It’s the Oil, stupid!

Post Information
Print & pdf

By Noam Chomsky

Anwaar’s Note: If wishes were horses, I would be Chomsky. More people would listen to me than they are doing now. After this, please do read my Hydro Carbon Law for Dummies written way back in March 2007.

iraqoilfields.jpg The deal just taking shape between Iraq’s Oil Ministry and four Western oil companies raises critical questions about the nature of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq - questions that should certainly be addressed by presidential candidates and seriously discussed in the United States, and of course in occupied Iraq, where it appears that the population has little if any role in determining the future of their country.

Negotiations are under way for Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP - the original partners decades ago in the Iraq Petroleum Company, now joined by Chevron and other smaller oil companies - to renew the oil concession they lost to nationalisation during the years when the oil producers took over their own resources. The no-bid contracts, apparently written by the oil corporations with the help of U.S. officials, prevailed over offers from more than 40 other companies, including companies in China, India and Russia.

“There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract,” Andrew E. Kramer wrote in The New York Times.

Read more



Comments

The War, the Truth, and the New York Times

Post Information
Print & pdf

Now that every one and Charlie’s aunt knows of the crimes of America’s ruling cabal, how about finally asking to bring out the hangman’s ropes?

By Anwaar Hussain

media_monkeys.jpgSo finally the truth is acknowledged by the mother of all main stream media, the New York Times.

The June 6 editorial, ‘The Truth About the War’ of the media giant begins with these words, “It took just a few months after the United States’ invasion of Iraq for the world to find out that Saddam Hussein had long abandoned his nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs. He was not training terrorists or colluding with Al Qaeda. The only real threat he posed was to his own countrymen.” That it took more than five years for the leading light of a servile American media to finally find it out, is a fact glossed over most shamelessly.

Truth told late is worse than a murderous lie, is all that one can say to the NYT. It is a dishonest admission coming rather late for a million plus human beings. The icing on this deceitful piece of reporting is the ending of the Op-Ed. It says, “We cannot say with certainty whether Mr. Bush lied about Iraq. But when the president withholds vital information from the public - or leads them to believe things that he knows are not true - to justify the invasion of another country, that is bad enough.”

BAD ENOUGH! Did I read it right? That’s it? BAD ENOUGH! Would you believe it? A million murdered Iraqis, 4000 dead US soldiers, obliterated Iraqi cities, DU shot-up environment, countless crippled and maimed human beings, innumerable shattered lives and how does the NYT express its outrage; by calling it ‘bad enough’? “Sorry mommy, I just killed a million people.” “That’s bad. Don’t do that again, now eat your spinach” eh? Bad enough!? Someone hand me the sick bag please.

Read more



Comments

Provocations as Pretexts for Imperial War: From Pearl Harbor to 9/11

Post Information
Print & pdf

By James Petras - May 2008

Wars in an imperialist democracy cannot simply be dictated by executive fiat, they require the consent of highly motivated masses who will make the human and material sacrifices. Imperialist leaders have to create a visible and highly charged emotional sense of injustice and righteousness to secure national cohesion and overcome the natural opposition to early death, destruction and disruption of civilian life and to the brutal regimentation that goes with submission to absolutist rule by the military.

Provocations as Pretexts for Imperial War From Pearl Harbor to 911

 

The need to invent a cause is especially the case with imperialist countries because their national territory is not under threat. There is no visible occupation army oppressing the mass of the people in their everyday life. The ‘enemy’ does not disrupt everyday normal life - as forced conscription would and does. Under normal peaceful time, who would be willing to sacrifice their constitutional rights and their participation in civil society to subject themselves to martial rule that precludes the exercise of all their civil freedoms?

The task of imperial rulers is to fabricate a world in which the enemy to be attacked (an emerging imperial power like Japan) is portrayed as an ‘invader’ or an ‘aggressor’ in the case of revolutionary movements (Korean and Indo-Chinese communists) engaged in a civil war against an imperial client ruler or a ‘terrorist conspiracy’ linked to an anti-imperialist, anti-colonial Islamic movements and secular states. Imperialist-democracies in the past did not need to consult or secure mass support for their expansionist wars; they relied on volunteer armies, mercenaries and colonial subjects led and directed by colonial officers. Only with the confluence of imperialism, electoral politics and total war did the need arise to secure not only consent, but also enthusiasm, to facilitate mass recruitment and obligatory conscription.

Read more



Comments

Afghanistan - Who is The Enemy?

Post Information
Print & pdf

By Eric Walberg

afghanistan.jpgThe US is not only repeating all the Soviets’ mistakes in Afghanistan, it is showing remarkable creativity in the horrors department, says Eric Walberg in the first of a two-part series.

Twenty years ago this week the Soviet Union began its withdrawal from Afghanistan, eight and a half years after it was invited by the desperate People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA), which had degenerated into intra-party squabbling and was beset by Islamic rebels massively financed by the United States. The straw that broke the Soviets’ back was when the US began providing Stinger missiles to Osama bin Laden and his friends.

Now, after eight years of US/NATO occupation, the parallels - and differences - between the two occupation are many and stark, as confirmed by the current Russian ambassador to Afghanistan , Zamir Kabulov.

“There is no mistake made by the Soviet Union that was not repeated by the international community here in Afghanistan ,” Kabulov said. “Underestimation of the Afghan nation, the belief that we have superiority over Afghans, that they are inferior and cannot be trusted to run affairs in this country. A lack of knowledge of the social and ethnic structure of this country; a lack of sufficient understanding of traditions and religion.”

Read more



Comments

Salvador Allende and Hugo Chavez: Similarities and Differences on the “National Road to Socialism”

Post Information
Print & pdf

By James Petras

I have known and advised three left wing presidents including President Papandreou (Greece 1981-85), President Salvador Allende of Chile (1970-73) and President Hugo Chavez.

Prof. Petras on Venezuelan TV 2008

Picture: Prof. Petras in a recent interview on Venezuelan TV, 2008. Some of his recent interviews on Venezuelan Media can be viewed here (Spanish).

Both Allende and Chavez share many strategic goals and embrace policies favoring the working class, peasantry and the urban poor. They also pursued programs regaining national control over the strategic sectors of the economy, redistributing land (agrarian reform), reallocating budgetary expenditures in favor of social programs for the poor and pursuing independent anti-imperialist foreign policies.

In broad historical and sociological terms, they also share a common belief in constitutional, electoral processes, in a multi-party system, a mixed economy and independent trade unions, business and civic associations.

Despite the convergences and similarities between Allende and Chave, there are important political differences, which account for their different trajectories. Chavez proceeded toward political change before undertaking a deep socio-economic structural transformatio, thus creating a solid constitutional and political framework. Allende, on the other hand, accepted the existing political system and proceeded to implement radical socio-economic changes. As a result, Allende constantly faced political blockages, institutional obstacles that limited his capacity to realize the full potential of the structural changes. In contrast, Chavez’ political reforms led to the compatibility between political institutions and socio-economic change - minimizing opposition obstructionism.

Read more



Comments

Rules of Engagement for America’s Victims

Post Information
Print & pdf

By Anwaar Hussain

soldier.jpgIf by a quirk of fate, America’s victim nations get together, pronounce ‘enough is enough’ and proceed to invade and occupy America, what would their Rules of Engagement be during the occupation. The scribe has chalked out just a few on the exact same lines as America has them for her forces in Iraq. Here is how these go;

GENERAL GUIDANCE: This establishes the Rules of Engagement (ROE) for all the Victim Nations’ Forces (VICFORs) operating within the geographical confines of their former tormentor, the United States of America. Those forces not under immediate threat from the USA may establish more restrictive ROE in accordance with their national caveats. Conflicting ROE will be addressed on a case-by-case basis by the Victim Nations Central Command (VENTCOM). (To avoid any confusion, special attention must be given to Further Explanation (FE) given within the brackets at the end of most of the ROE)

VICTIMS’ NATIONS’ (VICNATs) NATIONAL POLICY. The VICNATs National Policy is to take the initiative within the limits allowed by these ROE during the occupation of the United States of America.

VICNATs MILITARY POLICY. # Commanders have the inherent authority and obligation to use all necessary means available and to take all appropriate action in self defense against the roving bands of former US Military Forces (FE: emphasis added on the word ‘roving’ and not on words ‘military’ and ‘forces’).

# Inside the geographical confines of the United States of America strikes on infrastructure, lines of communication and economic objects should, to the extent possible, disable and disrupt rather than destroy (FE: a wanton destruction in the heat of the moment may be overlooked on a case-by-case basis).

# Civilian structures, especially cultural and historic buildings in cities like Washington D.C., New York and Boston are protected structures (FE: Not in cities like Los Angeles and San Fransisco that the VENTCOM does not fancy). Additionally, nonmilitary structures, civilian population centers, churches and other religious places, hospitals and facilities displaying the red cross, are also protected structures and will not be attacked except when they are being used for military purposes (FE: which they often will be).

Read more



Comments

As Burma dies, our macho invaders sit on their hands

Post Information
Print & pdf

By Simon Jenkins

myn.jpgYou don’t have to be cynical to do foreign policy, but it helps. A sigh of relief rose over the west’s chancelleries on Monday as it became clear that the Chinese earthquake was big - big enough to trump Burma’s cyclone. To add to the relief, Beijing was behaving better than it has over past calamities. Since this might have been thanks to the west’s “positive engagement” with China’s dictators - even awarding them the Olympics - we could possibly take credit from the week’s tally of disaster. Sorry about that, Burma.

The Burmese cyclone of 11 days ago has already slid into liberal interventionism’s recycle bin, a purgatory called Mere Abuse. The regime’s refusal to aid some 1.5 million people reportedly facing starvation in the Irrawaddy delta has been subjected only to a “shock and awe” of adjectival assault. Gordon Brown called the refusal “utterly unacceptable” (which means accepted). The aid minister, Douglas Alexander, professed himself “horrified”. The foreign secretary, David Miliband, used the words “malign neglect … a humanitarian catastrophe of genuinely epic proportions”. The UN secretary-general registered “deep concern and immense frustration”. In France, Nicolas Sarkozy found the inaction “utterly reprehensible”, and in Germany Angela Merkel found it “inexplicable”. George Bush declared the regime “either isolated or callous”. As Kipling would have said, if Kruger could be killed with words the Burmese regime would be dead and buried.

Read more



Comments



Anwaar’s articles appear simultaneously here at Truth Spring and at Soul Vibes in The Pakistan Tribune.


US loses its status as economic world power
DAVOS, Switzerland, 2008
.: ARTICLE BLOCKED :.
ON MARCH 2008
Who links to my website?