FACTS againest MYTHS V0L-VII-10-2002.pdf
Media
- extracted text
-
z &W00
T h e M y th s o f th e " W a r o n T e r r o r is m "
D e s ig n s fo ^ G lo b a l H e g e fh o n y :
VIKAS ADHYAYAN KENDRA
Vol VII #10/2002
“How could we have expected to arm and train so
many nations in the world in modern ways of
warfare and counterinsurgency, and used warfare
against so many, while simultaneously
impoverishing the majority of the people in those
countries through our economic policies, and still
expect to be safe...”
— Wendell Berry, “Thoughts in the Presence of Fear”
(www.gristmagazine.org)
Thank you for allowing us to
support your fight against terrorism!
COMMENT
The global situation since the WTC bombing has
considerably worsened and the world is being
redefined. The new Afghan regime installed by the
US, after the ‘War3 in Afghanistan, is already in deep
crisis. Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaida outfit in
the meanwhile continue to be as illusive as ever.
In the Middle East, Israeli aggression led to a cycle
of violence against the Palestinians. Hatred,
xenophobia and knee-jerk calls for vengeance by
the US have since increased. Bush has talked of
attacking Iraq after inventing the so-called Axis of
Evil—Iraq, Iran and North Korea—thereby turning
his crusade against terrorism into a war against
nations. In reality, the ‘Axis’ is the White House
across the river Potomac and down to the Pentagon!
The‘War on Terrorism’ is having serious implications
not only for the global community but also for India
over the issue of human rights violations. Indeed,
‘Terrorism” has become a convenient tool to crush
any opposition threatening the economic and
political agendas of the ruling bloc. New levels of
double-speak have since been witnessed
everywhere, including among the Indian ruling
class.
Q FACTS against MYTHS - Vol VII # 10/2002
INFORMATION BULLETIN
Human rights are being curtailed so as to “maintain
our freedom”.This ‘tough love’approach to US foreign
policy (you need to be bombed because we know
what's best for you), as in the past, serves as a
warning: to “persuade” countries [not only those in the
Axis of Evil] that they’d better behave and follow the
US or prepare to suffer the consequences. Civil
liberties and human rights too have suddenly become
negotiable. The US is to lift its ban on extra-judicial
executions carried out abroad by its own agents. The
CIA might be permitted to employ human rights
abusers once more, which will doubtless mean training
and funding a whole new generation of bin Ladens. It
will judge which nations are with it or against it not by
the integrity of their elections or justice of their courts
but by the vigour with which their armed forces and
police combat “terrorism”. The US Congress has
already passed legislation allowing for detention without
charges of any immigrant (including permanent
residents). Already a number of cases of racial
profiling, particularly against Arabs and Muslims, have
been reported, in India, the Indian Government almost
immediately introduced its own anti-terrorist legislation
viz., the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2002 (POTA). No
sooner had it become law the police abused it by
imposing it on innocent citizens, particularly Muslims,
in the recent pogroms in Gujarat where the violence
continues.
Further, both the US and British governments exploited
the WTC tragedy to reinforce the very policies that
precipitated the problem: building up the power of the
defense industry, preparing to launch campaigns which
inevitably kill civilians, licensing covert action. The
US has already declared a US$343 b. defense budget
for 2002 while earmarking hundreds of billions of dollars
for its own defense and calling on the rest of the world
to support ‘Operation Enduring Freedom*. In the
process it managed to shirk its own international
obligations.
Further, the role of the Indian Government in the
tragedy has been one of subservience and servility, it
went on an overdrive, offering support to Bush’s war
cry in a grovelling attempt to gratify the superpower. It
eagerly joined the global chorus in denouncing
‘terrorism’ and harnessed the country to the US war
machine. It also offered the US unconditional co
operation to fight ‘global terrorism’ and facilities that
would amount to allowing foreign ground crews to
operate from bases in India. The subsequent visit of
the army chief, Gen. S. Padmanabhan, toWashington
followed the signing of a $146 m. deal with the US
under which Delhi will acquire 8 Raytheon weapon
locating radars.The Americans, for their part, are eager
to test fly their latest helicopter gun ship AH-1Z of Bell
Helicopter Corp, over the heights of the Siachen glacier
to prove its high altitude operational capabilities.
Bush’s crusade has only added fuel to fire. Even in
post-War Afghanistan there are frequent reports of
deaths of innocent Afghan civilians by bombs, missiles
and military raids by the US military, to the extent that
their numbers far exceed those killed by the barbaric
11 September attacks. Even US media reported a
number of incidents of indiscriminate firings on Afghan
civilians, begun on October 7, 2001. Besides, Red
Cross warehouses were bombed at Khair Khana near
Kabul, sending workers scrambling to salvage
desperately needed relief supplies, including wheat
stored in them1.
Equally disturbing is that the so-called War on Terrorism
has since exposed a great deal more than the Bush
Administration cares to admit. Most recently, he has
confessed to knowing in advance of the terrorist attacks
on September 11, which has also been confirmed by
independent reports2. Evidently, the US administration
was far more interested in promoting its hidden foreign
policy agenda even at the expense of its allies.
According to a recent expose by intelligence analysts,
the primary concern of US in Afghanistan is oil, and
its war on terrorism is largely for domestic and global
consumption with the underlying motive being the desire
to consolidate its global hegemony. Accordingly Bush
has since made it clear that the “anti-terroris^^
campaigns will not be limited to Afghanistan. His
Secretary of Defense had announced “10 years of war”
while Bush on November24,2001 stated “...the United
States army will have to be active in different areas of
the world”. Since then, South East Asia has
experienced the re-introduction of the American military.
US troops are back in the Philippines, in violation of
its 1987 Constitution. This is an all too-familiar script
and ultimately the fate of South Asia can be no different
from that of its neighbours.
Finally, the War against Terrorism’has not reduced global
tensions in any significant manner. Instead, it has fueled
tensions between countries, e.g. between India and
Pakistan with troops amassed all along the LOG with
the two countries on a military standoff. The terrorist
attacks on the Assembly building in Srinagar on October
11 and the Parliament in New Delhi on December 13
were used to justify the Indian government’s threat t^^
attack Pakistan if it failed to act against terrorists operating
on its territory. Alongside mass unemployment, poverty
and hunger, there has been an explosion of slaughter
and destruction not only in Afghanistan or Palestine but
in Gujarat as well. Such brutal violence in the new
millennium is a new hecatomb, inflicted on thousands of
ordinary people. Side-by-side, the rhetoric and vile
propaganda that underpin this 5* Afghan war has gained
such popular acceptance that they are already being
accepted as ‘facts’. Communal forces in India are
conveniently and quickly taking over such spurious
discourses. The dividing line between reality and
falsehood is thus getting increasingly blurred. Hard facts,
on the other hand, are either ignored outright or
systematically suppressed. But logic, history, and facts
will reveal where such empty' rhetoric and vile
propaganda end and facts begin.
MYTH: In the struggle against terrorism the War in
Afghanistan was a just war—a war of self-defense
- and also a deterrent against future terrorist
attacks.
FACT: It was not a “just war” in any sense of the word.
It was an illegal act of aggression on the part of the
US government that unilaterally decided what was
appropriate. As such it was a crime against humanity.
In a just war, a legitimate authority must authorize a
war. In this case, that authority is the United Nations.
It has the responsibility to provide a more objective
authority to decide what action was necessary. Under
the UN Charter, the waging of war is permissible only
under two conditions, viz., I) if the Security Council
authorizes it, or ii) in the absence of such authorisation,
if it is in self-defense.
Since the beginning of the hostilities, i.e. from
September 11, 2001 the Security Council passed 7
Resolutions on the War on Afghanistan, and dealt with
international efforts to restore stability to the country.
None of these specifically authorised the use of force.
he US conveniently applied Resolution # 1368 and
Resolution # 1373 to justify the application of force.
The former resolved that the UN (not individual nations)
shall ‘combat by all means threats to international
peace and security caused by terrorists acts’ and
expressed its readiness to take all necessary steps
to respond to the terrorist attacks of September 11,
and to combat all forms of terrorism in accordance
with its responsibility. This Resolution indeed calls
terrorism a threat to international peace and security.
But it does not invoke Chapter VII of the UN Charter
under which punitive measures are envisaged. It makes
no reference to Afghanistan. Far from authorising the
use of force, it states the Security Council’s ‘readiness
to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist
attacks in according with its responsibilities under the
UN Charter*
hus, the thrust of the UN Charter is towards peace and
gainst the use of force. Any contrary intention in any
Resolution must therefore be specific and categorical in
invoking the exceptional power of use of force. The
Security Council, in its various Resolutions, has
specifically set out some other measures which can be
taken, such as freezing of accounts, etc. No specific
mention of armed intervention appears. Obviously,
principles of interpretation require that if the Security
Council wanted to authorise something, which can be
invoked only by way of an exception, the same should
be stated explicitly and categorically. The granting of
such power cannot be read into Security Council
Resolutions by tortuous and distorted interpretation. No
such categorical and clear invocation is found in any of
the Security Council Resolutions, and therefore there is
no way in which the US war against Afghanistan can be
justified as having been authorised by the Security
Council.
FACTS against MYTHS - Vol VII# 10/2002
Evot. i’r. by
Cctmcft RsSCiLtjCCS., 31
«$ 3$-V? 1'
Resolutions as
Qi:
can be said that the use enforce;
the Security Council itseit through the ‘CX
UN flag decided to use such force. Nothing o: the
happened!
;l.
Ironically, however, the UN Security Council also had
not condemned these attacks! Its resolution of 12
November seemed to have assumed that member
States had acted to stop terrorism, without going into
details of how they were going about it.
Further, the related claim - the US acted purely in
self-defense - which is, stopping the aggressor from
further attacks: This begs the question, who was the
aggressor? Contrary to the hype and propaganda there
is only circumstantial evidence on the Taliban being
involved in the attacks. Nor is there evidence that the
terrorists were Afghanis. The Taliban were accused of
harboring the prime suspect (Osama bin Laden) but
not of being involved in the attacks themselves.
Since Al-Qaeda is armed and violent, it may be
appropriate to apply force to stop them. The problem
however, is that the war had not merely attacked these
suspects but grievously injured innumerable Afghan
citizens who had absolutely nothing to do with the
Taliban or Al-Qaeda. Indeed, most Afghanis had no
information on what the Taliban had done or does, or
what was happening outside of their besieged country.
Even if they did know, they would not have been in a
position to influence the Taliban.
Therefore, these acts of ‘self-defence’ by the US-led
coalition forces are also simultaneously acts of
aggression against innocent Afghanis who are already
victims of war and oppression.
Another false argument is that the war had been
declared only as the “last resort”.The US had not given
a time-span to implement all the actions required by
the United Nations Resolution of September 28. Nor
did they allow enough time to examine whether those
actions would be effective.
Further, in a just a war, the harm caused by the military
action must be less than the harm that it is intended
to prevent. The US-led coalition maintained that the
harm it is preventing is a repeat of the attacks of
September 11 .The problem, again, is how can harm
be compared. The war had not been a war between
equals. It was a war of the super-rich against the poor.
It had targeted not only terrorist camps and hideouts,
but public infrastructure. Communications, electricity,
water, etc., were irreparably damaged. Much land will
be uncultivable owing to “unexploded ordinance” - that
is, bombs that have yet not exploded but would explode
if touched, with major ecological and health hazards.
By December, the number of civilian casualties in the
war was already greater than the number of victims of
the September 11 attacks. Afghanistan was already
experiencing famine, and millions were dependent on
food aid, before this war begun. The war has made it
almost impossible to distribute food. It had also
increased the number of people who have no means
of growing food or buying it.This means that what may
appear to the US and its military allies to be a restrained
use of force, is viewed as extreme force and as
relentless destruction by the Afghanis.
Additionally, to be a just war, it has to be targeted to
those who have initiated the aggression, and distinguish
between those people and non-combatants.
At the time it was not known how bombs directly killed
many. What is clear though is that a number of noncombatants had been killed. Bombs fell on housing
and farmlands. The unexploded canisters from cluster
bombs are lethal to whoever disturbs them. Because
they are colourful, children may pick up the canisters.
They are also the same colour as food parcels
confusing women, men and children with lethal
consequences.
Finally, there has (again) been no evidence that the
main effect of the military action has been against the
alleged terrorists. Rather the main effects have been
against the civilians. It has killed non-combatants both
by bombs and by making it impossible forthem to get
food. It has damaged the infrastructure on which
Afghanis depend fortheir livelihood and existence.
All in all, the war has failed in satisfying the criteria for
a just war. It also failed the criteria for self-defensive
action allowed by the UN Charter.
In fact, if terrorism is defined as the use or threat of
violence against civilians in the pursuit of a political
objective, then the entire war on Afghanistan can be
seen not as a war against terrorism but as a terrorist
war, and, to reiterate, a crime against humanity.
Myth: The War on Terrorism was in defense against
terrorists and terrorism—to destroy their networks,
training camps and infrastructure.
FACT: Violence against innocents in a war is not the
proper response! Condemnation of the barbaric attack
on the WTC in the strongest words is totally justified.
So is the attempt to arrest, try and punish those
involved in the attack who were not killed in it. But to
have invoked the spectre of war is something totally
different. Most of all, to declare war on terrorism is to
declare war in abstraction. The Northern powers have
been too trigger happy in declaring such crusades in
the past. Lest we forget: the ‘War Against Poverty’,
the ‘War Against Drugs’, the ‘War against AIDS’, the
‘War Against Corruption’, and now the ‘War on Terror’!
The world has been in state of perpetual bellicosity
against impalpable evils for a long time.
MYTH: Americans are frequently the targets of
terrorists because of USA's credo and stand on
FACTS against MYTHS - Vol VII #10/2002
Democracy, Freedom and Human Rights at home
and all over the globe.
FACT: On the contrary! The former retired Lt. Col.
USAF, Bowman not only dubs this claim as “Baloney”
but claims the truth is just the opposite: “We are the
target of terrorists because we stand for dictatorship,
bondage, and human exploitation in the world!
“We are the target of terrorists because we are hated.
And we are hated because our Government had done
hateful things. In how many countries have we deposed
popularly elected leaders and replaced them with puppet
military dictators who were willing to sell out their own
people to American corporations?
“We did it in Iran when we deposed Mossadegh because
he wanted to nationalise the oil industry. We replaced
him with the Shah, and trained, armed, and paid his
hated SAVAK National Guard, which enslaved and
brutalised the people of Iran. All to protect the financial
interests of our oil companies. Is it any wonder there
are people in Iran who hate us?
“We did it in Vietnam when we thwarted the democratic
elections in the South which would have united th^
country under Ho Chi Minh. We replaced him with a
series of ineffectual puppet crooks who invited us to
come in and slaughter their people and we did. (I flew
101 combat missions in that war which you properly
opposed). And, of course, how many times have we
done it in Nicaragua and all the other banana republics
of Latin America? Time after time we have ousted
popular leaders who wanted the riches of the land to
be shared by the people who worked it. We replaced
them with murderous tyrants who would sell out and
control their own people so that the wealth of the land
could be taken out by Domino Sugar, the United Fruit
Company, and Chiquita Banana.
“In country after country our government has thwarted
democracy, stifled freedom, and trampled human rights.
That’s why we are hated around the world. And that’s
why we are the target of terrorists, ..
“We are not hated because we •practice-democracy;
freedom, and human rights! We are hated because
our Government denies these things to people in Third
World countries whose resources are coveted by our
multinational corporations. And that hatred we have
shown has come back to haunt us in the form of
terrorism..."
MYTH: The terrorist attack on the WTC and the
Pentagon took the whole USA and its government,
including its intelligence agencies, totally by
surprise-
FACT: On the basis of what has since been reported
in the media, there is circumstantial evidence to state
that the US Government was in the know about the
attacks, and even allowed these attacks to take place!
The following set of information will bear this out:
4
►► The forces that seem to have carried out the
WTO bombing may not have been under US
control, but were certainly known to the US
security apparatus and indeed originated as
agents of the CIA;
To counter the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
in 1979, the CIA recruited, trained, armed, and
supplied thousands of Islamic fundamentalists
to wage a ‘jihad’ — a concept largely dormant
until the Americans resurrected it for their
sinister purposes two decades back. Islamic
militants were recruited from all over the
Islamic world including Pakistan and Saudi
Arabia. This is where Osama bin Laden first
came into the picture, as an operative of
American imperialism. When they fought the
Russians, they were glorified as freedom
fighters, but today President Bush brands
them as uncivilised fanatics who have to be
destroyed;
» Since 1996, the FBI had been investigating
the possibility that terrorists were using
American aviation schools to learn how to fly
jumbo jets, so the entire ‘modus operandi’ of
the terrorists had been anticipated by the
authorities;
►► The apartment in Germany, where the Trade
Centre attacks had been planned and co
ordinated, had been under German police
surveillance for nearly 3 years;
» The FBI and other American intelligence
agencies had received warnings of, and
intercepted messages about, a planned
spectacular terrorist attack, timed to coincide
with the anniversary of the White House Rose
Garden ceremony with Clinton, Rabin and
Arafat. Both Israeli and French intelligence
agencies had sent warnings to the Americans.
So, American authorities certainly had
advance notice about when the attack would
come.' Perhaps it was not clear that the target
would be the WTC, but the centre had already
been targeted by Islamic terrorists for attack
in 1993;
►► In August, (2001) the FBI had arrested Z.
Moussaoui on suspicion when seeking pilot
training at a flight school in Minnesota and
mentioning that he was not interested in learning
how to take off or land. In early September,
French authorities had sent a warning about his
suspected terrorist links. In November, the FBI
suddenly reversed itself and denied Moussaoui's
involvement in the plot. But in any case,
suspicions about pilots not interested in taking
off or landing, hinting at the possibility of suicide
hijacking, were revived;
•FACTS against MYTHS - Vol VIT# 10/2002
►► Mohammed Attta, who allegedly piloted the
first plane to hit the Twin Towers, was well
known to the authorities but was allowed to
remain at large in the US. Despite the fact
that he had been listed for years on the State
Department’s terrorist watch-list because of
his suspected involvement in a 1986 bus
bombing in Israel, he was permitted repeatedly
to enter, leave and return to the US. From
January to May 2000 he was under
surveillance by US agents following his
suspicious purchase of large amounts of
chemicals, which might be used to make
explosives. In January 2001 he was held by
Immigration and Naturalization agents at
Miami International Airport because he had
previously overstayed a visa, and because
he did not have a proper visa to enter the US
to study at a flight school in Florida. Despite
being on the State Department watch-list, and
the FBI’s concern that terrorists might be
attending flight schools in the US, he was
permitted to enter the US and enroll in the
flight school. In April 2001, Atta was stopped
by police for driving without a license. When
he failed to report in Court the next month, a
warrant was issued for his arrest, but it was
never executed. He was arrested for drunk
driving on two other occasions. Atta had
never made any attempt to operate under an
alias during his entire time in the US, travelling,
living and studying at the flight school under
his real name. Why?! Is there a more
Machiavellian explanation for the authorities
constantly and consistently permitting him to
remain at large? Was he being ‘protected” or
set up as a fall guy?
►► On August 23, 2001, the CIA sent a list of
100 suspected members of Osama bin Laden’s
network, who were reportedly in or on their
way to the US, including Khalid al-Midharand
Nawaq Alhazmi who were on board the plane
that hit the Pentagon;
►► For weeks the US government officials and
the media kept drumming the figure of 6,000
lives lost at the WTC. But there is every
indication that these figures, with their heavily
laden propaganda value, were highly inflated
by the government. The American Red Cross,
which is distributing financial aid to families
of the victims, had only processed
applications from 2,563 families. Government
officials refused to comply with a request from
the Red Cross for a copy of its secret official
list of Trade Centre victims;
►► The Jane’s Intelligence Digest revealed that
Russia’s intelligence services had blueprints
5
f--------------- ---------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- .
I
The ‘War’ in Afghanistan:
|
For Oil Profits? Preserving the Dollar? Or Geopolitical Gameplan?
I
B
J
|
j
?!
|
n
i
u
A
,
midst the roar of aerial bombardment and subsequent US “victory”, there have been a number of
j theories of the reason for the invasion. The first school maintains that in order to keep the dollar as world
j^^Acurrency and thus retain US control over the oil industry it is imperative to keep the dollar as the sole
currency of global trade and thereby retain its position as the world’s only superpower. The US is desperate to
ensure that the global oil trade continues to be conducted in dollar terms only. This objective however often
comes up against the interests of its European ‘allies’. Indeed, European oil companies e.g. ENI of Italy, etc.,
have been engaged in numerous projects to extract oil from the Caspian and Caucasus directly to refineries in
Europe and it is obvious that from January 1, 2002, with the Euro as legal tender in the EU, the goal of an
alternative oil market could begin to take shape and be a threat to US economic and financial power. The ‘War*
on Afghanistan then was supposedly to remove the barrier constituted by the Taliban in routing an oil pipeline
through Afghanistan to carry part of the output of the oilfields in Kazakhstan. It was also a part of wider strategy
of the US to have the sole power and control on oil distribution. Behind this imperative is the fate of the Dollar,
and behind the fate the dollar is the superpower status of the US. The EU moreover are also keen on improving
the status of their fledging currency, the Euro, in the oil market and thus not surprisingly oppose the US with
their own geopolitical designs. In short, this school of thought maintains that the war in Afghanistan was the
result of the desire of immediate economic gain. However, as the Gulf War had since proved, US victory saw no
improvement in oil profits, nor did it change the price of oil. That is, the immediate economic factors are not the
cause of war.
A slight departure to the above is the point that though economic factors are not crucial for the cause of war, the
US objective nevertheless hinges on the fate of currencies. In other words it hinges on a specific economic
factor. Oil and an oil pipeline is a decisive factor in the role of the dollar and its new rival, the Euro.
n
'
However, the preservation of the status of the US as world hegemon is not directly and decisively dependent
on US control of oil. That is, while it is correct that commercial control of oil production - most of the major global
oil companies are American owned - does helps the US to maintain its economic might, and is thus a factor in
the dominance of the dollar, it is not the basic explanation of the means by which the dollar gained and retains
its role as world currency. For
L
* The dollar achieved its pre-eminence before oil became the main fuel on the planet. In fact no currency’s
strength is especially founded on the control of raw materials. For instance, Japan controls practically no raw
materials, but the Yen, despite the recent stagnation of the Japanese economy, remains a strong currency.
Conversely, the former Soviet Union had huge quantities of oil under its control but this did not even prevent its
collapse, let alone enable the Rouble to become a world currency. It was not control of the coal or cotton supply
that launched the pound sterling as the main currency of the 19th century.
It is, rather, the preponderance of a country’s economy in terms of world production and trade, and its relative
political and military weight, that explain why particular currencies have become the standard monetary
reference in the world.
J
L
£
The emergence of capitalism in other countries began to undermine the British colonial power and began to
overtake it in terms of productivity. The emergent new conditions sounded the death knell of Sterling and the
Second World War sealed its fate. The subsequent exhaustion of all later European powers increased'(he
relative weight of US production and its share of world trade, and therefore increased global demand for
dollars. After the Second World War, with most of Europe devastated, the US, stimulated by a phenomenal
growth in the armament industry, achieved a crushing global economic supremacy. The Marshall Plan of 1947
supplied the European economies with the dollars they desperately needed to reconstruct by buying American
goods. Dollar supremacy was institutionalized at the world level by the Bretton Woods Agreement, and the
creation of the WB and IMF under the aegis of the US. In 1971 the decoupling of the dollar from gold by
Washington allowed the US to maintain the power of the dollar and the competitive position of American
production by exchange rate manipulation, which also helped cheapen its growing foreign debt. At the
beginning of the 80s, the raising of interest rates, and the de-regulation of the movement of capital, with the
consequent mushrooming of financial speculation, helped offload the effects of the crisis onto other countries.
Behind these measures the military supremacy of the US, which became unassailable after the collapse of the
Soviet Union and other socialist countries, ensures that the dollar retains its supremacy.
2
j
■
The role of oil in the dollar’s prime position is therefore relatively insignificant. Even if it is true that in the ‘first
oil crisis’ of 1971-72, the US, through its influence over OPEC oil pricing, managed to transfer enormous funds
to its coffers from those of the European and Japanese capitalist powers via Saudi Arabia, such manipulations
are hardly the main instruments of dollar supremacy.
r
■
i]
j
j
n
"
y
I
|
J
|
I
)
J
’
i]
G
n
p
I
/_ \
I
J
I
j
Q FACTS against MYTHS - Vol VII # 10/2002
|
i
.
|
I
|
|
What counts in the hegemony of the dollar is the US's economic, political and military domination of the world
market in which oil and other raw materials are bought and sold, and this domination is mainly decided by
factors of a more general and historical nature, rather than the control of oil.
Related to this is the argument that the US’s military invasion of Afghanistan is part of a long term preemptive
strategy to occupy the centres of oil production and the oil routes in order to prevent the EU from controlling
them with a view to making the Euro the dominant currency in world oil production and trade. The supposed
objective is to stop the Euro from taking the dollar’s position, and thus overtaking the US as a rival superpower.
This claim is also incorrect. Economically the EU is still much weaker than the US. Its GDP is about 2/3rds that
of the US. Germany’s economy, the strongest political pole in the Euro zone, still only ranks 3rd behind the US
and Japan. At the political and military level, the divide is even greater. Europe’s greatest economic power
remains a military dwarf compared to Britain and France, its main rivals. Germany is increasing its military
strength, its troops have intervened outside its border (in Kosovo) for the first time since World War II. Yet its
ability to project its military might extends no further than its immediate neighbours in Eastern Europe!
Thus, from all these standpoints, the drive to protect the dollar’s domination of the world economy cannot be
considered a credible reason for the massive military campaign against Afghanistan.
The second current behind this thinking is that the superpower status of the US is dependent on the dollar’s
pre-eminent role albeit not in a decisive way. Military superiority is as much a cause of the dollar’s status as an
effect. Obviously the economic and monetary pre-eminence of the US in the world economy is a crucial factor
in its military supremacy. But military and stategic might does not flow automatically, mechanically and
immediately or proportionally from economic power. There are innumerable examples to prove this point.
Japan and Germany are the strongest world economic powers after the US, but are still military dwarfs compared
to Britain and France who, weaker economically, have nuclear weapons. The erstwhile Soviet Union was weak
economically but contested US power at the military level for 45 years.
Like every other country, the US cannot rely solely on the performance of its currency to automatically guarantee
its world domination. On the contrary, the US must continue to devote massive, costly resources to its military
and strategic interests in order to try to outflank its geopolitical rivals. Its anti-terrorist campaign since September
11, has scored success in this struggle. It has forced the other major powers to support its military and strategic
objectives without allowing them an upper hand in any way. It can now more easily set about expanding its
‘anti-terrorist’ crusades in other countries.
Yet it would be difficult to measure whether the US offensive in recent months has made oil supplies any more
secure for the US than before, or significantly increased the dollar’s superiority. The real US victory is at the
military/strategic level. Control of oil for economic advantage was not the decisive question that cause the US
to spend billions of dollars in its war against Afghanistan, and to risk the stability of Pakistan where the
proposed pipeline would continue after it left Afghanistan.
The era when major powers launched wars for immediate or direct economic gain was an embryonic phase in
the evolution of imperialism. Once the major powers had divided the world between themselves as colonies
and spheres of influence, the possibility of direct economic benefit from war became more and more uncertain.
War became less a question of economic gain than a question of the survival of each state at the expense of
its rivals.
Instead of war serving the needs of the economy, the economy has come to serve the needs of war, and raw
materials have not escaped this general rule. If the US wants to control raw materials, especially oil, it is not
because it will ensure the health of its profits, or currency, but because of its military importance.
Though the war in Afghanistan was all about the maintenance and reinforcement of the US position as the only
global superpower, it was not determined by specific economic factors, like the control of oil. It is rather
dependent on geo-strategic questions. It was about the ability of the US to achieve military supremacy in key
areas of the world like Afghanistan, which had proved their strategic worth long before oil became known as
‘black gold’. The importance of Afghanistan is not because it is a potential vehicle of an oil pipeline, but
because it is at the geographical hub of the main global powers of the Middle and the Far East, and of South
Asia, total control of which will greatly increase US power.
(This analysis is from the International Review,
■■■ ■■■ IBS BBS B3ZI KSB BBS E53S BBS BBB BBS BUB MB KZ23 BBBB BSS BSB ESS BBS BBS BBBB SBB HSS UB1
FAC IS against MYTHS - Vol VH # 10/2002
BSH3 BBB SBB SSI
IBS BBB ESS
of the close links of Taliban’s with the al Queda
outfit and both were supported by the Pak
military and the IS!. The Russians had also
provided a report on this to the UN Security
Council way back on March 9,2001 along with
regular flow of information from Moscow to
the US that go back to the final years of the
Clinton Presidency.
completely rebuffed offers by the Taliban to negotiate
about bin Laden.
References:
US Pentagon Sources Admit mistake in Afghan
village, CNN Daily News,- 2/5/02
2. No! To Terrorism, CP(M) Publication, December,
New Delhi, 2001
,^r■,
3. Combat Law, No. 1, 2002, Mumbai
4. Wansbrough.A. The “War on Terrorism” - Myths
& Reality, In God’s Image, #4, Singapore, 2001
5. Seabrook, J. Response to an Atrocity,.TWN
Features, Goa
«"
/
6. Bowman, Dr. R.M. US Government Must Change
its Ways to End Terrorism, TWN Features, Gba
7. “Anti-terrorist” war Sows Terror and Barbarity,
International Review, #108, New York, 2002
8. Goff, S. Bush is Lying: The So-called Evidence is
a Farce, Why US Attacked Afghanistan, October
19, 2001, Mahfaz@tm.net.my
9. Avoiding the real questions - Janes Intelligence
Digest, May 28, 2002. 10. Think-tank releases evidence on September 11 th
terrorist attacks, http://www. mediamonitors.net/
mosaddeq36.html
11. Mani, V.S. The 5th Afghan War and Internationa^
1.
Anally, the US government has never publicly revealed
its “evidence” of bin Laden’s responsibility for the Trade
Centre attacks. Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld clearly
signalled his preference that bin Laden be killed rather
than captured in order to skip a trial. It is only natural
to ask why the US is so concerned to keep its alleged
’evidence” a secret?! None of this definitely constitutes
positive proof that either the US administration, or
perhaps the CIA , had prior knowledge of the WTC
attack, but one does not have to be a conspiracy buff
to have his suspicions raised.
Apart from failing to provide convincing evidence that
the attacks of September 11 were the work of Osama
bin Laden the US had failed to explain how they
‘identified’the 19 alleged hijackers (unless they simply
chose all those with Arab or Muslim-sounding names
from the passenger manifests). If the US had evidence
against Osama bin Laden, it could have made it public
and negotiated with the Taliban to have him tried in
some other country. (The US after all had carried out
such negotiations for over 10 years with Libya when it
blamed two Libyans in the crash of an airline over
Lockerbie In Scotland, in 1998. The trial led to one
conviction and one acquittal). But the US government
Law, EPW, #4, Mumbai, 2002.
Terror & War, Vikalp, #4, Vikas Adhyayan Kendra,
Mumbai, 2001
13. Ghosh,S.K. The ‘War on Terror’, Abroad and at
Home,Aspects of India’s Economy, R.U.PE., #32,
Mumbai, 2002
14. Assault on Democracy, Multinational Monitor,
Dembember, 2001
15. Monbiot, G.The Need for Dissent, Resurgence,
#210, London, 2002.
12.
GMO
GMO
Acknowledgements:
We are gratefill to Rohini Hensman for her valuable inputs and comments in preparing this issue of FAM.
The graphic on the front page is reproduced from our monthly publication, Poster Journal, designed by
K. P. Sasi.
Please feel free to reproduce material from this publication but with due credit.
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
■—— — —— — — —— — —
Facts Against Myths is a monthly bulletin offactual
information on a number ofdevelopment myths and
fallacies, etc, including information against alien
development models, paradigms and false concepts
on caste, creed and gender.
ppjrjTED MA-n^
I
Produced and Published by:
Vikas Adhyayan Kendra
D-1 Shivdham, 62 Link Road,
I
Malad West, Mumbai 4(Jo 064, INDIA I
I
a : 882 2850 & 889 8662
Email: vak@bom3.vsnl.net.in
E=3
— “T
Fax : 889 8941
Design & Layout: Kartiki Desai
i
I
Printed by : Omega Offset, 4574, Shctty Gaily
Belgaum 590 002. S 0831 -424124 / 433429
,i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
Position: 5484 (1 views)