The Price of Oil and Changes in Russian Politics

Much of Vladimir Putin's bellicose actions in Crimea and Ukraine have been motivated by a desperate need to distract the Russian People from the rank corruption and mismanagement that are a hallmark of the Putin regime.   As a piece in The Economist discloses,  past Russian aggression has corresponded to periods when oil prices and hence revenues flowing into Russia have been high.  Now, with oil prices plummeting - when I filled up my car this weekend with premium (a drawback of a Mercedes) the price was $2.249/gallon - Russia's economy is reeling.  Thus, past behavior makes one wonder whether or not Russia may find it necessary to mollify nations it has been antagonizing of late or whether Putin will continue his Hitler want to be policies.  Here are some article highlights:

IN DECEMBER 1979 Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan. The oil price at the time was at its peak of $101 a barrel. The high price combined with fast-growing production of oil in Western Siberia provided the Soviet Union with unprecedented revenues. Instead of saving this money for a rainy day, the Soviet government financed foreign adventures and imports of food. Seven years later the Brent crude oil price fell to around $30 a barrel and Mikhail Gorbachev launched the policy of Perestroika (restructuring) and convergence with the West. The high oil price coincided with Soviet aggression, but as the price fell the Soviet Union became more democratic and friendly to the West.

That the oil price correlated with Soviet politics is not surprising – in the uncompetitive command economy oil and gas revenues accounted for 67% of all exports. But the correlation remained just as strong after the end of the Soviet Union and transition to a market economy, and oil and gas remained the main source of Russian export revenues. When Vladimir Putin came to power the price of oil was $25 a barrel. Mr Putin allied himself with America, did not object to NATO’s enlargement that took in the Baltic States and saw September 11^th 2001 as Russia’s chance to get closer to NATO. Seven years later the oil price was at $105 a barrel and Russia invaded Georgia and the relationship with America was at the point of nadir, but thanks to the global financial crisis oil prices fell to $67 a barrel and Russia accepted America's reset policy even though it soon went sour.

Russia’s latest and most serious foreign adventure in Ukraine and its annexation of Crimea took place when the price of oil was still over $100 a barrel. But as the oil price fell Russia has not (so far) become any friendlier to the West nor to its neighbours. Mr Putin seems determined to break that correlation.

Mr Putin seems determined to break that correlation. Indeed, he has offered the war and patriotic euphoria as a compensation for the falling oil prices and lack of economic growth. The only way to bend the trend is by escalating aggression. This year will see a contest between Mr Putin's regime and the oil price. It will not be a pretty sight.

 

Why Africa’s Turning Anti-Gay

Sadly, news out of much of Africa is increasingly depressing as ignorant and corrupt rulers are using gays as a scapegoat for colonialism - even though it is colonialism that brought anti-gay laws to the continent in the first place - and a way to distract a gullible public from the massive misrule by their leaders.  Making the situation even worse are the efforts of American Christofascists to export homophobia to Africa even as they are losing the so-called culture wars in the west and America in particular.  For their brand of religion to thrive, one needs an ignorant populace and they have that in much of Africa. A piece in The Daily Beast looks at the unfortunate situation.  Here are highlights:

[A]fter a story about George Freeman, director of the Sierra Leone LGBT organization Pride Equality, was published in a local newspaper last year—with photos accompanying it—he was dragged from his car and beaten by two men on motorcycles.

Freeman never consented to the story; the newspaper culled its content from an MTV interview. His assailants were never caught.

There are many stories like Freeman’s, of course, and the situation is steadily getting worse, even as LGBTs have made remarkable progress here—or perhaps because of it.  In fact, the rising tide of anti-gay sentiment in sub-Saharan Africa, as elsewhere, is an ironic brew of anti-Westernism and Western influence.  And well-meaning American activists may be making it worse.

Homosexual acts are illegal in 78 countries. Of these, 21 are small island nations, 20 are in the Islamic world, and 33 are in sub-Saharan Africa. In all three categories, almost all anti-gay laws are a vestige of European colonialism, and date back approximately 150 years.

Ironically, anti-gay leaders—politicians, clergy, journalists—in Uganda, Kenya, Nigeria, Cameroon, Ethiopia and Sierra Leone have all, within the last month, called gay rights, and homosexuality itself, a “Western” innovation that must be resisted in order to preserve “traditional African values.”

In fact, pre-colonial African traditions varied widely. Over 20 cultural varieties of indigenous African same-sex intimacy have been recorded by anthropologists. There are Bushmen paintings of men having sex with one another. There are countless examples of cross-dressing and cross-gender behavior. There are instances of female warriors marrying other female warriors, such as in the kingdom of Dahomey, in present-day Benin—unsurprisingly, the Europeans called them ‘Amazons.’  There are even cases of male homosexuality being seen as possessing magical properties, such as the transmission of wealth from one person to another.

The irony would be funny if it weren’t tragic: cultures with rich traditions of sexual diversity now asserting that sexual diversity is Western, and that Western anti-gay bias is a traditional cultural value.

“African” ideas about homosexuality are often those spread by American Evangelicals, out to colonize Africa spiritually rather than politically.  Lou Engle, Scott Lively, Human Life International—these are not household names in the United States, and that’s precisely the point. Like has-been basketball players dunking baskets in Europe, the leftovers of the American Evangelical scene have found new life in Africa.

These Westerners bring (relative) wads of cash and influence, and are gladly met by opportunistic African leaders. Each group is using the other: Evangelicals shift policy and are able to raise money back home, and their African collaborators can posture against Western imperialism and get rich.

The notion that developing world countries should leapfrog 40 years of social history, and the corresponding one that Western sanctions should whip them if they don’t, only feeds the flames of anti-Western sentiment and bolsters the political position of anti-Western posturing.

There are alternatives. Donor nations could support those countries who have passed anti-discrimination laws (Botswana and Mozambique, for example), replacing the Western stick with a carrot. . . . Most importantly, European and American funders can support a fight for equality in Africa led by Africans themselves.