ΝΕΑ ΧΩΡΙΣ ΦΙΛΤΡΟ ΦΕΛΛΟΥ

Νέα και Παράξενα-Σελίδες εναλλακτικής πληροφόρησης και ειδήσεων-alternative informations

Posts Tagged ‘Latin America’

ΠΡΟΒΛΕΨΕΙΣ ΓΙΑ ΤΟ 2009 ΑΠΟ ΤΟΝ STANISLAV MISHIN

Posted by satyrikon στο 9 Ιανουαρίου, 2009

ΟΠΩΣ ΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΤΗΚΑΝ ΣΤΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ MAT RODINA

ΑΦΟΡΑ ΣΤΙΣ ΠΑΡΑΚΑΤΩ ΧΩΡΕΣ:

ΡΩΣΙΑ

ΑΜΕΡΙΚΗ

ΜΕΞΙΚΟ

ΝΟΤΙΑ ΑΜΕΡΙΚΗ

ΗΝΩΜΕΝΟ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΟ

ΙΣΠΑΝΙΑ

ΓΑΛΛΙΑ

ΙΤΑΛΙΑ

ΓΕΡΜΑΝΙΑ

ΠΟΛΩΝΙΑ

ΧΩΡΕΣ ΤΗΣ ΒΑΛΤΙΚΗΣ

ΒΑΛΚΑΝΙΑ

For the Balkans as general, look for war in 2009. It will start with increased violence against the EU and NATO in Kosovo from the drug cartels who run the failed statelete. With NATO on the retreat in Afghanistan, split over Russia, Serbia will finally take the move to re annex Kosovo and drive the KLA and Albanian mafia out of the region. This will be sparked by KLA Islamics starting more terror in southern Serbia and the threat against the Serb minority there.

The domino effect will be fast and furious.

Once NATO steps aside and does nothing to loose yet more troops to the Serb army, the signal will be clear. The KLA will flee into Greece, Makedonia and Albania. In Albania, they will destabilize the already weak government and the state, by the end of the year will be in the process of collapsing. Makedonia will find itself once more mired in a civil war. This time, though, a weak US will not be able to stop Makedonia’s neighbors from arming the Orthodox Christian state against the Islamic-Narco insurgency.

Greece will also find itself with an active Albanian insurgency, on a much higher level than the few violent incidents scattered so far. In the end, Greece will eject its Albanian workers and may even be drawn actively into the collapsing Albania, if for no other reason than to protect the 25% Orthodox Albanian minority.

In Bosnia, Srpska Republic, using the Kosovo standard, will declare independence and ask to return to Serbia’s borders. This will of course reignite the Bosnian three way civil war, for which all three sides are ready. NATO will attempt to stop the deterioration but after several violent incidents, member nations will withdraw their troops or remask them as UN observers.

Croatia and Serbia will meet once more on the battle field of Europe as Bosnia is equally flooded by a new wave of Arab and Pakistani Jihadists.

ΤΟΥΡΚΙΑ

ΟΥΚΡΑΝΙΑ

ΓΕΩΡΓΙΑ

ΙΣΡΑΗΛ

ΙΡΑΝ

ΙΡΑΚ

ΑΦΓΑΝΙΣΤΑΝ

ΠΑΚΙΣΤΑΝ

ΙΝΔΙΑ

ΚΙΝΑ

ΙΑΠΩΝΙΑ

Posted in Albania, FYROM, Italy, Ισραήλ, Τουρκία, Kosovo, Turkey, Uncategorized | Με ετικέτα: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

An interview with Subcomandante Marcos, spokesperson for the EZLN, the Zapatista Movement

Posted by satyrikon στο 7 Δεκεμβρίου, 2008

Subcomandante Marcos interview (subtitled) 1/3

Subcomandante Marcos interview (subtitled) 2/3

Subcomandante Marcos interview (subtitled) 3/3

Posted in NWO, Uncategorized | Με ετικέτα: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Ο ΤΕΤΑΡΤΟΣ ΠΑΓΚΟΣΜΙΟΣ ΠΟΛΕΜΟΣ(ΟΜΙΛΙΑ ΤΟΥ Subcomandante Marcos La Realidad, Chiapas, Mexico)

Posted by satyrikon στο 4 Δεκεμβρίου, 2008

ΑΦΙΕΡΩΝΕΤΑΙ

ΣΤΟΥΣ «ΡΟΖ ΕΠΑΝΑΣΤΑΤΕΣ» ΤΟΥ ΣΥΡΙΖΑ

ΚΑΙ

ΣΤΟΥΣ «ΓΝΩΣΤΟΥΣ ΑΓΝΩΣΤΟΥΣ» ΚΟΥΚΟΥΛΟΦΟΡΟΥΣ

(ΑΝΑΡΧΙΚΟΥΣ ΤΗΣ ΚΑΚΙΑΣ ΣΥΜΦΟΡΑΣ)

The Fourth World War

Subcomandante Marcos

La Realidad, Chiapas, Mexico


Translated by irlandesa

The following text is an excerpt from a talk given by Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos to the International Civil Commission of Human Rights Observation in La Realidad, Chiapas on November 20, 1999. The outline for the talk was published in Letters 5.1 and 5.2 in November of the same year, with the titles «Chiapas: the War: 1, Between the Satellite and the Microscope, the Other’s Gaze,» and 2, «The Machinery of Ethnocide.» Any similarity to the conditions of the current war is purely coincidental. Published in Spanish in La Jornada, Tuesday, October 23, 2001.

The Restructuring of War

As we see it, there are several constants in the so-called world wars, in the First World War, in the Second, and in what we call the Third and Fourth.

One of these constants is the conquest of territories and their reorganization. If you consult a map of the world you can see that there were changes at the end of all of the world wars, not only in the conquest of territories, but in the forms of organization. After the First World War, there was a new world map, after the Second World War, there was another world map.

At the end of what we venture to call the «Third World War,» and which others call the Cold War, a conquest of territories and a reorganization took place. It can, broadly speaking, be situated in the late 80’s, with the collapse of the socialist camp of the Soviet Union, and, by the early 90’s, what we call the Fourth World War can be discerned.

Another constant is the destruction of the enemy. Such was the case with nazism in the second World War, and, in the Third, with all that had been known as the USSR and the socialist camp as an option to the capitalist world.

The third constant is the administration of conquest. At the moment at which the conquest of territories is achieved, it is necessary to administer them, so that the winnings can be disbursed to the force which won. We use the term ‘conquest» quite a bit, because we are experts in this. Those States, which previously called themselves national, have always tried to conquer the Indian peoples. Despite those constants, there are a series of variables which change from one world war to another: strategy, the actors, or the parties, the armaments used and, lastly, the tactics. Although the latter change, the former are present and can be applied in order to understand one war and another.

The Third World War, or the Cold War, lasted from 1946 (or, if you wish, from the bombing of Hiroshima in 1945) until 1985-1990. It was a large world war made up of many local wars. As in all the others, at the end there was a conquest of territories which destroyed an enemy. Second act, it moved to the administration of the conquest and the reorganization of territories. The actors in this world war were: one, the two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union and their respective satellites; two, the majority of the European countries; three, Latin America, Africa, parts of Asia and Oceana. The peripheral countries revolved around the US or the USSR, as it suited them. After the superpowers and the peripherals were the spectators and victims, or, that is, the rest of the world. The two superpowers did not always fight face to face. They often did so through other countries. While the large industrialized nations joined with one of the two blocs, the rest of the countries and of the population appeared as spectators or as victims. What characterized this war was: one, the arms orientation and, two, local wars. In the nuclear war, the two superpowers competed in order to see how many times they could destroy the world. The method of convincing the enemy was to present it with a very large force. At the same time, local wars were taking place everywhere in which the superpowers were involved.

The result, as we all know, was the defeat and destruction of the USSR, and the victory of the US, around which the great majority of countries have now come together. This is when what we call the «Fourth World War» broke out. And here a problem arose. The product of the previous war should have been a unipolar world – one single nation which dominated a world where there were no rivals – but, in order to make itself effective, this unipolar world would have to reach what is known as «globalization.» The world must be conceived as a large conquered territory with an enemy destroyed. It was necessary to administer this new world, and, therefore, to globalize it. They turned, then, to information technology, which, in the development of humanity, is as important as the invention of the steam engine. Computers allow one to be anywhere simultaneously. There are no longer any borders or constraints of time or geography. It is thanks to computers that the process of globalization began. Separations, differences, Nation States, all eroded, and the world became what is called, realistically, the global village.

The concept on which globalization is based is what we call «neoliberalism,» a new religion which is going to permit this process to be carried out. With this Fourth World War, once again, territories are being conquered, enemies are being destroyed and the conquest of these territories is being administered.

The problem is, what territories are being conquered and reorganized, and who is the enemy? Given that the previous enemy has disappeared, we are saying that humanity is now the enemy. The Fourth World War is destroying humanity as globalization is universalizing the market, and everything human which opposes the logic of the market is an enemy and must be destroyed. In this sense, we are all the enemy to be vanquished: indigenous, non-indigenous, human rights observers, teachers, intellectuals, artists. Anyone who believes themselves to be free and is not.

This Fourth World War uses what we call «destruction.» Territories are destroyed and depopulated. At the point at which war is waged, land must be destroyed, turned into desert. Not out of a zeal for destruction, but in order to rebuild and reorder it. What is the primary problem confronted by this unipolar world in globalizing itself? Nation States, resistances, cultures, each nation’s means of relating, that which makes them different. How is it possible for the village to be global and for everyone to be equal if there are so many differences? When we say that it is necessary to destroy Nation States and to turn them into deserts, it does not mean doing away with the people, but with the peoples’ ways of being. After destroying, one must rebuild. Rebuild the territories and give them another place. The place which the laws of the market determine. This is what is driving globalization.

The first obstacle is the Nation States: they must be attacked and destroyed. Everything which makes a State «national» must be destroyed: language, culture, economy, its political life and its social fabric. If national languages are no longer of use, they must be destroyed, and a new language must be promoted. Contrary to what one might think, it is not English, but computers. All languages must be made the same, translated into computer language, even English. All cultural aspects that make a French person French, an Italian Italian, a Dane Danish, a Mexican Mexican, must be destroyed, because they are barriers which prevent them from entering the globalized market. It is no longer a question of making one market for the French, and another for the English or the Italians. There must be one single market, in which the same person can consume the same product in any part of the world, and where the same person acts like a citizen of the world, and no longer as a citizen of a Nation State.

That means that cultural history, the history of tradition, clashes with this process and is the enemy of the Fourth World War. This is especially serious in Europe where there are nations with great traditions. The cultural framework of the French, the Italians, the English, the Germans, the Spanish, etcetera – everything which cannot be translated into computer and market terms – are an impediment to this globalization. Goods are now going to circulate through information channels, and everything else must be destroyed or set aside. Nation States have their own economic structures and what is called «national bourgeoisie» – capitalists with national headquarters and with national profits. This can no longer exist: if the economy is decided at a global level, the economic policies of Nation States which try to protect capital are an enemy which must be defeated. The Free Trade Treaty, and the one which led to the European Union, the Euro, are symptoms that the economy is being globalized, although in the beginning it was about regional globalization, like in the case of Europe. Nation States construct their political relationships, but now political relationships are of no use. I am not characterizing them as good or bad. The problem is that these political relationships are an impediment to the realization of the laws of the market. The national political class is old, it is no longer useful, it has to be changed. They try to remember, they try to remember, even if it is the name of one single statesman in Europe. They simply cannot. The most important figures in the Europe of the Euro are people like the president of the Bundesbank, a banker. What he says is going to determine the policies of the different presidents or prime ministers inflicted on the countries of Europe.

If the social fabric is broken, the old relationships of solidarity which make coexistence possible in a Nation State also break down. That is why campaigns against homosexuals and lesbians, against immigrants, or the campaigns of xenophobia, are encouraged. Everything which previously maintained a certain equilibrium has to be broken at the point at which this world war attacks a Nation State and transforms it into something else.

It is about homogenizing, of making everyone equal, and of hegemonizing a lifestyle. It is global life. Its greatest diversion should be the computer, its work should be the computer, its value as a human being should be the number of credit cards, one’s purchasing capacity, one’s productive capacity. The case of the teachers is quite clear. The one who has the most knowledge or who is the wisest is no longer valuable. Now the one who produces the most research is valuable, and that is how his salary, his grants, his place in the university, are decided.

This has a lot to do with the United States model. It also so happens, however, that this Fourth World War produces an opposite effect, which we call «fragmentation.» The world is, paradoxically, not becoming one, it is breaking up into many pieces. Although it is assumed that the citizen is being made equal, differences as differences are emerging: homosexuals and lesbians, young people, immigrants. Nation States are functioning as a large State, the anonymous State-land-society which divides us into many pieces.

If you look at a world map of this period – the end of the Third World War – and analyze the last eight years, a restructuring took place, most especially – but not only – in Europe. Where there was once one nation, now there are many nations. The world map has been fragmented. This is the paradoxical effect that is taking place because of this Fourth World War. Instead of being globalized, the world is fragmenting, and, instead of this mechanism hegemonizing and homogenizing, more and more differences are appearing. Globalization and neoliberalism are making the world an archipelago. And it must be given a market logic. These fragments must be organized into a common denominator. It is what we call «financial bomb.»

At the same time that differences appear, the differences are multiplied. Each young person has his group, his way of thinking, such as punks and skinheads. All of which are in every country. Now the different are not only different, but their differences are multiplied and they seek their own identity. The Fourth World War is obviously not offering them a mirror that allows them to see themselves with a common denominator. It is offering them a broken mirror. As long as it has control of the archipelago – of human beings – the powers are not going to be very upset.

The world is breaking into many pieces, large and small. There are no longer continents in the sense that I would be a European, African or American. What the globalization of neoliberalism is offering is a network built by financial capital, or, if you would prefer, by financial powers. If there is a crisis in this node, the rest of the network will cushion the effects. If there is prosperity in a country, it does not produce the effect of prosperity in other countries. It is, thus, a network which does not function. What they told us about the size of the world was a lie, a speech repeated by the leaders of Latin America, whether Menem, Fujimori, Zedillo, or others leaders of compromised moral character. In fact what is happening is that the network has made Nation States much more vulnerable. It is useless for a country to struggle to construct an equilibrium and its own destiny as a nation. Everything depends on what happens in a bank in Japan, or what the mafia in Russia or a speculator in Sydney does. In one way or another, Nation States are not saved, they are permanently condemned. When a Nation State agrees to join this network – because there is no other choice, because they force it, or out of conviction – it is signing its death certificate.

In short, what this great market wants is to turn all of these islands into commercial centers, not nations. One can go from one country to another and find the same products. There is no longer any difference. In Paris or in San Cristóbal de las Casas you can consume the same thing. If you are in San Cristóbal de Las Casas, you can simultaneously be in Paris getting the news. It is the end of Nation States. And not just that: it is the end of the human beings who make them up. What matters is the law of the market, and that is what establishes how much you produce, how much you are worth, how much you buy, how much you are worth. Dignity, resistance, solidarity all disturb. Everything which prevents a human being from turning into a producing and purchasing machine is an enemy, and it must be destroyed. That is why we are saying that the human species is the enemy for the Fourth World War. It is not destroying it physically, but it is destroying its humanness.

Paradoxically, by destroying Nation States, dignity, resistance and solidarity are built anew. There are no ties stronger, more solid, than those which exist between different groups: between homosexuals, between lesbians, between young people, between migrants. This war, then, goes on to also attack those who are different. That is what those campaigns are owing to, so strong in Europe and in the United States, against the different, because they are dark, speak another language or have another culture. The means of cultivating xenophobia in what remains of the Nation States is to make threats: «These Turkish migrants want to take away your job.» «These Mexican immigrants came to rape, they came to steal, they came to sow bad habits.» Nation States – or the few of them that remain – delegate to those new citizens of the world – computers – the role of getting rid of those immigrants. And that is when groups like the Ku Klux Klan proliferate, or persons of such probity as Berlusconi reach power. They all build their campaigns based on xenophobia. Hate for the different, persecution against anything that is different, is worldwide. But the resistance of anything that is different is also worldwide. Faced with that aggression, these differences are multiplied, they are solidified. This is how it is, I am not going to characterize it as good or bad, that is how it is happening.

The War Is Not Only Military

In strictly military terms, the Third World War had its logic. It was, in the first place, a conventional war, conceptualized in such a way that, if I put in soldiers, and you put in soldiers, we confront each other, and whoever is left alive wins. This took place in a specific territory which, in the case of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, forces, and the Warsaw Pact, was Europe. Starting from a conventional war, between armies, a military and weapons oriented path was established.

We are going to look at the details a bit more. This [he shows a rifle], for example, is a semi-automatic weapon, and it’s called an AR-15 automatic rifle. They manufactured it for the Vietnam conflict, and it can be taken apart very easily [he disarms it], there it is. When they made it, the Americans were thinking about a conventional war scenario, that is, large military contingents which confronted each other. «We’ll collect a lot of soldiers, we’ll advance, and in the end someone will have to be left.» At the same time, the Warsaw Pact was developing the Kalashnikov automatic rifle, which is commonly called the AK-47, a weapon with a lot of firing volume at short range, up to 400 meters. The Soviet concept involved large waves of troops: a mountain of soldiers would advance, firing, and, if they died, a second and a third wave would arrive. The one who had the most soldiers would win.

The Americans then thought: «The old Garand rifle from the Second World War isn’t of any use anymore. Now we need a weapon that has a lot of short-range firing power.» They took out the AR-15 and tested it in Vietnam. The problem was that it broke down, it didn’t work. When they attacked the Viet Cong, the mechanism remained open, and when they fired it went «click.» And it wasn’t a camera, it was a weapon. They tried to solve the problem with an M16-A1 model. Here the trick is in the bullets, which are called two different things. One, the civilian, 2.223 of an inch – can be bought in any store in the United States. The other – 5.56 millimeter – is for the exclusive use of NATO. This is a very fast bullet and it has a trick to it. In war, the objective is to see that the enemy has losses, not deaths, and an army considers itself to have casualties when a soldier can no longer fight. The Geneva Convention – an agreement to humanize war – forbids expanding bullets, because at the point at which it enters it destroys more, and it’s a lot more lethal than a hard tipped bullet.

«Given that the idea is to increase the number of wounded and decrease the number of dead,» – they said – «we are prohibiting expansive bullets.» A shot from a hard bullet leaves you useless, you’re a casualty now, it doesn’t kill you unless it reaches a vital organ. In order to fulfill the Geneva Convention and to dupe them, the Americans created the soft tip bullet which, when it enters the human body, bends and turns. The entrance hole is one size, and the exit hole is much bigger. This bullet is worse than the expanding one, and it doesn’t violate conventions. Nonetheless, if it gets you in the arm…it will blow you up. A 162 bullet goes through you and leaves you wounded, but this one destroys you. Coincidentally, the Mexican government has just bought 16,000 of these bullets.

That is, weapons are created for precise scenarios. We are going to assume they don’t want to use the nuclear bomb. What are they going to use? Many soldiers against many soldiers. And so the NATO and Warsaw Pact conventional war doctrines were created.

The second option was a localized nuclear war, a war with nuclear weapons, but only in some places and not in others. There was an agreement between the two superpowers to not attack each other in their own lands, and to fight only on neutral ground. It remains to be said that that this ground was Europe. That’s where the bombs were going to fall and one would see who would be left alive in Western Europe and what was then called Eastern Europe.

The last option of the Third World War was total nuclear war, which was a huge business, the business of the century. The logic of nuclear war is that there would be no winner. It doesn’t matter who fired first, no matter how quickly he fired, the other would be able to fire also. The destruction was mutual, and, from the beginning, this option was simply renounced. The nature of it came to be what is called in military diplomatic terms, «deterrence.»

So that the Soviets wouldn’t use nuclear weapons, the Americans developed many nuclear weapons, and, so that they wouldn’t use nuclear weapons, the Soviets developed many nuclear weapons, and so on. They called it IBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile), and they were the rockets that went from Russia to the United States and from the United States to Russia. They cost a fortune, and now they’re not useful for anything. There were also other nuclear weapons for local use which were the ones they were going to use in Europe in the case of a localized nuclear war.

When this phase began, in 1945, there was a war to be fought because Europe was divided in two. The military strategy – we are speaking of the purely military aspects – was the following: a few forward positions in front of the enemy line, a line of permanent logistics, and the mother country, called the United States or the Soviet Union. The logistical line supplied the forward positions. Large airplanes that were in the air 24 hours a day, the B-52 Fortress, carried the nuclear bombs, and they never had to land. And there were the pacts. The NATO Pact, the Warsaw Pact and the SEATO (South East Asia Treaty Organization) Pact, which is like the NATO of the Asian countries. The model was put into play in local wars. Everything had a logic, and it was logical to fight in Vietnam, which was an agreed scenario. The local armies and insurgents were in the role of the forward positions. In the role of permanent logistics were the lines of clandestine or legal arms sales, and, in the role of the mother countries, the two superpowers. And there was also an agreement about the places where they had to remain as spectators. The clearest examples of these local wars are the dictatorships of Latin America, the conflicts in Asia, especially Vietnam, and the wars in Africa. These apparently had absolutely no logic whatsoever, since the majority of the time what was going on wasn’t understood. But what was happening was part of this outline of conventional war.

It was during this period – and that is important – that the concept of «total war» was being developed. Elements which are no longer military enter into military doctrine. For example, in Vietnam, from the Tet offensive (1968) until the fall of Saigon (1975), the media again became a very important battle front. And so, the idea began to develop in the military that military power was not enough. It was necessary to incorporate others, such as the media. And also that the enemy could be attacked with economic measures, with political measures and with diplomacy, which is the game of the United Nations and of international organizations. Some countries create sabotage in order to secure the condemnation or censuring of others, which is called «diplomatic war.»

All these wars followed the domino theory. It sounds ridiculous, but they were like two rivals playing dominoes with the rest of the population. One of the opponents would put down a piece, and the other would try to put his down in order to cut off the follow-up. It is the theory of that illustrious individual by the name of Kissinger, the Secretary of State for the United States government during the Vietnam era, who said: «We cannot abandon Vietnam because it would mean giving up the game of dominoes in Southeast Asia to the others.» And that is why they did what they did in Vietnam.

It was also about trying to regain the logic of the Second World War. For most of the population, it [the Second World War] had been heroic. There was the image of the Marines liberating France from the dictatorship, liberating Italy from the Duce, liberating Germany from the military, the red army entering from all sides. The Second World War was supposedly waged in order to eliminate a danger for all humanity, that of national socialism. Thus the local wars attempted, one way or another, to regain the ideology of «we are acting in the defense of the free world.» But now Moscow was in the role of national socialism. And Moscow, for its part, did the same thing: both superpowers tried to use the argument of «democracy» and the «free world», as each of them conceived it.

Afterwards came the Fourth World War, which destroyed everything from before, because the world is no longer the same, and the same strategy cannot be applied. The concept of «total war» was developed further: it is not only a war on all fronts, it is a war which can be anywhere, a total war in which the entire world is at stake. «Total war» means: at any moment, in any place, under any circumstances. The idea of fighting for one place in particular no longer exists. Now the fight can take place at any moment. There is no longer the concept of escalation of the conflict with threats, the taking of positions and attempts to reposition oneself. At any moment and in any circumstances, a conflict can arise. It can be domestic problem, it can be a dictator and everything which the last wars of the last five years have been, from Kosovo to the Persian Gulf War. The entire military routine of the Cold War has, thus, been destroyed.

It is not possible to make war, in the Fourth World War, under the criteria of the Third, because now I have to fight any place, I don’t know where I’m going to have to fight, nor do I know when, I have to act rapidly, I don’t even know what circumstances I’m going to have to prosecute this war. In order to resolve the problem, the military first developed the «rapid deployment» war. An example would be the Persian Gulf War, a war which involved a great accumulation of military force in a short period of time, a large military action in a short period of time, the conquering of territories and withdrawal. The invasion of Panama would be another example of rapid deployment. There is, in fact, a NATO contingent which is called «rapid intervention force.» Rapid deployment is a large mass of military force which throws itself against the enemy and which makes no distinction between a children’s hospital and a chemical weapons factory. That is what happened in Iraq: the smart bombs were quite stupid, they made no distinctions. And that’s where they remained, because they realized that this is quite expensive, and it contributes very little. In Iraq they made an entire deployment, but there was no conquest of territory. There were the problems of the local protests, there were the international human rights observers.

They had to withdraw. Vietnam had already taught them that, in these instances, it is not prudent to insist: «No, we can’t do this now,» they said. They then moved on to the strategy of «projection of force.» «Better to have forward positions in North American military bases all over the world, accumulating a great continental force which, in a matter of hours or days, will have the capacity to put in military units any place in the world.» And they can, in fact, put in a division of four or five thousand men in the most distant point in the planet in four days, and more, constantly more.

But the projection of force has the problem of being based on local soldiers, or, rather, on US soldiers. They believe that, if the conflict is not resolved rapidly, the body bags, the dead, will begin arriving, like in Vietnam, and this could provoke many domestic protests in North America, or in whichever country. In order to avoid those problems, they abandoned the projection of force, making – let us be clear – mercantile calculations. They did not make calculations about the destruction of the human forces, or the natural ones, but of publicity and image. And so the war of projection was abandoned, and they went on to a model of war with local soldiers, more international help, more of a supranational body. Now it was not about sending soldiers, but of fighting by means of the soldiers who were there, helping them according to the basis of the conflict, and not using the model of a nation which declares war, but of a supranational body like the UN or NATO. The ones doing the dirty work are the local soldiers, and the ones in the newspapers are the Americans and the international support. This is the model. Protesting no longer works: it is not a war of the United States government. It’s a war by NATO, and, besides, NATO is merely doing the favor of helping the UN.

Throughout the entire world, the restructuring of armies is so that they can confront a local conflict with international support under supranational cover, and under the disguise of humanitarian war. It has to do with saving the population from a genocide by killing it. And that is what happened in Kosovo. Milosevich waged a war against humanity: «If we confront Milosevich, we are defending humanity.» That is the argument the NATO generals used and which brought so many problems to the European left: opposing NATO bombings implied supporting Milosevich, better, then, to support the NATO bombings. And Milosevich, you know, was armed by the United States. The military conception – which is what is now at play – is that the entirety of the world – whether Sri Lanka or any other country, the most distant one can think of – is now the backyard, because the globalized world produces simultaneity. And that is the problem: in this globalized world, anything that happens any place affects the new international order. The world is no longer the world, it’s a village, and everything is very close. Therefore the great policemen of the world – especially the United States – have the right to intervene anywhere, at any time, under any circumstances. They can consider anything as a threat to their domestic security. They can easily decide that the indigenous uprising in Chiapas threatens the domestic security of North America, or the Tamils in Sri Lanka, or whatever you want. Any movement – and not necessarily armed – anyplace can be considered a threat to domestic security.

What is that has happened? The old strategies and old concepts of making war have collapsed. Let us see.

«Theatre of operations» is the military term for indicating the place where the war is going to occur. In the Third World War, Europe was the theatre of operations. Now it is not known where it is going to break out, it could be any place, it is no longer certain that it is going to be in Europe. Military doctrine moves from what is called «system» to what they call «versatility.» «I have to be ready to do anything at any moment. A plan is no longer sufficient: now I need many plans, not just to construct a response to particular incidents, but to construct many military responses to specific incidents.» This is where information technology intervenes. This change leads to moving from the systematic, the inflexible, the rigid, to the versatile, to that which can change from one moment to the next. And that is going to define the entire new military doctrine of armies, of military corps and of soldiers. This will be one element in the Fourth World War. The other will be the movement from «containment strategy» to that of «drawing out» or «extension»: now it is not just about conquering territory, containing the enemy, now it is about prolonging the conflict to what they call «non-war acts.» In the case of Chiapas, this has to do with taking out and putting in governments and municipal presidents, with human rights, with the media, etcetera.

Included in the new military conception is an intensification of the conquest of territory. This means that it is necessary to not only be concerned about the EZLN and its military force, but also about the church, the NGOs, international observers, the press, civilians, etcetera. There are no longer civilians and neutrals. The entire world is part of the conflict.

This implies that national armies are of no use, because they no longer have to defend Nation States. If there are no Nation States, what are they going to defend? Under the new doctrine, national armies go on to play the role of local police. The case of Mexico is quite clear: the Mexican Army is doing more and more police work, like the fight against drug trafficking, or this new body against organized crime which is called the Federal Preventative Police and which is made up of military personnel. It is about national armies turning into local police in the manner of a US comic book: a Super Cop, a Super Police. When the army in the former Yugoslavia was reorganized, it had to turn into a local police force, and NATO is going to be its Super Cop, its senior partner in political terms. The star is the supranational body, in this case NATO or the US army, and the extras are the local armies.

But national armies were built on the basis of a doctrine of «national security.» If there are enemies or dangers to the security of a nation, their work is to maintain security, sometimes against an external enemy, sometimes against destabilizing domestic enemies. This is the doctrine of the Third World War or Cold War. Under these assumptions, national armies develop a national conscious which now makes it difficult to turn them into police friends of the Super Police. Thus the doctrine of national security must now be transformed into «national stability.» The point is no longer defending the nation. Since the main enemy of national stability is drug trafficking, and drug trafficking is international, national armies which operate under the banner of national stability accept international aid or international interference from other countries.

The problem of again reordering national armies exists at the world level. Now we go down to America, and from there to Latin America. The process is a bit similar to that which took place in Europe and which was seen in the Kosovo war with NATO. In the case of Latin America, there is the Organization of American States, the OAS, with the Hemispheric Defense System. According to the former president of Argentina, Menem, all the countries of Latin America are threatened and we need to unite, destroying the national consciences of the armies, and to make a great army under the doctrine of a hemispheric defense system, using the argument of drug trafficking. Given that what is at stake is versatility – or the capacity to make war at any moment, in any place and under any circumstances – rehearsals begin. The few bastions of national defense which still exist must be destroyed by this hemispheric system. If it was Kosovo in Europe, in Latin America it is Colombia and Chiapas. How is this system of hemispheric defense constructed? In two ways. In Colombia, where the threat of drug trafficking is present, the government is asking for everyone’s help: «We have to intervene because drug trafficking not only affects Colombia, but the entire continent.» In the case of Chiapas, the concept of total war is applied. Everyone is a part, there are no neutrals, you are either an ally or you are an enemy.

The New Conquest

In the fragmentation process – turning the entire world into an archipelago – financial power wants to build a new shopping center which will have tourism and natural resources in Chiapas, Belize and Guatemala.

Apart from being full of oil and uranium, the problem is that it is full of indigenous. And the indigenous, in addition to not speaking Spanish, do not want credit cards, they do not produce, they are involved in planting maize, beans, chile, coffee, and they think about dancing to a marimba rather than using a computer. They are neither consumers nor producers. They are superfluous. And everything that is superfluous is expendable. But they do not want to go, and they do not want to stop being indigenous. There is more: their struggle is not to take over power. There struggle is to be recognized as Indian peoples, that their right to exist is recognized, without having to turn into other people.

But the problem is that here, in the land that is at war, in zapatista territory, are the main indigenous cultures, there are the languages and the largest oil deposits. There are the seven Indian peoples who participate in the EZLN, Tzeltal, Tzotzil, Tojolabal, Chol, Zoque, Mam and mestizos. This is the map of Chiapas: communities with an indigenous population and with oil, uranium and precious wood. For neoliberalism everything is merchandise, it is sold, it is exploited. And these indigenous come to say no, that the land is mother, it is the depository of culture, that history lives here, and the dead live here. Absolutely absurd things that cannot be entered on any computer and which are not listed on a stock exchange. And there is no way to convince them to be good, to learn to think right, they simply do not want to. They even rose up in arms. This is why – we say – that the Mexican government does not want to make peace: it is because they want to do away with this enemy and turn this land to desert, afterwards reorganizing it and setting it to operate as a huge shopping center, a Mall in the Mexican Southeast. The EZLN supports the Indian peoples, and is, in this way, an enemy, but not the main one. It is not enough to sort things out with the EZLN, even worse if sorting things out with the EZLN means renouncing this land, because that will mean peace in Chiapas, it will mean renouncing the conquest of a land rich in oil, in precious woods and uranium. This is why they have not done so and are not going to do so.

Published in In Motion Magazine November 11, 2001.

Posted in Μπιλντερμπέργκ, Ξενοφοβία, Ρατσισμός, NWO, Uncategorized | Με ετικέτα: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Σχόλια »

The New U.S.-British Oil Imperialism

Posted by satyrikon στο 12 Ιουλίου, 2008


The New U.S.-British
Oil Imperialism


By
Norman D. Livergood



The U.S. invasion of Iraq to loot its oil and politically restructure the Middle East, is part of a policy of military imperialism that the American and British ruling circles have been engaged in for several centuries. The American revolution was fought to bring the United States under new, non-British rulers, with the new regime sold to the public as a democracy. Beginning in the twentieth century, these American ruling elites have revolved around the Rockefeller, Brown, Harriman, and Morgan family dynasties. The Bush family, beginning with Prescott Bush, have served as satraps of the Rockefeller, Brown, and Harriman interests. As we’ve seen, in earlier articles on these imperialistic rulers (Part 1, Part 2), the British and American ruling cabal decided that the energy of choice for the world would be oil and natural gas (not coal)–just as the drugs of choice would be alcohol and tobacco.

To overcome the problem of his oil holdings being broken apart by the U.S. government in 1911, John Rockefeller set out to control the world’s energy reserves. World War I was the strategy of the world oil cartel (Standard, Shell, British Petroleum) to take over the colonies of France, Holland, Spain and Portugal. The engines of war now ran on petroleum-based products, so ownership of oil could determine who won or lost a war–therefore who would rule the world. Oil, instead of gold, became the token of power.

By 1919, the Oil Empire, not based on countries or nations, but on private corporations, ruled the world.

The Big Three oil cartel, which controlled oil in the Persian Gulf and southeast Asia areas, wanted to gain control over the vast oil reserves in the southern part of the Soviet Union. They financed the fascist regimes in Germany, Italy, and Japan with the hope that they would invade and control Russia. The Oil Rulers planned to defeat the German, Italian, and Japanese regimes and take control of the oil reserves in the Soviet Union. The Rockefeller circle also planned to take control of Persian Gulf oil from the British-Persian Oil cartel and seize control of southeast Asian oil from Royal Dutch Shell.

The United States was brought into the second world war when in July 1941, President Roosevelt signed an embargo to stop all shipping to Japan. This was said to be in retaliation for the Japanese invasion of French Indo-China. Roosevelt’s U.S. embargo cut off the Japanese oil supply, which would have quickly shut down Japan’s entire economy. In late November 1941 the Japanese sent a written «war warning» through diplomatic channels to Washington, demanding that the embargo be stopped, or else American sites in the Pacific would be attacked in retaliation. That formal diplomatic warning was ignored and the U.S. made no reply. Just two weeks later the Japanese bombed the American embargo ships located in Pearl Harbor.

In 1939 and ’40, the Germans and Italians did not attack Russia as the Big Three had planned. Instead, German General Rommel rushed across North Africa to grab the Suez Canal and control all oil shipping through the canal. Rommel then planned to drive through to Persia and toss out the British from the British-Persian oil fields. Meanwhile, after a failed attack on Russia in 1939, the Japanese swept through Southeast Asia and seized all the oil holdings of Royal Dutch Shell. With the defeat of Japan in 1945, most of those Royal Dutch fields came under the control of Rockefeller’s Standard Oil.

Hitler had planned to capture the oil fields in Romania by 1939 so Germany would have its own supply of oil. This was accomplished. Then Rommel was to have captured the oil fields in Persia by 1941, the oil fields in Russia in 1942. Only then would Hitler have sufficient fuel for prosecuting a war with the United States. But less than a week after the Pearl Harbor attack, the Japanese convinced Hitler to declare war on the United States. Hitler agreed only if the Japanese would attack Russia, since German troops were now bogged down in Russia and Hitler would gain strategic advantage if the Russians had to defend themselves from Japan on their eastern flank. When the Japanese failed to attack Russia, Hitler was driven out of Russia and now was without a fuel source. The Romanian oil fields in Ploesti were insufficient for Germany to carry on a war on two fronts, and Germany’s war effort began to collapse.

The last major German campaign was the Battle of the Bulge, in which Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt was to attack the invading allies with his tanks, then capture the Allied fuel dumps. This would stop the American and British forces and obtain the necessary fuel for Germany to continue its war effort. But General Eisenhower ordered the Allied fuel dumps burned and Germany was defeated.

At the end of World War II, the British-Persian Oil Company controlled the vast oil fields in Iran. The Persians had declared their alignment with Adolf Hitler’s Nazi «Aryan Race» movement and were fully expecting German General Rommel to come rushing across Africa and «free» them from the British. They had even proclaimed their alignment with Hitler by changing the name of their country from Persia to «Aryan,» (or «Iran» in the Farsi language), but the Germans failed to save them.

To take control of Persian Gulf oil from the British, in 1954 Kermit Roosevelt, nephew of Franklin, led an American CIA coup to take control of Iran and place in power the American-backed Shah of Iran. The Shah expelled the British, and Rockefeller’s Standard Oil now had control of the British-Persian petroleum fields.

In the early 1950s, Occidental Petroleum’s Armand Hammer, a satrap of the Rockefellers, negotiated a deal with Russian dictator Joseph Stalin to buy his oil–thus effectively stealing it from the Russian people. Russian oil was then sold on the world market at a much higher price than Stalin could get by marketing it himself, because few countries were willing to buy oil from Stalin.

Occidental Petroleum and Russia built two large pipelines, from the Russian oil fields down along both sides of the Caspian Sea, terminating in the old British-Persian–now Standard Oil–oil fields in Iran. For the next 45 years, Russia secretly sent its oil out through those pipelines and Standard Oil sold the oil on the world market at the «West Texas Crude» price by calling it Iranian oil. For almost fifty yeas most Americans have been using Russian oil in their cars.

Standard Oil refineries, which produce gasoline from crude oil, are located at large sea ports like San Francisco, Houston or Los Angeles, not near any of the large American oil fields. Most oil from the Persian Gulf is shipped in oil tankers to those large American refinery-ports.

In 1979, the Standard Oil-backed Shah of Iran was thrown out by a British-backed coup and the long-time British asset, Ayatollah Khomeni, put into power. The flow of Russian oil through Iran suddenly stopped. Other oil pipelines were constructed through Iraq and Turkey. The Russian oil was now called OPEC Arabian-Middle Eastern oil and marketed at the even higher «spot market» price. So in 1979, in America and Europe, we suddenly experienced gasoline shortages and huge increases in the price of gasoline. Also in 1979 Standard Oil-Russian oil interests tried to secure an alternate, short, safe oil pipeline route from Russia through neighboring Afghanistan, but this only resulted in a prolonged war and the project was abandoned.

When the new British-controlled regime in Iran came into power, the Rockefeller-influenced U.S. government immediately threatened to seize $7.9 billion of Iranian assets located in the U.S. On November 4, 1979 Iranian «terrorists» captured and held hostage 65 Americans. Essentially, Standard Oil was being blackmailed by the hostage strategy. After lengthy negotiations, the Rockefeller-created President Jimmy Carter approved the electronic transfer of 7.9 billion dollars from U.S. accounts to the Iranian regime on January 20, 1981.

On Wednesday January 27, 1988, as announced in the Wall Street Journal, Standard Oil merged with British Petroleum. This actually represents Standard Oil’s buyout of British Petroleum, the name of the newly merged company being BP-America. The Wall Street Journal did not see fit to mention worries about the world-wide predatory marketing practices of a deceptively titled Standard Oil regime.

During the last 13 years, BP-America has merged with, or controls, all of the old Standard Oil «mini-companies» which existed before the original breakup by the U.S. government in 1911. The new Standard Oil regime is now known as BP-AMOCO, and few people in the world realize what has happened. It’s now possible to understand why British Prime Minister Blair has become the spokesman for the new wars against terrorism (actually the war for Caspian Sea and Iraq oil).

At the end of WWII, General Douglas MacArthur became the military Governor of Japan. MacArthur’s assistant was Laurence Rockefeller, one of John D. Rockefeller’s four grandsons. As the second world war was drawing to a close, the U.S. was preparing for a massive invasion of the Japanese home islands.

The military had stockpiled vast supplies of weapons and munitions on the island of Okinawa. Some sources claim that with Vice-governor Laurence Rockefeller’s assistance most of the armaments were sold to the leader of Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh, for something like one U.S. dollar and Ho�s «goodwill.» One might wonder why these expensive and critical military supplies were «given» to the North Vietnamese.

To answer that question we have to go to an almost unknown study in the 1920’s prepared by a man named Herbert Hoover, later to become President of the United States. The study showed that one of the world’s largest oil fields ran along the coast of the South China Sea right off French Indo-China, now known as Vietnam. This was before offshore drilling had been invented and before a man named George Herbert Walker Bush was to become the CEO of a world-wide offshore drilling company.



In 1945, Vietnam was still a colony of the French. Laurence Rockefeller, it appears, had given the extensive store of weapons to Ho Chi Minh with the hope that Vietnam would drive out the French so that Standard Oil would be able to take over the as yet undeveloped offshore fields. In 1954, Vietnamese General Giap finally defeated and drove out the French at Dien Bien Phu with weaponry provided by the U.S. However, Ho Chi Minh reneged on the deal since he could read too, and he was well aware of the Hoover resource report and knew there was a vast supply of oil off the Vietnamese coast.

«In the 1950’s a method of undersea oil exploration was perfected which used small explosions deep in the water and then recorded the sound echoes bouncing off the various layers of rock below. The surveyor could then determine the exact location of the arched salt domes which hold the accumulated oil beneath them. But if this method were used off the Vietnam coast on property Standard didn’t own or have the rights to, the Vietnamese, the Chinese, the Japanese and probably even the French would quickly run to the United Nations and complain that America was stealing the oil, and that would shut down the operation. «In 1964, after Vietnam was divided into North and South, and the contrived Gulf of Tonkin incident, several U.S. aircraft carriers were stationed offshore of Vietnam and the ‘war’ was started. Every day jet planes would take off from the carriers, bomb locations in North and South Vietnam, and then using normal military procedure when returning would dump their unsafe or unused bombs in the ocean before landing back on the carriers. Safe ordnance drop zones were designated for this purpose away from the carriers.

«Even close-up observers would only notice many small explosions occurring daily in the waters of the South China Sea and thought it was only part of the ‘war.’ The U.S. Navy carriers had begun Operation Linebacker One, and Standard Oil had begun its ten year oil survey of the seabed off of Vietnam. And the Vietnamese, Chinese and everybody else around, including the Americans, were none the wiser. The oil survey hardly cost Standard Oil a nickel, the U.S. taxpayers paid for it.»

Marshall Douglas Smith. (2001). Black Gold Hot Gold, Ch. 3

So twenty years later and 57,000 Americans and half a million Vietnamese dead, Standard Oil had enough data and the war in Vietnam could end. Nelson Rockefeller’s personal assistant, Henry Kissinger, represented the U.S. at the Vietnam/Paris Peace talks and won a Nobel Peace Prize in the bargain.

After the dust had settled from the war, Vietnam divided their offshore coastal area into numerous oil lots and allowed foreign companies to bid on the lots, with the proviso that Vietnam got a percentage of the action. Norway’s Statoil, British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell, Russia, Germany and Australia all won bids and began drilling within their areas. Strange it was that none of them struck oil. However, the lots which Standard Oil bid for and won proved to have vast oil reserves. Their extensive undersea seismic research appears to have paid off.

Unfortunately, Big Oil’s greed has not abated a whit.The American and British rulers have a new imperialistic strategy by which they hope to gain total control of the world’s energy supplies and the strategic Eurasian land mass. First, they sell armaments to a regime (for example, Panama, Iraq, Yugoslavia/Kosovo, Afghan/Pakistan/Taliban Mujaheddin, Saudi Arabia). Then, they demonize the regime to which they sold the armaments and declare war on it (e.g. Panama Invasion, Gulf War, UN Kosovo war, Afghanistan war, Iraq War). After the war, they station permanent military bases in the country and use the military bases to control the energy resources in the surrounding countries. Current U.S. foreign policy is governed by the doctrine of «full-spectrum dominance»: the U.S. must control military, economic and political developments everywhere.

«If you want to rule the world, you need to control oil. All the oil. Anywhere.»

Monopoly, by Michel Collon

This new strategy began with the Panama invasion, next created the so-called Gulf War, continued with the UN-sanctioned war in the Balkans, and now expands with the new wars against terrorism (Afghanistan, the Philippines, Iraq, and beyond). On January 20, 2001, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that he was willing to deploy U.S. military forces in «another 15 countries» if that is what it takes to combat terrorism. The reason the so-called «war against terrorism» began in Afghanistan is because it is critical to the U.S.-British rulers’ plans to control the Caspian Sea area oil and gas. The UN-sanctioned war in the Balkans was all about oil and the pipeline easement for Caspian Sea oil to Western European markets through Kosovo to the Mediterranean Sea. When Yugoslavia refused to play ball with the International Monetary Fund, the U.S. and Germany began a systematic campaign of destabilization, even using some of the veterans of Afghanistan in that «war.» Yugoslavia was broken up into compliant statelets, and the former Soviet Union was contained. The outcome: the de facto U.S. occupation of Kosovo–where America built its largest military base since the Vietnam War

The Caspian Sea area has proven oil reserves of fifteen to twenty-eight billion barrels plus estimated reserves of 40-178 billion, a total of 206 billion barrels–16 percent of the earth’s potential oil reserves (compared to Saudi’s 261 billion barrels of oil and America’s own 22 billion barrels). Even at today’s low prices, that could add up to $3 trillion in oil. With the Saudi regime tottering–an aging king about to die, widespread internal corruption creating calls for revolutionary overthrow–and a new source of oil and gas in the Caucasus, the Standard Oil suzerainty is looking to create a new regime in Saudi Arabia and develop a new center of operations in Southern Asia–think Iraq.

The huge oil and gas reserves in the Caspian Sea must either be moved west to European markets or south to Asian markets. The western route is to move oil from Chechnya, across the Black Sea and through the Bosporus to the Mediterranean, but the narrow Bosporus channel is already clogged with oil tankers from the Black Sea oil fields. An alternate route would be to move the tankers from the Black Sea, bypassing the Bosporus, up the Danube River and then through a very short pipeline across Kosovo to the Mediterranean at Tirana, Albania. However, that process was stopped by the Chinese who have supplied and armed the Albanians, as a client state, since 1949.

The other difficulty with the western route is that Western Europe is a tough market, characterized by high prices for oil products, an aging population, and increasing competition from natural gas. Furthermore, the region is fiercely competitive, now being serviced by oil from the Middle East, the North Sea, Scandinavia, and Russia. Western Europe is not a very attractive market, because substantial infrastructure would have to be developed to bring that oil from the Caspian to an already overly-competitive European market.

The only other ways to get Caspian Sea oil and gas to Asian markets is through China, which is too long a route, or through Iran, which is politically and economically inimical to U.S.-Standard Oil objectives.

As soon as the Soviets discovered the vast Caspian Sea oil fields in the late 1970’s, they attempted to take control of Afghanistan to build a massive north-south pipeline system to allow the Soviets to send their oil directly through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean seaport. The result was the decades long Soviet-Afghan war. The Standard Oil-influenced U.S. government saw the danger of a Russian north-south pipeline and the CIA trained and funded armed terrorist groups, including Osama bin Laden, who defeated the Soviets in the late 1980’s.

The Russians then tried to control the flow of oil and gas through its monopoly on pipelines. The Southern Asian Republics of the former Soviet Union–Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan–saw through this Russian monopolistic ploy and began to consult with Western companies.

The Standard Oil-influenced U.S. government now plans to thrust further along the 40th parallel from the Balkans through these Southern Asian Republics of the former Soviet Union. The U.S. military has already set up a permanent operations base in Uzbekistan. The so-called anti-terrorist strategy is clearly designed to simultaneously consolidate control over Middle Eastern and South Asian oil, and contain and neutralize the former Soviet Union. With that strategy, Afghanistan is exactly where they need to be.

Russia, realizing its weaker position vis-a-vis the United States, has been making noises as if it fully agreed with the U.S. incursions in Afghanistan. But Russia has joined the Shangahi Cooperation Organization (SCO) which includes China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Takijistan and Uzbekistan. China is using the SCO to try to align Russia economically and politically towards China and northeast Asia. Russia’s membership in the SCO is an attempt to maintain its traditional hegemony in Central Asia. The underlying rationale of the SCO is the control of its members’ enormous reserves of oil and gas.

Despite the misgivings of Russia, China, India, or any other nation, Afghanistan and Iraq will now become the base of operations in destabilizing, isolating, and establishing control over the South Asian regimes and the Middle-East. [Note that Iran stands between Iraq and Afghanistan and you can understand why bush included Iran in the «Axis of Evil.»] After the conquest of this area is complete and the permanent military posts are set up, they will begin construction of a pipeline through Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan to deliver petroleum to the Asian market.

UNOCAL, the spearhead for Standard Oil interests, has been trying to build the north-south pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean for several decades. In 1998, the California-based UNOCAL, which held 46.5 percent stakes in Central Asia Gas (CentGas), a consortium that planned an ambitious gas pipeline across Afghanistan, withdrew in frustration after several fruitless years. The pipeline was to stretch 1,271 km from Turkmenistan’s Dauletabad fields to Multan in Pakistan at an estimated cost of $1.9 billion. An additional $600 million would have brought the pipeline to energy-hungry India.

In the spring of 2001, Halliburton, Vice President Dick Cheney’s company, signed a major contract with the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan to develop a 6000-square-meter marine base to support offshore oil construction in the Caspian Sea. The base will be used to assist Halliburton’s catamaran crane vessel, the Qurban Abbasov, in upcoming offshore pipe-laying and subsea activities, according to a statement the company released May 15, 2001.

UNOCAL cut off its earlier agreement with the Taliban in 1998 when it became clear that the Taliban could not control all of Afghanistan and provide a stable political environment for a north-south pipeline construction project. It was likely at this juncture that a new «war against terrorism» ploy was conceived by the Standard Oil-influenced U.S. government. The «war against terrorism» in Afghanistan has come to a hiatus, with war-lords once again ruling the country, and the Bush administration has put their own man, Karzai, in power to control Afghanistan.

Karzai was a top adviser to UNOCAL during the negotiations with the Taliban to construct a Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline from Turkmenistan through western Afghanistan to Pakistan. Karzai is the leader of the southern Afghan Pashtun Durrani tribe. A member of the mujaheddin that fought the Soviets during the 1980s, Karzai was a top contact for the CIA, maintaining close relations with CIA Director William Casey, Vice President George Bush, and their Pakistani Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) Service go-between. After the Soviet Union left Afghanistan, the CIA sponsored the relocation of Karzai and a number of his brothers to the U.S.

The real motives for the Bush administration’s war in Afghanistan are clear for all to see. The U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan, Wendy Chamberlain, met with Pakistan’s oil minister, Usman Aminuddin, in January, 2002 to continue plans for the north-south pipeline, encouraging the construction of Pakistan’s Arabian Sea oil terminus for the pipeline.

President Bush says our military will continue its presence in Afghanistan, which means that while the U.N. forces serve as a paramilitary police force, U.S. soldiers will be guarding the construction of the north-south pipeline.

To assure that the pipeline project will proceed apace, the Afghani-American Zalmay Khalilzad, a previous member of the CentGas project, became President Bush’s Special National Security Assistant. Khalilzad has recently been named presidential Special Envoy for Afghanistan. Khalilzad is a Pashtun and the son of a former government official under King Mohammed Zahir Shah. Along with being a consultant to the RAND Corporation, he was a special liaison between UNOCAL and the Taliban government. Khalilzad also worked on various risk analyses for the project under the direction of National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, a former member of the board of Chevron.

Now that the Afghanistan portion of the «war on terrorism» is concluded–with permanent U.S. military bases in Uzbekistan and Afghanistan in place–where next will the Standard Oil-influenced U.S. government look to gain further control over oil in the world? Coincidentally, most of those places are in countries which have been branded as harborers of terrorists: Iraq, Syria, Iran, and South America, among others.

Bush Sr.’s Gulf War in 1991 resulted in securing access to the huge Rumaila oil field of southern Iraq by expanding the boundaries of Kuwait after the war. This allows Kuwait, controlled by Standard Oil, to double its prewar oil output.

Iraq, which recently discovered an oil field in its western desert, is widely regarded as having more oil than Saudi Arabia once its deposits are developed. Prior to the 2003 U.S. preemptive invasion of Iraq, Iraq was producing 3 million barrels a day, funneling most of it to world markets through a United Nations-monitored program that directed the proceeds to food and medicine for the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein was still exporting his oil to Syria, which was glad to resell Iraqi oil as if it were Syrian. The United States was one of Syria’s biggest customers, because it liked the low sulfur content of Iraqi oil, according to Nimrod Raphaeli, publisher of the Middle East Economic News, a Washington-based newsletter. Iraq earned $1.5 billion a year from oil smuggling and oil sales outside UN controls, through Syria, Turkey, and Jordan, as well as by ship down the Gulf.

Beginning in September of 2001, the Bush regime threatened to include Iraq in its «war on terrorism.» Any incursion into Iraq had to deal with the reality that American companies, such as Cheney’s Halliburton and G.E. were making billions in Iraq by selling them goods and services. Also, the difficulty that the eradication of the Saddam Hussein regime would seriously compromise America’s establishment of bases on the Arabian peninsula on the pretext of protecting poor Arab sheikhs against the Iraqi Evil Monster.

Prior to the 2003 Iraq war, Saddan was desperately trying to ingratiate himself with the Gulf Arab Cooperation Council (GCC) members: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to gain support for the lifting of the U.N. sanctions against it. Russia, Iraq’s closest U.N. Security Council ally and a major beneficiary of contracts to purchase Iraqi oil and to sell Iraq humanitarian supplies, was demanding «a comprehensive settlement» of the sanctions issue, including steps leading to lifting the military embargo against Iraq. On January 24, 2002, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov made a formal statement that Moscow was opposed to any U.S. military operation against Iraq.

Russia’s Lukoil Oil Company and two Russian government agencies had a 23-year contract to develop Iraq’s West Qurna oil field. By the terms of the contract, Lukoil was to get one half, Iraq one quarter, and the Russian government agencies were to get one quarter of the oil field’s 667 million tons of crude, potentially a $20 billion deal. Iraq still owed Russia at least $8 billion from the old cold war days when Russia armed Iraq, considering it a client state. Is it any wonder that Russia opposed Bush’s war on Iraq?

But because of United Nations sanctions on Iraq, Lukoil had not pumped a drop from West Qurna since it won drilling rights in 1997. In 2001, Saddam gave Russia $1.3 billion in oil contracts under the United Nations oil-for-food program that allowed Iraq to sell oil to buy supplies to help Iraqi civilians. In September, 2001, Saddam announced plans to award Russian companies another $40 billion in contracts as soon as United Nations sanctions were lifted.

In February, 2002, Russia’s foreign minister, Igor S. Ivanov, said that Russia and Iraq saw eye to eye on questions of extremism and terrorism and that the American-backed sanctions against Iraq were counterproductive and should be lifted. He then emphasized that Russia solidly opposed «spreading or applying the international antiterror operation to any arbitrarily chosen state, including Iraq.»

The 2003 Standard Oil-Bush junta war against Iraq ended all the prior Iraqi agreements with nations such as Russia, Germany, and France. The opposition by these Eurasian nations to Dubya’s preemptive attack on Iraq was understandable–and Dubya’s rush to war with Iraq now makes sense.

Also to be considered in any plans to extend the Standard Oil/Bush oil imperialism is China’s growing interest in supporting Middle-East nations in their struggle against the U.S. During Jordanian King Abdallah II’s January, 2002 visit to China, Chinese President Jiang Zemin said that China wanted stronger ties with Arab countries to help promote peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Yeah, sure, that’s the reason China wants to put its foot into the Middle East, to promote peace. China has supplied military weaponry to Pakistan and may intervene if the Standard Oil/Bush imperialists continue to expand their empire in the Middle East.

'Civilization Begins at Home' NY World, Nov. 26, 1898 But the Standard Oil/Bush imperialists don’t concern themselves with the threat of China in the Middle East. They’ve seized control of Iraq’s oil and now have their eye on Syria’s and Iran’s oil as well. We’re now in phase two of the war on terrorism: invading countries that Bush says harbor terrorists, with the real intent to seize those countries’ energy sources. And since U.S.-British a.k.a. Standard Oil imperialism now–since 9/11–results in the killing of American civilians, we can say that the next phase of the war on terrorism will soon be at a theater near you.

U.S. soldiers are now guarding the north-south pipeline as it’s built in Afghanistan. U.S. military weaponry  to protect the Cano Limon pipelineIn the meantime, the hypocrisy of Bush’s «war on terrorism» is apparent for all to see in Colombia where Bush proposes to spend $98 million to protect Occidental Petroleum’s 480-mile-long pipeline which runs from Colombia’s second-largest oil field to the Caribbean coast. The $98 million will follow the $1.3 billion the U.S. has already given to Colombia, ostensibly to fight the «drug terrorists.» In 2001, the Cano Limon pipeline was closed for 266 days, due to holes blasted in it. The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) rebels have blown holes in the pipeline for the past fifteen years, resulting in 2.5 million barrels of spilled oil oozing into Colombia’s rivers and streams, about ten times the amount of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska.

If Bush enters this 38-year old conflict in Colombia which has resulted in 40,000 deaths in the past decade, he’ll be involving the U.S. in a dead-end power struggle among FARC, the Cuban-inspired National Liberation Army (ELN), ultra-right paramilitary groups and the U.S.-supported fascist government. The excuse for spending U.S. taxpayers’ money in Afghanistan was that Bin Laden was responsible for the September 11th attacks. Now the only pretext for spending taxpayers’ money in Colombia is to combat the FARC and ELN «terrorists» who only threaten U.S. oil company resources, not American lives.

Invading Colombia follows the British-U.S. oil imperialism pattern: going where the oil is. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, Colombian oil production rose from only 100,000 barrels per day in the early 1980s to approximately 844,000 barrels in early 1999 — an increase of nearly 750 percent. Colombian oil exports to the United States have also risen sharply, and today Colombia is this country’s seventh largest supplier of petroleum. Colombia harbors large reserves of untapped oil and natural gas, possibly as much as 20 billion barrels (and Venezuela has 73 billion barrels in proven reserves); hence Colombia–and its oil-rich neighbor countries–become one of many new oil imperialism targets. The United States imports more oil from Colombia and its neighbors, Venezuela and Ecuador, than from all of the Persian Gulf.

A revealing feature of the South American «war on terrorism» is that, unlike the Taliban and al Qaeda, the Bush administration is not destroying the numerous South American drug terrorists. Why? Because the Bush administration and its plutocratic controllers are at the center of the $1.5 trillion per year in U.S. cash transactions that result from the international drug trade.

A drug terrorist, like a Carlos Lehder, a Pablo Escobar, an Amado Fuentes, a Matta Ballesteros or a Hank Rohn, constantly has something like ten billion dollars of useless illegal money that he has to put in a cooperative bank or business venture that will launder it for him. The drug lord is then more than happy to loan the laundered money at five percent interest to underwrite the large corporations and crooked politicians throughout the world.

Wall Street and the Bush administration depend on the South American drug barons for hundreds of millions of dollars for corporate income and election campaign finances. For every million dollars of increased sales or increased revenues that a company like Enron realized from a buyout, the stock equity of the one per cent who control Wall Street increases twenty to thirty times.

Wall Street embracing drug terrorism In June, 1999, Colombia’s president Andres Pastrana arranged for Richard Grasso, head of the New York Stock Exchange, to meet with Raϊl Reyes, the head of FARC finances, in the cocaine-producing DMZ of Colombia. The two were caught in an infamous embrace that saw very little exposure in the media.

Grasso, however, wasn’t the only American big-money representative to cozy up to Colombian drug terrorists. Several months after Grasso’s visit, two wealthy members of the American Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) captured world headlines by flying to a FARC redoubt in the Colombian jungles to palaver with the terrorists’ founder, U.S. corporations embracing drug terrorism70-year-old Manuel Marulanda. After meeting with the communist drug terrorist, James Kimsey, co-founder and chairman emeritus of America Online Inc., and Joseph Robert, head of J.E. Robert Company, a global real estate empire, flew to Bogota to consult with Colombian president Pastrana. On returning to Washington, the CFR representatives said they were convinced that Marulanda and FARC are sincere in their claims of wanting peace and economic reform.

It may seem hard to believe that U.S. banks and corporations would be involved in laundering drug money from South American terrorists. Even the supine media have had to report some of this criminal behavior. A 1983 ABC News «Close up» on drugs and money laundering fingered Citibank, Marine Midland, Chase Manhattan, and most of the 250 banks and branches in Miami. When Ramon Milian Rodriguez, a top accountant and money launderer for the Medellin Cartel, testified before a Senate subcommittee in 1988, he implicated a veritable «Who’s Who» in U.S. finance:

  • Citibank
  • Citicorp
  • Bank of America
  • First National Bank of Boston

Citibank «In every instance,» said Rodriguez, «the banks knew who they were dealing with….» The evidence indicates that Rodriguez is right; the banks often play dumb, but they know what they’re doing.

A 1998 investigation of Citibank by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) revealed that Citibank had secretly transferred between $90 million and $100 million of alleged drug money for a Mexican client, using many creative methods to camouflage the movement of the assets.

Oil imperialism rests on our continued dependence on oil, which not only threatens the future of humanity through prolonged and bloody conflict, but through another even more insidious threat–climate change and ecological collapse.

«The oil industry has destroyed Colombia’s forests, as well as the culture and subsistence of its Indigenous Peoples. A major part of the country’s territory has been affected by oil-related activities, including colonization. Some Indigenous Peoples, such as the Yariguies, have been exterminated. Others, like the Motilones, the Cofanes and the Guahibos, have been decimated. Nowadays, the U’wa people find their ancestral lands threatened by oil exploitation that could destroy their forests, their lives and their culture. «The process of territorial occupation by oil companies has been stimulated by Colombian legislation, which has provided large incentives for oil projects. Oil companies are allowed to occupy the five-kilometer area surrounding an oil well, thus displacing Indigenous and farmers’ communities and destroying biodiversity-rich forest zones.

«Currently, seven million hectares of Colombian land are occupied by oil operations, and ten million more have been awarded to oil companies over recent years. Thus, 17 million hectares of forested land is currently at the disposition of transnational oil companies.»


'Dogwood' by Bierstadt
Oil imperialism flourishes when a supine press cheers and a groveling congress grants unconstitutional authority to the oil-saturated Demonic Cabal. Despite our grief and rage over terrorist atrocities, a «war on terrorism» cannot be fought with bombs and missiles alone. Citizens throughout the world must awaken to this new U.S.-British imperialism and reclaim their governments. Once democracy is re-established, we can start a war on homelessness, poverty, and economic and political inequalities, and begin work to achieve ecological sustainability for our planet.

Updated: 6/20/08 — original article: 10/29/01Relevant Links and Updates

ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ :http://www.hermes-press.com/impintro1.htm

Bibliography

  • Brisard, J, and Dasquie, G. Forbidden Truth, 2002
  • Rashid, Ahmed, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, 2000
  • Pilger, John, Hidden Agenda
  • Klare, Michael, Resource Wars
  • Yergin, Daniel, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power, (1991)
  • Pepe Escobar, The war for Pipelineistan, Asian Times (1/26/02)

Posted in Bilderberg, CFR, FYROM, Ε.Ε., Μπιλντερμπέργκ, ΝΑΤΟ, Τουρκία, NWO, South Stream, Trilateral Commission, Turkey, Uncategorized | Με ετικέτα: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

$500.000 ΔΟΘΗΚΑΝ ΣΤΟΥΣ ΑΝΤΙΠΑΛΟΥΣ ΤΟΥ ΤΣΑΒΕΣ ΑΠΟ ΤΙΣ ΗΠΑ

Posted by satyrikon στο 9 Μαΐου, 2008

ΑΥΤΑ ΤΑ ΧΡΗΜΑΤΑ ΔΟΘΗΚΑΝ ΣΤΟΝ Yon Goicoechea

ΗΓΕΤΗ ΤΩΝ ΦΟΙΤΗΤΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΤΙΠΟΛΙΤΕΥΣΗΣ ΤΗΣ ΒΕΝΕΖΟΥΕΛΑΣ

ΚΑΙ ΑΠΟΤΕΛΟΥΝ ΤΟ ΠΟΣΟ ΠΟΥ ΔΙΔΕΤΑΙ ΓΙΑ ΤΟ ΒΡΑΒΕΙΟ MILTON FRIEDMAN

ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΕΥΑΓΕΣ ΙΔΡΥΜΑ Cato Institute ΠΟΥ ΕΔΡΕΥΕΙ -ΠΟΥ ΑΛΛΟΥ – ΣΤΙΣ ΗΠΑ.

ΕΙΝΑΙ Η ΕΠΙΒΡΑΒΕΥΣΗ ΤΩΝ ΥΠΗΡΕΣΙΩΝ ΠΟΥ ΠΡΟΣΕΦΕΡΕ

Ο ΠΑΡΑΠΑΝΩ ΗΓΕΤΗΣ ΓΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΔΗΜΙΟΥΡΓΙΑ ΕΜΠΟΔΙΩΝ

ΣΤΟ ΚΑΘΕΣΤΩΣ ΤΟΥ ΠΡΟΕΔΡΟΥ ΤΗΣ ΒΕΝΕΖΟΥΕΛΑΣ ΤΣΑΒΕΣ.

ΠΕΡΙΣΣΟΤΕΡΕΣ ΛΕΠΤΟΜΕΡΕΙΕΣ ΕΔΩ

Posted in NWO, Uncategorized | Με ετικέτα: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

 
Αρέσει σε %d bloggers: