March 2003.

Laying awake at night I did some reading and I found some
interesting articles ...

• German: Der EURO ist der Grund fuer den Irak-krieg.
• English: Why the War against Iraq???

Imagine this: you are deep in debt but every day you write
cheques for millions of dollars you don't have - another luxury
car, a holiday home at the beach, the world trip of a lifetime.

Your cheques should be worthless but they keep buying stuff
because those cheques you write never reach the bank! You have an
agreement with the owners of one thing everyone wants, call it
petrol/gas, that they will accept only your cheques as payment.
This means everyone must hoard your cheques so they can buy
petrol/gas. Since they have to keep a stock of your cheques, they
use them to buy other stuff too. You write a cheque to buy a TV,
the TV shop owner swaps your cheque for petrol/gas, that seller
buys some vegetables at the fruit shop, the fruiterer passes it
on to buy bread, the baker buys some flour with it, and on it
goes, round and round - but never back to the bank.

You have a debt on your books, but so long as your cheque never
reaches the bank, you don't have to pay. In effect, you have
received your TV free.

This is the position the USA has enjoyed for 30 years - it has
been getting a free world trade ride for all that time. It has
been receiving a huge subsidy from everyone else in the world. As
it debt has been growing, it has printed more money (written more
cheques) to keep trading. No wonder it is an economic powerhouse!
            excerpt from   http://www.unobserver.com/layout5.php?id=795&blz=2
 

Oil, Currency and the War on Iraq.  FEASTA - The Foundation for
the Economics of Sustainability. Dublin  2003
http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm

Übersetzung von Thomas Immanuel Steinberg

Jeder weiß, daß die USA ökonomisch und militärisch die Welt
beherrschen. Aber die genauen Mechanismen, die zur amerikanische
Hegemonie geführt haben und sie nun absichern, sind möglicherweise
weniger gut durchschaut worden, als sie es sein sollten. Ein
Werkzeug mit großer Wirkung war der Dollar. Doch seine Wirksamkeit
ist bedroht, seit Europa kürzlich den Euro eingeführt hat.

Der Dollar ist faktisch die Welt-Reservewährung: Etwa zwei Drittel
aller offiziellen Währungsreserven werden in Dollar gehalten. Mehr
als vier Fünftel aller Außenwirtschaftstransaktionen und die
Hälfte der Weltausfuhr werden in Dollar abgewickelt. Außerdem
werden alle Kredite des Weltwährungsfonds in Dollar gewährt. Doch
je mehr Dollar außerhalb der USA zirkulieren oder von
außländischen Eignern in den USA angelegt werden, umso mehr auch
muß der Rest der Welt die USA im Austausch für diese Dollar  mit
Gütern und Dienstleistungen beliefern. Die Herstellung von Dollar
kostet die USA nahezu nichts. Die Tatsache, daß die Welt den
Dollar auf diese Weise gebraucht, heißt also, daß die USA große
Mengen an Gütern und Dienstleistungen praktisch umsonst
importieren.

Da eine so große Menge Dollar im ausländischen Besitz nicht für
amerikanische Güter und Dienstleistungen ausgegeben werden, sind
die USA offenbar in der Lage, Jahr für Jahr ohne größere
wirtschaftliche Folgen ein riesiges Außenhandelsdefizit
anzuhäufen. Die jüngst veröffentlichten Zahlen zum Beispiel
zeigen, daß im November letzten Jahres (2002, d. Ü.) die
US-Einfuhr  48 Prozent mehr wert war als die Ausfuhr.[1] Kein
anderes Land kann sich ungestraft ein so großes
Außenhandelsdefizit leisten. Die Finanz-Medien erklären uns, daß
die USA als „consumer of last resort" („der
Verbraucher-Wenn-alle-Stricke-reißen") fungieren. Uns wird damit
nahe gelegt, daß wir den USA dankbar sein sollten. Aber mehr
einleuchten würde eine Beschreibung  des Sachverhalts als
gewaltiges zinsloses Darlehen, das die übrige Welt den USA
gewährt.
 

Die Position der USA scheint unangreifbar, aber bedenken wir: Je
mehr einer hat, desto mehr hat er zu verlieren. Und kürzlich gab
es Anzeichen dafür, wie zum ersten Mal seit langem die USA
anfangen könnten zu verlieren.

Eines der anerkannten Wirtschaftsziele, und vielleicht das
vorrangige bei seiner Einführung war, den Euro zu einer
Reservewährung zu machen, die dem Dollar gegenüberträte, sodaß
auch Europa für nichts etwas bekommen würde.

Aber das eben wäre ein Desaster für die USA.  Nicht nur würden die
USA einen Großteil ihrer jährlichen Subventionen, bestehend aus
praktisch kostenlosen Gütern und Dienstleistungen, verlieren,
sondern außerdem würden auch die Länder, die vom Dollar zum Euro
als Reservewährung übergehen, den Wert der US-Währung
beeinträchtigen. Einfuhren würden nach und nach die Amerikaner
eine Menge mehr kosten, und da eine wachsende Zahl derer, die
Dollar haben, sie nach und nach ausgeben, müßten die USA anfangen,
ihre Schulden zurückzuzahlen, indem sie Güter und Dienstleistungen
ins Ausland liefern. Damit aber würden sie den amerikanischen
Lebensstandard senken. Wenn Länder und Unternehmen ihre
Dollar-Anlagen in Euro-Anlagen umwandeln, dann wird ohne Zweifel
die US-Immobilien- und Wertpapier-Blase platzen. Die Federal
Reserve Bank wäre nicht mehr im Stande, mehr Scheine zu drucken,
um die Blase wieder aufzupusten, wie sie es zur Zeit offen erwägt.
Denn ohne eine Menge Ausländer, die scharf darauf sind, die
Dollarscheine weg zu putzen, käme es zu einer ersthaften
Inflation, die ihrerseits die Ausländer noch stärker davor
zurückschrecken lassen würde, die US-Währung zu behalten, und so
würde sich die Krise weiter vertiefen.

Aber auf diesem Weg liegt ein größeres Hindernis: Öl. Öl ist nicht
nur bei weitem das wichtigste internationale Handelsgut, es ist
der Lebenssaft aller modernen industrialisierten
Volkswirtschaften. Hast du kein Öl, mußt du es kaufen. Und wenn du
Öl auf den internationalen Märkten kaufen willst, mußt du
normalerweise Dollar haben. Bis vor kurzem waren alle OPEC-Länder
sich darüber einig, Öl nur gegen Dollar zu verkaufen. Solange wie
das der Fall war, war es unwahrscheinlich, daß der Euro
Hauptreservewährung werden könnte: Es hat nicht viel Sinn, Euros
vorzuhalten, wenn sie in Dollar gewechselt werden müssen, sobald
Öl gekauft werden muß. Diese Regelung hieß auch, daß die USA
tatsächlich den gesamten Welt-Ölmarkt teil-beherrschten: Öl konnte
nur kaufen, wer Dollar hatte, und nur ein Land hatte ds Recht
Dollar zu drucken - die USA.

Wenn andererseits die OPEC entscheiden würde, nur Euro für ihr Öl
zu akzeptieren (unterstellt, ihr würde erlaubt, so zu
entscheiden), dann wäre es vorbei mit der amerikanischen
Wirtschaftsdominanz. Nicht nur würde Europa nicht mehr so viele
Dollar benötigen, sondern auch Japan, das 80 Prozent seines Öls
aus dem Nahen Osten bezieht, würde es für vernünftig ansehen,
einen Großteil seiner Dollar-Guthaben in Euro-Guthaben
umzuwandeln. (Japan subventioniert die USA am meisten, weil es so
viele Dollar-Investitionen getätigt hat.) Die USA andererseits,
als weltgrößte Ölimporteure, würden einen Außenhandelsüberschuß
erzielen müssen, um Euros zu erlangen. Der Wechsel von einem
Handelsbilanzdefizit zu einem Handelsbilanzüberschuß müßte in
einem Augenblick vollzogen werden, in dem ihre Immobilien- und
Börsenpreise zusammenbrechen und das inländische Angebot an Öl und
Gas dahin schwindet. Es wäre eine sehr schmerzliche Umstellung.

Die rein wirtschaftlichen Argumente dafür, daß  die OPEC zumindest
für eine Weile auf den Euro umzusteigt, scheinen sehr überzeugend.
Die Euro-Zone häuft weder ein riesiges Außenhandelsdefizit auf,
noch ist sie beim Rest der Welt schwer verschuldet, wie die USA,
und die Zinsen liegen in der Euro-Zone merklich höher. Die
Euro-Zone hat einen höheren Anteil am Welthandel als die USA und
ist der Haupthandelspartner des Nahen Ostens. Und nahezu alles,
was man für Dollar kaufen kann, kann man auch für Euro kaufen -
außer natürlich Öl. Zudem, wenn die OPEC ihre Dollar-Anlagen in
Euro-Anlagen umwandelt und dann die Bezahlung des Öls in Euro
verlangt, so würden ihre Anlagen sofort im Wert steigen, weil
öleinführende Länder ebenfalls gezwungen wären, Teile ihrer
Guthaben zu konvertieren, was die Preise hochtreiben würde. Für
die OPEC wäre die Stärkung des Euro eine sich selbst erfüllende
Prophezeihung. Die OPEC könnte dann zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt zu
einer anderen Währung übergehen, vielleicht zurück zum Dollar, und
wieder riesige Gewinne machen.

Aber natürlich ist das keine rein wirtschaftliche Entscheidung.

Bisher hat es erst ein OPEC-Land gewagt, zum Euro überzugehen:
Irak im November 2000[2],[3]. Es besteht wenig Zweifel daran, daß
es sich hierbei um einen bewußten Versuch Saddams gehandelt hat,
gegen die USA zurück zu schlagen. Wirtschaftlich hat es sich als
ein gewaltiger Erfolg herausgestellt: Zum Zeitpunkt der irakischen
Umstellung war der Euro 83 US-Cent wert. Jetzt liegt er über 1,05
Dollar  (Anm. d. Übers.: Mitte März  2003 über 1,10 Dollar). Aber
diese Entscheidung könnte auch andere Folgen haben.

Ein anderes OPEC-Land hat seit 1999 öffentlich über einen
möglichen Wechsel zum Euro gesprochen: Iran[4], ein Land, das
seitdem zu George W. Bushs „Achse des Bösen" gehört.

Ein drittes OPEC-Land, daß sich kürzlich mit der US-Regierung
entzweit hat, ist Venezuela, und auch dieses Land hat sich illoyal
zum Dollar verhalten. Unter Hugo Chavez’ Regierung hat Venezuela
Barter-Geschäfte (Anm. d. Übers.: Ware gegen Ware) mit zwölf
lateinamerikanischen Ländern und mit Kuba vereinbart. Das heißt,
den USA entgeht ihre übliche Subvention, und das mag erklären,
warum die Amerikaner Chávez gehen sehen wollen. Auf dem
OPEC-Gipfel im September 2000 trug Chávez den OPEC-Regierungschefs
den Bericht über das „Iinternational Seminar on the Future of
Energy" vor, einer Konferenz, die Chávez im gleichen Jahr über das
zukünftige Angebot an fossiler und erneuerbaren Energie einberufen
hatte. Eine der beiden zentralen Empfehlungen war, daß die „OPEC
sich den hochtechnisierten elektronischen Barter- und
Bilateral-Austausch ihres Öls mit ihren Entwicklungsländer-Kunden
zu Nutze machen solle"[5], das heißt, die OPEC solle sowohl den
Dollar als auch den Euro bei vielen Geschäften meiden.

Und letzten April hielt ein führender OPEC-Repräsentant in Spanien
während der spanischen EU-Präsidentschaft einen Vortrag, in dem er
verdeutlichte, daß die OPEC zwar noch nicht plane, Öl für Euros
anzubieten, aber daß es eine Möglichkeit sei, die in Betracht
gezogen würde und die durchaus von wirtschaftlichem Vorteil für
viele OPEC-Länder sein könnte, vor allem die im Nahen Osten.[6]

Die Ölproduktion in den meisten ölproduzierenden Ländern sinkt. In
den kommenden Jahren wird daher die Bedeutung der großen
Ölproduzenten, besonders derer im Nahen Osten steigen und
steigen.[7]

Der Irak, dessen Ölproduktion durch die Sanktionen stark
beschnitten worden ist, ist eines wenigen Länder, das den
drohenden Mangel an Öl lindern helfen kann. Europa, ebenso wie der
Rest der Welt, wünscht sich eine friedliche Lösung der Spannungen
zwischen den USA und dem Irak und eine schrittweise Aufhebung der
Sanktionen. Das würde seinen Interessen sicher am meisten dienen.
Doch da irkisches Öl in Euro gehandelt wird, könnte seine größere
Verfügbarkeit den Würgegriff des Dollar lockern und
möglicherweise der US-amerikanischen wirtschaftlichen Gesundheit
mehr schaden als nützen.

All das sind schlechte Nachrichten für die US-Wirtschaft und den
Dollar. Washington muß befürchten, daß künftig nicht nur der
Ölpreis nicht in Ordnung ist, sondern auch das Zahlungsmittel
nicht. Was vielleicht erklären hilft, warum die USA sich verstärkt
ihrem zweiten großen Werkzeug zur Beherrschung der Weltgeschäfte
zuwenden: der militärischen Gewalt.[8]

Gern würde ich diesen Aufsatz auf deutsch gedruckt sehen. Wegen
der Rechte setzen Sie sich bitte mit mir in Verbindung, T:I:S. steinbergrecherche@web.de

(mehr ueber Geld?  http://www.geldreform.de/ !! Dort besonders das Buch von Silvio Gesell ! )
 

[1] Anon., ‘Trade Deficit Surges to a Record High’, Reuters,
(January 17, 2003),
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/4970891.htm

[2] Recknagel, Charles, ‘Iraq: Baghdad Moves to Euro’, Radio Free
Europe (November 1, 2000),
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2000/11/01112000160846.asp

[3] Anon., ‘A Look At The World's Economy’, CBS Worldwide Inc.,
(December 22, 2000),
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/12/22/2000/main259203.shtml

[4] Anon., ‘Iran may switch to euro for crude sale payments’,
Alexander Oil and Gas, (September 5, 2002),
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntm23638.htm

[5] Hazel Henderson, ‘Globocop v. Venezuela’s Chavez: Oil,
Globalization and Competing Visions of Development’, InterPress
Service, (April 2002),
http://www.hazelhenderson.com/Globocop%20v.%20Chavez.htm

[6] Javad Yarjani, ‘The Choice of Currency for the Denomination of
the Oil Bill’, (April 14, 2002),
http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/Speeches/sp2002/spAraqueSpainApr14.htm

[7] The Association for the Study of Peak Oil, Newsletter 26,
(February 2003), http://www.asponews.org

[8] Weiterführende Lektüre: William Clark, ‘The Real Reasons for
the Upcoming War With Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic
Analysis of the Unspoken Truth’, (January 2003),
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

America's Bush administration has been caught in outright lies,
gross exaggerations and incredible inaccuracies as it has trotted
out its litany of paper thin excuses for making war on Iraq.
Along with its two supporters, Britain and Australia, it has
shifted its ground and reversed its position with a barefaced
contempt for its audience. It has manipulated information,
deceived by commission and omission and frantically "bought" U.N.
votes with billion dollar bribes.

Faced with failing to gain U.N. Security Council support for
invading Iraq, the USA has threatened to invade without
authorisation (and Britain and Australia say they will go with
it). They would act in breach of the U.N.’s very constitution, the
U.N. Charter, to allegedly enforce U.N. resolutions.

It is plain bizarre. Where does this desperation for war come
from?

There are many forces driving President Bush and his
administration to invade Iraq, unseat Saddam Hussein and take over
the country. One of the biggest is hidden and very, very simple.
It is about the currency used to trade oil and consequently, who
will dominate the world economically, in the foreseeable future -
the USA or the European Union.

Alongside that is physical control of oil -- Iraq’s and
Venezuela’s in the first instance (the world's second and fourth
largest reserves), but once America has a massive military force
based in the Middle East in territory over which it has control,
where will it end? Iran is already on the agenda, named by Bush
as part of the "axis of evil", and Saudi Arabia, with the world’s
largest oil reserves and the home of Al Qaeda, would be the
obvious step after that.

Iraq is a European Union beachhead in the economic confrontation.
America had a monopoly on the oil trade, with the U.S. dollar as
the fiat currency, until Iraq broke ranks in 2000, started to
trade oil in the E.U.’s euros, and profited mightily. If America
invades Iraq and takes over, it will hurl the E.U. and its euro
back into the economic sea.

Besides ensuring the dollar remains the premier world trading
currency, physical control of oil reserves is vital to the U.S. to
ensure supply at affordable prices. The USA¹s own oil reserves
are very limited - it has capped wells to retain a viable on-shore
reserve, but it would not last long - and because real world oil
reserves are being rapidly depleted.

The invasion and take over of Iraq would make America’s position
as the dominant economic power in the world all but impregnable.

It is the biggest grab for world power in modern times.

America's allies in the invasion, Britain and Australia, are
betting America will win and that they will get some trickle-down
benefits for jumping on to the U.S. bandwagon.

France and Germany are the spearhead of the European force -
Russia would like to go European but possibly can still be bought
off because of its current economic problems.

Presumably, China would like to see the Europeans build a share
of international trade currency ownership at this point at this
point to blunt the U.S.’s power while it continues to grow its
international trading presence to the point where it, too, can vie
for and share the leadership rewards.

DEBATE BUILDING ON THE INTERNET

Oddly, while there has been no question from the outset that the
United Staters is after control of oil, little or nothing is
appearing in the general media about the oil trading currency
issue. Are key people becoming aware of it? What does the recent
slide in the value of the U.S. dollar mean - are traders afraid
of war or are they afraid there will not be war, in which case,
the US$ will not be a great currency to have in hand. Despite the
silence in the general media, a major world discussion is
developing around this issue, particularly on the internet.

Among the many articles: Henry Liu, in the Asia Times last June,
it has been a hot topic on the Feasta forum, an Irish-based group
exploring sustainable economics, and W. Clark's The Real Reasons
for the Upcoming War with Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic
Analysis of the Unspoken Truth has been published by the "Sierra
Times", Indymedia.org and ratical.org. Dr Colin Campbell’s Peak
Oil, a presentation at the Technical University of Clausthal in
December 2000, is a clear exposition of the world’s declining oil
reserves.

This debate is not about whether America would suffer from losing
the U.S. dollar monopoly on oil trading or from not gaining
control of oil - that is a given - rather it is about exactly how
hard the USA would be hit. The smart money seems to be saying the
impact would be in the range from severe to catastrophic. For
example, Charles A. Kupchan makes no bones about the parlous state
of the U.S. economy versus the strength of the European economies
in his The Atlantic Monthly article, The End of the West.

OIL DOLLARS

The key to it all is the fiat currency for trading oil.

Under an OPEC agreement, all oil has been traded in U.S. dollars
since 1971 (after the dropping of the gold standard) which makes
the U.S. dollar the de facto major international trading
currency. If other nations have to hoard dollars to buy oil, then
they want to use that hoard for other trading too. This fact
gives America a huge trading advantage and helps make it the
dominant economy in the world.

As an economic bloc, the European Union is the only challenger to
the USA's economic position, and it created the euro to challenge
the dollar in international markets. However, the E.U. is not yet
united behind the euro - there is a lot of jingoistic national
politics involved, not least in Britain - and in any case, so
long as nations throughout the world must hoard dollars to buy
oil, the euro can make only very limited inroads into the
dollar's dominance.

In 2000, Iraq, with the world's second largest oil reserves,
switched to trading its oil in euros. American analysts fell about
laughing; Iraq had just made a mistake that was going to beggar
the nation. But two years on, alarm bells were sounding; the euro
was rising against the dollar, Iraq had given itself a huge
economic free kick by switching.

Iran started thinking about switching too; Venezuela, the 4th
largest oil producer, began looking at it and has been cutting out
the dollar by bartering oil with several nations including
America's bete noir, Cuba. Russia is seeking to ramp up oil
production with Europe (trading in euros) an obvious market.

The greenback's grip on oil trading and consequently on world
trade in general, was under serious threat. If America did not
stamp on this immediately, this economic brushfire could rapidly
be fanned into a wildfire capable of consuming the U.S.’s economy
and its dominance of world trade.

HOW DOES THE U.S. GET ITS DOLLAR ADVANTAGE?

Imagine this: you are deep in debt but every day you write
cheques for millions of dollars you don't have - another luxury
car, a holiday home at the beach, the world trip of a lifetime.

Your cheques should be worthless but they keep buying stuff
because those cheques you write never reach the bank! You have an
agreement with the owners of one thing everyone wants, call it
petrol/gas, that they will accept only your cheques as payment.
This means everyone must hoard your cheques so they can buy
petrol/gas. Since they have to keep a stock of your cheques, they
use them to buy other stuff too. You write a cheque to buy a TV,
the TV shop owner swaps your cheque for petrol/gas, that seller
buys some vegetables at the fruit shop, the fruiterer passes it
on to buy bread, the baker buys some flour with it, and on it
goes, round and round - but never back to the bank.

You have a debt on your books, but so long as your cheque never
reaches the bank, you don't have to pay. In effect, you have
received your TV free.

This is the position the USA has enjoyed for 30 years - it has
been getting a free world trade ride for all that time. It has
been receiving a huge subsidy from everyone else in the world. As
it debt has been growing, it has printed more money (written more
cheques) to keep trading. No wonder it is an economic powerhouse!

Then one day, one petrol seller says he is going to accept
another person's cheques, a couple of others think that might be a
good idea. If this spreads, people are going to stop hoarding
your cheques and they will come flying home to the bank. Since you
don't have enough in the bank to cover all the cheques, very
nasty stuff is going to hit the fan!

But you are big, tough and very aggressive. You don't scare the
other guy who can write cheques, he's pretty big too, but given a
"legitimate" excuse, you can beat the tripes out of the lone gas
seller and scare him and his mates into submission.

And that, in a nutshell, is what the USA is doing right now with
Iraq.

THE WORLD¹S DECLINING OIL RESERVES

At various times in recent years, the world has been pleasantly
surprised to be told that oil reserves are higher than previously
thought. The message - the energy driven party can go on forever.

But world oil expert, Dr Colin Campbell, is firmly raining on
that parade. The announcements were not about new finds or even
reserves that were significantly bigger than previously known.
Rather, they were about the public announcement of reserves that
actually were known, technological developments which will allow
a little more extraction from known reserves (but at extra
expense) and some small finds.

In fact, he points out that the biggest oil finds date back to
the 1930s and 1940s and that there have been no big new finds
since 1965. Technological developments and new knowledge which it
was supposed would aid the uncovering of massive new oil deposits
have done the opposite - they have helped confirm the limitations
of oil reserves. They have helped measure the reserves of existing
fields and uncover some very small new deposits, but they have
also made it clear that the conditions for oil simply do not exist
in vast areas previously thought of as possibly harbouring oil.

And while more and more technological expertise has found less
and less oil, consumption has been rising steadily, so today it is
far in excess of the amount of new oil found. Peak discovery of
oil was in 1965; production, checked in the 1970s by the oil
crisis, will peak just 40 years later, in 2005, Dr Campbell
predicts, then it will start to decline.

America has limited reserves, the North Sea has more, but not
much, and both, but particularly America, have to contend with
huge consumption that far outstrips their supplies. Africa, Latin
America, Eurasia and most of all, the Gulf, are where the oil is.

Whoever owns that oil is set to profit as they hold the
energy-hungry industrialised world to ransom.

AMERICA'S PRECARIOUS ECONOMIC POSITION

America is so eager to attack Iraq right now because of the speed
with which the euro fire could spread. If Iran, Venezuela and
Russia join Iraq and sell large quantities of oil for euros, the
euro would have the leverage it needs to become a much more
powerful force in general international trade very quickly. Other
nations would have to start swapping some of their dollars for
euros.

The dollars the USA has printed, the "cheques" it has written,
would start to fly home, stripping away the illusion of value
behind them. The USA's real economic condition is about as bad as
it could be; it is the most debt-ridden nation on earth, owing
about US$12,000* for every single one of it's 280 million men,
women and children. It is worse than the position of Indonesia
when it imploded economically a few years ago, or more recently,
that of Argentina.

Even if OPEC did not switch to euros wholesale (and that would
make a very nice non-oil profit for the OPEC countries, including
minimising the various contrived debts America has forced on some
of them), the U.S.’s difficulties would build. If only a small
part of the oil trade went euro, that would do three things
immediately:

* Increase the attractiveness to E.U. members of joining the
"eurozone", which in turn would make the euro stronger and make it
more attractive to oil nations as a trading currency and to other
nations as a general trading currency.

* Start the U.S. dollars flying home demanding value when there
isn’t enough in the bank to cover them.

* Cause the usual panic attack in the world financial markets and
in no time, the U.S. dollar’s value would be spiraling down.

The question of oil ownership or control is longer term - but
only in terms of as handful of years. If the USA does not make its
grab now while it still has control of the oil trading currency
and is still the world’s biggest economic power, the opportunity
would be lost.

In a few years time, America will still be far and away the
world¹s largest military power - its current stocks of weapons
will see to that - but if it is on the economic slide because it
failed to contain the euro’s growth as an international trading
currency, the rest of the world would be in a much stronger
position to stare it down and contain it.

For America, with an economy and life style wholly dependent on
cheap oil energy, that would be a disaster.

President Bush promised Americans they could continue driving
their petrol guzzling SUVs. An America lacking control of oil
stocks in an era of declining oil production would have to park
its SUVs and walk.

THE U.S. SOLUTION

America¹s response to the euro and oil shortage threat was
predictable. It has come out fighting.

It aims to achieve six primary things by going to war with Iraq:

* Safeguard the American economy by returning Iraq to trading oil
in U.S. dollars, so the greenback is once again the exclusive oil
currency and is reaffirmed as the reserve currency for world
trade.

* Send a very clear message to any other oil producers just what
will happen to them if they do not stay in the dollar circle. Iran
has already received one message - remember how puzzled you were
that in the midst of moderation and secularization, Iran was named
as a member of the axis of evil? Venezuela is on the receiving
end of another nasty message.

* Safeguard the USA¹s supply of oil by placing the second largest
reserves of oil in the world under direct American control and
putting itself in a position to control, through threat or actual
invasion, the rest of the Gulf oil. The U.S. needs a secular,
subject state where it can maintain a huge force (perhaps with
nominal elements from allies such as Britain and Australia) to
dominate the Middle East and its vital oil.

* Severely setback the expansion of the influence of the European
Union and its euro, the only trading bloc and currency strong
enough to attack the USA’s dominance of world trade through the
dollar.

* Provide cover for the U.S. to run a covert operation to
overturn the democratically elected government of Venezuela and
replace it with an America-friendly military supported junta
which would put Venezuela¹s oil into U.S. hands and ensure oil
trading in U.S. dollars.

* Secure Israel’s position - the aim of an unlikely coalition of
Christian and Jewish fundamentalists within the Bush
administration which fits in handily with the power and economic
ambitions of the hard-headed old conservatives in the back room.

Locking the world back into dollar oil trading would consolidate
America's current position and make it all but impregnable as the
dominant world power - economically and militarily. A splintered
Europe (the U.S. is working hard to split Europe; Britain was
easy, but other Europeans have offered support in terms of U.N.
votes) and its euro would suffer a serious setback and might take
decades to recover.

Physical control of oil would secure the supplies which underpin
the high energy consumption U.S. economy and place the U.S. in a
position to profit directly from higher world oil prices
resulting from the growing shortage of oil, a further boost to its
economy, while disadvantaging economic challengers by forcing
them to pay more for energy.

Establishing a strong military presence in Iraq would enable the
U.S. to avoid or reduce its military presence in what it sees as
the unreliable Turkey, the politically impossible Israel and
surely the next state in its sights after Iran, Saudi Arabia, the
birthplace of al Qaeda and a hotbed of anti-American sentiment.
The USA, with a stable military base in Iraq, no longer
constrained by treaties and agreements such as it has had to
negotiate with host nations to date or by the host¹s links with
the E.U., would also independent of Europe and able to give the
faint whiff of military threat to Europe itself.

America is making the boldest grab for absolute power the world
has seen in modern times. It is hardly likely to allow the
possible slaughter of a few tens of thousand Iraqis stand between
it and world domination.

President Bush promised to protect the American way of life. This
is what he meant.

JUSTIFYING WAR

Obviously, the U.S. had to have some sort of cover story, a
"legitimate" excuse to invade Iraq, so it began casting around for
a reason to attack. That search has been one of increasing
desperation as each rationalization has crumbled. First Iraq was a
threat because of alleged links to al Qaeda; then it was proposed
Iraq might supply al Qaeda with weapons; then Iraq’s military
threat to its neighbours was raised; then the need to deliver
Iraqis from Saddam Hussein’s horrendously inhumane rule; finally
there is the question of compliance with U.N. weapons inspection.

We are now told that war must be prosecuted forthwith because
Iraq has chemical and biological weapons the U.N. inspectors have
not been able to find and that it may develop nuclear weapons in
a few years, and if it does, it may supply nuclear weapons to
terrorist groups. Further, failure to lay waste to Iraq now will
encourage the proliferation of nuclear weapons and increased the
likelihood of "rogue states" passing them on to unnamed
terrorists.

The USA’s justifications for invading Iraq, supported by Britain
and Australia, have been looking less impressive by the day. The
U.S.’s statements that it would invade Iraq unilaterally without
U.N. support and in breach of the U.N. Charter (constitution) make
a total nonsense of any claim that it is concerned about the
world body’s strength and standing.

The U.N. weapons inspectors have come up with minimal
infringements of the U.N. weapons limitations - the final one
being low tech rockets which exceed the range allowed by about 20
percent. But there is no sign of the so-called weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) the U.S. has so confidently asserted are to be
found. Colin Powell named a certain North Iraqi village as a
threat. It was not. He later admitted it was the wrong village.

Newsweek (24/2) has reported that while Bush officials have been
trumpeting the fact that key Iraqi defector, Lt. Gen. Hussein
Kamel, told the U.S. in 1995 that Iraq had manufactured tonnes of
nerve gas and anthrax (Colin Powell’s 5 February presentation to
the U.N. was just one example) they neglected to mention that
Kamel had also told the U.S. that these weapons had been
destroyed.

Parts of the U.S. and particularly the British secret "evidence"
have been shown to come from a student’s masters thesis - now
outdated.

America’s expressed concern about the Iraqi people’s human rights
and the country’s lack of democracy are simply not supported by
the USA’s history of intervention in other states nor by its
current actions. Think Guatemala, the Congo, Chile and Nicaragua
as examples of a much larger pool of U.S. actions to tear down
legitimate, democratically-elected governments and replace them
with war, disruption, starvation, poverty, corruption,
dictatorships, torture, rape and murder for its own economic
ends. The most recent, Afghanistan, is not looking good; in fact
that war reinstalled a murderous group of warlords which America
had earlier installed, then deposed, in favour of the now hated
and deposed Taliban.

Saddam Hussein was just as repressive, corrupt and murderous 15
years ago when he used chemical weapons, supplied by the U.S.,
against the Kurds. The current U.S. Secretary for Defence, Donald
Rumsfeld, so vehement against Iraq now, was on hand personally to
turn aside condemnation of Iraq and blame Iran for the gassing.
At that time, of course, the U.S. thought Saddam Hussein was their
man - they were using him against the perceived threat of Iran’s
Islamic fundamentalism.

Right now, as The Independent writer, Robert Fisk, has noted, the
U.S.s efforts to buy Algeria’s U.N. vote includes promises of
re-arming the military which has a decade long history of
repression, torture, rape and murder Saddam Hussein himself would
envy. It is estimated 200,000 people have died, and countless
others been left maimed by the activities of these monsters. What
price the U.S.’s humanitarian concerns for Iraqis? (Of course,
the French are also wooing Algeria, their former North African
territory, for all they are worth, but at least they are not
pretending to be driven by humanitarian concerns.)

Indonesia is another nation with a vote and influence as the
largest Muslim nation in the world. Its repressive, murderous
military is regaining strength on the back of the U.S.’s
so-called "anti-terror campaign" and is receiving promises of open
and covert support - including intelligence sharing.

AND VENEZUELA

While the world’s attention is focused on Iraq, America is both
openly and covertly supporting the "coup of the rich" in
Venezuela, which grabbed power briefly in April last year before
being intimidated by massive public displays of support by the
poor for democratically-elected President Chavez Frias. The coup
leaders continue to use their control of the private media, much
of industry and the ear of the American Government and its oily
intimates to cause disruption and disturbance.

Venezuela’s state-owned oil resources would make rich pickings
for American oil companies and provide the U.S. with an important
oil source in its own backyard.

Many writers have noted the contradiction between America’s
alleged desire to establish democracy in Iraq while at the same
time, actively undermining the democratically-elected government
in Venezuela. Above the line, America rushed to recognise the coup
last April; more recently, President Bush has called for "early
elections", ignoring the fact that President Chavez Frias has won
three elections and two referendums and, in any case, early
elections would be unconstitutional.

One element of the USA’s covert action against Venezuela is the
behaviour of American transnational businesses which have locked
out employees in support of "national strike" action. Imagine
them doing that in the USA! There is no question that a covert
operation is in process to overturn the legitimate Venezuelan
government. Uruguayan congressman, Jose Nayardi, made it public
when he revealed that the Bush administration had asked for
Uruguay’s support for Venezuelan white collar executives and trade
union activists "to break down levels of intransigence within the
Chavez Frias administration". The process, he noted, was a
shocking reminder of the CIA’s 1973 intervention in Chile which
saw General Pinochet lead his military coup to take over
President Allende's democratically elected government in a
bloodbath.

President Chavez Frias is desperately clinging to government, but
with the might of the USA aligned with his opponents, how long can
he last?

THE COST OF WAR

Some have claimed that an American invasion of Iraq would cost so
many billions of dollars that oil returns would never justify such
an action. But when the invasion is placed in the context of the
protection of the entire U.S. economy and of ensuring U.S.
dominance of the world now and into the future, the balance of
the argument changes.

Further, there are three other vital factors:

First, America will be asking others to help pay for the war
because it is protecting their interests. Japan and Saudi Arabia
made serious contributions to the cost of the 1991 Gulf war.**

Second - in reality, war will cost the USA very little - or at
least, very little over and above normal expenditure. This war is
already paid for! All the munitions and equipment have been
bought and paid for. The USA would have to spend hardly a cent on
new hardware to prosecute this war - the expenditure would come
later when munitions and equipment have to be replaced after the
war which certainly will be short. But munitions, hardware and so
on are being replaced all the time - contracts are out. Some
contracts would simply be brought forward and some others would
be ramped up a bit, but spread over a few years the cost would not
be great. And what is the real extra cost of an army at war
compared with maintaining the standing army around the world,
running exercises and so on? It is there, but it is a relatively
small sum. ***

Third - lots of the extra costs involved in the war are dollars
spent outside America, not least in the purchase of fuel. Guess
how America will pay for these? By printing more of the dollars
it is going to war to protect just as it does for other trade. The
same happens when production begins to replace hardware.
Components, minerals, etc. are bought in with dollars that go
overseas and exploit America¹s trading advantage.

The cost of war is not nearly as big as it is made out to be. The
cost of not going to war would be horrendous for the USA - unless
there were another way of protecting the greenback's world trade
dominance.

AMERICA'S TWO ACTIVE ALLIES

Why are Australia and Britain supporting America in its
transparent Iraqi war ploy?

Australia, of course, has significant U.S. dollar reserves and
trades widely in dollars and extensively with America. A fall in
the U.S. dollar would reduce Australia’s debt, perhaps, but would
do nothing for the Australian dollar’s value against other
currencies. John Howard, the Prime Minister, has long cherished
the dream of a free trade agreement with the USA in the hope that
Australia can jump on the back of the free ride America gets in
trade through the dollar’s position as the major trading medium.
That would look much less attractive if the euro took over a
significant part of the oil trade.

Britain has yet to adopt the euro. If the U.S. takes over Iraq
and blocks the euro’s incursion into oil trading, Tony Blair will
have given his French and German counterparts a bloody nose, and
gained more room to manouevre on the issue - perhaps years more
room. Britain would be in a position to demand a better deal from
its E.U. partners for entering the "eurozone" if the new currency
could not make the huge value gains guaranteed by a significant
role in world oil trading. It might even be in a position to
withdraw from Europe and link with America against continental
Europe.

On the other hand, if the U.S. cannot maintain the oil trade
dollar monopoly, the euro will rapidly go from strength to
strength, and Britain could be left begging to be allowed into
the club.

THE OPPOSITION

Some of the reasons for opposition to the American plan are
obvious - America is already the strongest nation on earth and
dominates world trade through its dollar. If it had control of
the Iraqi oil and a base for its forces in the Middle East, it
would not add to, but rather would multiply its power.

The oil-producing nations, particularly the Arab ones, can see
the writing on the wall and are quaking in their boots.

France and Germany are the E.U. leaders with the vision of a
resurgent, united Europe taking its rightful place in the world
and using its euro currency as a world trading reserve currency
and thus gaining some of the free ride the United States enjoys
now. They are the ones who initiated the euro oil trade with
Iraq.

Russia is in deep economic trouble and knows it will get worse
the day America starts exploiting its take-over of Afghanistan by
running a pipeline southwards via Afghanistan from the giant
southern Caspian oil fields. Currently, that oil is piped
northwards - where Russia has control.

Russia is in the process of ramping up oil production with the
possibility of trading some of it for euros and selling some to
the U.S. itself. Russia already has enough problems with the fact
that oil is traded in U.S. dollars; if the U.S. had control of
Iraqi oil, it could distort the market to Russia’s enormous
disadvantage. In addition, Russia has interests in Iraqi oil; an
American takeover could see them lost. Already on its knees,
Russia could be beggared before a mile of the Afghanistan pipeline
is laid.

Many other countries are also concerned by the rise in U.S.
power. Martin Woollacott, writing in The Age (Melbourne,
Australia) and The Guardian (Britain) reports on how the U.N.
Security Council has become a vehicle for expressing global public
opinion, and quotes The Wall Street Journal as suggesting that
the U.N. weapons inspections have been less about containing Iraq
as they are about containing the United States.

ALTERNATIVE OUTCOMES?

The scenario clarifies the seriousness of America’s position and
explains its frantic drive for war. It also suggests that
solutions other than war are possible if not likely.

Could America agree to share the trading goodies by allowing
Europe to have a negotiated part of it? Not very likely, but it is
just possible Europe, with the support of other countries, can
stare down the USA and force such an outcome. Time will tell.

What about Europe taking the statesmanlike, humanitarian and long
view, and withdrawing, leaving the oil trading to the U.S., with
appropriate safeguards for ordinary Iraqis, other Gulf nations,
democracy in Venezuela and physical control of oil so it did not
fall into American hands? Very unlikely.

In a way, a loss for Europe at this stage might be a better
outcome for the world, provided the U.S. could be prevented from
gaining physical control of very large quantities of oil. That
might then force Europe, Japan and others to adopt a smarter
approach - accelerating the development of alternative energy
technologies and strategies which would reduce the developed
world’s reliance on oil for energy and produce goods tradable in
currencies other than dollars - shifting the world trade balance
over time.

Now that would be a very positive outcome for everyone.

Geoffrey Heard is a Melbourne, Australia, writer on the
environment, sustainability and human rights. gheard@surf.net.au

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=28334 This war is
about more than oil. OIL DOLLARS!!!! DOLLARS, THE EURO AND WAR IN
IRAQ. This story is based on material posted by Richard Douthwaite
on the FEASTA list in Ireland.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html "The Real
Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: A Macroeconomic and
Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth" by W. Clark, January
2003 (revised 20 February), Independent Media Center, http://www.indymedia.org

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/1550023_comment.php#1551138
USA intelligence agencies revealed in plot to oust Venezuela's
President

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A41444-2003Jan11&notFound=true
Washington Post Split Screen In Strike-Torn Venezuela By Mark
Weisbrot, Sunday, January 12, 2003; Page B04

http://www.coha.org/COHA%20_in%20_the_news/Articles%202002/newsday_04_21_02_us__venezuela.htm
Newsday, April 21, 2002 U.S. Is the Primary Loser in Failed Venezuelan Coup By Larry Birns and Alex Volberding,

http://www.atimes.com/global-econ/DD11Dj01.html Asia Times online: Global Economy US dollar hegemony has got to go By Henry C
K Liu. 11 April, 2002.

http://www.feasta.org/energy.htm

http://www.geologie.tu-clausthal.de/Campbell/lecture.html Peak
Oil; Presentation at the Technical University of Clausthal Dr C.
J. Campbell, December 2000

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/EnemyWithin.html The Observer
The Enemy Within, by Gore Vidal London, Sunday 27 October 2002

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/11/kupchan.htm The
Atlantic Monthly The End of the West, by Charles A. Kupchan, November 2002.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/14/1047583707551.html
The Age (Melbourne, Australia) Why the UN really matters, by
Martin Woollacott, 14 March 2003

The Anglo-American Military Axis,
by Michel Chossudovsky
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.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/19/1047749824415.html
"The Age", Melbourne, Australia, 20 March 2003 The real reasons
America is invading Iraq America is seeking to ward off any threat
to its economic domination of the world, writes Kenneth Davidson.

About the author: Hello. My name is Geoffrey Heard.I am a
long-time activist and writerin the environment, human rightsand
social justice fields. More than 40 years in journalism and
related fields, during which I held senior positions in and out
of government in Australia and PapuaNew Guinea, plus intimate
involvement in the campaign to free East Timor, have given me an
insight into government processes and fueled a profound
scepticism. I was moved to research and write this piece because,
while I abhor Saddam Hussein as a monster, the stated reasons for
the U.S., British and Australian invasion of Iraq simply did not
add up, and did notaccount for all that has occurred to date. I
live in Melbourne, Australia.

Editor's Footnotes:

* Other estimates place U.S. debt at $29.000 per each American.

** Nevertheless, the Bush Administration has asked Congress for
an additional $80 Billion for the Iraq invasion.

*** Please see "Gulf War Profiteering" in our International Law
section.

http://www.unobserver.com/layout5.php?id=795&blz=2

Usurpers always choose troubled times to enact,
in the atmosphere of general panic, laws
which the public would never adopt when passions were cool.
One of the surest ways of distinguishing the work of a lawgiver
from that of a tyrant is to note the moment he chooses to give
a people its constitution.
                           Jean-Jaques Rousseau

compare to USA today:  http://www.kuro5hin.org/print/2003/3/23/16358/7917
 

Osama's religious fanatics really responsible for 911 ???

There are SERIOUS doubts that the official version can be true.
Funny thingsall over the internet, but there has been no official investigation.
into 911, but there have been 3 into the Columbia disaster.

read this:: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/VonBuelow.html
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/wtc_truth.htm
http://paddy42.tripod.com/2003/911Links.htm
http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wot/home_run.htm 1st hint to Remote Control 16oct2001

Andreas von Bülow sagt, dass diese [USA} geheimdienstliche Politikform
nicht davor zurückschreckt, dem eigenen Land einen Schrecken
wie den 11. September anzutun. Er sei, sagte er in Schorndorf,
fest davon überzeugt, dass die gleich nach den Terroranschlägen
aufgenommene fundamentalistisch-muslimische Spur eine
„Fehlspur“ sei, allzu offensichtlich gelegt als eine Art
„Schnitzeljagd für Geheimdienste“. Die Anschläge von New York,
so von Bülows Einschätzung, seien eine „hochprofessionelle Leistung
und Inszenierung“, und wer dazu in der Lage sei,
„der muss jahrelang in den amerikanischen Strukturen
selbst drin gewesen sein“.  http://www.hermann-scheer.de/wahlkreis.php?uid=28&action=show
http://www.muslim-markt.de/wtc/buelow.htm
http://www.alertmagazin.de/alert.php?issue=6&content=buelow

If it wasn't arabs at the controls, then it was whiteys.
The only whiteys with enough power to cover up
are corporate black ops. These guys (they OWN the CIA!)
(they OWN the airwaves and the heads of government) have had
access to the full boeing codes for remote control of the 767/757s.
Mossad knew that they were planning it, so they felt safe
in doing the Egyptair 990 job with a cruder version of that technology,
with incomplete codes (just the steering) Even X-Files got wind of it!
And after a sequence of events (world-finance,oil, power) it
was decided somewhere to do it. Now they have power
over world opinion and can keep the world at perpetual terror,
in order to rule. (Terror: enforcing one's political will).
You'd think that all airlines would have known that 767/757
are remote-controllable. And to give them a chilling message
Flight 587 (European-made Airbus, no back door into the computer)
was EMPed from the ground so it lost engines and rudders
and crashed into Queens, NY . The message being clear.
We go to any length, just shut up or else.
It would be interesting to know how many airline companies have
exchanged and updated the software of the flight computers.

... and then there are at least a hundred people on earth that know the full story,
remember billions were traded on airline stocks the day before 911.
The story will be told someday.

A hint came from the new german defence minister's first speech in Parliament.
He was put into the job IN ONE DAY (and was briefed by Mil-Intell that night).
He said:  "... now that violence has been privatised ..."  Why would he say
that in combination with 911?  The official version is 'religious zealots' and
'America Haters' ... but not 'private people'.  He knows who he is talking about..

Also I think VIALLS is onto it... http://www.oocities.org/vialls/
Let's wait for part two of the 'strategic brains behind 911'  story

For a broader perspective, try the good uncovering of lies in Bush's
speech. http://www.parallel-youniversity.com/emag/UP146.htm

back