vote from 
these progressives. It stays in power through a bargain with the 
conservative Wahhabi Muslim religious establishment. The Wahhabi clerics 
bless the regime and give it legitimacy — in the absence of any democratic 
elections. In return, the regime gives the Wahhabis oil money, which they 
use to propagate a puritanical version of Islam that is hostile to the 
West, to women, to modernity and to all non-Muslim faiths.
This bargain suits the Saudi rulers well. If they empowered the 
secularized, pro-American Saudis, it would not be long before they demanded 
things like transparency in budgeting, accountability and representation. 
The Wahhabi religious establishment, by contrast, doesn't care how corrupt 
the ruling family is in private — as long it keeps paying off the clerics 
and gives them a free hand to impose Wahhabi dogma on Saudi society, media 
and education, and to export it abroad.
So while there are many moderate Saudis who do not threaten us, there is no 
moderate Saudi ruling bargain. The one that exists does threaten us by 
giving huge oil resources to the Wahhabi conservatives, which they use to 
build mosques and schools that preach against tolerance, pluralism and 
modernity across the Muslim world — and in America. And it is our oil 
addiction that keeps us from ever confronting the Saudis on this. Addicts 
never tell the truth to their pushers.
Until we face up to that — and curb our consumption and encourage 
alternative energies that will slowly bring the price of oil down and force 
these countries to open up and adapt to modernity — we can invade Iraq once 
a week and it's not going to unleash democracy in the Arab world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strisciante razzismo a parte, il tizio forse non si ricorda che la famiglia 
Bush è arrivata alla presidenza proprio grazie ai soldi del petrolio (e 
all'incapacità di contare degli americani ...). Forse non ha presente quali 
siano le imprese petrolifere più grandi al mondo e, forse, non si ricorda 
di che nazionalità siano tali imprese. Forse, ancora, non si ricorda che 
gli USA hanno barattato cibo e medicinali in cambio di petrolio con l'Iraq, 
forse non ha capito che l'invasione dell'Iraq serve a tutt'altro che a 
riportare la democrazia (lo potevano già fare dieci anni fa!), forse non ha 
riletto bene l'articolo: per mantenere il potere sul petrolio devi 
mantenere al potere i tuoi collaboratori e sostenere le dittature che 
bloccano i processi di democratizzazione: un eventuale allontanamento di 
Saddam dal potere non provocherebbe che una reazione, la cessazione 
dell'embargo ... e dove finirà il petrolio iracheno ? Bravo, risposta 
esatta, dal padrone a cui Mr. Friedman lecca il culo.
E' stupido dire che gli USA sono bloccati dal "dire la verità" dalla loro 
dipendenza dal petrolio, come spieghiamo allora Vietnam, Nicaragua, Serbia? 
Chi lo dice a Tommy Fritto che deve smetterla di pensare che gli USA sono i 
cowboy e il resto del mondo gli indiani ? 
[1] Thomas L. Friedman won the 2001 Pulitzer Prize for commentary (his 
third Pulitzer for The New York Times). He became the paper's foreign-
affairs columnist in 1995. Previously, he served as chief economic 
correspondent in the Washington bureau and before that he was the chief 
White House correspondent.
-- 
New Magic Flash
Sempre oggi sul Nytimes un bel pezzo su come Hoover, storico capo dell'FBI, 
abbia fatto condannare all'ergastolo degli innocenti (di cui due ora morti) 
per salvare alcuni suoi informatori.

 cowboy e il resto del mondo gli indiani ? 
Lo stesso dovrebbe farlo per 240milioni di americani.
Piu' conosco questo Grande Paese e piu' mi fa ridere.
-- 
. Simone Caldana: Pear Minister of Foreign Affairs     .
. Aiming to become a vi mug - currently jumping around .
. 
sim...@caldana.org
 
http://simone.caldana.org
 .

 Piu' conosco questo Grande Paese e piu' mi fa ridere.
C'era anche un articolo in cui un tizio si chiedeva se era il caso di armare 
i curdi contro gli iracheni. (nota bene: reagan aveva venduto a Saddam H. il 
gas con cui eliminare il simpatico popolo curdo ...)
Risposta: no, ovviamente. L'alleato turco se ne sarebbe risentito ... eh già, 
con tutto quello che hanno pagato i caccia americani per bombardare le 
popolazioni curde ...
E poi ci lamentiamo de "Il Giornale" ...
-- 
New Magic Flash