US FOREIGN POLICY AND ENERGY RESOURCES DURING THE GEORGE W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION by AHMED SAMIR SAYED MAHDI A thesis submitted to The University of Birmingham for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of American and Canadian Studies School of Historical Studies University of Birmingham January 2010 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT Based on the Open Door Policy, the United States has pursued an informal empire based on spreading its economic influence by ensuring open access to vital goods and raw materials, and establishing military presence in areas of interest, as America’s corporate and strategic interests worked together in harmony. This approach has been especially evident in energy-producing regions, where the US seeks to establish economic and military dominance to support its global economic power. George W. Bush, like all his predecessors, pursued the Open Door Empire, especially with respect to access to foreign energy resources, which took on an even higher priority because of his ties to the oil industry and the belief that the US was suffering from an energy crisis and relative economic decline. Energy procurement was linked to his other foreign policy priority as he took office; military advancement. After the September 11 attacks, two other foreign policy priorities were established: the War on Terror, and global power projection. Bush used the War on Terror to implement the Open Door Policy and meld the four priorities. He used the military to solve America’s economic and energy problems by invading Afghanistan and Iraq to control vital energy routes and resources, both as an end in itself (due to the economic and corporate benefits to the US) and a means to other, greater ends (as control over global energy supplies strengthened America’s imperial status). The Bush Doctrine stipulated that in the War on Terror, the US should take the war to the enemy and spread democracy as a tool to combat terrorism. Invading Iraq was meant to demonstrate US military power, fight terrorism (based on the false claims of Saddam Hussein’s ties to al Qaeda), secure Iraq’s oil resources and rebuild the country, using Iraq’s oil revenues. Thus Iraq would become a democratic model for the Middle East and a substitute for Saudi Arabia as America’s main strategic ally and source of oil. Compared to the George H.W. Bush and Clinton Administrations, the George W. Bush Administration is unique in two ways. First, it put energy resources at the fore of its foreign policy goals during his first days in office. Second, unlike previous US administrations that preserved undemocratic regimes in the Middle East to stabilize the region’s oil resources, the Bush Administration tried to democratise the region, using Iraq’s oil to rebuild the country into a democratic model. In pursuing these aims, the Bush Administration can be blamed for negligence, as it ignored warnings of post-war violence while planning for the Iraq war. The Bush Doctrine was too dependent on success in Iraq and on rebuilding the Iraqi oil sector. The post-war instability led to the failure of the Bush Doctrine’s plans for the region, meaning that the Bush Administration had to return to supporting undemocratic regimes in the Middle East. Despite endeavours to spread its global military power, promote global economic influence and diversify energy resources away from the Middle East, the US will continue to suffer from relative decline and will be less energy secure than ever. To my parents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my supervisor, Professor William Scott Lucas, for his keen supervision and insightful feedback. He has been very patient and understanding with me, giving me advice on sources, and encouraging me to develop my own ideas and reflections. I also thank him for arranging for me to give presentations at seminars and conferences based on my thesis and for supporting my essays and publications. I would also like to thank a number of other scholars for their comments on my work, including Professor Robert Lieber of Georgetown University, author Jim Bovard, and Dr. Robert Crane, former advisor to Richard M. Nixon. Finally, I would like to thank my parents. I thank my father, who has been financially supporting me well beyond his retirement age. And I thank my mother, who has given me the psychological support which I needed during my stay in Britain. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Chapter One: Foreign Energy Resources In The Post-Cold War Decade: The Democracy Conundrum, Regional Diversification, And An Ad Hoc Policy On Energy Resources 32 Chapter Two: The Unilateral Oilman: Energy Procurement In George W. Bush’s Foreign Policy (January-September 2001) 85 Chapter Three: Anti-Terrorism Melds With Energy Procurement: How The September 11 Attacks Affected The Quest For Foreign Oil 140 Chapter Four: “A Big Shot” And “A Lot Of Money”: Operation Iraqi Freedom And US Foreign Energy Policy 197 Conclusion 247 Bibliography 278 INTRODUCTION “I think that in the modern world, if you don’t understand the relationship between economics and politics, you cannot be a great statesman. You cannot do it with foreign policy and security knowledge alone.” Henry Kissinger, April 1986.1 “The national policy of the United States should aim at securing for American nationals access to the world’s oil resources.” Petroleum Industry War Council, December 1943.2 “Security and economic considerations are inevitably linked and energy cannot be separated from either.” Richard Nixon, 1974.3 “America imports 50% of its oil, more than 10 million barrels per day. And the figure is rising. This is dependence on foreign oil. And this dependence is a challenge to our economic security, because dependence can lead to price shocks and fuel shortages. And this dependence on foreign oil is a matter of national security. To put it bluntly, 1 Antonia Juhasz, The Bush Agenda: Invading the world, one economy at a time (London: Duckworth, 2006): 162, from Leslie Gelb, “Kissinger means business”, New York Times, April 20, 1986. 2 Ian Rutledge, Addicted to Oil: America’s Relentless Drive for Energy Security, (London: I. B. Tauris, 2005): 30. The Petroleum Industry War Council was an advisory group that served as a link between the US Government and the oil industry (ibid). 3 Simon Bromley, American Hegemony and World Oil, (Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991): vii. 1 sometimes we rely upon energy sources from countries that don’t particularly like us.” George W. Bush, February 25, 20024 With its control of the world’s most advanced military forces, nuclear arsenal, and with the US dollar as the global reserve currency, the United States emerged as the world’s strongest superpower after World War II. This position was reinforced with the fall of the Soviet Union in December 19915 making America, according to Zbigniew Brzezinski, “the first, only, and last truly global superpower,”6 as “never before in history has a single power been so paramount.” 7 This prompted authors to refer to the United States as an “informal empire.” Susan Strange, for instance, argued that the reach of the United States’ economic clout and global business corporations turned it into a “non-territorial empire”: It is that non-territorial empire that is really the flourishing economic base of US power… The United States is still the largest and richest (and mostly open) market for goods and services under one political authority…The world-wide reach of US controlled enterprises means that the capacity of the United States to exercise extraterritorial influence and authority is greater 8 than that of any other government. 4 George W. Bush. “President promotes energy efficiency through technology”, White House, February 25, 2002 [accessed March 2, 2008] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020225- 5.html. 5 Zbigniew Brzezinski, Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower, (New York: Basic Books, 2008): 20-21. 6 Zbigniew Brzezinksi, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives, (New York: Basic Books, 1997): 215. Brzezkinski also said that America is “the world’s first truly global power” (Brzezinski, Second Chance: 20-21). 7 Brzezinksi, Second Chance: 3. 8 Susan Strange, “The future of the American empire”, in Richard Little and Michael Smith (eds.) Perspectives on World Politics (London: Routledge, 2006): 353. 2 In the words of Bill Emmott, the United States is “the mightiest colossus, in both absolute and relative terms, the world has ever seen,” adding that it is indeed an empire, although in the informal sense, i.e.: without having to occupy other countries like nineteenth-century Britain.9 Vassillis Fouskas and Bülent Gökay defined this American “neo-imperialism” in terms of global military bases and economic domination without the actual need to invade countries as much as in traditional colonialism.10 This thesis is not proposing a new definition or interpretation of hegemony, imperialism or power. Instead, after an initial consideration of the role of economic factors in US global power, this thesis focuses on the role of energy resources, in particular the role of oil resources and the procurement of foreign oil, within the context of the relation between economic, geopolitical, and strategic factors in US foreign policy.