Newsgroup: it.politica
Titolo: il perchè della guerra all'Iraq

Questo non è un messaggio pubblicitario, ne tantomeno una catena di S.
Antonio.
Siamo
due comuni studenti che si son presi la briga di approfindire meglio gli
argomenti che la stampa
odierna tratta troppo superficialmente o, addirittura, non tratta per
nulla.
Noi cerchiamo di stimolare la curiosità tra la gente comune, per dare un
piccolo
contributo alla
costruzione di un'Europa più unita, più giusta e più forte.
Ecco un articolo tratto e tradotto da un sito spagnolo, che illustra dei
dettagli economici sconosciuti
ma fondamentali nell'ambito di questi ultimi episodi internazionali.
CHE SUCCEDEREBBE SE L'OPEC PASSASSE ALL'EURO?
di Paul Harris, da Soberania.info - Traduzione di Tito Pulsinelli
L'idea ossessiva di Bush su Bagdad si basa su molte ragioni. In altri
articoli
che ho scritto per
YellowTimes.org, feci allusione non tanto alle ovvietá delle ragioni
addotte
contro l'Iraq, bensí
alla guerra di Bush contro l'Europa. Io credo che questa sia la ragione
principale della fissazione
con l'Iraq.
Quando un paese va in guerra, si preparano piani su chi sará vittorioso
e su chi
perderá; nessuno
scatena una guerra sperando di essere sconfitto, peró non sempre
l'obiettivo
manifesto
dell'aggressione é l'obiettivo vero della guerra. A volte non si tratta
di quel
che speri di ottenere
con la guerra, bensí di quello che gli altri perderanno; e non deve per
forza
essere un tuo
nemico dichiarato quello che ti aspetti che soffrirá le conseguenze
maggiori
della guerra.
In questo caso, Bush spera che la vittima sia l'economia europea, che é
robusta
e probabilmente
sará ancor piú forte in un futuro vicino. L'ingresso della Gran Bretagna
nell'Unione Europea é
 inevitabile; la Scandinavia lo fará in tempi ravvicinati. A maggio del
2004,
entreranno dieci nuovi
paesi e questo fará aumentare il PIL dell'UE a circa 9,6 trilioni di
dollari e
280 milioni di persone,
di fronte ai 10,5 trilioni di dollari e 280 milioni di persone degli
USA.
Questo, per i nord-americani,
é un formidabile blocco concorrente; ma la situazione é molto piú
complessa di
quel che indicano
queste cifre. E molto dipende dalla piega che prenderanno gli
avvenimenti in
Iraq.
Come tanti altri, ho scritto che questa guerra che é alle porte si
combatterá
per il petrolio.
Sicuramente vi sono altre ragioni, peró il petrolio é la causa
scatenante. Ma
non per le ragioni che
comunemente si adducono.
Non é per le enormi riserve ancora vergini che si ritiene esistano in
Iraq, che
non sarebbero state
sfruttate a causa delle sue antiquate tecnologie; non é per le brame del
governo
USA di mettere
le zanne su questo petrolio. E' piuttosto per le zanne che i
nord-americani
vogliono mantenere
 lontano da lí.
La causa di tutto questo non é l'11 di settembre, né l'improvvisa
illuminazione
che Saddam
continuava ad essere un tipo ripugnante, né il cambio di governo negli
Stati
Uniti. Quel che ha
accelerato le cose é stata la decisione presa dall'Iraq il 6 di novembre
del
2000: sostituire il
dollaro con l'euro nel suo commercio petrolifero. Allora, questo cambio
sembró
uno stupido
capriccio, perché l'Iraq stava perdendo una gran quantitá di utili a
causa di
una dichiarazione
politica di principio.
Peró prese questa decisione, e il deprezzamento continuo del dollaro nei
confronti dell'euro,
sta a significare che l'Iraq fece un buon affare cambiando riserve
monetarie e
divise per il
commercio del proprio petrolio. Da quel momento, l'euro si é rivalutato
del 17%
sul dollaro,
cosa che si deve applicare pure ai 10 bilioni di dollari del fondo di
riserva
dell'ONU "petrolio
per cibo".
Sorge una domanda che, probabilmente, si é posto anche Bush: che
succederebbe se
l'OPEC passasse all'euro?
Alla fine della seconda guerra mondiale, nella conferenza di Bretton
Woods venne
firmato
un accordo che fissava il valore dell'oro a 35 dollari l'oncia e con
questo
divenne lo standard
internazionale con il quale si misuravano le monete. Peró nel 1971,
Nixon
cancelló tutto
questo, e il dollaro divenne lo strumento monetario principale, e solo
gli USA
possono produrlo.
Il dollaro oggi é una moneta priva di copertura, sopravalutato,
nonostante il
record del deficit
di bilancio e lo status di paese piú indebitato del mondo. Il 4 di
aprile del
2002, il debito era di
6021 trilioni di dollari a fronte di un PIL di 9 trilioni di dollari.
Il commercio internazionale é diventato un meccanismo grazie al quale
gli USA
producono
dollari e il resto del mondo produce quel che i dollari possono
comprare. Le
nazioni non
commerciano piú per ottenere "vantaggi comparativi", ma solo per
ramazzare
dollari da
destinare al pagamento del debito estero, che é fissato in dollari. E
per
accumulare dollari
nelle riserve monetarie con la finalitá di preservare il valore delle
monete
nazionali. Le banche
centrali delle nazioni, per prevenire attacchi speculativi alle proprie
monete,
sono costrette
a comprare o trattenere dollari, in una misura equivalente all'ammontare
del
proprio circolante.
Tutto ció crea il meccanismo del dollaro forte che, a sua volta, obbliga
le
banche centrali
ad immagazzinare dollari, cosa che rende ancor piú forte il dollaro.
Questo
fenomeno é
conosciuto come "egemonia del dollaro" e fa sí che le merci strategiche
-soprattutto il
petrolio- siano quotate in dollari. Tutti accettano i dollari perché con
essi si
puó comprare
il petrolio.
Dal 1945, la forza del dollaro consiste nell'esere la divisa
internazionale per
gli interscambi
petroliferi globali (petro-dollari). Gli USA stampano centinaia di
migliaia di
miliardi di dollari
senza nessun tipo di copertura: "petro-dollari" che sono usati dalle
nazioni per
pagare la
fattura degli energetici agli esportatori dell'OPEC. Ad eccezione
dell'Iraq e,
parzialmente,
del Venezuela.
Questi petro-dollari sono poi riciclati nuovamente dall'OPEC negli USA,
sotto
forma di
lettere del tesoro o altri titoli con denominazione in dollari: azioni,
beni
immobiliari ecc. Il
riciclaggio dei petro-dollari rappresenta il beneficio che, dal 1973,
gli USA
ricevono dai
paesi produttori di petrolio per "tollerare" l'esistenza dell'OPEC.
Le riserve di dollari debbono esere investite nel mercato
nord-americano, cosa
che, a
sua volta, produce utili per l'economia USA. L'anno scorso, nonostante
un
mercato in
netto ribasso, l'ammontare delle riserve USA é cresciuto del 25%.
L'eccedente
nei conti
dei capitali finanzia il deficit commerciale.
Dato che gli USA creano "petro-dollari", loro controllano il flusso del
petrolio. Siccome il
petrolio si paga in dollari e questa é l'unica moneta accettata in
questi
scambi, si arriva
alla conclusione che gli USA possiedono il petrolio del mondo gratis.
Di nuovo: che succederebbe se l'OPEC decidesse di seguire l'esempio
dell'Iraq e
cominciasse a vendere il petrolio in euro? Una esplosione economica. Le
nazioni
importatrici
di petrolio dovrebbe mettere in uscita i dollari dalle rispettive
riserve delle
banche centrali,
e rimpiazzarli con gli euro. Il valore del dollaro precipiterebbe, e le
conseguenze sarebbero
quelle di un qualsiasi collasso di una moneta: inflazione alle stelle
(vedi
Argentina), i fondi
stranieri in fuga dal mercato dei valori nord-americano e ritiro dei
fondi dalle
banche come
nel 1930 ecc.
Tutto questo non avverrebbe solo negli USA. Il Giappone ne uscirebbe
severamente
castigato, data la sua totale dipendenza dal petrolio straniero e
l'incredibile
sudditanza al
dollaro. Se crollasse l'economia giapponese, crollerebbero quelle di
molti paesi
-non
escluso gli USA- in un effetto domino.
Questi sarebbero gli effetti potenziali di un "improvviso" passaggio
all'euro.
Un cambio
piú graduale sarebbe piú gestibile, ma altererebbe ugualmente
l'equilibrio
finanziario e
politico del mondo. Vista la vastitá del mercato europeo, la sua
popolazione e
la sua
necessitá di petrolio (ne importa piú degli USA), l'euro potrebbe
rapidamente
diventare
-di fatto- la moneta standard per il mondo.
Esistono buone ragioni perché l'OPEC -come gruppo-segua l'esempio
dell'Iraq e
adotti
l'euro. Non vi é dubbio (dopo tanti anni di umiliazioni subite dagli
USA) che
potrebbero
approfittare delle circostanze per emettere una dichiarazione politica
di
principi. Ma
esistono anche solide ragioni economiche.
Il poderoso dollaro ha regnato incontrastato dalñ 1945 e negli ultimi
anni ha
guadagnato
ancor piú terreno con il dominio economico USA. Alla fine degli anni 90,
piú dei
quattro
quinti delle transazioni monetarie e la metá delle esportazioni
mondiali, sono
avvenute in
dollari. L'obiettivo della guerra di Bush control'Iraq, naturalmente, é
assicurarsi il controllo
di quei giacimenti e porli sotto il segno del dollaro; successivamente
passerá
ad incrementare
esponenzialmente la produzione e forzare i prezzi al ribasso. Alla fin
fine,
l'obiettivo di Bush é
scongiurare con minacce di ricorrere alle vie di fatto, che qualsiasi
paese
produttore passi all'euro.
A lungo termine, il vero obiettivo non é Saddam, é l'euro e l'Europa.
Gli USA
non se ne staranno
con le mani in mano ad assistere allo spettacolo di questi "ultimi
arrivati"
degli europei che
tengono in pugno le redini del loro destino. E men che mai, che assumano
il
controllo della
 finanza internazionale. Naturalmente, tutto dipende dal folle piano di
Bush e,
soprattutto,
che non scateni la terza guerra mondiale.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questa è una delle poche cose che si possono dire sui retroscena della
politica
estera americana.
Cosa può fare la gente comune come noi, tanto piccola quanto numerosa?
Alcuni
continuano a
tenere gli occhi chiusi e continuare a sedare la paura di queste ipotesi
con il
mito della buona fede
degli USA e della loro benevolenza nei confronti dei deboli. Altri,
invece, non
credono alla favoletta
diffusa a livello planetario da Bush e alleati vari, ma anzi temono
seriamente
il continuo aumentare
dello strapotere economico, politico e militare degli USA, a discapito
di
un'Europa più onesta, affidabile,
ma purtroppo ancora incerta sul suo ruolo e sulla sua forza. Noi non ce
la
sentiamo più di finanziare chi
cerca di metterci i bastoni fra le ruote, pertanto proponiamo a chiunque
abbia
l'europa nel cuore, un
determinato boicottaggio dei prodotti statunitensi. Questo è tutto,
scusa se ti
ho sottratto qualche minuto,
ma spero sia servito a qualcosa.
W l'Europa e W la pace.
-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - 
http://www.Mailgate.ORG
-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - 
http://www.Mailgate.ORG

The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq:
A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth
by W. Clark
January 2003 (last revised 6 March)
Independent Media Center
http://www.indymedia.org/
summary
Although completely suppressed by the U.S. media and government, the answer
to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking -- it is an oil currency war. The
real reason for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of
preventing further Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)
momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However,
in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq
along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. This essay will discuss the
macroeconomics of the `petro-dollar' and the unpublicized but real threat to
U.S. economic hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction
currency. The author advocates reform of the global monetary system
including a dollar/euro currency `trading band' with reserve status parity,
and a dual OPEC oil transaction standard. These reforms could potentially
reduce future oil currency warfare.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and
never will be . . . The People cannot be safe without information. When the
press is free, and every man is able to read, all is safe."
Those words by Thomas Jefferson embody the unfortunate state of affairs that
have beset our nation. As our government prepares to go to war with Iraq,
our country seems unable to answer even the most basic questions about this
upcoming conflict. First, why is there almost no international support to
topple Saddam? If Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program truly
possessed the threat level that President Bush has repeatedly purported, why
are our historic allies not joining a coalition to militarily disarm Saddam?
Secondly, despite over 350 unfettered U.N inspections, there has been no
evidence reported that Iraq has reconstituted its WMD program. Indeed, the
Bush administration's claims about Iraq's WMD capability appear demonstrably
false. [1] [2] Third, and despite President Bush's rhetoric, the CIA has not
found any links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. To the contrary, some
intelligence analysts believe it is far more likely Al Qaeda might acquire
an unsecured former Soviet Union Weapon(s) of Mass Destruction, or
potentially from sympathizers within a destabilized Pakistan.
Moreover, immediately following Congress's vote on the Iraq Resolution, we
suddenly became aware of North Korea's nuclear program violations. Kim Jong
Il is processing uranium in order to produce nuclear weapons this year.
President Bush has not provided a rationale answer as to why Saddam's
seemingly dormant WMD program possesses a more imminent threat that North
Korea's active nuclear weapons program. Strangely, Donald Rumsfeld suggested
that if Saddam were `exiled' we could avoid an Iraq war. Confused yet? Well,
I'm going to give their game away -- the core driver for toppling Saddam is
actually the euro currency, the .
Although completely suppressed in the U.S. media, the answer to the Iraq
enigma is simple yet shocking. The upcoming war in Iraq is mostly about how
the ruling class at Langley and the Bush/Cheney administration view
hydrocarbons at the geo-strategic level, and the overarching macroeconomic
threats to the U.S. dollar from the euro. The Real Reason for this upcoming
war is this administration's goal of preventing further OPEC momentum
towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order
to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with
its 2nd largest proven oil reserves.
This essay will discuss the macroeconomics of the `petro-dollar' and the
unpublicized but real threat to U.S. economic hegemony from the euro as an
alternative oil transaction currency. The following is how an astute and
anonymous former-government employee/macroeconomist alluded to the unspoken
truth about this upcoming war with Iraq:
"The Federal Reserve's greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its
international transactions from a dollar standard to a euro standard. Iraq
actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 (when the euro was worth around 82
cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering the dollar's
steady depreciation against the euro. (Note: the dollar declined 17% against
the euro in 2002.)
"The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in
Iraq -- or more importantly, the reason why the
corporate-military-industrial network conglomerate wants a puppet government
in Iraq -- is so that it will revert back to a dollar standard and stay that
way." (While also hoping to veto any wider OPEC momentum towards the euro,
especially from Iran -- the 2nd largest OPEC producer who is actively
discussing a switch to euros for its oil exports)."
Furthermore, despite Saudi Arabia being our `client state,' the Saudi regime
appears increasingly weak/threatened from massive civil unrest. Some
analysts believe a `Saudi Revolution' might be plausible in the aftermath of
an unpopular U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq (ie. Iran circa 1979) [3].
Undoubtedly, the Bush administration is acutely aware of these risks. Hence,
the neo-conservative framework entails a large and permanent military
presence in the Persian Gulf region in a post-Saddam era, just in case we
need to surround and control Saudi's Ghawar oil fields in the event of a
coup by an anti-western group. But first back to Iraq.
"Saddam sealed his fate when he decided to switch to the euro in late 2000
(and later converted his $10 billion reserve fund at the U.N. to euros) --
at that point, another manufactured Gulf War become inevitable under Bush
II. Only the most extreme circumstances could possibly stop that now and I
strongly doubt anything can -- short of Saddam getting replaced with a
pliant regime.
"Big Picture Perspective: Everything else aside from the reserve currency
and the Saudi/Iran oil issues (i.e. domestic political issues and
international criticism) is peripheral and of marginal consequence to this
administration. Further, the dollar-euro threat is powerful enough that they
will rather risk much of the economic backlash in the short-term to stave
off the long-term dollar crash of an OPEC transaction standard change from
dollars to euros. All of this fits into the broader Great Game that
encompasses Russia, India, China."
This information about Iraq's oil currency is being censored by the U.S.
media and the Bush administration as the truth could potentially curtail
both investor and consumer confidence, reduce consumer borrowing/spending,
create political pressure to form a new energy policy that slowly weans us
off Middle-Eastern oil, and of course stop our march towards a war with
Iraq. This quasi `state secret' can be found on a Radio Free Europe article
discussing Saddam's switch for his oil sales from dollars to the euros
effective November 6, 2000:
"Baghdad's switch from the dollar to the euro for oil trading is intended to
rebuke Washington's hard-line on sanctions and encourage Europeans to
challenge it. But the political message will cost Iraq millions in lost
revenue. RFE/RL correspondent Charles Recknagel looks at what Baghdad will
gain and lose, and the impact of the decision to go with the European
currency." [4]
At the time of the switch many analysts were surprised that Saddam was
willing to give up millions in oil revenue for what appeared to be a
political statement. However, contrary to one of the main points of this
November 2000 article, the steady depreciation of the dollar versus the euro
since late 2001 means that Iraq has profited handsomely from the switch in
their reserve and transaction currencies. Indeed, The Observer surprisingly
divulged these facts in a recent article entitled: `Iraq nets handsome
profit by dumping dollar for euro,' (February 16, 2003):
"A bizarre political statement by Saddam Hussein has earned Iraq a windfall
of hundreds of millions of euros. In October 2000 Iraq insisted upon dumping
the US Dollar -- `the currency of the enemy' -- for the more multilateral
euro. [5]
Although Iraq's oil currency switch is astoundingly censored by the U.S.
media conglomerates, this Observer article illustrates that the euro has
gained almost 25% against the dollar since late 2001. This also applies to
the $10 billion in Iraq's U.N. `oil for food' reserve fund that was
previously held in dollars -- it has also gained that same percent value
since the switch. According to the abovementioned former government
macroeconomist, the following scenario would occur if OPEC made a sudden
(collective) switch to euros, as opposed to a gradual transition.
"Otherwise, the effect of an OPEC switch to the euro would be that
oil-consuming nations would have to flush dollars out of their (central
bank) reserve funds and replace these with euros. The dollar would crash
anywhere from 20-40% in value and the consequences would be those one could
expect from any currency collapse and massive inflation (think Argentina
currency crisis, for example). You'd have foreign funds stream out of the
U.S. stock markets and dollar denominated assets, there'd surely be a run on
the banks much like the 1930s, the current account deficit would become
unserviceable, the budget deficit would go into default, and so on. Your
basic 3rd world economic crisis scenario.
"The United States economy is intimately tied to the dollar's role as
reserve currency. This doesn't mean that the U.S. couldn't function
otherwise, but that the transition would have to be gradual to avoid such
dislocations (and the ultimate result of this would probably be the U.S. and
the E.U. switching roles in the global economy)."
Although the above scenario is unlikely, and most assuredly undesirable,
under certain economic conditions it is plausible. In fact, one of the
conditions that could create such an environment is a near unilateral U.S.
led war in the Middle East. For example, a large spike in oil prices could
create huge problems for the imperiled Japanese banking system, the world's
largest holder of U.S. dollar reserves. Avoiding this Iraq war would require
a responsible U.S. administration that convenes a meeting of the G-8
industrialized nations. The US could then negotiate the global monetary
system and compromise on the euro/oil issue. Unfortunately the current Bush
administration has chosen a military option instead of a multilateral
conference on monetary reform.
In the aftermath of toppling Saddam it is clear the U.S. will keep a large
and permanent military force in the Persian Gulf. Indeed, there is no `exit
strategy,' as the military will be needed to protect the newly installed
regime, and to send a message to other OPEC producers that they might
receive `regime change' if they convert their oil payments to euros.
An interesting yet again underreported story from this summer related to
another OPEC `Axis of Evil' country, Iran, who is vacillating on the euro
issue.
"Iran's proposal to receive payments for crude oil sales to Europe in euros
instead of U.S. dollars is based primarily on economics, Iranian and
industry sources said.
"But politics are still likely to be a factor in any decision, they said, as
Iran uses the opportunity to hit back at the U.S. government, which recently
labeled it part of an `axis of evil.`
"The proposal, which is now being reviewed by the Central Bank of Iran, is
likely to be approved if presented to the country's parliament, a
parliamentary representative said.
"`There is a very good chance MPs will agree to this idea . . . now that the
euro is stronger, it is more logical,' the parliamentary representative
said." [6]
Moreover, and perhaps most telling, during 2002 the majority of reserve
funds in Iran's central bank were shifted to euros. It appears imminent they
intend to switch oil payments to euros.
"More than half of the country's assets in the Forex Reserve Fund have been
converted to euro, a member of the Parliament Development Commission, Mohamm
ad Abasspour announced. He noted that higher parity rate of euro against the
US dollar will give the Asian countries, particularly oil exporters, a
chance to usher in a new chapter in ties with European Union's member
countries.
"He said that the United States dominates other countries through its
currency, noting that given the superiority of the dollar against other hard
currencies, the US monopolizes global trade. The lawmaker expressed hope
that the competition between euro and dollar would eliminate the monopoly in
global trade." [7]
After toppling Saddam, this administration may decide that Iran's disloyalty
to the dollar qualifies them as the next target in the `war on terror.'
Iran's interest in switching to the euro as their currency for oil exports
is well documented. Perhaps this MSNBC article alludes to the objectives of
neo-conservatives.
"While still wrangling over how to overthrow Iraq's Saddam Hussein, the Bush
administration is already looking for other targets. President Bush has
called for the ouster of Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat. Now some in the
administration -- and allies at D.C. think tanks -- are eyeing Iran and even
Saudi Arabia. As one senior British official put it: `Everyone wants to go
to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.'" [8]
Aside from these political risks regarding Saudi Arabia and Iran, another
risk factor is actually Japan. Perhaps the biggest gamble in a protracted
Iraq war may be Japan's weak economy. [9] If the war creates prolonged oil
high prices ($45 per barrel over several months), or a short but massive oil
price spike ($80 to $100 per barrel), some analysts believe Japan's fragile
economy would collapse. Japan is quite hypersensitive to oil prices, and if
its banks default, the collapse of the second largest economy would set in
motion a sequence of events that could prove quite devastating to the U.S.
economy. Indeed, Japan's fall in an Iraq war could create the economic
dislocations that begin in the Pacific Rim but quickly spread to Europe and
Russia. Unlike the U.S. and U.K., the Russian government lacks the controls
to thwart a disorderly run on the dollar, and such an event could ultimately
force an OPEC switch to euros.
Additionally, other risks might arise if the Iraq war goes poorly or becomes
prolonged. It is possible that civil unrest may unfold in Kuwait or other
OPEC members including Venezuela, as the latter has indicated they may
switch to euros just as Saddam did in November 2000. This would foster the
very situation this administration is trying to prevent: another OPEC member
switching to euros as their oil transaction currency.
Incidentally, the final `Axis of Evil' country, North Korea, recently
decided to officially drop the dollar and begin using euros for trade,
effective Dec. 7, 2002. [10] Unlike the OPEC-producers, North Korea's switch
will have negligible economic impact, but it illustrates the geopolitical
fallout of President Bush's harsh rhetoric. Much more troubling is North
Korea's recent action following the oil embargo of their country. They are
in dire need of oil and food; and in an act of desperation they have
re-activated their pre-1994 nuclear program. Processing uranium appears to
be taking place at a rapid pace, and it appears their strategy is to prompt
negotiations with the U.S. regarding food and oil. The CIA estimates that
North Korea could produce 4-6 nuclear weapons by the second half of 2003.
Ironically, this crisis over North Korea's nuclear program further confirms
the fraudulent premise for which this war with Saddam has been contrived.
Unfortunately, neo-conservatives such as George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald
Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle fail to grasp that Newton's Law
applies equally to both physics and the geo-political sphere as well: "For
every action there is an equal but opposite reaction."
During the 1990s the world viewed the U.S. as a rather self-absorbed but
essentially benevolent superpower. Military actions in Iraq (1990-91 &
1998), Serbia and Kosovo (1999) were undertaken with both U.N. and NATO
cooperation and thus afforded international legitimacy. President Clinton
also worked to reduce tensions in Northern Ireland and attempted to
negotiate a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Our superpower
status was viewed as benign.
However, in both the pre and post 9/11 intervals, the `America first'
policies of the Bush administration, with its unwillingness to honor
International Treaties, along with their aggressive militarisation of
foreign policy, has significantly damaged our reputation abroad. Following
9/11, it appears that President Bush's `warmongering rhetoric' has created
global tensions -- as we are now viewed as a belligerent superpower willing
to apply unilateral military force without U.N. approval. Moreover, this
administrations failure to actively engage in negotiations regarding the
Israeli/Palestinian conflict is unfortunate.
Lamentably, the tremendous amount of international sympathy that we
witnessed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th tragedy has been
replaced with fear and anger at our government. This administration's
bellicosity has changed the worldview, and `anti-Americanism' is
proliferating even among our closest allies. [11]
Even more alarming, and completely unreported in the U.S media, are
significant monetary shifts in the reserve funds of foreign governments away
from the dollar with movements towards the euro. [12] [12a] [12b] It appears
that the world community lacks faith in the Bush administration's economic
policies, and along with OPEC, seems poised to respond with economic
retribution if the U.S. government is regarded as an uncontrollable and
dangerous superpower. Despite the media censorship, the plausibility of
abandoning the dollar standard for the euro is growing. An interesting U.K.
article by Hazel Henderson outlines the dynamics and the potential outcomes:
The most likely end to US hegemony may come about through a combination of
high oil prices (brought about by US foreign policies toward the Middle
East) and deeper devaluation of the US dollar (expected by many economists).
Some elements of this scenario:
  1.. US global over-reach in the `war on terrorism' already leading to
deficits as far as the eye can see -- combined with historically-high US
trade deficits -- lead to a further run on the dollar. This and the stock
market doldrums make the US less attractive to the world's capital.
  2.. More developing countries follow the lead of Venezuela and China in
diversifying their currency reserves away from dollars and balanced with
euros. Such a shift in dollar-euro holdings in Latin America and Asia could
keep the dollar and euro close to parity.
  3.. OPEC could act on some of its internal discussions and decide (after
concerted buying of euros in the open market) to announce at a future
meeting in Vienna that OPEC's oil will be re-denominated in euros, or even a
new oil-backed currency of their own. A US attack on Iraq sends oil to 40
(euros) per barrel.
  4.. The Bush Administration's efforts to control the domestic political
agenda backfires. Damage over the intelligence failures prior to 9/11 and
warnings of imminent new terrorist attacks precipitate a further stock
market slide.
  5.. All efforts by Democrats and the 57% of the US public to shift energy
policy toward renewables, efficiency, standards, higher gas taxes, etc. are
blocked by the Bush Administration and its fossil fuel industry supporters.
Thus, the USA remains vulnerable to energy supply and price shocks.
  6.. The EU recognizes its own economic and political power as the euro
rises further and becomes the world's other reserve currency. The G-8 pegs
the euro and dollar into a trading band -- removing these two powerful
currencies from speculators trading screens (a "win-win" for everyone!).
Tony Blair persuades Brits of this larger reason for the UK to join the
euro.
  7.. Developing countries lacking dollars or "hard" currencies follow
Venezuela's lead and begin bartering their undervalued commodities directly
with each other in computerized swaps and counter trade deals. President
Chavez has inked 13 such country barter deals on its oil, e.g., with Cuba in
exchange for Cuban health paramedics who are setting up clinics in rural
Venezuelan villages.
The result of this scenario? The USA could no longer run its huge current
account trade deficits or continue to wage open-ended global war on
terrorism or evil. The USA ceases pursuing unilateralist policies. A new US
administration begins to return to its multilateralist tradition, ceases its
obstruction and rejoins the UN and pursues more realistic international
cooperation. [13]
As for the events currently taking place in Venezuela, items #2 and #7 on
the above list may allude to why the Bush administration quickly endorsed
the failed military-led coup of Hugo Chavez in April 2002. Although the coup
collapsed after 2 days, various reports suggest the CIA and a rather
embarrassed Bush administration approved and may have been actively involved
with the civilian/military coup plotters.
"George W. Bush's administration was the failed coup's primary loser,
underscoring its bankrupt hemispheric policy. Now it is slowly filtering out
that in recent months White House officials met with key coup figures,
including Carmona. Although the administration insists that it explicitly
objected to any extra-constitutional action to remove Chavez, comments by
senior U.S. officials did little to convey this. . . .
"The CIA's role in a 1971 Chilean strike could have served as the working
model for generating economic and social instability in order to topple
Chavez. In the truckers' strike of that year, the agency secretly
orchestrated and financed the artificial prolongation of a contrived work
stoppage in order to economically asphyxiate the leftist Salvador Allende
government.
"This scenario would have had CIA operatives acting in liaison with the
Venezuelan military, as well as with opposition business and labor leaders,
to convert a relatively minor afternoon-long work stoppage by senior
management into a nearly successful coup de grāce." [14]
Interestingly, according to an article by Michael Ruppert, Venezuelan's
ambassador Francisco Mieres-Lopez apparently floated the idea of switching
to the euro as their oil currency standard approximately one year before the
failed coup attempt. Furthermore, there is evidence that the CIA is still
active in its attempts to overthrow the democratically elected Chavez
administration. In fact, this past December a Uruguayan government official
exposed the ongoing covert CIA operations in Venezuela:
"Uruguayan EP-FA congressman Jose Nayardi says he has information that
far-reaching plan have been put into place by the CIA and other North
American intelligence agencies to overthrow Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez
Frias within the next 72 hours. . . .
Nayardi says he has received copies of top-secret communications between the
Bush administration in Washington and the government of Uruguay requesting
the latter's cooperation to support white collar executives and trade union
activists to `break down levels of intransigence within the Chavez Frias
administration.'" [15]
Venezuela is the fourth largest producer of oil, and the corporate elites
whose political power runs unfettered in the Bush/Cheney oligarchy appear
interested in privatizing Venezuela's oil industry. Furthermore, the
establishment might be concerned that Chavez's `barter deals' with 12 Latin
American countries and Cuba are effectively cutting the U.S. dollar out of
the vital oil transaction currency cycle. Commodities are being traded among
these countries in exchange for Venezuela's oil, thereby reducing reliance
on fiat dollars. If these unique oil transactions proliferate, they could
create more devaluation pressure on the dollar. Continuing attempts by the
CIA to remove Hugo Chavez appear likely.
The U.S. economy has acquired significant structural imbalances, including
our record-high trade account deficit (now almost 5% of GDP), a $6.3 trillio
n dollar deficit (60% of GDP), and the recent return to annual budget
deficits in the hundreds of billions. These factors would devalue the
currency of any nation under the `old rules.' Why is the dollar still
predominant despite these structural imbalances? While many Americans assume
the strength of the U.S. dollar merely rests on our economic output (i.e.
GDP), the ruling elites understand that the dollar's strength is based on
two fundamentally unique advantages relative to all other hard currencies.
The reality is that the strength of the U.S. dollar since 1945 rests on its
being the international reserve currency. Thus it assumes the role of fiat
currency for global oil transactions (ie. `petro-dollar'). The U.S. prints
hundreds of billions of these fiat petro-dollars, which are then used by
nation states to purchase oil/energy from OPEC producers (except Iraq, to
some degree Venezuela, and perhaps Iran in the near future). These
petro-dollars are then re-cycled from OPEC back into the U.S. via Treasury
Bills or other dollar-denominated assets such as U.S. stocks, real estate,
etc. In essence, global oil consumption provides a subsidy to the U.S.
economy. Hence, the Europeans created the euro to compete with the dollar as
an alternative international reserve currency. Obviously the E.U. would like
oil priced in euros as well.
The `old rules' for valuation of the U.S. dollar currency and economic power
were based on our flexible market, free flow of trade goods, high per worker
productivity, manufacturing output/trade surpluses, government oversight of
accounting methodologies (ie. SEC), developed infrastructure, education
system, and of course total cash flow and profitability. Our superior
military power afforded some additional confidence in the dollar. While many
of these factors remain present, over the last two decades we have diluted
some of the `safe harbor' economic fundamentals. Despite vast imbalances and
structural problems that are escalating within the U.S. economy, the dollar
as the fiat oil currency created `new rules'. The following excerpts from an
Asia Times article discusses the virtues of our fiat oil currency and dollar
hegemony (or vices from the perspective of developing nations, whose debt is
denominated in dollars).
"Ever since 1971, when US president Richard Nixon took the dollar off the
gold standard (at $35 per ounce) that had been agreed to at the Bretton
Woods Conference at the end of World War II, the dollar has been a global
monetary instrument that the United States, and only the United States, can
produce by fiat. The dollar, now a fiat currency, is at a 16-year
trade-weighted high despite record US current-account deficits and the
status of the US as the leading debtor nation. The US national debt as of
April 4 was $6.021 trillion against a gross domestic product (GDP) of $9
trillion.
"World trade is now a game in which the US produces dollars and the rest of
the world produces things that dollars can buy. The world's interlinked
economies no longer trade to capture a comparative advantage; they compete
in exports to capture needed dollars to service dollar-denominated foreign
debts and to accumulate dollar reserves to sustain the exchange value of
their domestic currencies. To prevent speculative and manipulative attacks
on their currencies, the world's central banks must acquire and hold dollar
reserves in corresponding amounts to their currencies in circulation. The
higher the market pressure to devalue a particular currency, the more dollar
reserves its central bank must hold. This creates a built-in support for a
strong dollar that in turn forces the world's central banks to acquire and
hold more dollar reserves, making it stronger. This phenomenon is known as
dollar hegemony, which is created by the geopolitically constructed
peculiarity that critical commodities, most notably oil, are denominated in
dollars. Everyone accepts dollars because dollars can buy oil. The recycling
of petro-dollars is the price the US has extracted from oil-producing
countries for US tolerance of the oil-exporting cartel since 1973.
"By definition, dollar reserves must be invested in US assets, creating a
capital-accounts surplus for the US economy. Even after a year of sharp
correction, US stock valuation is still at a 25-year high and trading at a
56 percent premium compared with emerging markets.
". . . The US capital-account surplus in turn finances the US trade deficit.
Moreover, any asset, regardless of location, that is denominated in dollars
is a US asset in essence. When oil is denominated in dollars through US
state action and the dollar is a fiat currency, the US essentially owns the
world's oil for free. And the more the US prints greenbacks, the higher the
price of US assets will rise. Thus a strong-dollar policy gives the US a
double win." [16]
This unique geo-political agreement with Saudi Arabia in 1973 has worked to
our favor for the past 30 years, as this arrangement has eliminated our
currency risk for oil, raised the entire asset value of all dollar
denominated assets/properties, and allowed the Federal Reserve to create a
truly massive debt and credit expansion (or `credit bubble' in the view of
some economists). These structural imbalances in the U.S. economy are
sustainable as long as:
  1.. nations continue to demand and purchase oil for their energy/survival
needs, and
  2.. the fiat reserve currency for global oil transactions remain the U.S.
dollar (and dollar only).
These underlying factors, along with the `safe harbor' reputation of U.S.
investments afforded by the dollar's reserve currency status propelled the
U.S. to economic and military hegemony in the post-World War II period.
However, the introduction of the euro is a significant new factor, and
appears to be the primary threat to U.S. economic hegemony. Moreover, in
December 2002 ten additional countries were approved for full membership
into the E.U. In 2004 this will result in an aggregate GDP of $9.6 trillion
and 450 million people, directly competing with the U.S. economy ($10.5
trillion GDP, 280 million people).
Especially interesting is a speech given by Mr Javad Yarjani, the Head of
OPEC's Petroleum Market Analysis Department, in a visit to Spain in April
2002. His speech dealt entirely with the subject of OPEC oil transaction
currency standard with respect to both the dollar and the euro. The
following excerpts from this OPEC executive provide insights into the
conditions that would create momentum for an OPEC currency switch to the
euro. Indeed, his candid analysis warrants careful consideration given that
two of the requisite variables he outlines for the switch have taken place
since this speech in Spring 2002. These vital stories about the euro and its
potential to purchase oil are discussed in the European media, but have been
completely censored by the U.S. mass media.
". . . The question that comes to mind is whether the euro will establish
itself in world financial markets, thus challenging the supremacy of the US
dollar, and consequently trigger a change in the dollar's dominance in oil
markets. As we all know, the mighty dollar has reigned supreme since 1945,
and in the last few years has even gained more ground with the economic
dominance of the United States, a situation that may not change in the near
future. By the late 90s, more than four-fifths of all foreign exchange
transactions, and half of all world exports, were denominated in dollars. In
addition, the US currency accounts for about two thirds of all official
exchange reserves. The world's dependency on US dollars to pay for trade has
seen countries bound to dollar reserves, which are disproportionably higher
than America's share in global output. The share of the dollar in the
denomination of world trade is also much higher than the share of the US in
world trade.
"Having said that, it is worthwhile to note that in the long run the euro is
not at such a disadvantage versus the dollar when one compares the relative
sizes of the economies involved, especially given the EU enlargement plans.
Moreover, the Euro-zone has a bigger share of global trade than the US and
while the US has a huge current account deficit, the euro area has a more,
or balanced, external accounts position. One of the more compelling
arguments for keeping oil pricing and payments in dollars has been that the
US remains a large importer of oil, despite being a substantial crude
producer itself. However, looking at the statistics of crude oil exports,
one notes that the Euro-zone is an even larger importer of oil and petroleum
products than the US. . . .
". . . From the EU's point of view, it is clear that Europe would prefer to
see payments for oil shift from the dollar to the euro, which effectively
removed the currency risk. It would also increase demand for the euro and
thus help raise its value. Moreover, since oil is such an important
commodity in global trade, in term of value, if pricing were to shift to the
euro, it could provide a boost to the global acceptability of the single
currency. There is also very strong trade links between OPEC Member
Countries (MCs) and the Euro-zone, with more than 45 percent of total
merchandise imports of OPEC MCs coming from the countries of the Euro-zone,
while OPEC MCs are main suppliers of oil and crude oil products to Europe. .
. .
"Of major importance to the ultimate success of the euro, in terms of the
oil pricing, will be if Europe's two major oil producers -- the United
Kingdom and Norway join the single currency. Naturally, the future
integration of these two countries into the Euro-zone and Europe will be
important considering they are the region's two major oil producers in the
North Sea, which is home to the international crude oil benchmark, Brent.
This might create a momentum to shift the oil pricing system to euros. . . .
"In the short-term, OPEC MCs, with possibly a few exceptions, are expected
to continue to accept payment in dollars. Nevertheless, I believe that OPEC
will not discount entirely the possibility of adopting euro pricing and
payments in the future. The Organization, like many other financial houses
at present, is also assessing how the euro will settle into its life as a
new currency. The critical question for market players is the overall value
and stability of the euro, and whether other countries within the Union will
adopt the single currency. . . .
"It is quite possible that as the bilateral trade increases between the
Middle East and the European Union, it could be feasible to price oil in
euros considering Europe is the main economic partner of that region. This
would foster further ties between these trading blocs by increasing
commercial exchange, and by helping attract much-needed European investment
to the Middle East.
"In the long-term, perhaps one question that comes to mind is could a dual
system operate simultaneously? Could one pricing system apply to the Western
Hemisphere in dollars and for the rest of the world in euros? This will
remain the test for the euro, should the currency gain ground in the market
of oil transactions.
". . . Should the euro challenge the dollar in strength, which essentially
could include it in the denomination of the oil bill, it could be that a
system may emerge which benefits more countries in the long-term. Perhaps
with increased European integration and a strong European economy, this may
become a reality. Time may be on your side. I wish the euro every success."
[17]
Based on this important speech, momentum for OPEC to consider switching to
the euro will grow once the E.U. expands in May 2004 to 450 million people
with the inclusion of 10 additional member states. The aggregate GDP will
increase from $7 trillion to $9.6 trillion. This enlarged European Union
(EU) will be an oil consuming purchasing population 33% larger than the
U.S., and over half of OPEC crude oil will be sold to the EU as of mid-2004.
This does not include other potential E.U./euro entrants such as the U.K.,
Norway, Denmark and Sweden. It should be noted that since late 2002, the
euro has been trading at parity or above the dollar, and analysts predict
the dollar will continue its downward trending in 2003 relative to the euro.
It appears the final two pivotal items that would create the OPEC transition
to euros will be based on (1) if and when Norway's Brent crude is
re-dominated in euros and (2) when the U.K. adopts the euro. Regarding the
later, Tony Blair is lobbying heavily for the U.K. to adopt the euro, and
their adoption would seem imminent within this decade. If and when the U.K.
adopts the euro currency I suspect a concerted effort will be quickly
mounted to establish the euro as an international reserve currency. Again, I
offer the following information from an astute macroeconomist who analyzes
these international monetary matters very carefully:
"The pivotal vote will probably be Sweden, where approval this next autumn
of adopting the euro also would give momentum to the Danish government's
strong desire to follow suit. Polls in Denmark now indicate that the euro
would pass with a comfortable margin and Norwegian polls show a growing
majority in favor of EU membership. Indeed, with Norway having already
integrated most EU economic directives through the EEA partnership and with
their strongly appreciated currency, their accession to the euro would not
only be effortless, but of great economic benefit.
"As go the Swedes, so probably will go the Danes & Norwegians. It's the
British who are the real obstacle to building momentum for the euro as
international transaction & reserve currency. So long as the United Kingdom
remains apart from the euro, reducing exchange rate costs between the euro
and the British pound remains their obvious priority. British adoption (a
near-given in the long run) would mount significant pressure toward
repegging the Brent crude benchmark -- which is traded on the International
Petroleum Exchange in London -- and the Norwegians would certainly have no
objection whatsoever that I can think of, whether or not they join the
European Union.
"Finally, the maneuvers toward reducing the global dominance of the dollar
are already well underway and have only reason to accelerate so far as I can
see. An OPEC pricing shift would seem rather unlikely prior 2004 -- barring
political motivations (ie. from anxious OPEC members) or a disorderly
collapse of the dollar (ie. Japanese bank collapse due to high oil prices
following a prolonged Iraq conflict) but appears quite viable to take place
before the end of the decade."
In other words, around 2005/2006, from a purely economic and monetary
perspective, it will become logical for several OPEC producers to transition
to the euro for oil pricing. Of course that will devalue the dollar, and
hurt the US economy unless it begins making structural and monetary changes
right away -- or use its massive military power to force events upon OPEC .
. .
Facing these potentialities, I hypothesize that President Bush intends to
topple Saddam in 2003 in a pre-emptive attempt to initiate massive Iraqi oil
production in far excess of OPEC quotas, to reduce global oil prices, and
thereby dismantle OPEC's price controls. The end-goal of the
neo-conservatives is incredibly bold yet simple in purpose, to use the `war
on terror' as the premise to finally dissolve OPEC's decision-making
process, thus ultimately preventing the cartel's inevitable switch to
pricing oil in euros.
How would the Bush administration break-up the OPEC cartel's price controls
in a post-Saddam Iraq? First, the newly installed regime (apparently a U.S.
General) will convert Iraq back to the dollar standard. Next, with the U.S.
military protecting the oil fields, the new ruling junta will undertake the
necessary steps to rapidly increase production of Iraq oil -- well beyond
OPEC's 2 million barrel per day quota.
Dr. Nayyer Ali offers a succinct analysis of how Iraq's underutilized oil
reserves will not be a `profit-maker' for the U.S. government, but will
fulfill the more important geostrategic goal of providing the crucial
economic instrument to leverage and dissolve OPEC's price controls, thus
fulfilling the long sought-after goal of the neo-conservatives to disband
the OPEC cartel:
". . . Despite this vast pool of oil, Iraq has never produced at a level
proportionate to the reserve base. Since the Gulf War, IraqĀ¹s production
has been limited by sanctions and allowed sales under the oil for food
program (by which Iraq has sold 60 billion dollars worth of oil over the
last 5 years) and what else can be smuggled out. This amounts to less than 1
billion barrels per year. If Iraq were reintegrated into the world economy,
it could allow massive investment in its oil sector and boost output to 2.5
billion barrels per year, or about 7 million barrels a day.
"Total world oil production is about 75 million barrels, and OPEC combined
produces about 25 million barrels.
"What would be the consequences of this? There are two obvious things.
"First would be the collapse of OPEC, whose strategy of limiting production
to maximize price will have finally reached its limit. An Iraq that can
produce that much oil will want to do so, and will not allow OPEC to limit
it to 2 million barrels per day. If Iraq busts its quota, then who in OPEC
will give up 5 million barrels of production? No one could afford to, and
OPEC would die. This would lead to the second major consequence, which is a
collapse in the price of oil to the 10-dollar range per barrel. The world
currently uses 25 billion barrels per year, so a 15-dollar drop will save
oil-consuming nations 375 billion dollars in crude oil costs every year.
". . . The Iraq war is not a moneymaker. But it could be an OPEC breaker.
That however is a long-term outcome that will require Iraq to be
successfully reconstituted into a functioning state in which massive oil
sector investment can take place." [18]
The American people are largely oblivious to the economic risks regarding
President Bush's upcoming war. Not only is Japan's weakened economy at grave
risk from a spike in oil prices, but additional risks relate to Iran and
Venezuela as well, either of whom could move to the euros, thus providing
further momentum for OPEC to act on their `internal discussions' and switch
to the euro as their new oil currency. The Bush administration believes that
by toppling Saddam they will remove the juggernaut, thus allowing the US to
control Iraqi's huge oil reserves, and finally break-up and dissolve the 10
remaining countries in OPEC.
This last issue is undoubtedly a significant gamble even in the best-case
scenario of a quick and relatively painless war that topples Saddam and
leaves Iraq's oil fields intact. Undoubtedly, the OPEC cartel could feel
threatened by the goal of the neo-conservatives to break-up OPEC's price
controls ($22-$28 per barrel). Perhaps the Bush administration's ambitious
goal of flooding the oil market with Iraqi crude may work, but I have
doubts. Will OPEC simply tolerate quota-busting Iraqi oil production, thus
delivering to them a lesson in self-inflicted hara-kiri (suicide)?
Contrarily, OPEC could meet in Vienna and in an act of self-preservation
re-denominate the oil currency to the euro. Such a decision would mark the
end of U.S. dollar hegemony, and thus the end of our precarious economic
superpower status. Again, I offer the astute analysis of my expert friend
regarding the colossal gamble this administration is about to undertake:
"One of the dirty little secrets of today's international order is that the
rest of the globe could topple the United States from its hegemonic status
whenever they so choose with a concerted abandonment of the dollar standard.
This is America's preeminent, inescapable Achilles Heel for now and the
foreseeable future.
"That such a course hasn't been pursued to date bears more relation to the
fact that other Westernized, highly developed nations haven't any interest
to undergo the great disruptions which would follow -- but it could
assuredly take place in the event that the consensus view coalesces of the
United States as any sort of `rogue' nation. In other words, if the dangers
of American global hegemony are ever perceived as a greater liability than
the dangers of toppling the international order. The Bush administration and
the neo-conservative movement has set out on a multiple-front course to
ensure that this cannot take place, in brief by a graduated assertion of
military hegemony atop the existent economic hegemony.
"The paradox I've illustrated with this one narrow scenario is that the
quixotic course itself may very well bring about the feared outcome that it
means to preempt. We shall see!"
Under this administration we have regrettably returned to massive deficit
spending. And the lack of strong SEC enforcement has further eroded investor
confidence. Indeed, the flawed economic and tax policies of the Bush
administration resulting in years of projected deficits may be exacerbating
the weakness of the dollar, if not the outright hastening of some countries
to diversify their central bank reserve funds with euros as an alternative
to the dollar. From a foreign policy perspective, the terminations of
numerous international treaties and disdain for international cooperation
via the U.N. and NATO have angered even our closest allies.
Synopsis:
It would appear that any attempt by OPEC member states in the Middle East or
Latin America to transition to the euro as their oil transaction currency
standard shall be met with either overt U.S. military actions or covert U.S.
intelligence agency interventions. Under the guise of the perpetual `war on
terror' the Bush administration is manipulating the American people about
the unspoken but very real macroeconomic reasons for this upcoming war with
Iraq. This war in Iraq will not be based on any threat from Saddam's old WMD
program, or from terrorism. This war will be over the global currency of
oil. A war intended to prevent oil from being priced in euros.
Sadly, the U.S. has become largely ignorant and complacent. Too many of us
are willing to be ruled by fear and lies, rather than by persuasion and
truth. Will we allow our government to initiate the dangerous `pre-emptive
doctrine' by waging an unpopular war in Iraq, while we refuse to acknowledge
that Saddam does not pose an imminent threat to the United States?
Furthermore, we seem unable to address the structural weakness of our
economy due to massive debt manipulation, unaffordable 2001 tax cuts, record
levels of trade deficits, unsustainable credit expansion, corporate
accounting abuses, near zero personal savings, record personal indebtedness,
and our reliance and over consumption of Middle Eastern oil.
Regardless of whatever Dr. Blix finds or doesn't find in Iraq regarding WMD,
it appears that President Bush is determined to pursue his `pre-emptive'
imperialist war to secure a large portion of the earth's remaining
hydrocarbons, and then use Iraq's underutilized oil to destroy the OPEC
cartel. Will this gamble work? That remains to be seen. However, the history
of warfare is replete with unintended consequences. It is quite plausible
that our nation may suffer not only from increased Al-Qaeda sponsored
terrorism, but economic retribution from the international community or OPEC
members as well. Will we sit idle and watch CNN, as our government becomes
an international pariah by discarding international law as it wages a
unilateral war in Iraq? Will we forfeit any pretense of practicing
free-market capitalism while we enforce a command economy for global oil
transactions? Lastly, how can we effectively thwart the threat of
international Al Qaeda terrorism if we alienate so many of our European
allies?
We must ask ourselves this fundamental question: Is it morally defensible to
deploy our brave but naļve young soldiers around the globe to enforce U.S.
dollar hegemony for global oil transactions via the barrels of their guns?
Will we allow imperialist conquest of the Middle East to feed our excessive
oil consumption, while ignoring the duplicitous overthrowing of a
democratically elected government in Latin America? Is it acceptable for a
U.S. President to threaten military force upon OPEC nation state(s) because
of their sovereign choice of currency regarding their oil exports? I concur
with Dr. Peter Dale Scott's sentiments on these questions:
". . . hopefully decent Americans will protest the notion that it is
appropriate to rain missiles and bombs upon civilians of another country,
who have had little or nothing to do with this (financial) crisis of
America's own making. . . .
". . . A multilateral approach to these core problems is the only way to
proceed. The US is strong enough to dominate the world militarily.
Economically it is in decline, less and less competitive, and increasingly
in debt. The Bush peoples' intention appears to be to override economic
realities with military ones, as if there were no risk of economic
retribution. They should be mindful of Britain's humiliating retreat from
Suez in 1956, a retreat forced on it by the United States as a condition for
propping up the failing British pound. [19]
Paradoxically, this administration's belligerent policies may bring about
the very outcome they hope to prevent -- an OPEC currency switch to euros.
Informed patriots realize that militant imperialist over-reach is not only
detrimental to our international status, but may also in turn create severe
damage to our economic stability. Thus, remaining silent is not only
misguided, but false patriotism. We must not stand silent and watch our
country become a `rogue' superpower, relying on brute force, thereby forcing
the developed nations or OPEC to abandon the dollar standard -- and with the
mere stroke of a pen -- slay the U.S. Empire.
This need not be our fate. When will we demand that our government begin the
long and difficult journey towards energy conservation, the development of
renewable energy sources, and sustained balanced budgets to allow real
deficit reduction? When will we repeal the unaffordable 2001 tax cuts to
create a balanced budget, enforce corporate accounting laws, and
substantially reinvest in our manufacturing and export sectors to gradually
but earnestly move our economy from a trade account deficit position back
into a trade account surplus position? Undoubtedly, we must make these and
many more difficult structural changes to our economy if we are to restore
and maintain our international "safe harbor" investment status.
Furthermore, it would seem imperative that our government begins discussions
with the G-8 nations to reform the global monetary system. We must adopt our
economy to accommodate the inevitable competition from the euro as an
alternative international reserve currency. I concur with those enlightened
economists who recommend that the U.S. begin the process of convening the
next "Bretton Woods Conference." The U.S. government should agree to the
euro becoming the next international reserve currency, and advocate that the
dollar and euro be placed into an `exchange band' with reserve status
parity. This would facilitate the vital creation of a dual OPEC oil
transaction standard. It would also seem prudent to investigate a third
`Asia bloc' of the Yen/Yuan as reserve currency options to give balance to
the global monetary system. Regrettably, the Bush administration's
entrenched political ideology appears quite incompatible with these
necessary economic reforms. Ultimately We the People must demand a new
administration. We need responsible leaders who are willing to return to
balanced budgets, conservative fiscal policies, and to our traditions of
engaging in multilateral foreign policies while seeking broad international
cooperation.
Equally important, we must bear in mind the wisdom of founding fathers like
Thomas Jefferson who insisted that a free press is vital, as it is our best,
and often the only mechanism to protect democracy. The American people are
not aware of the issues discussed in this essay because the U.S. mass media
has been reduced to a handful of consumption/entertainment and
profit-oriented conglomerates that filter the flow of information within the
U.S. Sadly, part of today's dilemma lays within these U.S. media
conglomerates that have failed in their responsibilities to inform the
People. Our Congress must enact reforms, as this is a legitimate threat to
our democracy. The Internet should not be our only source of real,
unfiltered news.
It has been said that all wars are fought over resources or
ideology/religion. It appears that the Bush administration may soon add `oil
currency war' as a third paradigm. However, I fear that the world community
will not tolerate an imperialist U.S. Empire that uses its military power to
conquer sovereign nations who decide to sell their oil products in euros
instead of dollars. Likewise, if President Bush pursues an essentially
unilateral and unprovoked war against Iraq, I doubt the historians will be
kind to him or his administration. Their agenda is clear to the world
community, but when will U.S. patriots become cognizant of their modus
operandi?
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually
come to believe it.
"The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the
people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.
It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to
repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by
extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
-- Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945
Background Information on Hydrocarbons
To understand hydrocarbons and how we got to this desperate place in Iraq, I
have listed four articles in the Reference Section from Michael Ruppert's
controversial website: From the Wilderness. Although some of Ruppert's
articles are overwrought from time to time, their research detailing the
issues of hydrocarbons, and the interplay between energy and Bush's
perpetual `war on terror' is quite informative. The following will briefly
discuss geostrategic issues regarding Iraq's oil reserves.
Other than the core driver of the dollar versus euro currency threat, the
other issue related to the upcoming war with Iraq appears related to some
disappointing geological findings regarding the Caspian Sea region. Since
the mid-late 1990s the Caspian Sea region of Central Asia was thought to
hold approximately 200 billion barrels of untapped oil (the later would be
comparable to Saudi Arabia's reserve base)." [20] Based on an early
feasibility study by Enron, the easiest and cheapest way to bring this oil
to market would be a pipeline from Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan to the
Pakistan border at Malta. In 1998 then CEO of Halliburton, Dick Cheney,
expressed much interest in building that pipeline.
In fact, these oil reserves were a central component of Cheney's energy plan
released in May 2001. According to his report, the U.S. will import 90% of
its oil by 2020. Thus tapping into the reserves in the Caspian Sea region
was viewed as a strategic goal that would help meet our growing energy
demand and also reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East." [21]
According to the French book, The Forbidden Truth, [22] the Bush
administration ignored the U.N. sanctions that had been imposed upon the
Taliban and entered into negotiations with the supposedly `rogue regime'
from February 2, 2001 to August 6, 2001. According to this book, the Taliban
were apparently not very cooperative based on the statements of Pakistan's
former ambassador, Mr. Naik. He reports that the U.S. threatened a `military
option' in the summer of 2001 if the Taliban did not acquiesce to our
demands. Fortuitous for the Bush administration and Cheney's energy plan,
Bin Laden delivered to us 9/11. The pre-positioned U.S. military, along with
the CIA providing cash to the Northern Alliance leaders, led the invasion of
Afghanistan and the Taliban were routed. The pro-western Karzai government
was ushered in. The pipeline project was now back on track in early 2002,
well, sort of . . .
After three exploratory wells were built and analyzed, it was reported that
the Caspian region holds only approximately 10 to 20 billion barrels of oil
(although it does have a lot of natural gas)." [20] The oil is also of poor
quality, with high sulfur content. Subsequently, several major companies
have now dropped their plans for the pipeline citing the massive project was
no longer profitable. Unfortunately, this recent realization about the
Caspian Sea region has serious implications for the U.S., India, China, Asia
and Europe, as the amount of available hydrocarbons for industrialized and
developing nations has been decreased downward by 20%. (Global estimates
reduced from 1.2 trillion to approximately 1 trillion) [20,23]. The Bush
administration quickly turned its attention to a known quantity, Iraq, with
its proven reserves totaling 11% of the world's proven oil reserves (112
billion barrels). However, no geological surveys have been conducted in Iraq
since the 1970s. Russian, French, and U.S. oil companies are eager to lease
Iraq's unexplored fields, which may contain up to 200 billion barrels. [24]
Our greatest nemesis, Bin Laden, was quickly replaced with our new public
enemy #1, Saddam Hussein.
For those who would like to review the impact of depleting hydrocarbon
reserves from the geo-political perspective, and the potential ramifications
to how these developments may erode our civil liberties and democratic
processes, retired U.S. Special Forces officer Stan Goff offers a sobering
analysis in his essay: `The Infinite War and Its Roots'. [25] Likewise, for
those who wish to review some of the unspeakable evidence surrounding the
September 11th tragedy, the controversial essay `The Enemy Within' by the
Gore Vidal offers a thorough introduction. Although this essay was published
in Italy and The [UK] Observer, you will not find it printed in the U.S.
media. Vidal's latest book, Dreaming War features this as the opening essay.
[26] Finally, The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked,
September 11, 2001 by British political scientist Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
presents fundamentally disconcerting questions about the 9/11 tragedy and is
highly illuminating. [27]