Jacob Levich
Yes, Tony, There Is A Conspiracy
Tue Apr 8 22:17:42 2003
208.152.73.65

Yes, Tony, There Is A Conspiracy
By Jacob Levich
4-8-3

Here's the prewar zeitgeist in a nutshell: In a widely
reported January 16 speech, Tony Blair proclaimed that
the impending invasion of Iraq "has nothing to do with
oil, or any of the other conspiracy theories put
forward."

One week later, Sen. Richard Lugar, chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, quietly passed
word to Russia and France that their countries will
be frozen out of staggeringly lucrative postwar oil
contracts unless they roll over and endorse the US
attack.

Yes, Tony, there is a conspiracy, in the dictionary
sense of the term: an agreement among people to
perform a criminal or wrongful act. It consists, not
of a tiny cabal, but of the whole of the American
power elite, from politicians to business executives
to journalists. It has everything to do with oil.
But it is not secret.

The conspirators know they can count on the uncritical

support of the mass media. Therefore knowledge of
their cynical motives and thuggish tactics can be made
available in journals and other specialized fora, all
but invisible to most Americans but accessible to the
few with sufficient time and inclination to dig
beneath the headlines.

Building on that knowledge, a Mumbai-based independent

think tank has now anatomized the conspiracy behind
the coming war and issued a truly comprehensive
explanation of the current global crisis.

Behind the Invasion of Iraq, the startling new
book-length report authored by the Research Unit for
Political Economy (RUPE), synthesizes the seemingly
disparate threads of the US war drive in what amounts
to a blistering indictment of American foreign policy.
The report (available on the Web at
www.rupe-india.org) is lavishly documented and
jargon-free;
the effect, especially for readers with limited
understanding of global commerce and finance, is of
puzzle pieces clicking decisively into place.

The RUPE report wholly confirms the widely-held view
of the coming war as a massive oil grab, "on a scale
not witnessed since the days of colonialism." Further,
the current debate about arms inspections and alleged
links to al-Qaeda is revealed as pure political
theater, since the decision to invade Iraq was made
months ago.

But seizure of Iraq's multi-trillion-dollar petroleum
reserves is only the immediate goal, the report shows.

RUPE's rigorous analysis of publicly available sources

-- including official documents, think-tank papers,
and press reports -- reveals that the US intends to
use the invasion of Iraq as a launching pad for a
drastic reshaping of the Middle East, to be followed
by an unprecedented expansion of US power worldwide.
The strategic trend of US foreign policy now points
unmistakably towards global empire.

To be sure, an imperial project on so ambitious a
scale entails big downside risks for the US, including
staggering costs, military hazards, and the disruption
of global "stability" (i.e., the dearly-bought loyalty
of US allies and client states.) But the American
Establishment seems prepared to go for broke, and its
enthusiastic consensus behind a naked war of conquest
cannot be explained solely by the "cowboy mentality"
that some detect in the White House.

What's really at stake -- and this will come as no
surprise to leftists -- is US control of global
markets. The report reveals that the US economy is
now facing a nightmare scenario: A crisis of
overproduction has crippled US GDP, resulting in
monstrous trade and budget deficits, even as a
potentially disastrous deflationary spiral appears
to be under way worldwide.

Meanwhile, superpower rivals Europe, Russia and China
are mounting a vigorous challenge to US economic pre-
eminence, which is further threatened by the euro's
emergence as a credible alternative to the dollar as
global reserve currency.

(All this is exhaustively detailed in the RUPE report,
which draws its most telling evidence from the
mainstream financial press.)

In this context, the US sees confiscation of the
world's richest oil-producing regions as a magic
bullet. While securing its own access to petroleum
supplies for the foreseeable future, it can
simultaneously defend dollar hegemony and restructure
Middle East markets for the exclusive benefit of
US-based corporations.

Which brings us to the crux: Direct American control
of oil would render any potential challengers for
world or regional supremacy perpetually dependent on
US forbearance. In RUPE's words, "once it has seized
the oil wells of west Asia the US will determine not
only which firms would bag the deals, not only the
currency in which oil trade would be denominated, not
only the price of oil on the international market, but
even the destination of the oil."

RUPE's argument here is powerful but complex, and this

summary is necessarily an extreme oversimplification.
But the overall thrust is quite clear: The US invasion
of Iraq needs to be understood not as an end in itself
but as the means to an end -- the foundation of a New
American Empire.

Needless to say, you won't catch Tony Blair owning up
to the war's real purpose as he flogs it to a
skeptical public. But the truth, or something pretty
close to it, is now readily available to anyone who
cares to look.

Jacob Levich, a writer and editor based in Queens,
N.Y., assisted RUPE in researching Behind The Invasion
of Iraq -- which is a fancy way of saying he forwarded
several hundred articles to an email address in
Mumbai. He can be reached at: jlevich@earthlink.net

http://www.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=2230&lang=en

=============================================

Iraqi patriots 'don't favour coalition rule'
London |By Amir Taheri | 08-04-2003
http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=83552

In Iraq's deeply divided political scene where trust is a rare commodity, one man stands out: Adnan Pachachi.

Aged 80, this former foreign minister and veteran diplomat is now regarded by many Iraqis from all sides of the political spectrum as the elder statesman who could head a transitional authority to lead Iraq from the present dictatorial system to a pluralist and democratic one.

Before Saddam Hussain's Baath Party seized power in Baghdad in 1968, Pachachi had served in several Iraqi cabinets, his ministerial career punctuated by stints as his country's ambassador to the United Nations. He left Iraq shortly after the Saddam regime was established, and accepted the offer of UAE President His Highness Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan to become his political advisor with ministerial rank.

Pachachi went into retirement a few years ago, spending more time in Europe. An opponent of the Baathist regime for almost 30 years, Pachachi has been pushed into a central position by the recent events concerning Iraq. He is the only major Iraqi opposition leader to enjoy the respect not only of most Arab regimes but also of the Arab public in general.

At the end of March, he was chosen by a conference in London of the Iraqi opposition movements to organise and head a council of sovereignty that would become the main interlocutor for the U.S.-led coalition, and the United Nations, in the immediate post-Saddam period.

Below are excerpts from an exclusive interview with Gulf News:

How do you see the war going?
Adnan Pachachi: Some say it is going slower than planned, while others claim it is going faster. There is, of course, a great deal of misinformation on all sides. One thing is certain: the fall of Saddam Hussain is imminent.

Would it make much difference if that happens sooner rather than later?
Yes. A longer war may harden American attitudes in favour of a long period of military rule. An earlier end would strengthen the position of those who want a quick transfer of power to an Iraqi national authority.

Could this war be stopped in any way?
It could have been avoided right from the start had Saddam Hussain not played games with the United Nations inspectors. It could have even been prevented had Saddam stepped down, sacrificing his personal position in the interest of the nation. He did not. He wanted war, as he has always wanted. This will be Saddam's last war.

There is talk of a French plan under which Saddam will step down and hand over power to his younger son Qusay who would then form a new government and ask for a ceasefire under the auspices of the United Nations…
I don't think anything or anyone can now stop this war without the complete dismantling of the Saddamite regime. The people of Iraq demand total liberation from that regime, not a compromise that would allow part of it to survive in any shape or form.

Most analysts agree that the Iraqi opposition is not yet ready to create a national authority. Wouldn't a quick victory of the U.S.-led coalition create a vacuum in which the Iraqi state would be eclipsed?
We may have no choice but to accept a short period of military administration to fill the void that will be created by the disintegration of the regime. But I must make it clear that Iraqi patriots do not favour any form of rule by the coalition. With the fall of the regime imminent, we in the opposition must work round-the-clock to create a transitional authority, or government if you prefer.

How will such an authority be created? What will it do?
The authority will have to represent the rich diversity of the Iraqi people. It would be backed by a resolution of the United Nations' Security Council. All friendly countries would then be able to recognise that authority as the new government of Iraq, the legal expression of Iraqi statehood.

There will be no period of eclipse for the Iraqi state. The transitional authority will have a precise mandate: to prepare Iraq for the election of a Constituent Assembly to approve a new constitution, new electoral law, a law allowing a multi-party system, and, later, general elections under international supervision. Our aim is a peaceful, step-by-step transition towards the creation of a pluralist, democratic system in our country.

Some, however, say that Iraq is not ready to embark on a democratic experience…
I hope that our people will prove them wrong. I think a majority of Iraqis want freedom and are eager to try a system of government that reflects the will of the people. Our society has a secular outlook, and a rich political tradition.

We have a strong middle class and a diverse and robust intellectual elite. I know that there are some so-called experts who even deny that Iraq can be described as a nation. They say: this is an artificial state created by colonialism and thus lacking in deep popular roots. But the fact is that Iraq is, in a sense, the oldest of the modern Arab states. Iraq entered the League of Nations five years before Egypt did.

Our country was also a founder of the United Nations at a time that two-thirds of its present members, including most of the Arab states, were not yet independent. The Iraqi people also have some memory of a more or less democratic government.

Before 1958, we had an open society, a parliament that was more than a rubber stamp, and a press that was among the most outspoken in the region. After that, Iraq fell victim to a succession of military dictatorships, each bloodier than the one before. But this does not mean that, given the chance, we cannot learn to live in an open and pluralist society again.

What about Iraq's religious and ethnic divisions?
Why should we use the word "divisions" rather than diversity? Anyone with any serious knowledge of Iraq would know that most Iraqis have a strong sense of what one could call "Iraqi-ness". We have developed our own distinct culture, literature and art.

Iraqis from whatever religious or ethnic backgrounds are instantly recognisable as Iraqis anywhere in the Arab world. Only despots use diversity as an excuse for imposing uniformity by force. In a pluralist system, diversity will be a source of strength.

There is concern that religious elements may be too strong within the opposition. France, for example, has often justified its support of Saddam on the grounds that he has crushed fundamentalists…
I don't think religious elements are all that powerful in Iraq. We certainly do have at least four parties that emphasise religious themes. But this is understandable. In times of difficulty, and especially in a system that outlaws all legitimate dissent, people turn to religion. The truth, however, is that we have people of all faiths and all ethnic groups in different, at times even opposite, political camps.

There is some concern, especially in Turkey, that the Kurds may seize the opportunity to seek a separate state…
That concern is unjustified. I am in constant contact with all our Iraqi Kurdish leaders and am convinced that they have no hidden agenda. Iraqi Kurds are not asking for secession. They want a democratic Iraq in which they can enjoy their full national rights. They know that they will be safe in the new Iraq and enjoy the greatest possible measure of autonomy.

But what about all the talk of turning Iraq into a federation?
We must not use political terms loosely. A federation is an association of separate, pre-existing states that come together to form a larger state. This was the case in Germany, the United States and Canada.

But Iraq came into being as one unitary state, not as a grouping of separate pre-existing states. Therefore, there is no tangible basis for turning it into it a federation. The model that might suit us best is the Spanish one under which the Catalans and the Basques have more autonomy than anyone would have in a federal structure.
FULL STORY HERE:
http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=83552