-Caveat Lector- Yugoslavia: A New War for Loot <http://uns.org/yugo/loot.htm> Unlimited News Service Yugoslavia: a New War for Loot by Michel Colon Humanitarian war? No. The NATO bombardments have worsened the situation of all the inhabitants of Kosovo-as foreseen, and desired. For NATO needs victims to justify its aggression against a sovereign state, and in complete violation of international law. What are the real objectives of Washington, Berlin, and their consorts? 1. Control oil transport routes. 2. Recolonize and exploit East Europe. 3. Weaken Russia, thus give the West the means to pillage the whole of Asia. 4. In order to realize the foregoing, impose NATO as the gendarme of the world, starting with assurances of military bases in this strategic region. All of these objectives are tied together. The most important, at this point, is the preparation for an attack on Russia. Most important: on each of these objectives, Washington and Berlin are at the same time in unity and in rivalry. Each tries to use the other so it can grab the cake. In short, a new war for loot. A war for the profits of the multinationals, a war to break the resistance of the peoples. Objective No. 1: Always, the Battle for Oil "The oilfields of Kazakhstan, the gas fields of Turkmenistan, and the enormous offshore reserves of black gold of Azerbaijan, make up a zone that can gain, over the next fifty years, an importance equal to that of the Persian Gulf today," writes a big German daily.1 Likewise in 1992 the US Senator Dole said, "The Gulf War was a symbol of the American preoccupation for the security of oil and gas reserves. The frontiers of that preoccupation are advancing to the north and include the Caucasus, Siberia, and Kazakhstan."2. The threat is clear. Add to this the most important gold mine in the world (in Uzbekistan), the largest deposit of silver (in Tajikistan), note the rumors of uranium, and you understand why Le Monde Diplomatique wrote in 1995: "To capture the contracts, no holds are barred."3 No holds, including war-particularly around the pipelines that transport oil (and soon, gas, of which the importance will grow). Ferocious wars explode around the routes, real or projected, of pipelines: Chechnia, Nagorny-Karabakh, Georgia, Kurdistan. Yes, all means are good to block the people of the region (including Russia) from control of their own riches. Why does Washington support the Taliban criminals in Afghanistan? To control the southern access to the oil of Central Asia.4 But the battle to control this wealth rages already between the Western "allies" themselves: "Baku is an oil center of great importance in the eyes of Germany. On the level of raw materials, we must be on the attack." Signed: F.W. Christians, Chairman of the Deutsche Bank.5 For this was always the Achilles heel of German imperialism: its lack of raw materials. Hence its constant and very strong tendency to expansionism. But the United States doesn't want to hear that. It wants to keep worldwide control of oil. Not for fear of need--it has enough on its own soil-but because, in the event of a new world conflict between great powers, it is essential to be able to deny energy to the adversary. Who wants to rule the world, must control the oil. What is the role of the Balkans in all of this? The oil transport routes must pass by there. From the Caucasus it goes to the Black Sea. Then there are two possibilities. First, the Danube. This very long river (2800 km, about 1700 mi.), of great flow, allows the connection of the Black Sea to Northwest Europe. Oil reaches Hamburg and Amsterdam by passage through the Rhine and the Main. Belgrade alone occupies a strategic position on the Danube. This shows why Germany wants to absolutely break Yugoslavia.6 A second path is possible: a new pipeline project would cross Bulgaria, Macedonia, Albany, and . . . Kosovo. This enormous project of several billion dollars is supported by the United States. One condition is necessary to realize it: to subdue the local populations. This shows why Washington wants absolutely to impose its military bases in the Balkans. Certainly, to justify the installation of military bases, there is a "need" for a local conflict. We see why several Western powers armed the Croatian nationalists of Tudjman in '91, Muslims in Bosnia in 1993, and Kosovars of the KLA in '98. Those who call themselves firemen need incendiaries. Objective No. 2: Recolonize East Europe In 1989 the West promised East Europe prosperity. Six years later Unicef found: "75 million newly poor in the East. The hardest hit: Bulgaria (half the population is poor), Roumania, Moldova, Lithuania, Azerbaijan, Lettony, Estonia. In these countries are found between 27% and 35% of poor people in 1994, as against 1.55 in 1989."7 Chance? Bad luck? Transition a little too late? Not at all. The West had no intention at all of keeping its promises, as Noam Chomsky explains: "I think the prospects are pretty dim for Eastern Europe. The West has a plan for it -- they want to turn large parts of it into a new, easily exploitable part of the Third World. There used to be a sort of colonial relationship between Western and Eastern Europe; in fact, the Russians' blocking of that relationship was one of the reasons for the Cold War. Now it's being reestablished and there's a serious conflict over who's going to win the race for robbery and exploitation. Is it going to be German-led Western Europe (currently in the lead) or Japan (waiting in the wings to see how good the profits look) or the United States (trying to get into the act)? There are a lot of resources to be taken, and lots of cheap labor for assembly plants. But first we have to impose the capitalist model on them."8 What isn't evident is that the West particularly fears the resistance of the workers of the East, who have known the advantages of socialism, who have gained traditions of organization and resistance with the Communists. This is why, since 1991, NATO has threatened that, "We will continue to give our support by all means at our disposal to the reform enterprises of the East and to the efforts aiming at creation of market economies."9 This "with all the means at our disposal"! A clear threat on the part of a military organization. Here again the Western powers agree on the imposition of capitalist law and the extreme pillage of the ex-socialist countries. But each intends to draw the chestnuts out of the fire to its own advantage. Objective No. 3: Weaken Russia to Plunder Asia Why does the West want to dominate and subdue Russia? First, because it is a tempting prize: its potential in raw materials adds up to $140 trillion. Next, and above all, to prevent Moscow from competing in the region. Paul-Marie de la Gorce, the expert of Le Monde Diplomatique, explains: "The American policy toward Russia is conceived and applied to prevent it from reconstructing around itself a power able to again play a decisive role on the international scene."10 The West is fully on guard against any return to socialism. Derycke, the Belgian Foreign Minister declared in 1996, "The West supports Yeltsin because it is the policy of the last resort. A return to communism would be a problem."11 But the West also guards against even a bourgeois Russia that would presume to a policy of national independence. In reality, the war unleashed against Yugoslavia in 1991 is also a war against Russia to deprive it of an ally and access to the Mediterranean. The problem is that if the West humiliates Yeltsin too openly, it will play into the hands of the Communists and nationalists. The result is un delicat exercice d'equilibrisme. In the short term, they support their friend Yeltsin. In the middle run, they prepare a war against Russia. The former US Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger wrote a book to show that the United States must prepare itself to wage several wars. His basic argument is, "If Moscow manages to dominate the Caspian Sea (and its oil), that victory would be, for the West, more important than the expansion of the West."12 The capitalist catastrophe in Russia is obvious. Logically. Why would the West create a powerful economic rival for itself? On the contrary, wages must be low in order for the profits of the multinationals to be high. Hence the risk of revolt. Hence the threat of NATO. Thus Russia is actually the principal "enemy". Washington, Berlin, London, Paris, and Brussels are agreed on that. But even in this situation, the snags between "allies" do not disappear. Au contraire. In 1996, the American Wall Street Journal complained, "Mr. Kohl is no longer satisfied to allow the United States to set the tone of German relations with Russia. It has become completely clear that Germany's allies no longer control its relations with Russia."13 The celebrated US strategist Kissinger raises the alarm: "If we fail to expand NATO to the east, it could lead. . . to the danger of secret agreements between Germany and Russia."14 Actually, the United States and Germany try to manipulate each other. Washington wants an obedient Europe that will help it control Russia. If Europe becomes too strong, Washington fears that it will control Russia or ally with it. Berlin and certain of its allies want to profit from American military power to boss Russia. But Germany hopes to more and more play the sole horseman in the region. Behind this game of liar's poker is revealed the main stakes of a great competition between capitalist powers: who will control what the US strategist Brzezinski calls "Eurasia"? 75% of the world's population, 60% of its economic production. Whomever controls it dominates the world. We will return to this in a following article. Objective No. 4: NATO, Gendarme of the World To realize the above objectives, the West needs an army. And military bases (and a docile public opinion, hence manipulated). There has been a problem here since 1990. Theoretically, NATO should go on unemployment since it was supposedly founded to face the Soviet menace, gone at the present. Ah well, not at all! Since 1991, NATO has defined a strategy still more aggressive: it will be the gendarme of the totality of the capitalist world. Its charge is to make the dictates of the multinationals respected everywhere. Its own documents announce the preparation of military aggressions along three axes: 1. Against East Europe and Russia. 2. Against the Arab-Mediterranean world (three zones are explicitly cited: Algeria, Egypt, and the Middle East). 3. Against the whole of the Third World, in fact, under the most diverse pretexts ("terrorism", "arms of mass destruction", etc.) 15 The most important is to encircle Russia. Thus NATO annexed three reputedly "sure" countries (Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic), and it launched a "partnership" with other countries looking to take control of their armies. They gave the Russians a little carrot but carefully left it out. This is normal: they are the target. Ukraine got American credits in order to isolate Russia. Nuclear arms have been placed at the doors of Moscow-for a "safer world", they tell us. The strategic forces of NATO have been totally restructured: "We must be in a position to move our forces from one region to another," declared Gen. Galvin, head of NATO in 1991.16 Thus, at the same moment that it claimed triumph, capitalism prepared aggressions against more and more "enemies". Behind the reform of NATO also hide the rivalries between the United States, Germany, and France. In 1995, Ruhe, the German War Minister, warned: "The NATO treaty must be replaced by a new treaty between the European Union and the United States. Europe must be able to intervene strategically as a world power at the side of the United States."17 The British review Searchlight analyses this subtle chess game: "The French government hopes to contain Germany in the short term via the Eurocorps and the army of the West European Union. The United States and Great Britain have another idea: maintain Germany in a subordinate position through a persistent NATO presence in Europe and a larger engagement of Bonn in the affairs of NATO. At this time, Bonn plays intelligently on the two opposites and pretends to be in favor of both."18 Effectively, Germany plays on two levels: one foot in NATO, one foot outside. It systematically reinforces its army (see chapter 5 of my book, Poker menteur. [Liar's Poker-tr.] The aim: to systematically get a foot in the international military scene. Its Army Minister declares: "War has become again a political means. In the future we must be capable of resolving conflicts likewise by military means."19 Controversy raged in 1995. Germany and France wanted to share the military command of NATO but the United States intended to keep its monopoly. Kinkel, the German Foreign Minister, proclaimed: "In the long term it is neither in the European interest, nor in the American interest to call on the aid of our American friends each time that something goes wrong somewhere."20 Translation of this polite but hypocritical language: "Our American rivals must not meddle in Europe." The American "friends" got the message. A US diplomat replied, "I cannot imagine a situation in which the Americans would not feel involved. If a real threat arises anywhere in the world, we will be there."21 Translation of this, as well, so-polite and so-hypocritical language: "Our German rivals must not complain about U.S. world leadership. That includes Europe." Why do the Americans want to tighten the grip of NATO on Europe? To obstruct the creation of a European army that would be their rival. In 1991 Wolfowitz, a Pentagon expert, wrote: "Our status as the only superpower must be perpetuated by a military force sufficient to dissuade any nation or group of nations from defying the supremacy of the United States."22 And to be perfectly clear, Wolfowitz stipulates what he means: "discourage [the advance industrial nations] from challenging our leadership . . . and thwart the emergence of an exclusively European security force."23 This is very clear: "allies" are at the same time "enemies". Behind the war against Yugoslavia hides an undeclared war against Russia. And also the possibility on day of a world conflict between the capitalist great powers themselves. 1 Die Zeit, March 96. 2 Frankfurter Allgemeine, 15 June 92. 3 ) Le Monde Diplomatique, November 95, p. 22. 4 Michel Collon, Poker menteur, 1998, EPO, p. 133. 5 idem p. 132. 6 idem, p. 137. 7 Unicef, "Poverty, Children and Policy, Central and Eastern Europe in transition," report n°3 - 1995. 8 Noam Chomsky, "What Uncle Sam Wants" 9 Revue de l'Otan, June 91, p. 28-29. 10 Le Monde Diplomatique, March 94. 11 Le Soir, 14 December 91. 12 AK, (Allemagne), 23 September 92. 13 Wall Street Journal, 23 February 96. 14 Welt am Sonntag, 12 January 97. 15 Poker menteur, chapter 8. 16 Revue de l'Otan, August 92, p. 23. 17 Solidaire, 13 December 95. ( 18 Searchlight, "Reunited Germany", 1994, p. 31. 19 Der Spiegel, n° 5 - 1995. 20 International Herald Tribune, 4 June 96. 21 Idem. 22 Poker menteur, p. 116. 23 Idem. Posted May 1, 1999 DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
