Do Western business ties with Islamic world preclude Separationism?

An Indian living in the West writes:

In theory, “separationism” sounds great. But what would be a major obstacle? For starters, the relations between powerful business interests and the oil rich Arabs. And here I don’t just mean opportunistic merchant bankers who want to get their cut from the sheiks but also the defence industry and any manner of other business interests. At current oil prices Saudi Arabia’s existing reserves are worth $80 trillion or more.

The fact is that separationism won’t happen for a number of reasons. But moneyed interests are a very major reason why that is.

LA replies:

Your argument against the possibility of separationism could as readily be used against all the people (basically all mainstream conservatives) who advocate energy independence: you could say it is impossible for us ever to become independent of Muslim oil, because we have too many business interests tapped into Muslim oil. Obviously, if our society reached the point where it decided as a fundamental matter of national security and national sovereignty that we must become independent of Muslim oil, then those business interests would have to be sacrificed.

Thus your argument is no more telling against my radical policy of separationism than it is against the mainstream conservative policy of energy independence.

ILA replies:

Energy independence is a nice sounding phrase. But what is really means is learning to make do without oil—something which no one has figured out yet. There isn’t a rich industrialised nation on this planet that has managed this yet—even though there are many who would like to, if not anything, for environmental reasons.

But this is not just about energy “independence.” Even if we could miraculously find ways of doing without oil, there would still be the trillions that the Saudis and other Arabs have invested in the West’s financial markets. If they withdrew that money, the U.S. economy would collapse.

It all comes down to the basics—are the people of the West willing to sacrifice physical well being and comforts today for a country free of an Islamic menace tomorrow. I think the answer is an overwhelming no. It is the same reason why your government seems incapable of enforcing the border with Mexico. The cheap labour lobby has corrupted Washington in fundamental ways.

By the way, it is not “my argument”—I am just stating the facts and the problems we face. There is perhaps no one who would like to see the West free of Muslims more than me or an India free of Muslims more than me.

Karen in England writes:

Your Indian friend is correct although he didn’t give you the right examples. Arab investment in Europe and especially England is huge and this is a reason why the elites cannot contemplate a process of separation from the Islamic world. They are well and truly in the pockets of the Arabs and their continued affluent lifestyles are in many ways dependent upon continued good relationships with Arabs and indeed their patronage.

The Gulf States of UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are overflowing with vast reserves of cash. They have invested very heavily buying British companies:

London Stock Exchange—50 percent owned by Dubai and Qatar
P&O—owned by Dubai
Many investment funds owned by Gulf States
HSBC—Qatar is a large shareholder
Large amount of UK property owned by Arabs.
Many more companies have heavy shareholdings and some times outright control by Arabs.
Dubai wants to buy British Airways.
Qatar wants to buy Sainsburys.

Also, many of the elites act as consultants and advisers to the Arabs in the following areas:

Security
Due diligence
Investment
Banking
Law
Weapons
Management
Technology

Thus the removal of the Arabs would lead to a collapse in property values which are the main driver of the economy, and the collapse of other companies. Who would buy the Arabs shares ? The Chinese ? The Russians? All bad news.

The only way of making separationism work is expropriation of Arab property. This would have to be done quickly and decisively and as a prelude to a war. And there are too many vested interests against it.

LA replies:

I’m sorry folks, but I don’t take these coneerns about a removal of Arab investment dollars seriously. Every few years there has been some economic event—such as the S&L crisis, and others I can’t even remember—which at the time were described as portending total economic catastrophe, yet no such catastrophe occurred and the economy went humming along.

On the oil question, if energy independence is not a viable option in the short or medium term, we should not forget the emergency option of our taking over the Persian Gulf oil wells.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 23, 2007 05:31 PM | Send