Acca

Would the switch of oil money transactions from the dollar to the euro
finally defeat the US?

: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 5:25 PM
    >Subject: "Arabs should unite to protect their interests", by Linda
Heard in , the Gulf News - March 4, 03
    >
    >
    >Linda S. Heard: Arabs should unite to protect their interests
    >Athens | | 04-03-2003
    >
    >http://www.gulfnews.com/Articles/opi...rticleID=79390
    >
    >Once the curtain came down on the Cold War, America emerged as a lone
superpower, eager to consolidate its hegemonic status. Lurking behind
the American president are shadowy figures scheming to ensure there
will be few challengers to U.S. omnipotence from here on in. The New
York Times referred to this as 'the Wolfowitz Doctrine'.
    >
    >In the days when Paul Wolfowitz was Under-Secretary of Defence, he
advised that America's "political and military mission should be to
ensure that no rival superpower is allowed to emer! ge in Western
Europe, Asia or the territories of the former Soviet Union".
    >
    >Until now America has not been seriously challenged. If it is allowed
to shout down the rest of the world over Iraq, it will have won the
first round in a critical power game, which could set a precedent for
future developments. Few believe that subduing the present Iraqi
regime is the core issue of America's current strategy.
    >
    >In the event the Bush White House succeeds in gaining control of Iraq
and its energy resources, it will be perfectly placed to threaten
other countries in the region to fall into line or suffer a similar
fate as Baghdad.
    >
    >America could also flood the market with Iraqi oil, perhaps halving
petroleum's current optimum price of $28 a barrel, thus breaking
Opec's price fixing autonomy along with Arab international clout.
    >
    >But that isn't the whole story. Not only does the Bush administration
want Iraq's oil, even more importantly it also wants to ensure tha! t
the fiat dollar remains the only currency used for its purchase. Iraq
has already swapped dollars for euros, Iran is currently considering a
change over and so is Russia. If the other Opec countries were to
follow, the dollar would collapse dragging the already fragile U.S.
economy to new depths.
    >
    >Currently all oil-consuming nations are forced to maintain large
reserves of dollars with which to purchase petroleum, keeping the
dollar at an elevated rate of exchange.
    >
    >With anti-American sentiment sweeping the planet, the Euro poses a
very real threat to the financial dominance of the U.S. In recent
times the dollar has lost 20 per cent of its value against the euro, a
wake-up call to the US, which needs to nip this new trend in the bud.
    >
    >The Arab world is unsure how to proceed over the Iraq issue, no doubt
wary of issuing a direct challenge to the Superpower. A watered down
statement issued after the Arab League Summit held in Sharm Al Sheikh
last Saturday! stressed the Arabs' "total rejection of any attack on
Iraq" and urged that Arabs "not participate in any military action
aimed at Iraq or any Arab country's safety and territorial integrity."
    >
    >It did not warn what Arab League members would do in the case that
the warmongers refused to heed their call.
    >
    >Political will
    >
    >President Bashar Al Assad of Syria, showing himself as never before
to be his hard line father's son, believes that if the Arab world
could unite and gathered enough political will, it could avert
conflict. He told the summit: "Somebody mentioned that we cannot stand
up to the United States (referring to the recent fatalistic statements
of President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt). If this is the case, then why
are we here?"
    >
    >Al Assad criticised his fellow leaders for repeating the American
line that Saddam Hussain should offer more co-operation with weapons
inspections instead of demanding to know the precise steps Iraq needs
to take s! o as to avert the prospect of war. Good question. Just what
are those steps? Does anyone know?
    >
    >On the same day as the Summit, the Turkish parliament failed to
approve the stationing of some 62,000 American troops, 255 warplanes
and 65 helicopters on its soil and stands to lose a $15 billion
American incentive package as a result. Strategically placed Turkey is
also coming under extreme U.S. pressure to participate in its war
plans.
    >
    >According to polls more than 90 per cent of Turks are vehemently
opposed to war with Iraq. as is the Turkish government. Yet, the
newly-formed government is nervous of the consequences, both political
and financial, which could result from its flouting of the Bush
administration's demands. As a result, it may attempt to push through
the failed motion again when the Turkish parliament reconvenes.
    >
    >While it is understandable that out of pragmatic concerns, Arabs are
reluctant to militarily challenge the nuclear might of the! United
States, there is surely little preventing them liquidising their
American investments, moving their weighty bank accounts to friendly
countries and even switching over to the euro as the new
petrocurrency. Or, is there?
    >
    >Further, the oil producing countries could always use the energy
weapon as they did before. They could simply stop or limit production
and if all such states stemmed the flow of oil in unison, America
would be forced to sit up and listen. Yet for some reason the Arabs
have put this legitimate "weapon" to one side. Why?
    >
    >In the event that the Arab countries could get the firm backing of
France, Germany, Russia and China, Bush would surely be forced to step
back and reconsider his ambitions. As a first step, wealthy Arab
nations could offer Turkey an even heftier sum to refuse what would
amount to virtual American occupation of its soil. If bribery is the
name of the game in modern day politics, then why should the U.S have
the monopoly?
    >On the other hand, were the United Nations, France, Germany, Turkey
and Russia along with the Arab world to go along with America's
schedule vis-Ã -vis Iraq, the sky's the limit for George W. Bush.
    >
    >In that dismal scenario, figure Iraq headed by "Pasha" Tommy Franks
from his Baghdad palace. It wouldn't be long before the U.S. could
feature neighbouring Iran in its gun sights with regime-change on the
cards for those other countries in the region, which the president's
men view as potential foes of either the U.S. or its protectorate
Israel.
    >
    >We know what the Bush administration has to gain from invading and
occupying Iraq but what does Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair get
out of working as America's de facto Foreign Minister rather than
showing sensitivity as to the concerns of the British people? And why
is he ready to put in jeopardy Britain's place in the EU, risk the
break up of Nato and join George W. Bush in threatening the UN with
irrelevancy?
    >!
    >This is a mystery. Some believe that he shares Bush's messianic
crusading fervour, others that he genuinely believes that Iraq is due
for regime change or eager to place chemical and biological weapons in
the waiting hands of terrorist groups. Still others think that the
U.S.-UK trans-Atlantic friendship is dear to the prime minister's
heart.
    >
    >John Major, Blair's prime ministerial predecessor, who joined hands
with Bush senior during the Gulf War ended up as the Chairman of
Carlyle Europe, an appointment announced just after he was voted out
of office. Although, it must be stressed that there is no indication
that Blair is considering going down the same road.
    >
    >An October 31 article in The Guardian read: "since the start of the
'war on terrorism', the firm (Carlyle) - unofficially valued at US$3.5
billion - has taken on an added significance. Carlyle has become the
thread, which indirectly links American military policy in Afghanistan
to the personal financi! al fortunes of its celebrity employees, not
least the current president's father."
    >
    >The Arabs could, of course, try the path of appeasement when it comes
to the U.S. on the principle 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em', but
realistically this is hardly likely to pan out in the long run.
    >
    >The Bush administration's front-line decision-makers are mostly
religious right-wing ideologues. They all, almost without exception,
champion the State of Israel and protect the interests of corporate
giants and big business. These people are not natural friends of the
Arabs and they never will be.
    >
    >America's designs
    >
    >Put simply, you don't have to be a brain surgeon to realise that
America's designs on oil rich Asia are far from noble or altruistic.
Bush's success will spell detriment not democracy for the region. Once
American troops are ensconced in Iraq, how can we be sure they will
ever leave? Bush says that they will not stay there one minute longer
than n! ecessary. That could mean one week, one year, or even a decade
with the definition of 'necessary' adjudged solely by the American
administration.
    >
    >Isn't it time for those in the Arab world who can make a difference
to band together, put aside their differences and make a stand before
the witching hour irrevocably comes and goes? Doing nothing shouldn't
be an option when its very independence is at stake.
    >
    >
    >Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. The
writer can be contacted at [email protected]

Bruce Bowe

This relates to travel in Europe exactly how??

Not sure anyone will see the connection..