Charlie Rose - 2005 12 09 - Stephen Gaghan (writer/director, Syriana) (PDTV SoS)

STEPHEN GAGHAN Writer/Director, "Syriana" Xvid 512x384 @ 498 kb/s MP3 @ 103 kb/s (51/ch, stereo) VBR LAME3.96r Please keep the torrent alive once completed. I'll do my best to keep the torrent seeded for two weeks. Please support your local PBS Station by making a contribution or by purchasing their DVDs ------------ Content Type: [News] [Talk] ------------ SoS = http://www.sonofshun.com/forums IRC: #sonofshun @ efnet Capped by wferrari from SoS. ------------ This is an excellent interview with Stephen Gaghan, writer/director of the movie "Syriana". I post this here because the scope of this interview goes beyond just promoting a Hollywood movie; it has a very interesting and highly relevant discussion about US energy interests and US foreign policy in the Middle east. Stephen Gagan is a highly informed and intelligent fellow, which makes for a fantastic interview. He is by no means a raging "Hollywood liberal" (and I don't consider that term a pejorative, but I just wanted to point that out) or a conspiracy theorist. In fact, I thought that Gaghan was many times too hesitant to say anything too controversial in this interview and was more inclined to hint and say things indirectly rather than just coming and just fucking saying the obvious. I suppose that is because Gaghan is not a political activist but a storyteller and screenwriter and he's simply trying to promote a movie here, not launch into a long and detailed examination of US foreign policy in the Middle East. Still, the interview was very interesting because he is clearly very well informed about the Middle-East and about US energy needs, and is able to talk about these issues beyond simply a superficial level. Gaghan also has some very entertaining tales of his encounters with everyone from CIA agents to Middle-Eastern royalty to Washington elites to even a senior Hezbollah offical! Gaghan gives a very entertaining and thrilling account of a meeting with senior Hezbollah leader in Beirut.. you gotta hear for yourself some of the things this Hezbollah official says to him. First, apparently the Hezbollah are movie fans (?!), because he compliments Gaghan on the movie Traffic, whose screenplay Gaghan wrote. Then suddenly the Hezbollah official changes subject from Traffic to pontificating on the benefits of cloning and his edict against human cloning. Hilarious and bizarre stuff. His final comment/threat to Gaghan, though, is more chilling than funny... and is something Americans should pay very close attention to. Gaghan also narrates a meeting with some US-energy-sector elites and the very disturbing conversation he witnessed between them involving overthrowing specific governments of oil-rich countries, after which the whole Venezuala coup against Chavez took place. Take what you will from that.. but this is why I'll pay at least some attention to conspiracy theorists when it comes to US foreign policy. Not that there is anything remotely fringe or "tin-foil-hat territory" about the notion that the US energy sector wields enormous power and influence with the US government, including influencing US foreign policy, nor the notion that the US would overthrow democratically elected governments of oil-rich countries to suit its interests. The history of US foreign policy is replete with examples of precisely those things. Especially now, with ex oil-men like Bush and Cheney running the country, this is hardly something to dismiss that readily or to sneer at as "loony-left" or "crazy conspiracy" theories. But the most important and highly relevant topic of discussion in this interview is, of course, US energy interests and US foreign policy in the Middle east, which are obviously, blatantly, and inexorably intertwined, despite the reluctance of the US government, the foreign policy elites, the US corporate media, or even Americans themselves, to honestly admit. Gaghan talks about this subject with more depth and intelligence than the simplisitic "blood for oil" rhetoric.. although, I would argue even that isn't too far from the truth. You Americans are deluding yourselves if you think oil wasn't a reason for invading Iraq - it may not have been the only reason, but it was definitely a big reason. But that is another topic. Gaghan makes a comment here that, like all truths, is simple and cuts through bullshit, even if it might make Americans uncomfortable. Given how INCREDIBLY important energy and oil is to the US, economically and for "defense"; given the high standard of living American citizens enjoy that is predicated on a cheap, abundant, and guaranteed supply of oil from foreign sources; given how much of oil the US consumes (a quarter of the world's entire oil supplies); given all those facts, then of course those interests are going to govern US foreign policy, and of course the US would be willing to do pretty much anything to secure those energy supplies. "Democratic principles" and morality and innocent lives be damned. That's just fucking obvious. And is evident from examining the history of US foreign policy in the Middle-East. Anyone with even half a brain can figure that out. Hell, even Dubya figured it out. So why the reluctance of everyone from the government to the media to Americans to face up to the obvious and blatant truth? What Gaghan says is this: why doesn't the US government just admit this? Why not be transparent and have an honest discussion with its citizens about what energy and oil means to the US and the high standard of living that Americans enjoy? Why doesn't the government just say: "hey.. you guys better not complain about going to war to secure oil resources because your high standard of living is dependent on US hegemony in the Middle-East and world". Have an honest and transparent "realpolitik" discussion about the actions of the US government and about US foreign policy in the MIddle-East, instead of the whole "spreading freedom and democracy" and "they hate us for our freedom" bullshit. Be honest about the actions of your government, and the tacit approval of the American people in condoning those actions, and then be prepared to live with it. It's not like a lot of Americans aren't already implicitly or explicitly aware of these truths. They just choose to ignore them or delude themselves about the more fundamental reasons driving their country's actions. Don't delude the rest of the world and your citizens by claiming grand moral principles as the motivation for your foreign policy. Digby tackles the same issues in a great post and review of the movie Syriana on his blog. I highly recommend everyone who enjoyed this interview to read it in its entirety. It's a very well written piece. Here's the link: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_04_digbysblog_archive.html#113407985812599654 Here's are some relevant excerpts: The film observes various American and middle east actors running about with idealistic, nihilistic, greedy and personal agendas, bumping into each other sometimes at random and at others by design. But the single most important player is oil (which in real life, for reasons that are mystifying, is widely considered to be a tin-foil hat, loony-left explanation, even among liberals.) I don't normally consider myself a cynic, but on this topic, it's very hard not to be. In the final analysis, this really is a modern version of the Great Game. When we ask ourselves "why are we in Iraq?" it makes more sense to refine the question and ask whether we would be in Iraq if it weren't for oil. I think it's fairly obvious that we would not be. Terrorism, in the grand scheme of things, is not an existential threat no matter how hard the warbloggers wank. Invading Iraq was actually counter-productive to the threat of Islamic fundamentalism and may end up creating another Islamic state. Even the Bush administration knew that this was not an adequate rationale for invading Iraq so they pimped the WMD threat. ... Oil is certainly not the only reason we are in this mess. It is, perhaps, the fundamental reason we are in this mess. And it's the reason that this mess isn't going to be solved by either bringing the boys home or creating a "democracy" in the middle east. We may leave Iraq as an occupying force due to a lack of domestic support, or we might be chased from the region by violent events. But if we have any illusions that the United States is not going to be deeply involved in the middle east for the forseeable future, we need to wake up. Sadly, whether we know it or not, by our blind and profligate actions the American people lend credence to the insane ramblings of that miniskirted harpy, Ann Coulter: "Why not go to war just for oil? We need oil." Why not, indeed? I wonder what would happen if the question was posed just that starkly? At this point, the Great Game players, the oil companies and the politicians who dance to their tune are unwilling to put it that way. They work to keep citizens in the dark about what is at stake, encouraging them to guzzle cheap gasoline at a fantastic pace while droning out messianic statements about good and evil and spreading freedom.