Wednesday, December 14, 2005


I watched the new George Clooney flim Syriana this week. It was a rather disjointed and confusing movie. I know that nonsequential plots seem to be the big thing now adays but enough is enough. Through the first half of the film each piece was self-contained and the various plots could be followed, but I almost wished I could take notes to keep track of who was doing what.

It also represented a rather closed view of American business with the rest of the world. In the film, an oil executive stated that the Chinese economy had never reached it full potential because they could not get sufficient oil and he was proud of that fact. When you consider the ever closer integration of manufacturing between the US and Asia, restrictions on Chinese oil basically results in higher prices in American stores. Perhaps I am a little over enthusiastic about Thomas Barnett's arguement that through globalization (economic and security) peace will develop or Thomas Friedman's arguements about the flattening nature of the world based on economic integration, but if these two are even close to correct, then oil executives such as the one represented in the film and creating massive blocks to both economic development but also world peace.

The film also suggests that the Chinese are willing to stand by and do nothing as the CIA assasinates an Arab Emir to prevent him from awarding an oil contract to China. I find this rather difficult to believe.


Blogger exMI said...

I think the point is that the oil executive is interested in his profits and if keeping China down, killing and Arab Shiek, or endangering world peace is the price of doing that, well so be it. (I of course am guessing since I haven't seen the movie, just heard soem reviews)

Peaople thought economic integration would bring peace to europe back inthe early 20th century too. didn't work then, I don't put alot of faith in the idea now.

7:14 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home