“unstable” or “politically volatile” countries in the Middle East, characterised (or caricatured) as a zone dominated by “theocrats and autocrats”,51 are vulnerable (without exploring how the “fragility” of such states is linked to the development of oil). Attention is also drawn to the actions of oil-rich countries deemed unfriendly towards the West, such as Venezuela and Iran. For the mainstream “energy security” discourse, the upshot is clear: grab and lock-in energy resources before competitors do and then keep them out of their hands, all the while easing the scarcity created by “political unreliability” by diversifying energy types, country sources and supply routes. Whilst the European Commission sees all this being achieved through the exercise of “soft” power – partnership agreements with foreign governments, the extension of free trade agreements and adherence to the Energy Charter52 – others take a more aggressive view of what is needed to ensure that the European Union has access to the energy it needs. Václav Bartuška, the ambassador at large for energy security for the Czech Republic, is blunt: “The debate should start with a simple fact: more than 95 per cent of the world’s known oil and gas resources are now controlled by the governments of nation states. Most of these states have no special reasons to like Europe and will do us no favours. We like to see ourselves as a model for others, a benign giant loved by all. But much of the planet (and definitely many oil and gas producers) see us simply as rich and weak: ideal for blackmail . . . “Unlike the United States, which has often been prepared to use force even far away from its shores, most Europeans prefer ‘soft power’. But words neither fill tankers nor protect pipelines. Unlike China, which is prepared to sign energy deals with any kind of government, we claim to shun dictators. In reality, we are only postponing difficult choices. When it comes to energy, Europe is the great procrastinator . . . “Today, Europe – once the sword-master of the world – is a military dwarf. To be taken seriously in any forthcoming battle over resources, Europe needs to increase its military muscle and change its attitude towards conflict.”53 Bartuška’s benign but false depiction of Europe and his militarism are heirs to a long history of imperial adventurism that continues to frame many mainstream responses to energy scarcity. The “soft power” solutions are no less imperialist or violent in their ambitions or impacts. In the name of “energy security”, land, rivers, estuaries and forests in the South are being directly “grabbed” by multinational corporations and investors from Eu“(The) supply-and-demand driven rope and elsewhere in a scramble to acquire, promodel of oil market behaviour . . . duce and trade energy – and to obtain “sinks” in which obscures the role of power relations to dump carbon emissions (see pp.34ff, 56ff). The result is a new wave of enclosures that not only exacerbate current scarcities and insecurities but also create new ones. February 2012 Energy Security For What? For Whom?
and speculative profiteering in that market.” Anna Zalik, “Oil ‘futures’”, 2010. 54
31