Film Review: ‘Blood and Oil’
Michael T. Klare’s Blood and Oil. A film by the Media Education Foundation, 2008; 52 mins. Written by Michael T. Klare, Jeremy Earp, and Scott Morris. Directed by Jeremy Earp.
Middle Eastern oil resources have long been considered “a stupendous source of strategic power” by the United States, evidenced by a State Department memo from August 1945. According to progressive energy analyst Michael Klare in the new documentary Blood and Oil, the same oil resources are also a “source of weakness” for the US. Based on Michael Klare’s book of the same name, Blood and Oil examines the relationship between oil and US foreign policy. Serving as the film’s commentator, Klare sheds light on the importance of access and control of oil in presidential doctrines from FDR through the Bush administration. He argues that the control of the world’s energy resources has been foundational to US foreign policy since World War II. Blood and Oil demonstrates how US foreign policy and energy policy are essentially intertwined.
Since 1860, the US has been the leading consumer of petroleum. Despite being a mere 5% of the world’s population, the US oil-based economy consumes 25% of the world’s oil, approximately 20 million barrels per day. Well into the 1960s, the US was largely self-sufficient producing 80-90% of its own oil. However, US reliance on imported oil has drastically grown during the last two decades and, according to the Department of Energy, the US is expected to import 70% of its oil by 2025.
This energy and foreign policy was the product of FDR during World War II. The film shows archival footage of a February 14, 1945 meeting between President Roosevelt and King Ibn Saud. Klare highlights the blatant contradiction of Roosevelt meeting with a man who exemplified the values that the US was fighting against at the time. The meeting solidified the pact of US protection and development of the Kingdom for oil. Klare argues that the modern Saudi military is largely the creation of the US, supplying the Kingdom with weaponry, advisers, and technology. This also highlights how America’s calls for democratization ring terribly hollow as its longest and most steadfast ally in the Middle East is a feudal monarchy.
Across the Middle East, Klare reveals the different mechanisms and policies presidents use to retain America’s hegemonic status in the region. Most presidents’ foreign policies are informed by what Klare calls a “strategy of maximum extraction.” This strategy requires compliant and reliable regimes providing the US with continued access to oil. In other words, Middle East governments are run by those who will ensure that Washington’s objectives are met, regardless of their seeming commitment to democracy.
Africa is given prospective coverage in the film. Given its increasing dependence on imported oil, Klare contends that Africa is of “growing importance” to US geostrategic interests. The documentary implies that colonial renewal is underway, especially in oil-rich parts of Africa. AFRICOM – an African command post created by the Bush administration in February 2007 – is an indication of this development. In addition, China is developing an equally militarized foreign policy to counter US influence in the region.
Despite its political relevancy to US foreign policy, this documentary has limitations. The most troubling limitation of Blood and Oil is that Israel receives absolutely no discussion nor does Klare discuss the leverage the US gains over Middle Eastern regimes by withdrawing material and ideological support from Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestinian territories. The film also does not examine the beneficiaries of US oil policy, as it leaves out the role of corporations. The analytical focus is also a bit tenuous. The first half of the film examines presidential doctrines while the second half deals more with recent foreign policy endeavors. Furthermore, too much emphasis is placed on the Saudis at the beginning of the film which makes other significant players like Iran hard to understand in historical context. Also, the connections between Saudi Arabia and other regimes in the region are not concrete. Finally, the film is weak on prescriptions for dealing with the criminal and hazardous nature of US foreign policy.
Klare warns that if the US fails to adopt a different policy direction, then the 21st century is on course to be “very bloody and dangerous and painful.” Considering the recent historic (and exhaustive) presidential election in the US, Klare’s assertion makes it virtually impossible to ignore the foreign policy problems facing the Obama administration. Despite the analytical shortcomings of this film, Blood and Oil makes a compelling case that needs to be confronted and the Obama administration must make this issue central to their agenda. This is all the more imperative considering the remaining world’s oil production comes from politically sordid and unstable regions with two-thirds of world oil reserves being in five Middle Eastern countries. While it remains to be seen, the prospects do not look promising, considering all of the establishment foreign policy hawks that have been tapped to be part of the new administration. At least in the realm of foreign policy, Obama’s campaign declarations for “change” are unfortunately leaning closer and closer to platitudes than new paradigms.
Rather than viewing it as a definitive statement, Blood and Oil should be approached as a way to start a much needed dialogue on some of the problematic characteristics and consequences of US policy.
From The Geopolitics of Petroleum ACAS Blog Series
Keywords: Africom • Blood and Oil • China • Obama administration
