Singapore: The Unsung Hub of the Global Oil Trade
In the bustling maritime capital of Singapore, a small island in South East Asia plays a pivotal role in the global oil trade. Despite not having its own hydrocarbons, Singapore is as crucial to the oil industry as major oil-producing countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
Situated at the bottom of the Strait of Malacca, a narrow channel of sea between the Malay peninsula and the Indonesian island of Sumatra, Singapore serves as a vital choke point for global shipping. Approximately a quarter of the world’s oil supply passes through this strategic route on its journey from the Middle East to markets in East and South East Asia.
Singapore boasts one of the busiest ports in the world and is renowned as the largest bunkering port globally. Oil companies stack their barrels in Singapore during price dips, slowing the flow of oil. The island state is home to three oil refineries with a capacity of 1.3 million barrels a day, making it the fifth largest refiner on the planet. It is a major exporter of oil-derived products, including plastics, and serves as a crucial petrol station for international shipping.
Furthermore, Singapore is a key player in the oil trading market, hosting one of the world’s top oil markets. The country’s authoritarian, pro-western government has maintained a stronghold since gaining independence from Britain in 1965. The government’s close ties with the British establishment, reinforced by a praetorian guard of British-trained Gurkhas, ensure a western foothold in South East Asia, supporting the oil industry as it ships climate-breaking fuels to the Asian market.
In addition to its economic significance, Singapore serves as a strategic military base. The Changi naval base, located in the south-east of the island, not only houses Singapore’s navy but also the US navy’s seventh fleet. This partnership helps safeguard the Malacca Straits from threats like piracy and terrorism, further securing the oil trade routes passing through the region.
The British presence in Singapore, reminiscent of its colonial past, extends to military cooperation and logistical support. The UK maintains a small base in the north of the island, serving as a primary hub for British naval vessels stationed in the region. This alliance underscores the UK’s commitment to the prosperity and security of the Indo-Pacific region post-Brexit.
In a world where oil trade routes are critical to global energy supply, Singapore’s role as a hub for the oil industry cannot be underestimated. The island’s strategic location, thriving economy, and robust maritime infrastructure make it a linchpin in the complex web of global oil trade networks. As the world grapples with the challenges of climate change and energy security, Singapore’s significance in the oil industry is set to remain indispensable for years to come. The lack of response from the Bahraini embassy highlights the complexities and hidden agendas that often underlie international relationships. While Bahrain may seem like a small country in the Middle East, its strategic importance cannot be underestimated. The role of Western countries, particularly Britain, in propping up authoritarian regimes in the region is a well-documented phenomenon.
The case of Oman is a striking example of this. The British intervention in 1970, which saw the replacement of the sultan with his son, highlights the deep-seated historical ties between the two countries. The revelation of a secret ‘privy council’ of top British advisers who wielded immense influence over the Omani ruler sheds light on the extent of British involvement in Omani affairs.
The close relationship between Britain and Oman is further underscored by the significant British strategic interests in the country. Shell, a major shareholder in Oman’s oil and gas industry, plays a pivotal role in extracting fossil fuels from the Gulf state. The presence of three GCHQ bases in Oman, which monitor internet communications in the region, further cements Britain’s strategic interests in the country.
The military presence of Britain in the Gulf region, under Operation Kipion, aims to promote peace and stability while safeguarding the flow of oil and international trade. The substantial financial cost of these operations, which is largely borne by taxpayers, raises questions about the transparency and accountability of such military interventions.
The broader geopolitical context of global energy supplies underscores the importance of strategic locations like the Suez Canal, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, and the Indian Ocean. Britain’s military bases in Cyprus, Gibraltar, and the Chagos Islands play a crucial role in safeguarding key maritime chokepoints through which a significant portion of the world’s oil supply passes.
The continued presence of British military bases in these regions, often justified under the guise of safeguarding trade routes, raises concerns about the long-term implications of such interventions. The reliance on colonial history to maintain control over territories like Diego Garcia underscores the enduring legacy of imperialism in shaping contemporary geopolitical dynamics.
Ultimately, the intricate web of alliances and strategic interests that underpin Britain’s military presence in the Middle East and beyond calls for a critical examination of the motives and implications of such interventions. The lack of transparency and accountability in these operations raises fundamental questions about the role of Western powers in perpetuating authoritarian regimes and securing access to vital resources in the region. The joint US/UK military base on Diego Garcia serves as a crucial hub for US military operations and surveillance infrastructure. The island also hosts one of the four ground station antennas for the Global Positioning System (GPS), a key component of Pentagon surveillance capabilities. However, the exact cost to British taxpayers for maintaining the military base on Diego Garcia is not entirely clear, but it is expected to run into the billions.
Under the agreement with Mauritius, Britain will pay ÂŁ101 million annually to rent the land for military purposes. The primary objective of the military base is to support the projection of US power and protect oil tankers traveling from the Middle East to East Asia. While the shipping routes are used by various industries, approximately 40% of global shipping involves coal, oil, or gas, making fossil fuel companies the primary beneficiaries of the protection provided by the military base.
In 2025, the Royal Navy’s flagship, the HMS Prince of Wales, led Operation Highmast, a significant multinational deployment aimed at policing the trade routes primarily utilized by the fossil fuel industry. This operation highlighted the strategic importance of maintaining security and stability in the Indo-Pacific region.
Critics of the military expenditures question the relevance of maintaining a military posture that focuses on the Indo-Pacific region, arguing that it is outdated and unnecessary. However, historical geopolitical considerations, particularly related to securing trade routes to and from India, have shaped British foreign policy and military presence in various regions.
The UK’s extensive network of military bases, comprising 145 sites worldwide, includes locations in oil-rich countries crucial for safeguarding the infrastructure of the global oil industry. British military support for oil companies, such as Shell and BP, ranges from providing training to security services in exchange for oil field rights to deploying troops in oil-rich regions like Brunei.
The symbiotic relationship between the British military and the oil industry is evident in various instances, from small-scale collaborations to larger operations like the campaigns in Iraq and Libya, which proved beneficial for oil companies. The MoD’s emphasis on leveraging the strategic geographic position of overseas bases for economic growth aligns with the overarching goal of supporting the oil and gas industry.
Despite the significant financial burden on British taxpayers and the lack of direct contributions from the oil industry, the UK’s military presence serves as a substantial subsidy to support and protect the interests of fossil fuel companies. The fundamental question remains unanswered – why does Britain provide such substantial military support to the oil and gas industry without receiving comparable benefits in return? As the debate continues, the intertwined relationship between the military and the fossil fuel industry underscores the complex dynamics of global power and economic interests. In recent years, the disparity in tax payments by oil giants Shell and BP between Norway and the UK has raised eyebrows. Norway, which doesn’t spend billions on maintaining a geopolitical corridor for trading, has seen these companies pay significantly more taxes there than in the UK. This stark difference in tax contributions has sparked debates on the role of the oil and gas industry in global security and climate change.
The idea of Germany joining efforts to police the Gulf has been met with controversy, contrasting with the lack of debate on this issue in the UK. The overarching concern here is that these oil companies, by driving the climate crisis, are posing the biggest security threat of our time. By providing a multi-billion-pound subsidy to the oil and gas industry, the UK government is inadvertently perpetuating our addiction to fossil fuels and hindering the transition to a zero-carbon economy.
The British military’s heavy reliance on fossil fuels further exacerbates the problem. The military’s emissions are likely much higher than reported, as supply chain emissions are not fully accounted for. This unquenchable thirst for oil, diesel, and kerosene not only contributes significantly to global emissions but also reflects a broader organizational inertia within the military.
The deeply ingrained belief within the Ministry of Defence (MoD) that controlling the global oil supply is a core UK military interest has perpetuated a status quo that is slow to change. This mindset is rooted in a history of British colonialism where corporations like the East India Company were instrumental in delivering colonial rule. Shell and BP, with their intertwined histories with the British empire, have become de facto extensions of the state.
The close ties between these oil companies and the British government, coupled with the revolving door between civil servants and the private sector, further entrench these relationships. The military’s support for the oil industry is driven by Whitehall’s desire to maintain a strong relationship with the White House, particularly in light of Brexit.
The integration of British security infrastructure with the US complicates efforts to shift away from fossil fuel dependency. The reliance on US technology for systems like Trident nuclear weapons and recent contracts with companies like Palantir, which have close ties to the US Department of Defense, illustrate the challenges in breaking free from this entrenched relationship.
Additionally, the outsourcing of British defence to private companies closely linked to the oil industry, such as BAE Systems, further entangles the military with fossil fuel interests. This web of relationships and shared interests perpetuates a certain groupthink that hinders efforts to address the climate crisis and transition to a sustainable, low-carbon economy.
In conclusion, the intertwining of British military, government, and oil industry interests poses a significant barrier to addressing the climate crisis and transitioning to a sustainable energy future. Breaking free from this entrenched system will require a fundamental shift in mindset and a willingness to challenge long-held assumptions about the role of oil in global security and economic stability. Dissenting voices in the British government are often silenced, as the system is structured in a way that limits accountability and transparency. The lack of scrutiny from both parliament and the media allows for groupthink to prevail, particularly when it comes to defense policy.
British military strategy, though theoretically accountable to parliament, is often shaped behind closed doors before MPs are consulted. The royal prerogative, a unique feature of the British constitution, gives the government vast powers that are not derived from parliament, making it less accountable to elected representatives.
One area where accountability is notably lacking is in intelligence and special forces operations. Unlike in other democracies, British MPs do not have an automatic right to access intelligence, leaving them in the dark about significant military activities. The government’s refusal to disclose information about special forces operations further hampers transparency and oversight.
The close ties between the British government and the oil industry raise concerns about potential conflicts of interest. Individuals with connections to oil companies hold key positions in defense and security oversight committees, creating a web of influence that could compromise decision-making.
The lack of democratic scrutiny over military and security activities allows for powerful forces, including the oil industry, to shape strategic decisions. Without proper oversight, these activities may be influenced by interests that do not necessarily align with the public good.
The connections between government and the oil industry highlight the need for greater transparency and accountability in British defense policy. Dissenting voices must be allowed to challenge the status quo and ensure that decisions are made in the best interests of the country, rather than for the benefit of a select few. John Sawers, former chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), and Iain Lobban, the outgoing head of the surveillance agency GCHQ, both made interesting career moves after leaving their respective posts. Sawers joined the board of BP from 2015 to 2024, while Lobban was appointed as an adviser to Shell in 2015. These transitions highlight the close ties between the intelligence-security world and the corporate sector, particularly in the energy industry.
Former BP staffers continue to play important roles in shaping British military strategy, although it is unclear if the British military and security establishment still exerts as much influence over oil companies. The presence of individuals like Jane Lute, a senior figure from the US security world, on the Shell board of directors further blurs the lines between security and corporate interests.
While there are no longer any obvious connections between the British intelligence-security world and these companies, questions have been raised about the potential conflicts of interest that may arise. The Ministry of Defence has emphasized the importance of oil as a strategic resource and the need for its free flow to ensure global economic prosperity. However, concerns have been raised about the role of these companies in propping up authoritarian regimes and contributing to environmental degradation.
In January 2026, a joint intelligence report highlighted the threat to British national security posed by global biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse. The report underscored the link between climate breakdown and the activities of fossil fuel companies, raising concerns about the impact on food and water supplies.
As geopolitical tensions rise and global security norms are challenged, there is a growing need for a rethink of Britain’s military strategy. The close relationship between big oil, political institutions, and the Trump White House poses significant risks to British security. It is imperative that democratic oversight and decision-making mechanisms are strengthened to address these challenges.
Investigative journalist Adam Ramsay emphasizes the importance of reevaluating the influence of multinational corporations and foreign powers on British security policy. As democracies face increasing threats and conflicts, it is essential to prioritize unified and coherent positions that reflect genuine democratic legitimacy. The health of democracy and the need for strategic change are central to ensuring national security in an increasingly complex and interconnected world. The world of fashion is constantly evolving, with new trends and styles emerging every season. One trend that has been gaining popularity in recent years is sustainable fashion. Sustainable fashion is all about creating clothing and accessories in an environmentally and socially responsible way.
One of the key principles of sustainable fashion is using eco-friendly materials. This includes using organic cotton, bamboo, hemp, and recycled materials in the production of clothing. These materials are biodegradable and have a lower impact on the environment compared to traditional fabrics like polyester and nylon. By using sustainable materials, fashion brands can reduce their carbon footprint and help combat climate change.
Another important aspect of sustainable fashion is ethical production practices. This includes ensuring that garment workers are paid fair wages, work in safe conditions, and are not exploited. Many sustainable fashion brands work with factories that have been certified by organizations like Fair Trade or the Ethical Trading Initiative to ensure that their workers are treated fairly.
In addition to using eco-friendly materials and ethical production practices, sustainable fashion also focuses on reducing waste. This can involve designing clothing that is made to last, so that it can be worn for years to come. It can also involve using innovative recycling techniques to turn old clothing into new garments, or creating clothing that is biodegradable and compostable.
Many fashion brands are now incorporating sustainability into their business models, recognizing that consumers are becoming more conscious of the environmental and social impact of their purchases. Some brands are even launching entire collections that are made using only sustainable materials and production methods.
Consumers are also becoming more aware of the importance of sustainable fashion, and are actively seeking out brands that align with their values. This has led to a rise in popularity of sustainable fashion brands, and an increased demand for eco-friendly and ethical clothing options.
In conclusion, sustainable fashion is more than just a trend – it is a movement towards a more responsible and ethical fashion industry. By using eco-friendly materials, ethical production practices, and reducing waste, fashion brands can make a positive impact on the environment and society. As consumers become more conscious of their purchasing decisions, sustainable fashion will continue to grow in popularity and become the norm in the fashion industry.
