AP - Residents in New Hampshire and Iowa have received phone calls raising questions about Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, his Mormon faith and the Vietnam War-era military deferments he received while serving as a missionary in France.

Campaigning :: Tony Blair should be brought before the ICC in the Hague
Author: venceremos!
Subject: Tony Blair should be brought before the ICC in the Hague
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:34 am (GMT 0)

"Tony Blair should be brought before the ICC in the Hague"
November 14, 2007, by Kees van der pijl
http://www.spectrezine.org/war/Kees.htm

Political scientist Kees van der Pijl is Professor of International Relations at the University of Sussex, England. In his latest book Global rivalries, from the cold war to Iraq, he offers an intriguing analysis of international relations. He views as central the relationship between Anglo-American capitalism and the two powers themselves. Willem Bos, of the Dutch Socialist Party monthly De Tribune, interviewed him about the war in Iraq.

Kees van der Pijl: "Of course the war in Iraq is about oil. But we cannot understand the whole development if we don’t look at the relationship between the different parties involved, at the rivalry between on the one side the US and Great Britain and on the other countries such as France and Germany. This is, not coincidentally, the break between what I call the ‘core area’ - the English-speaking world, with its aggressive neoliberalism that wants to regulate everything via the market - and the more state-oriented countries, France and Germany being two examples. There have long been tensions over oil. When in the 1970s attempts were made to gain access to Arab oil by means of a Euro-Arab dialogue, the US reacted like someone who has been stung by a wasp."

Why has this rivalry come to a head over oil and over Iraq?

Kees van der Pijl: "In order to understand the background to this tension we need to look at the functioning of the international oil market. Oil is traded on the international market in dollars. These are deposited in London and from there spread around the world in the form of credit. In this way Britain and the US have their fingers on the buttons of the world oil trade, both in terms of the currency in which it is traded and via the investment structure. The other - European - countries need dollars in order to pay their energy bill. They can’t simply just lay their hands on these. European countries do ninety per cent of their trade within Europe and only ten per cent with parts of the world outside Europe, so dollars don’t come to them ‘automatically’ via trade. They have to be bought, and they’re dear. In this way Europe, via its energy bill, constantly helps to keep the dollar strong. Increasingly, as the price of oil increases, Europe tries to find other, cheaper ways to acquire oil. Every time that they do that it leads to major tension with the US and Great Britain. In essence that is what happened on the eve of the Iraq war."

Following the first Gulf War of 1990, the US and Britain had Iraq, by means of economic sanctions, in a stranglehold. These sanctions led to enormous impoverishment and disruption throughout the country. This was why the United Nations established the oil-for-food programme, through which food and medicine were sent to Iraq, but the regime’s control of their distribution resulted in the strengthening of Saddam Hussein’s position.

Kees van der Pijl:"The sanctions led to a huge disaster for the Iraqi population, while for Saddam they meant only that he had his hands more firmly on the reins. The US and Great Britain continued to support the continuation of the sanctions, but in general the view was that these measures against Iraq had had long enough. Anticipating the ending of sanctions a number of oil companies signed contracts with Saddam’s government to renew oil extraction - firms such as the French Total, Russian Lukol and corporations from China, India and Canada. They received contracts to exploit Iraqi oil fields operable as soon as the sanctions were lifted. The assessment of Saddam’s politics also played a role. It wasn’t, it’s true, clear whether Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction, but in general it was assumed that he no longer had the stomach for military adventures."

So the US and Great Britain saw themselves threatened with being sidelined.

Kees van der Pijl: "Exactly. It had become a tricky situation for them. The foreign competition threatened in time to make off with the Iraqi oil and along with that also to put the position of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait under pressure. After all, when as a result of the sanctions Iraqi oil production almost dried up, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait had taken that share of the market. The oil revenues of these countries were used in part to buy American weapons. If the sanctions against Iraq were to be lifted and Iraqi oil production to recommence, they would have to return a part of their market share. Saddam would certainly not be spending his oil revenues on American weapons, but would be going to his traditional suppliers, Russia and France."

The US therefore was thus threatened not only with the loss of control of a part of the oil from the Middle East, but this would also represent a blow to the American arms industry and to the United States’ military position in the region. In addition, the stability of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would be put in jeopardy.

Kees van der Pijl: "This situation was also extremely disquieting for the Israel lobby in the US. It was feared that rising oil prices would bring about a change in attitude in relation to the Arab world - and that in the oil industry as well as in the arms industry sympathy for the Arab world would increase. The Arab countries were after all an increasingly important section of the market. Put all of these factors together, and understand also that Saddam had, as it were, ‘threatened’ to trade oil in euros, and you will see that there would have been a nervous reaction in London and Washington - Iraq returning to the oil market and the oil neither extracted nor traded by Anglo-American corporations but by companies from France, Russia, China and India. And all of this paid for in euros! This last factor represented a direct threat to the American economy and the position of the London markets. Because an oil-producing country that receives euros for its oil will not of course for preference spend its revenues in the US. Admittedly, none of these developments was complete. It was a matter of tendencies, of developments in a certain direction. But they explain, indeed, how at the end of the 1990s in the US and Britain the idea arose that the situation in Iraq and the Middle East was beginning to slip from their grasp. That was, moreover, not particularly strange, because France and Russia had long been the arms-suppliers and confidants of the Ba’athist r gime in Iraq, so for that matter they were simply returning to their former situation, but under, indeed, what were for the Americans extremely unfavourable circumstances."

The American and British attitude to Iraq can therefore, you argue, principally be explained by reference to the struggle to maintain control of the international oil, arms and currency markets?

Kees van der Pijl: "Yes, and over the whole situation in the Middle East. Of course there was also a political-ideological element which played a role in this. The initiative to present the scenario of a doomsday which must be averted came principally from a group of neoconservatives, who, with the coming to power of George Bush, found themselves in a strong position. The key figures in the neoconservative network had already long been active in politics and played a central central role in the so-called oil-arms-Israel conglomerate. The politics of this group were laid down in the Project for a New American Century, which took as its starting-point the idea that the United States must maintain a military ascendancy sufficient to enable it to impose its will on anyone and everyone in the world.

"That is one aspect: a political approach, an ideology, on which is based the idea that America must rule the world and recreate it according to its own interests. The other aspect that determined that there would be war is the oil situation. This was sketched out in May 2001 in a report from vice-president Cheney in which it was foreseen that the American dependence on foreign oil would rise from the then level of 52% to a level of 66% in 2020. In order to ensure that oil would come directly to the US by that time, foreign producers would have to up their production and from this enhanced production also ensure that more was supplied to the US. That would be difficult to reconcile with a situation in which Iraq was producing just for the European market. That whole picture was already clear long before September 11. It’s also clear that by then the scenario for an attack on Iraq was already in place. 9-11 gave the Bush administration the chance to carry out that scenario."

What plan did the American have at that time, then, for what would happen after the occupation of Iraq?

After the seizure of Baghdad Bush announced publicly that there would be a free trade treaty between a number of countries in the Middle East, and the US. In this way the US wanted to ensure the flow of the biggest possible slice of the region’s oil revenues. It was also the intention that there would be a peace treaty between the new Iraq, Jordan and Israel and that a pipeline would run from Iraq to the Israeli port of Haifa. This would guarantee Israel’s oil supply and put an end to the country’s isolation in the region. And all of this would completely ignore the Palestinians. Obviously this did not work out. The Americans were not welcomed as liberators, the world turned out not to be as pliable as the neoconservatives had thought. Now the situation in Iraq is desperate. Numerous attacks take place every day. Estimates put the number of people who have fled their homes at four million, the economic situation is catastrophic and the internal struggle is only increasing."

The interviewer goes on to ask Professor van der Pijl what people in their country, the Netherlands, can do about this, but his answer - though it draws attention to the particular relevance of the Netherlands as the home of the International Court - is relevant internationally, particularly perhaps to people, political parties and other organisations in developed countries.

"There is concern about a war without any legal justification. A legal complaint must be made. A party such as yours, such as the Socialist Party of the Netherlands, could play a role in this, if you look at international law and the position of The Hague as what is in fact the judicial capital of the world. America and Israel have not recognised the International Criminal Court (ICC), but the UK has, so Tony Blair could be proceeded against. It makes little sense to call for an enquiry into the Netherlands’ involvement in the war (which the SP and others have done - Ed.). I can tell you about that: we are the home port of Shell, we are scared, (the Dutchman) Jaap de Hoop Scheffer is paid for working for NATO (i.e., as Secretary General - Ed.) A child could understand these mechanisms. But why doesn’t the SP take the initiative in bringing a complaint against Blair? As a serious parliamentary party the SP could do that. I can give you the names of progressive experts in international law who could explain perfectly what steps would be necessary in order to lodge a complaint against Blair at the ICC."

International law?

"Yes. In my book I’ve devoted a chapter to the history of international law. In Nuremberg, at the trials of the leaders of the Nazi r gime and in Tokyo, where Japanese war criminals were tried, they proceeded from an idea that there were three sorts of crime. Crimes against the peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. These crimes against the peace have since been completely forgotten. A crime against the peace is when you attack another country without provocation. For this, Nazis and Japanese were condemned and hanged. It is of the utmost importance that that element of international law is brought back into use. This could occur by means of a case against Blair. This would also be of importance to the SP. The growth of the SP<http://www.spectrezine.org/europe/spnl.htm> is of course an important phenomenon. I see it as a consequence of the mistakes, or if you prefer the treachery, of the (Dutch) Labour Party. But you can’t simply continue to build on this for ever. At a certain point the question will be posed - are we merely a left social democratic party or are we more than that? Are we truly going to try something different? A case against Blair could be an example of that."

See Also
http://www.spectrezine.org/war/Wokusch20.htm
_________________
The Mainstream Media is Nothing More than the Tyranny of a New Managerial Aristocracy chattering to Itself while the Planet dies.

Bush: Review of judges is mean-spirited (AP)

AP - President Bush said Thursday the way the Senate reviews his picks for the federal bench has become so partisan and mean-spirited that qualified candidates decline because they don’t want to go through a confirmation hearing.

Multimedia :: C.H.A.N.G.E. confronts Larry Silverstein
Author: blackcat
Subject: C.H.A.N.G.E. confronts Larry Silverstein
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:55 am (GMT 0)

We are change confronts Silverstein.

Link

General :: EU superstate - Role Model For The Word - Miliband
Author: elohim
Subject: EU superstate - Role Model For The Word - Miliband
Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:29 pm (GMT 0)

Given Gordon Brown’s recent speeches, in which he pushed the "Global Society" terminology idea I really shouldent have been surprised to see his lapdog Miliband foam at the mouth promoting an exapnded EU state.

Among other things, he stated the the EU "should be expanded to include Russia, Middle Eastern and North African countries."

Describing it as a "Model Power" it can "Persuade countries to play by the rules, and set global standards. In the way it dispenses its responsibilities around the world, it can be a role model that others follow."

This is nothing short of the begining of standisation leading to a world goverment.

A seldom quoted phrase of the "NWO" is ORDER OUT OF CHAOS.

Miliband stated enlargement was "our most powerful tool for extending stability.

It is not hard to imagine a manufactured finacial collapse or world conflict destroying the current landscape of the world, only for a new global governace to be presented to the people as the only solution.

Sadly, many, many I fear will fall for this nonsense.

BBC Article

EL

Campaigning :: RE: Eurosocialist & Antifascist: Who’s blocking our Rights?
Author: venceremos!
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:18 am (GMT 0)

I’m sure there are a substantial number of MEPs who are in agreement about false-flag operations. I don’t have the close contacts I had a decade ago with MEPs so I don’t know who these might be. But knowing the Greens’ suspicion of the State, in principle, it wouldn’t surprise me if some were in agreement that 911 was a false flag.

What all these anti-EU people seem to have in common is that they don’t have any coherent alternative. We live in a world ruled by ruthless capitalists hiding behind the tag of liberalism or neo-liberalism. Their idea of economics is to privatise everything and the devil take the hindmost.

What we see in this capitalist world are the developments of huge economic blocs. In North America we have NAFTA (USA, Canada and Mexico), in Europe we have the European Union, farther east we have the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) embracing Russia, China, Iran and I believe India (though the US is trying hard to decouple India from the SCO).

By the way, I would suggest it’s very likely that the current USUK/Sarkozy stance against Iran is motivated by (1) trying to stop and reverse its growth as a Middle Eastern and Asian power, and (2) to dislocate the SCO by so doing.

In Africa we have the African Union (which the US is trying to destroy through its NATO-for-Africa, AFRICOM, a dangerous move) and in South America we have the only thing that approaches a socialist economy, the Venezuelan-led MERCOSUR.

Australia is making deals with Japan and China with the latter playing an increasingly big role in the Australian economy.

That is, admittedly, a rule of thumb description but which indicates just how geopolitics is playing out across our Planet right now.

So, I return to the question: leaving aside the incredible economic dislocation that Britain’s leaving the EU would entail, leaving aside the question of a rising call for Scottish independence and the SNP’s commitment to a Scotland within the EU, just what kind of future do these Eurosceptics and Europhobes propose?

No good looking to the Commonwealth. We deserted that a long time ago. And anyone who looks at the economics of the old Empire out of which the Commonwealth arose in the 1950’s will see that it was basically built in favour of Britain and the white Commonwealth obtaining cheap materials at cheap labour costs from the Black Commonwealth. So any hope that Britain would be welcomed with open arms by the countries they screwed so harshly in imperialist times is guaranteed to be dashed.

A Free Trade Zone with Northern Europe? Maybe with Norway, the Faroes and Iceland but no one else.

So where else? We would be far too weak to carry on alone against all these protection zones. Oh, well there’s NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Association. Fascists like the now discredited Conrad Black and the yet-to-be-jailed Murdoch brothers would have liked us tied yet tighter in a Goetterdaemmerung Anglo-Saxon Alliance death-pact with Washington.

The way things are going with that death-pact, by the way, what we see are the English-speaking world, USA (English?) and Canada already in NAFTA (which is already not very popular with a lot of Canadians). Is the long-term intention of the US (and their complicit Murdoch Press) to decouple Britain from the EU in order that it should fall neatly into the hands of NAFTA?

With the $US collapsing they might have big problems there anyway.

That would only leave Australia so clearly the acronym would have to be changed to include a North Atlantic and Pacific military/economic bloc based on the continued imperialist rape of Planet Earth.

So, given the outside possibility of allying ourselves with a race of benevolent extra-terrestrials from, say, the Pleiades (wouldn’t that be nice?) what options are left? Can we discuss this?
_________________
The Mainstream Media is Nothing More than the Tyranny of a New Managerial Aristocracy chattering to Itself while the Planet dies.

General :: RE: Saudi gang-rape victim is jailed
Author: elohim
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:23 am (GMT 0)

Quote:

Gays should be hanged, says Iranian minister http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2859606 .ece

As highlighted Iran DOES permit horrible conditions for minority groups, such as gays etc. No one should pretend Iran is the land of milk & honey.

The point is the powers that be often call to account these conditions as an excuse for "Regime Change" in Iran, while at the same time hosting a state banquet for Saudi royalty who promote similar conditions.

Therefore their justification falls flat & exposes their hypocracy.

EL

General :: RE: Saudi gang-rape victim is jailed
Author: karlos
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:34 am (GMT 0)

Speaking Haifa’s Reali High School, Weizman said he considered homosexuality abnormal and a negative trait, like alcoholism.

Ezer Weizman - former President of Israel wrote:

I like it when a man wants to be a man and a woman wants to be a woman, I personally view homosexuality as something negative. The question is how to deal with this phenomena, this social anomaly." Weizman added that the Bible proscribes homosexuality and sodomy. "I hope you are not in favor of sodomy," he told one pupil who had asked the president about his stand on sodomy.

Speaking at Haifa’s Reali High School, Weizman said he considered homosexuality abnormal and a negative trait, like alcoholism. The Israeli president "inflamed the haredi community and more extremist elements in Israel. It was an invitation to violence.
Weizman, who said he would oppose any law allowing gay marriage, also called for a law governing "how to relate to homosexuality" in general.

"I am aware that homos suffer in society. I’m not pleased about that. But," he said, "there is too much fuss about this. It is exaggerated. It has turned homosexuality into something beautiful."

So you want to invade to promote Gay rights?
Start with Jamaica, Albania, Saudi Arabia, Eastern Europe oh and dont forget Israel.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070621/wl_nm/israel_gaypride_dc_1

Israeli bomber seized before Jerusalem gay parade
by Avida Landau
Israeli police detained an Orthodox Jewish man carrying a homemade bomb in Jerusalem as thousands of Israelis marched in support of gay rights in defiance of religious protesters.

"Police stopped a 32-year-old religious Jew who was carrying a homemade explosive device," police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said of the arrest before the annual Gay Pride march began.

About 7,000 police officers had deployed inside and around Jerusalem to protect the marchers — about 2,000 of them by police estimates — after threats from religious Jews, who take exception to the event being held in a city they hold sacred.

One man evaded police to approach marchers yelling: "Filth! Get out of Jerusalem!." He was escorted away by police.

In 2005, an Orthodox Jew stabbed and wounded three marchers and fears of violence caused a march to be cancelled last year.

Tags: Max Boot

This entry was posted on Friday, November 16th, 2007 at 3:00 am and is filed under Max Boot. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.