In order for us to deal with this issue and how it relates to Global Security, we must first deconstruct the term.  Talking about Global Security in general is useless as far as oil is concerned.  It must be divided into it's many different facets and each examined individually.  For these purposes, Economic, Political and Environmental security will be studied in relation to oil.  There are other aspects of Global Security, but these are the facets I believe are most relevant to the Oil Dilemma.  I feel this is the best way of examining the issue as it allows us to concentrate and specify on the most important areas.

Before we move any further, the term 'Energy Security' must also be examined.  As I discovered from my readings (Fried, 1993, p1), energy security is not the the protection of the physical supply of oil, more the prevention of fluctuation in oil prices.  The possibility of the supply of oil ever being totally disrupted is very slim.  It is more likely that the price of oil will fluctuate, causing economic damage in the west.  This is the main fear behind the American intervention in the Middle East.  With the west so dependent on oil, a significant rise in prices could signal economic disaster.
 
 
 

The above was the case during the 1970s with the series of oil crisis'.  In 1973, prices rocketed to almost 1000% (Harf, 1986, p69), though this was partly due to the embargo against Israel's allies.  This jump was caused by a wary OPEC cutting back on exports and, hence driving up prices.  Later in the decade, at the time of the Iranian Revolution in 1979, there was a 150% price increase (Fried, 1993, p71).  More recently, during the Gulf War, the price of a barrel of oil jumped from $16 to $34 in the space of 3 months (Fried, 1993, p73).  These increases are obviously related to times of crisis.  Every time there is a problem, be it political or military, OPEC becomes more cautious and reduces supply.

This link between economic prosperity/price of oil and the political climate in the Middle East is obviously worrying when you consider global economic security.  The Middle East is an area prone to strife and conflict.  This is due to a plethora of cultural and historical factors and has very little to do with oil.  Hence, if oil prices will rise every time there is tension there, it is a major problem.  This is the primary reason for the West being so involved in the region.  America and it's allies are protecting their economic interests by attempting to bring peace to the area.  These attempts are likely to continue until there is a permanent peace or until demand for oil drops.  It is impossible to say which will come first.

In addition, it makes good economic sense for Western companies to invest in new technologies and , eventually, in the search for a replacement for oil.  When you consider the dependence on oil for so many basic functions in society (heating, transport etc.), it is obvious that any successor(s) will be incredibly profitable.  This becomes especially relevant when you consider the large government subsidies for cleaner technologies and the research into them.  In order to be the most prepared, it is important that such companies begin this process as soon as possible in order to reduce the effects of competition.
 
 

While the issue of global warming is still debated, air pollution is now recognized as a major problem.  In brief, it involves the emissions of dangerous gases and particles, such as sulphar dioxide, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides.  The largest contributor to this problem, however, is carbon dioxide, from the combustion of oil, coal and natural gasses.  Indeed, the combustion of fossil fuels account for 60% of all carbon dioxide emissions (Fried, 1993, p48).  Over the last 125 years, more than 140 billion tons of carbon have been released into the atmosphere, where half of it still remains (Harf, 1986, p129).

Examples of environmental damage caused by these emissions are plentiful.  Sweden has 90-100 000 lakes, 20 000 of which are now ecologically dead due to acid rain (Harf, 1986, p125).  This is ironic as Sweden possesses some of the strictest environmental laws in the world.  This highlights the issue of pollution as a global problem.  In Poland, in the area surrounding Katowice, trains run at a 40 mph limit because of acid rain damage to the tracks (Harf, 1986, p125).  In the United States, 200 lakes in the Adriondack mountains are fishless due to acid rain (Harf, 1986, p125).

From the above examples, it is obvious that the continued use of oil is a grave threat to global environmental security.  As we saw previously, some countries have tightened regulations domestically.  It is, however, in the International arena the it really matters.  The lack of enforcement of the Kyoto agreements and the recent disappointments in the Hague have only served to stall progress (further reading on which can be found in - Rourke, 2000, p310-326).  As Sweden can readily testify, the environment is a global issue and only global co-operation will bear fruit.  The central problem is that the issue of the environment is not politically powerful.  Economic interests tend to override environmental issues at this point.  That I believe will change through time.  The environment will gain more and more political credibility until it is powerful enough to force the governments into action.  Only time will tell if this comes too late.
 
 
 

Political security is also threatened by the oil dilemma.  The most obvious case is the Arab/Israeli conflict.  Politically the west has a great deal of effort and interest invested in the success of this process for reasons we have discussed above.  Despite the recent tensions, it is important to remember that great strides have been taken in the past decade and that more time (and patience) will be required in order to secure further progress.  It is important, therefore, that the west does not push too hard, too soon.  Another area of political insecurity is in Saudi Arabia.  With the succession of King Fahd likely to be sooner rather than later, any contest towards the heir would cause serious problems in OPEC's largest producer.

There are, however, positive signs emerging from the Middle East.  The Gulf War provided an example to others that any naked aggression in the region would be swiftly dealt with.  No 'rogue state' would dare step out of line for fear of western reprisals.  In addition, The demise of the Soviet Union has removed it's influence from the region.  It will take a great length of time before Russia re-establishes itself in the Middle East.  Of course, there are many who believe that the United States is just as corrosive an influence as the USSR was, though this is another issue entirely.

In addition, there is the perceived threat of 'Islamic Fundamentalism.' Many (western) analysts fear that the rise of this phenomena could lead to instability as states become more militant towards the west.  While a return to a stricter form of Islam could certainly position moderate Arab nations further away from western ideals, the opposing forces of globalization and economic necessity are likely, in that event, to cancel this out.  Finally the west should be very careful in dealing with such sensitive issue.  Many have already claimed that America practices cultural imperialism and the current climate of ignorant demonization of all things Islamic will do the west no favors in future dealings with the region.

Overall, all these factors are interconnected, whether they are Environmental, Economic or Political.  While Global Security cannot be dealt with in general, it cannot be broken down completely.  It is therefore important for people to realize that if an event or action influences one area of Global Security, it is likely to effect (directly or indirectly) other areas as well.