There is one incident which has puzzled me more than anything else in the past two years or so. I've thought the obvious thought, and then brushed it away. But the extreme puzzlement has remained. I've thought about it again and pushed it away again. But it still remained. And now I've thought about it again -- ever since you said that neither Bush nor Clinton passes the laughter test.
Well I won't argue about that. But it brought my thought about Clinton back to me.
About a year ago, Clinton cam over here to speak to the Trade Union Congress. This was at the time that the US and UK were trying to finagle some sort of resolution through the UN Security Council to give them the OK for invasion. I think it probable that Blair had already decided that he was going to support Bush come what may.
Why did Blair invite Clinton? I assumed (as everybody else did) that Clinton was there to help Blair at the Conference 'cos he's very popular with trade unionists and Blair was having a sticky time with them. During Clinton's speech -- short, humorous, colloquial, exactly right -- he had them eating out of his hand. Towards the end he said, almost casually: "And, of course, we've all got to support Bush". He'd no need to say more -- they took it in hook line and sinker. Scarcely a murmur about what was going on at the UN.
I think also that Blair made sure that Clinton had some quiet words with the more influential union leaders.
So what does all this mean? One thing I am sure about and that is that Clinton didn't come over here just to help a friend out. Clinton came because he, and all the top strata of the American administration (as well as a few of our own) know very well that the putative invasion was about oil.
This is American patriotism in action. Even if Clinton was aware that Bush and his cronies would be making more than a few million dollars out of backhanders from bechtel and the like, there weas still thge larger question that America is very highly dependent on Middle East oil. It's 20% dependent and it will rise to 40% or so within 10-15 years. And with Saudi Arabia a tinder box, Iraq had to be brought online for US and UK corporations as soon as possible. OK, they've refused to start development contracts for legal reasons -- so far -- but that was the original idea. And -- this is very very crucial -- as far as I'm aware even Clin ton has not said a word about the Iraq war -- never mind that is about oil.
This is the great secret -- which is not such a secret among Iraqis, of course. But oil as the cause of the invasion is so blatant an imperialist act that it simply cannot be mentioned as the reason.
Oil is the cause which dare not speak its name.
Think about it. If the future of Iraq is really the reason for the American invasion then it could be solved almost instantly. Divide the country into three as protectorates for the time being under the UN. Or, hold elections under UN supervision. This would bring Ayatollah Sistani and the Shias right onside immediately -- as also a large part of the Baathists who only joined the party for professional reasons. (Pretty well all the professional classes were Baathists in exactly the same way as all the Soviet scientists and porofessionals were members of the CP. There was simply no way of getting promoted with being a party member in both instances.)
Neither of these solutions would instantly solve the terrorist elements within the Sunni branch, nor Saddam's Fedayeen, but they would be isolated, whereas today they're not. I think a fully armed Shia army would soon root them out. But today, Shias would turn a blind eye to a Sunni terrorist attack, and would give shelter to Saddamites.
There is no other solution to Iraq because America simply cannot risk any sort of thoroughgoing democratic elections, whether for an interim Constituent Assembly or a full-blown Parliament because the Shias would automatically be in the majority, and they might, while the Americans are still occupying the place, refuse point blank to let any US or UK firms have oil contracts in the north.
So, at the end of the day, Clinton was being a patriot -- as he saw it -- in supporting Bush and America's future needs for oil. And Blair, in his own way, thought he was acting for the best of UK's future. Really -- we must face it -- in 10-15 years time and onwards there will not be enough Middle East oil and gas for everybody. China and America will absorb most of it. If the UK can have sufficient for its needs -- relatively small compared with the US -- fine. But as for Europe, it can go hang. It will have to get by with oil from the spot market here and there and also Russian gas.
This also explains why Bush and Rumsfeld have been so cavalier about Europe. In their minds, Europe is already finished. (And so it is already, if the truth is told, in all sorts of ways -- regulations, labour laws, a parliament with no legislative powers, corrupt Commission officials at all levels, etc.
Keith Hudson Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
