Notes from the Panopticon

The Curse of Oil (A really simple explanation of the Middle East Crisis~Part 5)

 

It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power. ~ David Brin quotes (1950- )

 

The curse

I'll begin this article with an analogy. Imagine an enormous family (the whole Middle East region). The old patriarch has a huge fortune which he leaves to only some of his many sons. Each son has a family of his own.

To two of his sons with large families, the patriarch leaves large fortunes (Iran and Iraq). To three of his sons with very small families, he also leaves large fortunes (the Gulf States). To one son who has a smallish family, he leaves almost half of his wealth (Saudi Arabia). A few other sons get smaller bequests (e.g. Libya and Algeria).

To the son with the largest family (Pakistan). he leaves nothing. Other sons with big families are also left out of his will (Egypt and Turkey).

Imagine the ill-feeling in that family.

Now imagine this. The son who has been left the largest bequest has an inner circle in his family which is favoured over the rest. Not only that, but he and his inner circle bully members of the outer circle and irritate others by arbitrarily distributing largess.

Imagine the resentment now. Imagine the bad blood, the intrigue and hatred, the cabals forming and breaking up. And when resentful members of the family try to kick back, they are labelled as "black sheep" and go off to lick their wounds and foment resentment among ill-treated members of other families.

Meanwhile, members of the inner circle are making foreign friends and exchanging their wealth for boy's toys and luxury goods. They do little to hide their extravagant lifestyles. They enlist their foreign friends to help defend themselves from their resentful families and to offer advice about how to keep the more troublesome members of the family in check.

Above all, the rich family members – while paying lip-service to the religious and moral strictures and traditions of their fathers – ignore them completely. So it is easy for the "black sheep" to use what they see as the call of family tradition to mobilise resentful young men amongst the poor and deprived members of the extended family. And from this base, they inflict indiscriminate misery on the rest of the family ("if you're not with us you're against us"). The greatest degree of suffering is born, not by the wealthy who protect themselves, but by the poor and unprotected, while some spite is reserved for the foreign friends of the rich – who take attacks particularly hard because they cannot understand how or why it is their fault.

Now you have an idea of what is happening in the Middle East.

The history – the fall of the Ottoman Empire

Much of the Middle East was under the control of the Ottoman Empire after it was captured by the Turks in the 16th century. During the 19th century, the Ottomans effectively bankrupted their empire and it fell under the financial control of European powers, who were quick to annex what the Turks could no longer defend. Local rulers in the Middle East attempted to modernise and import Western models of government, but they largely failed, bankrupting their nascent states which fell into the colonising hands of various Western powers. This also gave rise to a tradition of professional armies – a bane of the region ever since.

These rulers were often encouraged by Western Powers with an eye to the main chance. An attempt at the beginning of the 20th century to re-establish Ottoman rule through a Turkish-German alliance in the First Word War failed. The Arabs allied themselves with the British and French against the Ottomans, in the hope that this help would lead to independence. Instead, Britain and France merely divided the oil-rich region between themselves. And the British agreed to provide the Zionist movement with a homeland in Palestine.

The history – Western colonisation

So the region was carved up between various complicit allies of the (effectively) colonising powers. And in drawing up the borders, little attention was paid to ethnic and religious groupings.

Large-scale oil discoveries began in 1908 in Iran and in 1938 in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. Their rulers became immensely rich. They used the wealth to consolidate their power, with the help of Western allies who used them as a bulwark against potentially less compliant regimes. This bred resentment which emerged in a variety of local conflicts, independence movements, and – eventually – the establishment of one of the most frightening terrorist movements that world has ever known.

Free money, corruption and envy

The gush of free money has generated greed, corruption and envy. The fact that the majority of terrorists who carried out the atrocities of 9/11 were Saudi citizens is not an accident. Saudi Arabia has most of the oil. Its rulers are the greediest in the region, and this greed had generated most of the envy and resentment. There have been crueller regimes in the Middle East but Saudi rulers do their best in this area too; their efforts to contain all opposition are ferocious.

Social failure

Throughout the Middle East, there is poverty, misery and discontent – and its autocratic rulers do little to improve the well-being of their populations. And this is as true of the oil-rich states as of the oil-poor countries. Hossein Askari in his book Middle East Oil Exporters – What happened to Economic Development? compared the social and economic performance of three groups of countries:

• MEOE: 6 Middle East oil exporters (Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and UAE)
• MEnOE: 5 Middle East non-oil-exporters (Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Syria and Tunisia)
• CompC: 4 other countries in the process of development (Chile, Malaysia, Singapore and South Korea) – these were included as a comparison and chosen because they started from a similar point on the development scale.

Using independent research, Askari demonstrates that:

• MEOE with small populations have achieved improvements in living standards (measured by mortality, reproductive health, inequality, health provision, education and welfare standards).
• However, MEOE with large populations – Iran and Iraq – have done no better than the MEnOE countries.
• No Middle Eastern country has performed nearly as well as the CompC.

To give an example. In 2002, infant mortality:

• In Iran and Saudi Arabia was about the same as in MEnOE.
• In Iraq, it was significantly worse than the average of the low income countries of the world.
• In Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE, it is close to the average of the high-income countries of the world (although they did not do as well as the CompC).

Economic failure

MEOE have also failed to achieve success in economic growth. Despite huge inflows of cash from their oil exports, the money has not been re-invested to provide a continuing stable economic future for their populations as the oil is depleted.

The figures are a devastating indictment of policy and governance. Most MEOE achieved less than half the economic growth of the MEnOE, who themselves were unable to match the growth of CompC.

Unemployment

Unemployment rates in the region are very high, reflecting under-investment and poor development in non-oil activities. The spike in oil revenues following the price increases in 1973-4 generated a spike in population growth. This increase in population is now looking for jobs and, without economic growth, unemployment has soared to levels of 10% or more. This affects MEnOE just as much as the other countries, while and unemployment rates throughout the Middle East are significantly higher than in the CompC. The figures would be even worse if women were not discouraged from entering the labour force.

Where has the money gone?

So the big question is: where has the money gone? A very large part of it has been spent on defence. Defence is a euphemism for weapons and soldiers. Weapons and soldiers in the hands of the dictators and potentates of the Middle East are nothing more than boys' toys.

Boys' toys

A look at the numbers is startling. In 1999, Saudi Arabia spent over 50% of its oil revenue on military expenditure. For Iran, the figure was over 40%. And there have been years when almost all the countries spent more than 100% of oil revenues on defence.

The numbers of soldiers per head of population is high compared with the rest of the world.

But it is the huge sums spent on equipment that is truly staggering. Saudi Arabia is the largest spender of all. Over $21 bn per year is spent on the Saudi military (which translates into more than $112,000 per soldier per year).

Figures for 1999 are at the low end of the spending range, while Iraq has been constrained by sanctions. But with the huge accumulations of hardware, it is not surprising that the boys were unable to resist the temptation to take out their toys and play with them.

The cost of these games is devastating. In 1991, after its annexation by Iraq and the war that followed, Kuwait was left with a bill for reparations equivalent to half its oil revenue from 1975 to 2000 – a period of 25 years. This was just one of a succession of conflicts in the region, each of which carried a staggering cost in lives and money. And this is in addition to simmering civil disputes and the corrosive activities of terrorist factions.

Culture of corruption

Finally, the oil has supported a culture of corruption. In addition to many rulers regarding their states as their private property, officials and politicians take commissions to facilitate contracts of all kinds: building, oil investment and exports, the purchase of military hardware, services and so on.

Chickens come home to roost

The West is not an innocent party. First it set up a structure that was prone to conflict. Then it supported leaders, only to condemn them later when their agendas no longer fitted with Western strategies (notably Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden). It remains keen to balance its oil purchases with arms sales. And it is not averse to condoning corruption (e.g. BAE systems).

All this is happening at the highest level. Meanwhile at a lower level, children of the destitute and unemployed are being groomed in extremist madrasas and terrorist camps to fight the corrupt rulers who sully the Muslim faith. Their organisers are anxious for an opportunity to become the new rulers and to grab a slice of the cake. They are using young disillusioned Muslims throughout the world as pawns in their fight for power.

Oil has been a curse for the ordinary people of the Middle East, a curse which is infecting vulnerable Muslims around the world. And so when today's Western politicians complain that the West is an innocent party in the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, they are, at the least, being disingenuous.

The information in the article is based on

And data from WMEAT (World military and arms transfers)

The interpretations are my own.

 

 

Bully boys

"I have learned silence from the talkative, tolerance from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strangely, I am ungrateful to these teachers" ~ Kahlil Gibran (1883 – 1931)

The news that a 19-year-old girl from the largely Shia town of Qatif has been sentenced, by a Saudi court, to 200 lashes and six months in prison, after she and a male friend were raped by a gang of seven men, adds poignancy and relevance to this article. Both victims were originally sentenced to 90 lashes for “illegal mingling”, for riding in a car together without a chaperone. The girl’s lawyer was banned from the courtroom and his licence withdrawn when he appealed against the original sentence.

The rapists were originally sentenced to terms ranging from 10 months to 5 years, sentences which were also increased on appeal. The two cases, the illegal mingling and the rapes, were tried at the same time and in the same court.

Let me first establish my credentials. I am straight. I am attracted by women, not by men. I have homosexual friends of both sexes. I have been propositioned by men and turned them down because what was on offer was not to my taste.

So what is it that homosexuals do which is not to my taste? They are people who are just like the rest of us but who are attracted to the bodies of others of the same sex. They get pleasure from indulging in activities that are parallel to the ones I like to indulge in with my wife. My preference is to do these things with a woman, not with a man.

For homosexuals, the practices they enjoy with willing partners were illegal in this country until very recently. They remain illegal in many countries. And everywhere homosexuals are discriminated against merely because of what they like to do with each other.

Let's not beat about the bush. Let's be clear about what discrimination is. It is bullying pure and simple. It is picking on individuals who don't fit into the norm. It is picking on the kid in the playground because he wears glasses. But what is special about some forms of bullying is that they are:

• ignored by those whose job it is to maintain law and order (e.g. disproportionate numbers of black people in prisons and mental institutions)
• tolerated (e.g. churches exempted from female equality legislation)
• officially sanctioned (e.g. laws against homosexual acts)

All pretty obvious stuff, so why go through it again? It is because the laws against homosexuality – which were brutally enforced until so recently – were as wrong then as they are now. (It is likely that the brilliant Alan Turing, who did much to win World War II by deciphering enemy codes, was hounded to death by an unrelenting police force.)

Laws which stop people doing what they want to do – unless of course they hurt others – are wrong. So how was legislation against homosexuals justified? And how are the prejudices which still lead to discrimination (e.g. restricted employment in the church and armed forces) justified? The justifications fall into 4 groups:

• Religious
• Unnatural
• Unsocial
• Disgust

Religious objections

Religious objections continue to be the most effective. They come from powerful institutions which influence the framing and interpretation of laws. They also enjoy a peculiar exemption from normal debate because people's religious beliefs are treated as sacrosanct (no pun intended). In Britain for example, churches continue to discriminate against homosexuals – as they do against women – with impunity. Their justification is in scripture and in the beliefs and feelings of their adherents.

What is it about sexual preference that makes it so difficult for churches to accept? They are happy to ignore or sidestep a vast array of other scriptural strictures ("thou shalt not kill" leaps to mind), while homosexual behaviour leads to deep discomfort, and even to schism. At the same time, it is an open secret that homosexuality has dug its roots deep into the workforce and hierarchy of many churches, resulting in little harm to their operations.

The harm that does result is caused by the moral hazard inherent in covering up activities that are officially outlawed. This leads to corruption and institutional paralysis in the face of evidence of abuse. It is the same moral hazard caused by the celibacy of Catholic priests and nuns which, notoriously, has led to child abuse scandals across the world and the payment of millions in hush money. And some church institutions in which systematic abuse took place survived almost to the present day (e.g. the Magdalene laundries in Ireland).

Churches would be cleaner and healthier places if they accepted that most homosexuals, like most straight people, are decent, honorable and caring members of the community. Their sexual preferences hurt no one and, as individuals, they have much to offer to the community. Acceptance would make it easier to police the bad apples (straight as well as gay).

Nature in all its glory

The claim that homosexual acts are unnatural can be attacked from three directions:

• First, what is wrong with unnatural? The list of unnatural things that are part of everyday life is endless. Births by Caesarian section, wearing clothes, flying in airplanes, circumcision, enforced monogamy, baptism, inoculation, pain relief… Why single out homosexuality as unacceptable because it is unnatural?
• Second, who says it is unnatural? The fact that so many people in so many places and times have been willing to indulge in acts which carry the severest penalties suggests that their impulses are common, powerful and natural. Any field with farm animals reveals that homosexual activity goes on among all kinds of animals, not just among humans.
• Third, what's so good about natural? Dying of malaria is natural.

The "unnatural" lobby sometimes argues that homosexual relationships are, by definition, barren. But that is not an excuse for legislating against them or discriminating against them. Priests and nuns are required to be celibate by their calling. Infertile couples of all kinds have sex and, outside of Ceausescu's Romania, no-one is forced to have children. The argument is spurious.

Moral turpitude

Does homosexuality disrupt society? I'll give two examples to explore this hypothesis:

• Imagine a man propositioned by a woman but not tempted because he is homosexual. His tastes are frowned upon by society, so he enters into a relationship with this woman for whom he has no desire. This unhappy relationship could easily become socially disruptive; finding a man to make him happy would be more likely to result in harmony.
• Now imagine a woman reaching marriageable age at the end of World War I when there was a shortage of men. For companionship, she chooses to live with another woman and discovers that she is not averse to sexual experimentation with her companion. When this relationship becomes known, they are shunned by society. That shunning is socially disruptive. Not their loving act.

People's sexual preferences are part of who they are. I would not be happy in a homosexual relationship and I do not expect a homosexual to be happy in a straight one.

Finally, the argument that homosexuals might corrupt our children. This argument is spurious too. A homosexual would only corrupt a child sexually if he or she was a paedophile (and there are almost certainly more heterosexual than homosexual paedophiles).

And homosexuals who want to adopt, or otherwise organize themselves to bring up children, are just as likely to be as good parents – or bad parents – as straight couples.

" It's disgusting and should be banned."

I was careful to say at the outset that, when propositioned by men, I declined because it was not to my taste. I did not find it distasteful or disgusting. I just did not want to do it. There are a whole range of things I like to eat that my wife dislikes because of the taste or texture and she is not slow in saying so. I sometimes feel hurt when she says that the custard or sticky drinks that I enjoy are disgusting because it spoils my appetite. Disgusting is a nasty word for something you dislike. It is used deliberately in the context of homosexuality in order to raise the emotional temperature. To justify the bullying.

Truly disgusting acts are those where someone is made to suffer, like locking up homosexuals or executing them (as happens in Iran).

Legalised bullying

None of the justifications for legislating or discriminating against homosexuals carry any weight. So why was legalized bullying against a minority tolerated for so long? It is because there is an impulse in many people that makes them feel justified in telling others how to live their lives. And even to call for their prejudices to be turned into laws.

The controlling impulse of those who claim moral superiority and those who think they know best is a powerful force. No longer able to discriminate against homosexuals, the "do it my way" brigade are picking on other groups: smokers; fat people; drug takers; immigrants; asylum seekers; Polish plumbers; women who want abortions; just women (in many countries and communities, especially Islamic ones); terminally ill people who want to end their lives (and friends and relatives who, distressed by their suffering, want to help them); non-violent drinkers; adolescents; children; parents…

There is an unrelenting desire to bully non-conformists and minorities. Homosexuals have proved very recently that minority groups no longer have to accept all that is thrown at them. So let us all learn a lesson from them and not give in to those who want to push us around.

It would be even better if we curbed the urge to tell other people how to live their lives. Providing information is good. Giving a helping hand when asked is good. Offering unsolicited advice is bearable. Forcing people who don't hurt others to conform is unacceptable. This I find disgusting.

Bjorn Lomborg Interviewed by Jim Puplava - The global warming debate

"The truth is rarely pure and never simple." ~Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

Jim Puplava has kindly agreed to let me post his interview with Bjorn Lomborg. Jim's Financial Sense Website  provides a wealth of interviews and reports on a range of subjects of interest to the investor. I strongly recommend it.

This interview provides an insight the work that went into Bjorn's book Cool It which I reviewed a couple of weeks ago. The book is essential reading for anyone who is interested in understanding and joining in the global warming debate.

Damart Days

Autumn is a second spring where every leaf is a flower ~ Albert Camus (1913 –1960)

Damart is probably the best-known manufacturer of thermal underwear in the UK. Every year, as autumn arrives along with the falling leaves, a Damart catalogue pops through the letter box. Until now my wife has thrown it in the bin. This year she has kept hold of it. She is starting to feel the cold.

We're neither of us old but we are "getting on". The delusion of immortality is fading. Aches don't go away. Pains and other symptoms begin to seem serious and could presage an illness that will stay.

When you read about the latest health scare or news that this, that or the other activity predisposes or increases the chances of being afflicted with this, that or the other condition, nothing is said about the fact that the best predictor of getting cancer or succumbing to a heart attack or a stroke or going bananas is getting old.

Now I'm not trying to be morbid or to depress anyone. I am quite happy most of the time. I am content to be "getting on" despite the disadvantages. The drawing in of the years, like the drawing in of the days, makes me reflect on how lucky I have been. How lucky I am.

I haven't achieved a great deal in my life. In many ways it's been an "also ran" sort of life, the kind of life that most people lead. Many of us try to bulk up what we've achieved but, personally, I don't see much point in that. I hope I haven't made too many people unhappy during my life and, if I've achieved that, then I'm glad.

Life continues to offer challenges and moments of excitement and novelty, and in my small way, I keep trying to push my horizons forward, learning new things and sometimes making new friends. Listening to other people, mostly through what they write, is a good way to avoid stagnation.

There are things that make me sad. I feel sorry for people whose lives are closed and limited, and who can never experience the richness which I've enjoyed by having the luxury of choice. My parents left Czechoslovakia when I was less than two years old and I often think of what might have been. The lives of generations of people in the Eastern bloc were crushed by a dynasty of greedy megalomaniacs who claimed to know best how lives should be lived. They didn't of course. They simply enjoyed power and control and the luxury that came with them.

Today, people continue to live under the heel of other megalomaniacs and in even more misery than the compatriots I left behind. These monsters ensure the continuation of poverty in much of Africa, the Middle East and South America and are responsible for many broken lives.

How quickly things change when tyranny subsides. Many people in South East Asia are joining the lucky generation, even in China. And India shows that it is not only dictators who prevent people escaping poverty and enjoying the freedom that general prosperity brings. It can be overweening bureaucrats too. Indians call them the abominable no men.

I am one of the lucky ones who lived in an open society in the 20th Century. I am horrified by how carelessly that openness is being thrown away.

At the beginning of this piece, I mentioned the delusion of immortality which dominates our lives. I should also mention that many people cling to that delusion – in the face of all the evidence – by looking forward to an afterlife. (Remember that most suicide bombers are drawn into their terrible trade by the promise of an afterlife.) How much stronger we would be if we recognised that our lives are all that we know we have. Whether or not there is an afterlife, if we could just accept that life is the only thing we can be sure of we would, perhaps, recognise how very precious it is.

For me this is the very foundation of what is right and wrong. If I have nothing other than my own life, the same is true of every other person. If I fail to enjoy my life to the best of my ability, I have nothing. That is also true of every other person. So I should like to help everyone with whom I come into contact to enjoy their lives. Not to tell them how to live their lives – because their lives are theirs and not mine – but to offer a helping hand and to share. To share with absolutely everyone who wants to share with me. No-one is different: quick or slow, big or small, white or black, woman or man, weak or strong, old or young ...

Nothing big (it's far too easy to get it wrong) but in little everyday ways. The only true and lasting happiness, after all, comes from companionship with others.

    Damart days are good days for me. I hope they are good for you too – when you get there.

Myopic Panopticon

Every silver lining has a cloud~Mary Kay Ash (1918–2001)

It turns out that we have nothing to fear. The Panopticon suffers from cataracts. Ross Clark has written a book called The Road to Southend Pier. I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but it is winging its way to me. Clark tried to outwit the Panopticon by travelling on a route free of the ubiquitous – obviously not totally ubiquitous – cameras. Cambridge to London was a non-starter (little chance of not being photographed there), so he chose Southend.

Everything was tickety-boo until he arrived at the end of the pier where three cameras looked down at him. But when he asked Southend Borough Council for a picture of himself at the end of his journey, the council was unable to oblige. The cameras provided a general view of the estuary. There was a standing figure on the pier but the image was not clear enough to identify who it was. Indeed, an official survey has shown that 80% of CCTV cameras produce pictures so poor that they are good to neither man nor beast.

So we can breathe a little easier. Or can we? Our protection at the moment is incompetence, not the best guarantor of civil liberties.

Why this blog is called Notes from the Panopticon

Hot Shift! A video I wish I had made