[[ Check out my Wordpress blog Context/Earth for environmental and energy topics tied together in a semantic web framework ]]

Monday, March 20, 2006

The New De Beers?

After reading Greg Palast's latest rant (with the expected snark on the side), I figure that the USA may intend on becoming the next De Beers, albeit not trading in diamonds -- if you know what I mean. It certainly makes sense; the BushCo government has earned the reputation of a corporatist heavy with shadowy thugs hanging around the periphery; they know the financial importance of a limited resource; they will quash any attempts to come up with cheaper alternatives; and they will do anything to keep their top-heavy lifestyle going.
It is a brilliant operation. Over the past 60 years the CSO has done for diamonds something that eluded the oil producers of OPEC and even the cocaine barons of the Medellin cartel. It had the muscle and the nerve to impose its own order on the market, and it built a syndicate not for weeks or months but for decades.
Link: After World War II that company even set up its own intelligence service. It also controlled the supply of diamonds from most of the other major producers through its Central Selling Organisation (CSO). The firm is De Beers. It was supported both by the White government of South Africa and the Soviet Union, yet it survived the ending of Apartheid and the collapse of Communism. At the start of the new millennium it faces its gravest challenges yet and has radically changed tactics to ensure its continued success and to prevent diamonds from financing civil wars.
As "the world's longest running monopoly" starts to decline, we might see the rise of a new corporate cartel destined to take the mantle away from De Beers. Who says a petro-military-industrial complex run by Halliburton Jr. can't assimilate OPEC and become De Borg?

Update: Thanks to Big Gav for an interesting link, as this CounterCurrents article independently matches Palast's statement, " But what if the real reason was to secure Iraq’s oil supplies, perhaps not for immediate use, and perhaps not even for use by the United States? Then the invasion of Iraq would have to be judged a success, a “mission accomplished,” so to speak.".

1 Comments:

Professor Blogger JasonSpalding said...

Iraq --- Cold War II --- Back with a vengeance!

The war in Iraq is a critical blunder by State Department of the United States. The U.S.S.R. was before its break up was allied with Iran in its war against Iraq. Iraq at the time had the support of the State Department of the United States. You remember the Axiom the enemy of my enemy is my friend. So when the U.S.S.R. dissolved some in the state department that we no longer had to keep supporting Iraq. So Saddam stopped getting the due he was felt so he tried to conquer Kuwait. This pissed off to many in the world so the U.S.A. and the rest of the world stepped in and sent his soldiers packing back to Iraq. Now when Iraq became has become further destabilized the U.S. had to go in and insure the safety of our worlds needed oil supply. Flash forward till now and what is happening Iran wants to control its nuclear destiny and who is supporting them Russia a former member of the U.S.S.R. club. So the real question is Russia attempting a come back?

10:09 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


"Like strange bulldogs sniffing each other's butts, you could sense wariness from both sides"