Europe versus the Anglo-American Alliance
More analysis of imperialism: Michel Chossudovsky
http://www.globalresearch.ca
Centre for Research on Globalisation
Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation
Europe versus the Anglo-American Alliance.
New Political Alignments and the "Big Game".
What lies behind the diplomatic rift at the UN Security Council?
The Anglo-American Military Axis
by Michel Chossudovsky
www.globalresearch.ca 10 March 2003
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303B.html
---------------------------------------------------
1. Excerpt from War and Globalisation, the Truth
behind September 11 by Michel Chossudovsky
2. A brief update which examines the broader
significance of the rift in the UN Security Council.
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303B.html
-----------------------------------------------------
The Anglo-American Military Axis
The 1999 war in Yugoslavia contributed to reinforcing strategic,
military and intelligence ties between Washington and London. After the
war in Yugoslavia, U.S. Defence Secretary William Cohen and his British
counterpart, Geoff Hoon, signed a "Declaration of Principles for Defence
Equipment and Industrial Cooperation" so as to "improve cooperation in
procuring arms and protecting technology secrets" while at the same time
"easing the way for more joint military ventures and possible defence
industry mergers." 25
Washington's objective was to encourage the formation of a
"trans-Atlantic bridge across which DoD [U.S. Department of Defence] can
take its globalisation policy to Europe. Our aim is to improve
interoperability and war fighting effectiveness via closer industrial
linkages between U.S. and allied companies." 26
In the words of President Clinton's Defence Secretary William Cohen:
[The agreement] will facilitate interaction between our [British and
American] respective industries so that we can have a harmonized
approach to sharing technology, working cooperatively in partnership
arrangements and, potentially, mergers as well.27
The agreement was signed in 1999 shortly after the creation of British
Aerospace Systems (BAES) resulting from the merger of British Aerospace
(BAe) with GEC Marconi. British Aerospace Systems was already firmly
allied to America's largest defence contractors Lockheed Martin and
Boeing. 28
The hidden agenda behind the Anglo-American "trans-Atlantic bridge" is
to eventually displace the Franco-German military conglomerates and
ensure the dominance of the U.S. military industrial complex (in
alliance with Britain's major defence contractors).
Moreover, this integration in the area of defence production has also
been matched by increased cooperation between the CIA and Britain's MI5
in the sphere of intelligence and covert operations, not to mention the
joint operations of British and U.S. Special Forces.
The United States and Germany
The British military-industrial complex has become increasingly
integrated into that of the U.S. In turn, significant rifts had emerged
between Washington and Berlin. Franco-German integration in aerospace
and defence production is ultimately directed against U.S. dominance in
the weapons market. The latter hinges upon the partnership between
America's Big Five and Britain's defence industry under the
trans-Atlantic bridge agreement.
Since the early 90s, the Bonn government had encouraged the
consolidation of Germany's military industrial complex dominated by
Daimler, Siemens, Krupp. Several important mergers in Germany's defence
industry took place in response to the mega-mergers between America's
aerospace and weapons producers.29
Already in 1996, Paris and Bonn had set up a joint armaments agency
with the mandate "to manage common programs [and] award contracts on
behalf of both governments." 30 Both countries had stated that they "did
not want Britain to join the agency."
In turn, France and Germany now control Airbus industries which is
competing against Americaâ?Ts Lockheed-Martin. (Britainâ?Ts BAES owns the
remaining 20 per cent). The Germans are also collaborating in the Ariane
Space satellite-launching program in which Deutsche Aerospace (DASA) is
a major shareholder.
In late 1999, in response to the â?~allianceâ?T of British Aerospace with
Lockheed Martin, Franceâ?Ts Aerospace-Matra merged with Daimlerâ?Ts DASA
forming the largest European defence conglomerate. And the following
year, the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. (EADS) was formed
integrating DASA, Matra and Spainâ?Ts Construcciones Aeronauticas, SA.
EADS and its Anglo-American rivals are competing for the procurement of
weapons to NATOâ?Ts new Eastern European members. (Europeâ?Ts third largest
defence contractor is Thomson, which in recent years has several
projects with U.S. weapons producer Raytheon.)
While EADS still cooperates with Britainâ?Ts BAES in missile production,
and has business ties with the U.S. "Big Five", including Northrop
Grumman, the Western defence and aerospace industry tends to be split
into two distinct groups: EADS dominated by France and Germany on the
one hand, the Anglo-US "Big Six", which includes the U.S. Big Five
contractors (Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing and
Northrop Grumman), plus Britainâ?Ts powerful BAES.
Integrated into U.S. Department of Defence procurement under the
Atlantic bridge arrangement, BAES was in 2001, the Pentagonâ?Ts fifth
largest defence contractor. Under the Anglo-American "transatlantic
bridge", BAES operates freely in the U.S. market through its subsidiary
BAE Systems North America.31
Franco-German Integration in Nuclear Weapons
The Franco-German alliance in military production under EADS opens the
door for the integration of Germany (which does not officially possess
nuclear weapons) into Franceâ?Ts nuclear weapons program. In this regard,
EADS already produces a wide range of ballistic missiles, including the
M51 nuclear-tipped ballistic submarine-launched ICBMs for the French
Navy.32
Euro versus Dollar: Rivalry Between Competing Financial Conglomerates
The European common currency system has a direct bearing on strategic
and political divisions. Londonâ?Ts decision not to adopt the common
European currency is consistent with the integration of British
financial and banking interests with those of Wall Street, not to
mention the Anglo-American alliance in the oil industry (as in BP-Amoco)
and weapons production ("Big Five" plus BAES). In other words, this
shaky relationship between the British pound and the US dollar is an
integral part of the new Anglo-American axis.
What is at stake is the rivalry between two competing global
currencies: the Euro and the U.S. dollar, with Britainâ?Ts pound being
torn between the European and the U.S.-dominated currency systems. In
other words, two rival financial and monetary systems are competing
worldwide for the control over money creation and credit. The
geopolitical and strategic implications are far-reaching because they
are also marked by splits in the Western defence industry and the oil
business.
In both Europe and America, monetary policy, although formally under
State jurisdiction, is largely controlled by the private banking sector.
The European Central Bank based in Frankfurt â?" although officially under
the jurisdiction of the European Union â?" is, in practice, overseen by a
handful of private European banks including Germanyâ?Ts largest banks and
business conglomerates.
The U.S. Federal Reserve Board is formally under State supervision â?"
marked by a close relationship to the U.S. Treasury. Distinct from the
European Central Bank, the 12 Federal Reserve banks (of which the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York is the most important) are controlled
by their shareholders, which are private banking institutions. In other
words, "the Fed" as it is known in the U.S., which is responsible for
monetary policy and hence money creation for the nation, is actually
controlled by private interests on Wall Street.
Currency Systems and â?~Economic Conquestâ?T
In Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union the Balkans extending into
Central Asia, the dollar and the Euro are competing with one another.
Ultimately, control over national currency systems is the basis upon
which countries are colonized. While the U.S. dollar prevails throughout
the Western Hemisphere, the Euro and the U.S. dollar are clashing in the
former Soviet Union, Central Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle
East.
In the Balkans and the Baltic States, central banks largely operate as
colonial style "currency boards" invariably using the Euro as a proxy
currency. What this means is: German and European financial interests
are in control of money creation and credit. That is, the pegging of the
national currency to the Euro â?" rather than to the U.S. dollar â?" means
that both the currency and the monetary system will be in the hands of
German-EU banking interests.
More generally, the Euro dominates in Germanyâ?Ts hinterland: Eastern
Europe, the Baltic States and the Balkans, whereas the U.S. dollar tends
to prevail in the Caucasus and Central Asia. In GUUAM countries (which
have military cooperation agreements with Washington) the dollar tends
(with the exception of the Ukraine) to overshadow the Euro.
The â?~Dollarisationâ?T of national currencies is an integral part of
Americaâ?Ts Silk Road Strategy (SRS). The latter consists in first
destabilizing and then replacing national currencies with the American
greenback over an area extending from the Mediterranean to Chinaâ?Ts
Western border. The underlying objective is to extend the dominion of
the Federal Reserve System â?" namely, Wall Street â?" over a vast
territory.
What we are dealing with is an "imperial" scramble for control over
national currencies. Control over money creation and credit is an
integral part of the process of economic conquest, which is in turn
supported by the militarisation of Eurasian corridor.
While American and German-EU banking interests are clashing over the
control of national economies and currency systems, they seem to have
also agreed on "sharing the spoils" â?" i.e. establishing their respective
"spheres of influence." Reminiscent of the policies of â?~partitionâ?T in
the late 19th Century, the U.S. and Germany have agreed upon the
division of the Balkans: Germany has gained control over national
currencies in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo where the Euro is legal tender.
In return, the U.S. has established a permanent military presence in the
region (i.e. the Bondsteel military base in Kosovo).
Cross-cutting Military Alliances
The rift between Anglo-American and Franco-German weapons producers
including the rifts within the Western military alliance seem to have
favoured increased military cooperation between Russia on the one hand,
and France and Germany on the other.
In recent years, both France and Germany had entered into bilateral
discussions with Russia in the areas of defence production, aerospace
research and military cooperation. In late 1998, Paris and Moscow agreed
to undertake joint infantry exercises and bilateral military
consultations. In turn, Moscow has been seeking German and French
partners to participate in the development of its military industrial
complex.
In early 2000, Germanyâ?Ts Defence Minister Rudolph Sharping visited
Moscow for bilateral consultations with his Russian counterpart. A
bilateral agreement was signed pertaining to 33 military cooperation
projects including the training of Russian military specialists in
Germany. 33 This agreement was reached outside the framework of NATO,
and without prior consultation with Washington.
Russia also signed a "long term military cooperation agreement" with
India in late 1998 which was followed a few months later by a defence
agreement between India and France. The agreement between Delhi and
Paris included the transfer of French military technology, as well as
investment of French multinationals in Indiaâ?Ts defence industry. The
latter includes facilities for the production of ballistic missiles and
nuclear warheads in which the French companies have an expertise.
This Franco-Indian agreement has a direct bearing on Indo-Pakistani
relations. It also impinges upon U.S. strategic interests in Central and
South Asia. While Washington has been pumping military aid into
Pakistan, India is being supported by France and Russia.
Visibly, France and the U.S. are on opposite sides of the
India-Pakistan conflict.
With Pakistan and India at the brink of war, in the wake of September
11, the U.S. Air Force had virtually taken control of Pakistanâ?Ts air
space, as well as several of its military facilities. Meanwhile, barely
a few weeks into the 2001 bombing of Afghanistan, France and India
conducted joint military exercises in the Arabian Sea. Also in the
immediate wake of September 11, India took delivery of large quantities
of Russian weapons under the Indo-Russian military cooperation
agreement.
Moscow's New National Security Doctrine
U.S. post-Cold War era foreign policy has designated Central Asia and
the Caucasus as a "strategic area." Yet this policy no longer consists
of containing the "spread of communism", but rather in preventing Russia
and China from becoming competing capitalist powers . In this regard,
the U.S. has increased its military presence along the entire 40th
parallel, extending from Bosnia and Kosovo to the former Soviet
republics of Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, all of
which have entered into bilateral military agreements with Washington.
The 1999 war in Yugoslavia and the subsequent outbreak of war in
Chechnya in September 1999 was a crucial turning point in
Russian-American relations. It also marked a rapprochement between
Moscow and Beijing, and the signing of several military cooperation
agreements between Russia and China.
U.S. covert support to the two main Chechen rebel groups (through
Pakistanâ?Ts ISI) was known to the Russian government and military. (For
further details, see Chapter II.) However, it had previously never been
made public or raised at the diplomatic level. In November 1999, the
Russian Defence Minister, Igor Sergueyev, formally accused Washington of
supporting the Chechen rebels. Following a meeting held behind closed
doors with Russiaâ?Ts military high command, Sergueyev declared that:
The national interests of the United States require that the
military conflict in the Caucasus [Chechnya] be a fire, provoked as a
result of outside forces", while adding that "the Westâ?Ts policy
constitutes a challenge launched to Russia with the ultimate aim of
weakening her international position and of excluding her from
geo-strategic areas.34
In the wake of the 1999 Chechen war, a new "National Security
Doctrine" was formulated and signed into law by Acting President
Vladimir Putin, in early 2000. Barely acknowledged by the international
media, a critical shift in East-West relations had occurred. The
document reasserted the building of a strong Russian State, the
concurrent growth of the Military, as well as the reintroduction of
State controls over foreign capital.
The document carefully spelled out what it described as "fundamental
threats" to Russiaâ?Ts national security and sovereignty. More
specifically, it referred to "the strengthening of military-political
blocs and alliances" [namely GUUAM], as well as to "NATOâ?Ts eastward
expansion" while underscoring "the possible emergence of foreign
military bases and major military presences in the immediate proximity
of Russian borders." 35
The document confirms that "international terrorism is waging an open
campaign to destabilize Russia." While not referring explicitly to CIA
covert activities in support of armed terrorist groups, such as the
Chechen rebels, it nonetheless calls for appropriate "actions to avert
and intercept intelligence and subversive activities by foreign states
against the Russian Federation." 36
Undeclared War Between Russia and America
The cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy has been to encourage â?" under
the disguise of "peace-keeping" and so-called "conflict resolution" â?"
the formation of small pro-U.S. States which lie strategically at the
hub of the Caspian Sea basin, which contains vast oil and gas reserves:
The U.S. must play an increasingly active role in conflict
resolution in the region. The boundaries of the Soviet republics were
intentionally drawn to prevent secession by the various national
communities of the former USSR and not with an eye towards possible
independence. â?¦ Neither Europe, nor our allies in East Asia, can defend
our [U.S.] mutual interests in these regions. If we [the U.S.], fail to
take the lead in heading off the kinds of conflicts and crises that are
already looming there, that will eventually exacerbate our relations
with Europe and possibly Northeast Asia. And it will encourage the worst
kind of political developments in Russia. This linkage, or
interconnectedness, gives the Transcaucasus and Central Asia a strategic
importance to the United States and its allies that we overlook at huge
risk. To put it another way, the fruits accruing from ending the Cold
War are far from fully harvested. To ignore the Transcaucasus and
Central Asia could mean that a large part of that harvest will never be
gathered.37
Russia's Military Industrial Complex
Alongside the articulation of Moscowâ?Ts National Security doctrine, the
Russian State was planning to regain economic and financial control over
key areas of Russiaâ?Ts military industrial complex. For instance, the
formation of "a single corporation of designers and manufacturers of all
anti-aircraft complexes" was envisaged in cooperation with Russiaâ?Ts
defence contractors.38
This proposed â?~re-centralizationâ?T of Russiaâ?Ts defence industry in
response to national security considerations, was also motivated by the
merger of major Western competitors in the areas of military
procurement. The development of new production and scientific
capabilities was also contemplated, based on enhancing Russiaâ?Ts military
potential as well as its ability to compete with its Western rivals in
the global weapons market.
The National Security Doctrine also "eases the criteria by which
Russia could use nuclear weapons â?¦ which would be permissible if the
countryâ?Ts existence were threatened." 39
Russia reserves the right to use all forces and means at its
disposal, including nuclear weapons, in case an armed aggression creates
a threat to the very existence of the Russian Federation as an
independent sovereign state. 40
In response to Washingtonâ?Ts "Star Wars" initiative, Moscow had
developed "Russiaâ?Ts Missile and Nuclear Shield". The Russian government
announced in 1998, the development of a new generation of
intercontinental ballistic missiles, known as Topol-M (SS-27). These new
single-warhead missiles (based in the Saratov region) are currently in
"full combat readiness", against a "pre-emptive first strike" from the
U.S., which, (in the wake of September 11), constitutes the Pentagonâ?Ts
main assumption in an eventual nuclear war. "The Topol M is lightweight
and mobile, designed to be fired from a vehicle. Its mobility means it
is better protected than a silo-based missile from a pre-emptive first
strike."41
Following the adoption of the National Security Document (NSD), in
2000, the Kremlin confirmed that it would not exclude "a first-strike
use" of nuclear warheads "if attacked even by purely conventional
means." 42
Political â?~Turnaroundâ?T under President Vladimir Putin
Since the very outset of his term in office, President Vladimir Putin
â?" following in the footsteps of his predecessor Boris Yeltsin in the
Kremlin â?" has contributed to reversing the National Security Doctrine.
Its implementation at a policy level has also been stalled.
At the moment, the foreign policy directions of the Putin
Administration are confused and unclear. There are significant divisions
within both the political establishment and the Military. On the
diplomatic front, the new President has sought [to establish] a
â?~rapprochementâ?T with Washington and the Western Military Alliance in the
so-called "war on terrorism." Yet, it would be premature to conclude
that Putinâ?Ts diplomatic openings imply a permanent reversal of Russiaâ?Ts
2000 National Security Doctrine.
In the wake of September 11, a significant turnaround in Russian
foreign policy, largely orchestrated by President Putin, has nonetheless
occurred. The Putin Administration, acting against the Russian Duma, has
accepted the process of "NATO Enlargement" into the Baltic states
(Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) implying the establishment of NATO
military bases on Russiaâ?Ts Western border. Meanwhile, Moscowâ?Ts military
cooperation agreement signed with Beijing after the 1999 war in
Yugoslavia is virtually on hold:
China is obviously watching with deep concern Russia surrendering
these positions. China is also concerned by the presence of the U.S. Air
Force close to its borders in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and the Kyrghyz
Republic. â?¦ Everything that Mr. Putin has earned through the spectacular
improvement of Russiaâ?Ts relations with China, India, Vietnam, Cuba and
some other countries, collapsed nearly overnight. What has surfaced is a
primitive Gorbachev concept of â?~common human valuesâ?T â?" i.e. the
subordination of Russiaâ?Ts interests to those of the West.43
Ironically, the Russian President was supporting Americaâ?Ts "war on
terrorism", which is ultimately directed against Moscow. Washingtonâ?Ts
hidden agenda is to dismantle Russiaâ?Ts strategic and economic interests
in the Eurasian corridor, close down or take over its military
facilities, while transforming the former Soviet republics (and
eventually the Russian Federation) into American protectorates:
It becomes clear that the intention to join NATO expressed by Mr.
Putin in an offhand manner last year [2000], reflected a long matured
idea of a far deeper (i.e. in relation to the positions previously taken
by Gorbachev or Yeltsin) integration of the Russian Federation into the
so-called "international community." In fact, the intention is to
squeeze Russia into the Western economic, political and military system.
Even as a junior partner. Even at the price of sacrificing an
independent foreign policy.44
------------------------------------------------------------
The above text is an excerpt from the later part of Chapter 5 of War
and Globalisation . The numbering of the notes indicated below is the
same as in the original chapter 5 from which the excerpt was taken.
Notes
25. Reuters, 5 February 2000
26. For further details see Vago Muradian, "Pentagon Sees Bridge to
Europe", Defence Daily, Vol. 204, No. 40, Dec. 01, 1999
27. Ibid.
28. Vago Muradian, "Pentagon Sees Bridge to Europe", Defence Daily,
Vol. 204, No. 40, Dec. (See also Michel Collonâ?Ts analysis in Poker
Menteur, Editions EPO, Brussels, 1998, p. 156
29. See also Michel Collonâ?Ts analysis in Poker Menteur, Editions EPO,
Brussels, 1998, p. 156
30. American Monsters, European Minnows: Defence Companies. The
Economist, 13 January 1996
31. British Aerospace Systemsâ?T home page at:
http://www.BAESystems.com/globalfootprint/northamerica/northamerica.htm
32. BAES, EADS Hopeful That Bush Will Broaden Transatlantic
Cooperation, Defence Daily International, 29, 2001
33. Interfax, 1 March 2000
34. See The New York Times, 15 November 1999; see also the article of
Steve Levine, The New York Times, 20 November 1999
35. To consult the document see Federation of American Scientists
(FAS), http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/doctrine/gazeta012400.htm
36. Ibid.
37. Joseph Jofi, Pipeline Diplomacy: The Clinton Administrationâ?Ts
Fight for Baku- Ceyhan, Woodrow Wilson Case Study, No. 1. Princeton
University, 1999
38. Mikhail Kozyrev, the White House Calls for the Fire Vedomosti,
Nov. 1, 1999, p.1
39. See Andrew Jack, Russia Turns Back Clock, Financial Times, London,
15 January 2000, p.1
40. Quoted in Nicolai Sokov, Russiaâ?Ts New National Security Concept:
The Nuclear Angle, Centre for Non Proliferation Studies, Monterrey,
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/sokov2.htm, January 2000
41. BBC, Russia Deploys New Nuclear Missiles, London, 27 December
1998.
42. Stephen J. Blank, Nuclear Strategy and Nuclear Proliferation in
Russian Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United
States, Appendix III: Unclassified Working Papers, Federation of
American Scientists (FAS),
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/missile/rumsfeld/toc-3.htm. Washington DC,
undated.
43. V. Tetekin, Putinâ?Ts Ten Blows, Centre for Research on
Globalisation (CRG) http://globalresearch.ca/articles/TET112A.html, 27
December 2001.
44. Ibid.
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rift in the UN Security Council
The Rift in the UN Security Council
The Rift in the UN Security Council
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303B.html
The "disagreements" within the US Security Council pertaining to Iraq
are casually presented by the media as a mere diplomatic rift.
In fact we are dealing with something far more complex. The Bush
Administration's war plans have nothing to do with "Saddam's weapons
of mass destruction" or his alleged links to Osama bin Laden.
The proposed invasion of Iraq is intended to exclude rival European,
Russian and Chinese interests from the Middle-East and Central Asian oil
fields. While in the Balkans, the US "shared the spoils" with Germany
and France, in the context of military operations under NATO and UN
auspices, the invasion of Iraq is intended to establish US hegemony,
while weakening Franco-German and Russian influence in the region.
The clash between Great Powers ("Old Europe" versus and the
Anglo-American military axis) broadly pertains to:
1. Defense and the military-industrial complex,
2. Control over Oil and Gas Reserves,
3. Money and currency systems: clash between the Euro and the
Dollar.
1. Defense and the military-Industrial complex
Beneath the gilded surface of international diplomacy, fundamental
changes in the structure of military alliance have occurred. Since 1999,
France and Germany have established military cooperation agreements with
Russia.
NATO is divided. While Britain and the US have joined hands through
the so-called "Atlantic Bridge" in defense production, coupled with
close cooperation in military and intelligence operations, significant
divisions have developed between the US and several of its "European
partners". The Anglo-American axis in weapons production is clashing
with its powerful Franco-German rival, the European Aerospace and
Defence Corporation (EADS). The Western defense industry is split down
the middle with British Aerospace systems now firmly aligned with the
big five US weapons producers against the competing Franco-German
conglomerate EADS.
2. Control over Oil and Gas Reserves
The broader Middle East-Central Asian region encompasses more than
70% of the World's reserves of oil and natural gas. According to U.S.
Central Command: "The purpose of U.S. engagement... is to protect U.S.
vital interest in the region - uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access
to Gulf oil." In other words, this is a war of conquest, which also
targets rival oil conglomerates including those of Russia and France
which have sizeable oil interests in Iraq and Iran.
In turn, the Anglo-American oil giants (BP-Amoco, Chevron-Texaco,
Exxon-Mobil, Shell) â?" supported by the Anglo-American military axis are
clashing with Europe's oil giant Total-Fina-Elf and Italy's ENI, which
have sizeable interests in Iraq, Iran, and Central Asia. Washington has
in recent years attempted to break France's deal with Teheran on the
grounds that it openly contravened the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. What
this suggests is that Europe's largest oil conglomerate dominated by
French, Belgian and Italian oil interests â?" in association with their
Iranian and Russian partners â?" are potentially on a collision course
with the dominant Anglo-American oil consortia, which in turn are backed
by the Anglo-American military axis:
"Iraq currently possesses 11% of the world's oil and ranks only
second to Saudi Arabia in the size of its reserves (112 billion
barrels). Exploitation costs are less than half those of deep sea
drilling. Direct access to the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean ensures
strategically secure oil supply routes. The Anglo-american oil giants
(BP, Chevron-Texaco, Shell, Exxon) are all absent from Iran and Iraq,
which have signed oil contracts and production sharing agreements with
French, Russian and Chinese oil companies. Because of the UN sanctions
on Iraq, the agreements signed by Baghdad are not ("officially")
operational." (Eric Waddell, The Battle for Oil, Global Outlook, Issue.
No. 3, Winter 2003).
According to the Washington Post (15 September 2002): "A U.S.-led
ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for
American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals
between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling
world petroleum marketsâ?¦ A proposed $40 billion Iraqi-Russian economic
agreement also reportedly includes opportunities for Russian companies
to explore for oil in Iraq's western desert. The French company Total
Fina Elf has negotiated for rights to develop the huge Majnoon field,
near the Iranian border, which may contain up to 30 billion barrels of
oil."
The war is not only being carried out with a view to taking over
Iraq's oil reserves, it is intended to cancel the contracts of rival
Russian and European oil companies as well as exclude France, Russia and
China from the region.
3. Money and currency systems: clash between the Euro and the Dollar.
What is at stake is the rivalry between two competing global
currencies: the Euro and the U.S. dollar, The process of European
monetary integration has encroached upon the hegemony of the US dollar.
The process of dollarisation, which is ultimately an instrument of
economic conquest is undermined by the Euro.
Wall Street is clashing with competing Franco-German financial
interests. The war in Iraq pertains not only to control over reserves of
petroleum, the control over money creation and credit is an integral
part of the process of economic conquest. .
...................
Michel Chossudovsky's book War and Globalisation, the Truth behind
September 11, can be ordered online , or call 1-888-713-8500.
http://www.globalresearch.ca
Copyright Michel Chossudovsky 2003. For fair use only/ pour usage
équitable seulement .
|