|| -----Original Message-----
|| From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
|| [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Greg Schofield (...)
|| There are a couple a smal misunderstandings (granted that this
|| is based on a good deal of agreement) so if you forgive me I
|| would like to pick these details up.
And thanks for participating in this discussion which will allow us to collectively get to the bottom of whatever the hell the ruling classes are pulling on us this time.
(...)
|| There are other interests in oil, the archaic proped-up regimes
|| which act as agents for the old US oil gaints, is not
|| necessarily the way that modern international capitalism would
|| like it made available. Good as it may be for some sections of
|| capital it is not necessarily what capital in general requires.
It sounds like you’re saying modern capitalism doesn't like to do business with banana republics, proxy regimes, dictatorships, etc. Since when? What is Saudi Arabia? What is Zaire, Indonesia, Nigeria, Myanmar? Why have 11 US and 24 other Western conglomerates splashed out over $100 billion for oil and gas projects in the dinky dictatorships of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan?
During the Clinton years, US conglomerates encountered moderate resistance from NGO’s, the government, and congress when taking advantage of the lawlessness in the periphery of the global politico-economy. During this period, Dick Cheney became the flag-bearer and chief architect of USA*Engage[1], a coalition of over 300 companies of which 30 are active members, the principal being Halliburton (Dick Cheney, CEO). This lobby was successful in obtaining congressional and government support for lifting sanctions against delinquent regimes that its members had business dealings with, and in obtaining federal and World Bank funds that would further their business interests to the detriment of competing (non-US) companies and opposing governments (such as Russia and Iran). The lobbying power of this coalition suggests that it enlisted the government’s support at every level, such as the effort to bolster and win over the Taliban for the Unocal pipeline deal, the cessation of Syrian support for PKK guerillas (which allowed the construction of the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline), the support for Chechen guerillas via Saudi Arabia to subvert Russia’s control over Caspian oil distribution, the promotion of Azerbaidjan to de facto NATO membership through the “Partnership for Peace” arrangement, and the Centrasbat military exercises as a demonstration of US support for Central Asian dictatorships. There is every reason to think that it was this coalition that was brought to power by last November’s vote rigging.
Bill Clinton is a multilateralist of the Zbig school. Zbig’s bigness is due, let’s remember, to his setting the Afghan trap for the Soviets. The master gameplayer who brought down the USSR then went on to formulate the thesis of a lopsided “Grand Chessboard” with only one king, where the game consists in keeping it that way: A “benign American hegemony” [2]. Zbig’s preferred strategy is to form regional or bilateral alliances that will give the non-US parties the feeling that their interests ar being looked after, and that they are the US’s “partner”. However, if the US plays well, all regional alliances including the EU will ultimately “expand the range of American influence” [3]. This is a game that the Great Conciliator Clinton excelled at.
Today’s GOP, however, hampered by a latent racist, Darwinist, and anti-intellectual (in a word: fascist) ideology, still practices old-style imperialism, or tries to. It commands and coerces, and frequently ends up backtracking with pie on it face. Its current Afghanistan campaign is based on the illusion that the dominance over this strategic area that Clinton’s “soft power” (a Zbigism) failed to achieve, can be had by brute force. Cheney made his personal fortune by turning Halliburton into a mini-state and using US federal money, US intelligence, and the US military to get what he wanted from weak states at the outer edges of the global system. He described the big prize he covets to some executives in 1998: “I can't think of a time when we've had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian”.
The Cheney-led coalition has been led to believe by its high priest that oil politics doesn’t have to be complicated. Speaking to the Cato Institute [4], Cheney said “The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But, we go where the business is”. As for the political instability in those regions, Cheney said that he doesn’t “worry too much about it”.
|| I am not sure what is at play here, nor its ultimate direction,
|| I am sure that the post-war oil compromise is under pressure
|| from a variety of forces - the very thing that Bush wishes to
|| pepetuate may have avery limited sell-by-date.
The game is:
1. US dominance over Central Asia to prevent the formation of an anti-US coalition involving any combination of Russia, Iran, and China. This is Zbig’s widely accepted game plan. This involves, among many other things, setting up one or more large US military bases. 2. Protection of upstream US oil investments in Azerbadijan, Khazakstan, and Turkmenistan from Wahhabite fundamentalist "blowback" (the international guerilla terrorists trained by the CIA in Pakistan&Afghanistan, indoctrinated in Saudi Wahhabism and funded by Saudi oil money). These guys have their rear bases in Afghanistan and get their money through Qaeda. 3. Control of China’s and India’s oil supply, and making max bucks via the Afghan pipeline.
All of the above - not necessarily exhaustive list - require a stable, friendly government in Afghanistan.
|| What is striking about everything to do with Bush Jnr's war is
|| the inepitude, the lack of any decisive aims - it seems a case
|| of strategy following rhetoric. If the whole thing is viewed
|| ala Vietnam style intervention then we are looking at the
|| supreme capitalist state in action, the unity of national
|| financial capital, vast imperial monopolies and the US state in
|| a territorial acquistion - this is not the case. Nor are we
|| even looking at a desperate attempt to preserve the status quo
|| in the Middle East (the established territories) ala Bush Snr.
||
We are looking at a latent fascist mind-set trying to play the global game, and fucking up miserably. Cowboys trying to play Clinton's game, thinking they can do a lot better by just shooting the place up and grabbing the loot.
That’s it for now, more to come.
Hakki
[1] Kenny Bruno and Jim Valette, Cheney & Halliburton: Go Where the Oil Is, http://www.essential.org/monitor/mm2001/01may/may01corp10.html [2] Zbigniew Brzezinski, “A Geostrategy for Eurasia”, Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct 1997. [3] ibid. Brzezinski advocated US support for EU expansion, which would prevent Europe from becoming so politically integrated that it could act as a bloc against US interests, while plugging in even more countries on a network already controlled by the US. [4] The occasion was a conference on the theme of “current and potential conflicts between US foreign policy and the liberty and well-being of American citizens”. Cato clarified what it meant by “liberty and well-being” and _which_ US citizens it had in mind: “the freedom of Americans to trade, invest and communicate with the rest of the world”. Jon Flanders, “Gas, Oil, and Afghanistan”, http://members.localnet.com/~jeflan/jfafghanpipe.htm