{"id":12,"date":"2008-07-07T00:23:07","date_gmt":"2008-07-07T00:23:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/imediata.org\/?p=12"},"modified":"2009-08-13T18:11:41","modified_gmt":"2009-08-13T18:11:41","slug":"capitalismo-de-desastre-o-estado-de-extorsao-por-naomi-klein","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/imediata.org\/?p=12","title":{"rendered":">>Capitalismo Desastre: o Estado de Extors\u00e3o, por Naomi Klein"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"null\"
\nFonte: The Nation, 3 de julho de 2008<\/em><\/a>
\nTradu\u00e7\u00e3o: Ag\u00eancia Imediata<\/strong><\/p>\n

Uma vez que o pre\u00e7o do petr\u00f3leo ultrapassou US$ 140 por barril, at\u00e9 mesmo os mais raivosos apresentadores de direita da m\u00eddia tinham que provar seu credo populista, dedicando uma parte de cada show para criticar as empresas petrol\u00edferas. Alguns chegaram at\u00e9 a me convidar para um papo amig\u00e1vel sobre um novo fen\u00f4memo insidioso: \u201co capitalismo de desastre\u201d. Geralmente, vai tudo bem, at\u00e9 que as coisas mudam de figura. <\/p>\n

Por exemplo, o apresentador \u201cconservador independente\u201d de um programa de r\u00e1dio, Jerry Doyle, e eu est\u00e1vamos tendo uma conversa perfeitamente civilizada sobre as companhias de seguro de pouca boa-f\u00e9 e sobre pol\u00edticos ineptos, quando aconteceu o seguinte: \u201cAcho que tenho um modo r\u00e1pido para abaixar os pre\u00e7os\u201d, anunciou Doyle. \u201cN\u00f3s investimos US$ 650 bilh\u00f5es para liberar uma na\u00e7\u00e3o de 25 milh\u00f5es de pessoas. N\u00e3o dever\u00edamos simplesmente exigir que eles nos entreguem o petr\u00f3leo? Dever\u00edamos ter uma fila intermin\u00e1vel de tanques, como o congestionamento do Lincoln Tunnel, o \u2018Fedorento\u2019 Lincoln, na hora de pico, repletos de notas de agradecimento do governo iraquiano\u2026 Porque \u00e9 que n\u00e3o pegamos o petr\u00f3leo, simplesmente? N\u00f3s investimos na liberta\u00e7\u00e3o do pa\u00eds. Desse jeito, posso resolver o problema do combust\u00edvel em dez dias, n\u00e3o dez anos.\u201d Havia alguns probleminhas com o plano do Doyle, naturalmente. O primeiro era que ele estava descrevendo o maior roubo \u00e0 m\u00e3o armada da hist\u00f3ria. O segundo era de que ele j\u00e1 est\u00e1 bastante atrasado: \u201cN\u00f3s\u201d j\u00e1 estamos afanando o petr\u00f3leo do Iraque, ou, pelo menos, estamos a ponto de faz\u00ea-lo efetivamente. <\/p>\n

Faz dez meses que foi publicado meu livro \u201cThe Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism\u201d (A Doutrina de Choque: o Avan\u00e7o do Capitalismo Desastre), no qual argumento que hoje em dia, o m\u00e9todo preferido para moldar o mundo conforme os interesses das corpora\u00e7\u00f5es multinacionais \u00e9 explorar sistematicamente o estado de medo e desorienta\u00e7\u00e3o que acompanha os momentos de grandes choques ou crise. Com o mundo sendo chacoalhado por choques m\u00faltiplos, parece que \u00e9 um bom momento para ver como e onde essa estrat\u00e9gia est\u00e1 sendo aplicada. <\/p>\n

E os capitalistas do desastre t\u00eam estado ocupados \u2013 dos bombeiros privados j\u00e1 em cena para combater os inc\u00eandios florestais do Norte da Calif\u00f3rnia, \u00e0 corrida pela tomada de posse de terras em Burma, depois do ciclone, ao projeto de lei sobre moradias que est\u00e1 sendo debatido no Congresso. O projeto de lei cont\u00e9m pouca coisa a respeito de moradias a pre\u00e7os razo\u00e1veis, transfere a carga hipotec\u00e1ria para os contribuintes e garante que os bancos que concederam empr\u00e9stimos cientes de que n\u00e3o poderiam ser pagos de volta, recebam sua devida compensa\u00e7\u00e3o. N\u00e3o \u00e9 \u00e0 toa que nos corredores do Congresso o projeto \u00e9 conhecido como \u201cO Plano Cr\u00e9dit Suisse\u201d, chamado com o mesmo nome de um dos bancos que, generosamente, fizeram a proposta. <\/p>\n

O Desastre Iraquiano: N\u00f3s o Quebramos, N\u00f3s (Apenas) o Compramos<\/strong> <\/p>\n

Mas esses casos de capitalismo de desastre s\u00e3o amadores, quando comparados com o que est\u00e1 acontecendo com o Minist\u00e9rio do Petr\u00f3leo do Iraque. Come\u00e7ou com contratos sem licita\u00e7\u00e3o p\u00fablica anunciados para a ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP e Total (os contratos ainda devem ser assinados, mas est\u00e3o prestes a s\u00ea-lo). Pagar multinacionais pela sua per\u00edcia t\u00e9cnica n\u00e3o \u00e9 incomum. O que \u00e9 estranho \u00e9 que tais contratos quase invariavelmente v\u00e3o para empresas de servi\u00e7o de petr\u00f3leo \u2013 e n\u00e3o \u00e0s empresas especialistas em petr\u00f3leo, cujo trabalho \u00e9 explorar, produzir e possuir a riqueza do carbono. Como salienta o especialista em petr\u00f3leo sediado em Londres Greg Muttitt, os contratos fazem sentido somente dentro do contexto de relat\u00f3rios de que as empresas especializadas em petr\u00f3leo tenham insistido no direito de primeira recusa quanto aos contratos subseq\u00fcentes, entregues para o gerenciamento e a produ\u00e7\u00e3o dos campos de petr\u00f3leo iraquiano. Em outras palavras, outras companhias ser\u00e3o livres de fazer um lance quanto \u00e0queles contratos futuros, mas essas empresas ganhar\u00e3o. <\/p>\n

Uma semana depois de anunciados os fechamentos dos neg\u00f3cios de servi\u00e7os sem licita\u00e7\u00e3o p\u00fablica, o mundo pode ter um vislumbre do seu pre\u00e7o real. Depois de anos de indu\u00e7\u00e3o e persuas\u00e3o nos bastidores, O Iraque est\u00e1 oficialmente abrindo seis entre seus maiores campos de petr\u00f3leo, o que representa a metade de suas reservas conhecidas, aos investidores estrangeiros. Segundo o Ministro do Petr\u00f3leo do Iraque, os contratos a longo prazo ser\u00e3o assinados dentro de um ano. Embora visivelmente sob controle da Companhia Nacional de Petr\u00f3leo do Iraque, as empresas estrangeiras manter\u00e3o 75 por cento do valor dos contratos, deixando apenas 25% para os parceiros iraquianos. <\/p>\n

Nunca se ouviu esse tipo de propor\u00e7\u00e3o nos Estados \u00c1rabes e Persa ricos em petr\u00f3leo, onde alcan\u00e7ar o controle nacional majorit\u00e1rio sobre o petr\u00f3leo representava a pr\u00f3pria defini\u00e7\u00e3o de vit\u00f3ria das lutas anti-coloniais. Segundo Muttitt, a premissa at\u00e9 agora era de que as multinacionais estrangeiras ingressariam no pa\u00eds para desenvolver campos totalmente novos no Iraque, e n\u00e3o assumir o controle dos campos j\u00e1 em produ\u00e7\u00e3o tratando-se, portanto, de campos que necessitam de um suporte t\u00e9cnico m\u00ednimo. \u201cA pol\u00edtica foi sempre de alocar esses campos \u00e0 INOC (Iraq National Oil Company, ou seja, a Companhia Nacional de Petr\u00f3leo do Iraque\u201d), ele me disse. Esta \u00e9 uma revers\u00e3o daquela pol\u00edtica, dando para a INOC apenas 25 por cento, em vez dos 100 por cento planejados. <\/p>\n

Ent\u00e3o, o que torna poss\u00edvel esse tipo de negocia\u00e7\u00e3o de m\u00e1-f\u00e9 no Iraque, que j\u00e1 sofreu tanto? Ironicamente, \u00e9 o pr\u00f3prio sofrimento do Iraque \u2013 sua intermin\u00e1vel crise \u2013 que \u00e9 a raz\u00e3o do arranjo que amea\u00e7a drenar do seu tesouro a sua fonte de receita principal. A l\u00f3gica funciona assim: o setor petrol\u00edfero do Iraque precisa da per\u00edcia estrangeira porque anos de san\u00e7\u00f5es punitivas o privaram de novas tecnologias, e a invas\u00e3o e a viol\u00eancia cont\u00ednuas o degradaram ainda mais. E o Iraque precisa urgentemente produzir mais petr\u00f3leo. Por que? De novo, por causa da guerra. O pa\u00eds est\u00e1 destru\u00eddo, e os bilh\u00f5es concedidos atrav\u00e9s de contratos sem licita\u00e7\u00e3o para empresas ocidentais n\u00e3o tiveram \u00eaxito na reconstru\u00e7\u00e3o do pa\u00eds. E a\u00ed entram os contratos sem licita\u00e7\u00e3o: eles v\u00e3o levantar dinheiro, mas o Iraque se tornou um lugar t\u00e3o trai\u00e7oeiro que os especialistas em petr\u00f3leo precisam ser induzidos a correr o risco de investir. Assim, a invas\u00e3o do Iraque cria habilmente o argumento para a subseq\u00fcente pilhagem do pa\u00eds.<\/p>\n

Muitos dos arquitetos da Guerra do Iraque nem se preocupam mais em negar que o petr\u00f3leo foi um dos principais motivadores. No programa \u201cDireto ao Ponto\u201d da R\u00e1dio P\u00fablica Nacional, Fadhil Chalabi, um dos principais conselheiros do Governo Bush encabe\u00e7ando a lideran\u00e7a da invas\u00e3o, recentemente, descreveu a guerra como \u201cum movimento estrat\u00e9gico da parte dos EUA e do Reino Unido para ter uma presen\u00e7a militar no Golfo, de modo a que esses pa\u00edses se assegurarem os suprimentos (de petr\u00f3leo) no futuro\u201d. Chalabi, que serviu como sub-secret\u00e1rio para o Petr\u00f3leo do Iraque, encontrando-se com as empresas especialistas em petr\u00f3leo antes da invas\u00e3o, descreveu este como \u201cum objetivo prim\u00e1rio\u201d. <\/p>\n

Invadir pa\u00edses para se apoderar dos seus recursos naturais \u00e9 ilegal, segundo as Conven\u00e7\u00f5es de Genebra. Isso significa que a imensa tarefa de reconstruir a infra-estrutura do Iraque \u2013 incluindo a infra-estrutura petrol\u00edfera \u2013 \u00e9 responsabilidade financeira dos invasores do Iraque. Eles deveriam ser for\u00e7ados a pagar repara\u00e7\u00f5es. (Est\u00e3o lembrados de que o regime de Saddam Hussein teve que pagar US$ 9 bilh\u00f5es ao Kuwait como repara\u00e7\u00e3o pela sua invas\u00e3o de 1990?) Ao inv\u00e9s disso, o Iraque est\u00e1 sendo for\u00e7ado a vender 75 por cento do seu patrim\u00f4nio nacional para pagar as contas devidas ao fato de que o pa\u00eds foi invadido e ocupado ilegalmente. <\/p>\n

O choque do pre\u00e7o do petr\u00f3leo: ou voc\u00eas nos d\u00e3o \u00c1rtico, ou ent\u00e3o nunca mais poder\u00e3o guiar um carro <\/strong><\/p>\n

O Iraque n\u00e3o \u00e9 o \u00fanico pa\u00eds que se encontra em pleno assalto petrol\u00edfero. O Governo Bush est\u00e1 usando uma crise relacionada \u2013 o aumento vertiginoso do pre\u00e7o do combust\u00edvel \u2013 para reavivar seu sonho de perfurar na regi\u00e3o do Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR, ou Reserva Nacional Natural do \u00c1rtico). E de perfurar na costa do \u00c1rtico. E tamb\u00e9m na Bacia do Green River. \u201cO Congresso deve encarar a dura realidade\u201d, disse George W. Bush no dia 18 de junho, \u201ca menos que os membros (do Congresso) estejam dispostos a aceitar os pre\u00e7os do petr\u00f3leo nos atuais dolorosos n\u00edveis \u2013 ou at\u00e9 mais \u2013 a nossa na\u00e7\u00e3o precisa produzir mais petr\u00f3leo\u201d. <\/p>\n

Este \u00e9 o Presidente como Extorsor N\u00famero Um, com as mangueiras de petr\u00f3leo apontadas na cabe\u00e7a de seus ref\u00e9ns \u2013 que s\u00e3o nada menos que o pa\u00eds inteiro. D\u00eaem-nos o ANWR, ou todo mundo vai passar as f\u00e9rias no quintal de casa. O \u201cm\u00e3os-ao-alto\u201d final do Presidente cowboy. <\/p>\n

Apesar dos adesivos \u201cPerfure Aqui, Perfure Agora, Pague Menos\u201d, perfurar no \u00c1rtico teria um m\u00ednimo impacto discern\u00edvel no suprimento mundial de petr\u00f3leo, como sabem muito bem aqueles que o defendem. O argumento de que isso poderia, contudo, abaixar os pre\u00e7os do petr\u00f3leo se baseia n\u00e3o na economia real, mas na psican\u00e1lise de mercado: perfurar enviaria uma \u201cmensagem\u201d aos comerciantes de petr\u00f3leo de que mais petr\u00f3leo est\u00e1 a caminho, o que os levaria a abaixar o pre\u00e7o. <\/p>\n

Dois pontos decorrem desta abordagem. O primeiro, tentar usar o efeito psicol\u00f3gico para os traders h\u00edper-ativos dessa commodity \u00e9 o que se faz passar de governo na era Bush, mesmo em pleno seio de uma emerg\u00eancia nacional. Segundo, isso nunca vai funcionar. Se h\u00e1 uma coisa que podemos prever a partir do comportamento recente do mercado de petr\u00f3leo, \u00e9 que o pre\u00e7o continuar\u00e1 a subir, independentemente das novas fontes de abastecimento anunciadas. <\/p>\n

Basta ver o boom maci\u00e7o de petr\u00f3leo nas areias de alcatr\u00e3o de Alberta. As areais de alcatr\u00e3o (\u00e0s vezes chamadas de areias de petr\u00f3leo) est\u00e3o na mesma situa\u00e7\u00e3o das propostas de Bush para os s\u00edtios de perfura\u00e7\u00e3o: est\u00e3o bem perto e perfeitamente seguras, posto que o North-American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA, ou Tratado de Livre Com\u00e9rcio do Atl\u00e2ntico Norte) cont\u00e9m uma provis\u00e3o que impede ao Canad\u00e1 de cortar o suprimento aos Estados Unidos. E apesar do pouco barulho, o petr\u00f3leo desta fonte at\u00e9 agora inexplorada tem sido despejado no mercado, tanto que o Canad\u00e1 \u00e9 hoje o maior fornecedor de petr\u00f3leo aos Estados Unidos, tendo ultrapassado a Ar\u00e1bia Saudita. Entre 2005 e 2007, o Canad\u00e1 aumentou suas exporta\u00e7\u00f5es aos Estados Unidos de quase 100 milh\u00f5es de barris. Apesar desse aumento significativo no abastecimento, os pre\u00e7os do petr\u00f3leo continuaram subindo o tempo todo. <\/p>\n

O que est\u00e1 impulsionando a perfura\u00e7\u00e3o no ANWR n\u00e3o s\u00e3o os fatos, mas a pura estrat\u00e9gia da doutrina de choque \u2013 a crise do petr\u00f3leo criou as condi\u00e7\u00f5es nas quais \u00e9 poss\u00edvel vender uma pol\u00edtica at\u00e9 agora invend\u00e1vel (embora altamente lucrativa). <\/p>\n

O choque do pre\u00e7o dos alimentos: modifica\u00e7\u00e3o gen\u00e9tica ou fome<\/strong> <\/p>\n

Intimamente conectada ao pre\u00e7o do petr\u00f3leo est\u00e1 a crise alimentar global. N\u00e3o somente os pre\u00e7os do petr\u00f3leo provocam o aumento dos custos dos alimentos, como o boom dos agrocombust\u00edveis obscureceu os limites entre alimento e combust\u00edvel, expulsando de suas terras os cultivadores de alimentos e encorajando a especula\u00e7\u00e3o. V\u00e1rios pa\u00edses latino-americanos t\u00eam solicitado uma reavalia\u00e7\u00e3o da corrida para os agrocombust\u00edveis e o reconhecimento dos alimentos como um direito humano, e n\u00e3o como uma mera \u201ccommodity\u201d. Mas John Negroponte, o Secret\u00e1rio de Estado dos EUA tem outras id\u00e9ias. No mesmo discurso em que angaria o compromisso dos EUA em rela\u00e7\u00e3o \u00e0 ajuda alimentar, ele pede aos pa\u00edses para abaixarem suas \u201crestri\u00e7\u00f5es \u00e0 exporta\u00e7\u00e3o e as tarifas altas\u201d e para eliminarem \u201cas barreiras ao uso de tecnologias inovadoras de produ\u00e7\u00e3o de plantas e animais, incluindo a biotecnologia\u201d. Esse era um \u201cm\u00e3os-ao-alto\u201d mais sutil, mas a mensagem foi bem clara: que os pa\u00edses empobrecidos abram seus mercados agr\u00edcolas para os produtos norte-americanos e para as sementes geneticamente modificadas, ou poderiam correr o risco de n\u00e3o receber ajuda\u201d. <\/p>\n

Colheitas geneticamente modificadas emergiram como a cura para tudo o que diz respeito \u00e0 crise alimentar, pelo menos segundo o Banco Mundial, o presidente da Comiss\u00e3o Europ\u00e9ia e o Primeiro Ministro da Gr\u00e3-Bretanha Gordon Brown. E, \u00e9 claro, as empresas de agroneg\u00f3cio. \u201cHoje n\u00e3o se pode alimentar o mundo sem os organismos geneticamente modificados\u201d afirmou Peter Brabeck, presidente da Nestl\u00e9, ao Financial Times recentemente. O problema deste argumento, pelo menos por enquanto, \u00e9 que n\u00e3o h\u00e1 qualquer evid\u00eancia de que os OGMs aumentem as safras, pelo contr\u00e1rio, freq\u00fcentemente as diminuem. <\/p>\n

Mas mesmo se houvesse uma resposta simples para resolver a crise alimentar global, ser\u00e1 mesmo que a desejamos nas m\u00e3os das Nestl\u00e9s e Monsantos? Qual seria o custo que ter\u00edamos com isso? Nos \u00faltimos meses, a Monsanto, a Syngenta e a BASF t\u00eam comprado freneticamente patentes de plantas\/sementes chamadas de \u201cprontas para mudan\u00e7a clim\u00e1tica\u201d que podem crescer na terra tostada pela seca e salinizada pelas enchentes. <\/p>\n

Em outras palavras, plantas constru\u00eddas para sobreviver a um caos clim\u00e1tico futuro. N\u00f3s j\u00e1 sabemos at\u00e9 que ponto a Monsanto est\u00e1 disposta a chegar para proteger sua propriedade intelectual, espiando e processando cultivadores que ousam salvar as pr\u00f3prias sementes de um ano para outro. J\u00e1 vimos como medicamentos patenteados para a AIDS n\u00e3o foram usados para curar milh\u00f5es na \u00c1frica sub-sahariana. Porque seria diferente com as colheitas patenteadas e \u201cprontas para a mudan\u00e7a clim\u00e1tica\u201d? <\/p>\n

Enquanto isso, na conversa sobre novas e excitantes tecnologias gen\u00e9ticas e de perfura\u00e7\u00e3o, o Governo Bush anunciou uma morat\u00f3ria de at\u00e9 dois anos para projetos de energia solar em terras federais \u2013 devido, aparentemente, a preocupa\u00e7\u00f5es com o ambiente. Esta \u00e9 fronteira final do capitalismo de desastre. Nossos l\u00edderes n\u00e3o est\u00e3o investindo em tecnologias que poderiam, na realidade, prevenir um caos clim\u00e1tico futuro, preferindo trabalhar de m\u00e3os dadas com aqueles que armam esquemas inovadores para obterem lucros com a situa\u00e7\u00e3o de confus\u00e3o. <\/p>\n

Privatizar o petr\u00f3leo do Iraque, garantir o dom\u00ednio global para as colheitas geneticamente modificadas, abolir as \u00faltimas barreiras comerciais e abrir as \u00faltimas reservas naturais\u2026 N\u00e3o faz tanto tempo esses objetivos eram perseguidos por meio de educados acordos de com\u00e9rcio, sob o benigno pseud\u00f4nimo de \u201cglobaliza\u00e7\u00e3o\u201d. Agora, esta agenda desacreditada est\u00e1 for\u00e7ada a cavalgar nas costas das crises seriais, vendendo-se a si pr\u00f3pria como rem\u00e9dio milagroso para um mundo em sofrimento. <\/p>\n

Naomi Klein \u00e9 jornalista premiada e colunista sindicalizada, autora dos best-sellers internacionais e do New York Times: “The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism\u201d (A Doutrina de Choque: o Avan\u00e7o do Capitalismo de Desastre) (setembro de 2007); e do best-seller internacional precedente: \u201cNo Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies\u201d, al\u00e9m da cole\u00e7\u00e3o de artigos \u201cFences and Windows: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Globalization Debate\u201d (Cercas e Janelas: Despachos das Linhas de Frente do Debate sobre a Globaliza\u00e7\u00e3o) (2002). <\/p>\n

Copyright \u00a9 2008 The Nation <\/strong><\/p>\n


\nIn English<\/p>\n

Published on Thursday, July 3, 2008 by The Nation <\/p>\n

Disaster Capitalism: State of Extortion
\nby Naomi Klein
\n<\/strong>
\nOnce oil passed $140 a barrel, even the most rabidly right-wing media hosts had to prove their populist cred by devoting a portion of every show to bashing Big Oil. Some have gone so far as to invite me on for a friendly chat about an insidious new phenomenon: \u201cdisaster capitalism.\u201d It usually goes well\u2013until it doesn\u2019t. <\/p>\n

For instance, \u201cindependent conservative\u201d radio host Jerry Doyle and I were having a perfectly amiable conversation about sleazy insurance companies and inept politicians when this happened: \u201cI think I have a quick way to bring the prices down,\u201d Doyle announced. \u201cWe\u2019ve invested $650 billion to liberate a nation of 25 million people. Shouldn\u2019t we just demand that they give us oil? There should be tankers after tankers backed up like a traffic jam getting into the Lincoln Tunnel, the Stinkin\u2019 Lincoln, at rush hour with thank-you notes from the Iraqi government\u2026. Why don\u2019t we just take the oil? We\u2019ve invested it liberating a country. I can have the problem solved of gas prices coming down in ten days, not ten years.\u201dThere were a couple of problems with Doyle\u2019s plan, of course. The first was that he was describing the biggest stickup in world history. The second, that he was too late: \u201cWe\u201d are already heisting Iraq\u2019s oil, or at least are on the cusp of doing so. <\/p>\n

It\u2019s been ten months since the publication of my book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism , in which I argue that today\u2019s preferred method of reshaping the world in the interest of multinational corporations is to systematically exploit the state of fear and disorientation that accompanies moments of great shock and crisis. With the globe being rocked by multiple shocks, this seems like a good time to see how and where the strategy is being applied. <\/p>\n

And the disaster capitalists have been busy\u2013from private firefighters already on the scene in Northern California\u2019s wildfires, to land grabs in cyclone-hit Burma, to the housing bill making its way through Congress. The bill contains little in the way of affordable housing, shifts the burden of mortgage default to taxpayers and makes sure that the banks that made bad loans get some payouts. No wonder it is known in the hallways of Congress as \u201cThe Credit Suisse Plan,\u201d after one of the banks that generously proposed it. <\/p>\n

Iraq Disaster: We Broke It, We (Just) Bought It <\/p>\n

But these cases of disaster capitalism are amateurish compared with what is unfolding at Iraq\u2019s oil ministry. It started with no-bid service contracts announced for ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP and Total (they have yet to be signed but are still on course). Paying multinationals for their technical expertise is not unusual. What is odd is that such contracts almost invariably go to oil service companies\u2013not to the oil majors, whose work is exploring, producing and owning carbon wealth. As London-based oil expert Greg Muttitt points out, the contracts make sense only in the context of reports that the oil majors have insisted on the right of first refusal on subsequent contracts handed out to manage and produce Iraq\u2019s oil fields. In other words, other companies will be free to bid on those future contracts, but these companies will win. <\/p>\n

One week after the no-bid service deals were announced, the world caught its first glimpse of the real prize. After years of back-room arm-twisting, Iraq is officially flinging open six of its major oil fields, accounting for around half of its known reserves, to foreign investors. According to Iraq\u2019s oil minister, the long-term contracts will be signed within a year. While ostensibly under control of the Iraq National Oil Company, foreign firms will keep 75 percent of the value of the contracts, leaving just 25 percent for their Iraqi partners. <\/p>\n

That kind of ratio is unheard of in oil-rich Arab and Persian states, where achieving majority national control over oil was the defining victory of anticolonial struggles. According to Muttitt, the assumption until now was that foreign multinationals would be brought in to develop brand-new fields in Iraq\u2013not to take over ones that are already in production and therefore require minimal technical support. \u201cThe policy was always to allocate these fields to the Iraq National Oil Company,\u201d he told me. This is a total reversal of that policy, giving INOC a mere 25 percent instead of the planned 100 percent. <\/p>\n

So what makes such lousy deals possible in Iraq, which has already suffered so much? Ironically, it is Iraq\u2019s suffering\u2013its never-ending crisis\u2013that is the rationale for an arrangement that threatens to drain its treasury of its main source of revenue. The logic goes like this: Iraq\u2019s oil industry needs foreign expertise because years of punishing sanctions starved it of new technology and the invasion and continuing violence degraded it further. And Iraq urgently needs to start producing more oil. Why? Again because of the war. The country is shattered, and the billions handed out in no-bid contracts to Western firms have failed to rebuild the country. And that\u2019s where the new no-bid contracts come in: they will raise more money, but Iraq has become such a treacherous place that the oil majors must be induced to take the risk of investing. Thus the invasion of Iraq neatly creates the argument for its subsequent pillage. <\/p>\n

Several of the architects of the Iraq War no longer even bother to deny that oil was a major motivator. On National Public Radio\u2019s To the Point , Fadhil Chalabi, one of the primary Iraqi advisers to the Bush Administration in the lead-up to the invasion, recently described the war as \u201ca strategic move on the part of the United States of America and the UK to have a military presence in the Gulf in order to secure [oil] supplies in the future.\u201d Chalabi, who served as Iraq\u2019s oil under secretary and met with the oil majors before the invasion, described this as \u201ca primary objective.\u201d <\/p>\n

Invading countries to seize their natural resources is illegal under the Geneva Conventions. That means that the huge task of rebuilding Iraq\u2019s infrastructure\u2013including its oil infrastructure\u2013is the financial responsibility of Iraq\u2019s invaders. They should be forced to pay reparations. (Recall that Saddam Hussein\u2019s regime paid $9 billion to Kuwait in reparations for its 1990 invasion.) Instead, Iraq is being forced to sell 75 percent of its national patrimony to pay the bills for its own illegal invasion and occupation. <\/p>\n

Oil Price Shock: Give Us the Arctic or Never Drive Again <\/p>\n

Iraq isn\u2019t the only country in the midst of an oil-related stickup. The Bush Administration is busily using a related crisis\u2013the soaring price of fuel\u2013to revive its dream of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). And of drilling offshore. And in the rock-solid shale of the Green River Basin. \u201cCongress must face a hard reality,\u201d said George W. Bush on June 18. \u201cUnless members are willing to accept gas prices at today\u2019s painful levels\u2013or even higher\u2013our nation must produce more oil.\u201d <\/p>\n

This is the President as Extortionist in Chief, with gas nozzle pointed to the head of his hostage\u2013which happens to be the entire country. Give me ANWR, or everyone has to spend their summer vacations in the backyard. A final stickup from the cowboy President. <\/p>\n

Despite the Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less bumper stickers, drilling in ANWR would have little discernible impact on actual global oil supplies, as its advocates well know. The argument that it could nonetheless bring down oil prices is based not on hard economics but on market psychoanalysis: drilling would \u201csend a message\u201d to the oil traders that more oil is on the way, which would cause them to start betting down the price. <\/p>\n

Two points follow from this approach. First, trying to psych out hyperactive commodity traders is what passes for governing in the Bush era, even in the midst of a national emergency. Second, it will never work. If there is one thing we can predict from the oil market\u2019s recent behavior, it is that the price is going to keep going up regardless of what new supplies are announced. <\/p>\n

Take the massive oil boom under way in Alberta\u2019s notorious tar sands. The tar sands (sometimes called the oil sands) have the same things going for them as Bush\u2019s proposed drill sites: they are nearby and perfectly secure, since the North American Free Trade Agreement contains a provision barring Canada from cutting off supply to the United States. And with little fanfare, oil from this largely untapped source has been pouring into the market, so much so that Canada is now the largest supplier of oil to the United States, surpassing Saudi Arabia. Between 2005 and 2007, Canada increased its exports to the States by almost 100 million barrels. Yet despite this significant increase in secure supplies, oil prices have been going up the entire time. <\/p>\n

What is driving the ANWR push is not facts but pure shock doctrine strategy\u2013the oil crisis has created the conditions in which it is possible to sell a previously unsellable (but highly profitable) policy. <\/p>\n

Food Price Shock: Genetic Modification or Starvation <\/p>\n

Intimately connected to the price of oil is the global food crisis. Not only do high gas prices drive up food costs but the boom in agrofuels has blurred the line between food and fuel, pushing food growers off their land and encouraging rampant speculation. Several Latin American countries have been pushing to re-examine the push for agrofuels and to have food recognized as a human right, not a mere commodity. United States Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte has other ideas. In the same speech touting the US commitment to emergency food aid, he called on countries to lower their \u201cexport restrictions and high tariffs\u201d and eliminate \u201cbarriers to use of innovative plant and animal production technologies, including biotechnology.\u201d This was an admittedly more subtle stickup, but the message was clear: impoverished countries had better crack open their agricultural markets to American products and genetically modified seeds, or they could risk having their aid cut off. <\/p>\n

Genetically modified crops have emerged as the cureall for the food crisis, at least according to the World Bank, the European Commission president (time to \u201cbite the bullet\u201d) and Prime Minister of Britain Gordon Brown. And, of course, the agribusiness companies. \u201cYou cannot today feed the world without genetically modified organisms,\u201d Peter Brabeck, chairman of Nestl\u00e9, told the Financial Times recently. The problem with this argument, at least for now, is that there is no evidence that GMOs increase crop yields, and they often decrease them. <\/p>\n

But even if there was a simple key to solving the global food crisis, would we really want it in the hands of the Nestl\u00e9s and Monsantos? What would it cost us to use it? In recent months Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF have been frenetically buying up patents on so-called \u201cclimate ready\u201d seeds\u2013plants that can grow in earth parched from drought and salinated from flooding. <\/p>\n

In other words, plants built to survive a future of climate chaos. We already know the lengths Monsanto will go to protect its intellectual property, spying on and suing farmers who dare to save their seeds from one year to the next. We have seen patented AIDS medications fail to treat millions in sub-Saharan Africa. Why would patented \u201cclimate ready\u201d crops be any different? <\/p>\n

Meanwhile, amid all the talk of exciting new genetic and drilling technologies, the Bush Administration announced a moratorium of up to two years on new solar energy projects on federal lands\u2013due, apparently, to environmental concerns. This is the final frontier for disaster capitalism. Our leaders are failing to invest in technology that will actually prevent a future of climate chaos, choosing instead to work hand in hand with those plotting innovative schemes to profit from the mayhem. <\/p>\n

Privatizing Iraq\u2019s oil, ensuring global dominance for genetically modified crops, lowering the last of the trade barriers and opening the last of the wildlife refuges\u2026 Not so long ago, those goals were pursued through polite trade agreements, under the benign pseudonym \u201cglobalization.\u201d Now this discredited agenda is forced to ride on the backs of serial crises, selling itself as lifesaving medicine for a world in pain. <\/p>\n

Naomi Klein is an award-winning journalist and syndicated columnist and the author of the international and New York Times bestseller The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (September 2007); an earlier international best-seller, No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies ; and the collection Fences and Windows: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Globalization Debate (2002). <\/p>\n

Copyright \u00a9 2008 The Nation <\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Fonte:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[38,37,27,29,26,28],"class_list":["post-12","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-lance-de-dados","tag-alimentos","tag-bush","tag-capitalismo-desastre","tag-iraque","tag-naomi-klein","tag-petroleo"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/imediata.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/imediata.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/imediata.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/imediata.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/imediata.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/imediata.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/imediata.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/imediata.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/imediata.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}