Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[nebukhadhnasar@yahoo.com: news and articles]

Expand Messages
  • thekoba@aztec.asu.edu
    ================= Begin forwarded message ================= Dear Kevin, Down below, at the very bottom, is an essay that I ve received from the head of the
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 13 3:56 PM
      ================= Begin forwarded message =================

      Dear Kevin,

      Down below, at the very bottom, is an essay that I've
      received from the head of the Friendship association
      with Democratic Korea. It's entitled "It's time to

      Also, I just read on AP news on Yahoo that the White
      House is claiming that it has found omissions in the
      Iraqi mass destruction weapon report and some
      Republican Congressman or Senator is growling about
      how it's totally untrustworthy, etc.

      Not that any of this is unexpected. Quite the
      contrary; I've been wondering how long it would take
      them. But they seem now to be building their case for
      an attack.

      I just read the lead story from the Monthly Review on
      Iraq. In general good, it is a left-wing perspective
      which means that when they mention Saddam Husayn they
      have to say "brutal dictatorship." That is evidently
      some sort of "leftist" stamp that they have to leave
      there. It's similar to how a Muslim is always
      supposed to say "peace and blessings be upon him,"
      when the Prophet Muhammad's name is mentioned. Except
      in Saddam Husayn's case it's a curse.

      Why did they mention "Israel" (with no quotation marks
      of course) but omit to say "brutal colonialist
      excresence" afterward? How come Saddam Husayn has to
      have that ritual cursing? Maybe it's some old Jewish
      habit or something.

      Naturally, because it's a leftist analysis, they also
      omitted to mention the role of the Zionists. Nothing
      there about the Zionists as globalist pioneers,
      nothing about the Zionists as hawks in the
      administration (or in the ruling class as a whole).
      In fact, they said at one point that,

      "In the end what is most crucial to understand is that
      the new U.S. doctrine of world domination is a product
      not of a particular administration (much less some
      cabal within the administration), but rather the
      culmination of developments in the most recent phase
      of imperialism."

      I agree. But I think that slash at "cabal within the
      administration" was meant to counter those who point
      to the role of Jews.

      These leftists want to present the study of the
      Jewish-Zionist role as if it were some sort of cheap
      conspiracy theory of a few hulking shadow figures.
      The Jewish Zionist role is much bigger and much more
      organic than that. The Jewish Zionist role is not the
      product of "some cabal within the administration" it
      is a whole wing of the globalist imperialist ruling

      This is what they are afraid to say.

      Here, is the Monthly Review article. As I say, what it
      says is interesting and useful. It's just sad that it
      fails to go beyond that invisible line.





      U.S. Imperial Ambitions and Iraq
      by The Editors

      Officially Washington�s current policy toward Iraq is
      to bring about a �regime change��either through a
      military coup, or by means of a U.S. invasion,
      justified as a �preemptive attack� against a rogue
      state bent on developing and deploying weapons of mass
      destruction.* But a U.S. invasion, should it take
      place, would not confine its objectives to mere regime
      change in Baghdad. The larger goal would be nothing
      less than the global projection of U.S. power through
      assertion of American dominance over the entire Middle
      East. What the world is now facing therefore is the
      prospect of a major new development in the history of

      The imperialism of today is definitely not the same as
      that of the late nineteenth century. In the early days
      of the modern era of imperialism, several
      powers�notably Germany, Japan, and the United
      States�came on the scene to challenge Britain�s
      hegemony in various parts of the globe. There were a
      number of notable features of imperialism during this
      period: the scramble among the European powers to
      divide up Africa; heightened competition in Europe for
      each other�s markets; the growing German challenge to
      London as the core of the international money market.
      At the same time, the United States was attempting to
      enter the competition for markets in Europe and was
      developing its own colonies and spheres of influence
      in Latin America and Asia. The primary causes of the
      First World War included both the bitter competition
      among the great powers for colonies and markets and
      the German attempt to eliminate Britain as the center
      of international money and commodity markets.

      The period after the First World War represented a
      second phase of modern imperialism. The Treaty of
      Versailles was a process of the winners dividing the
      gains, with a unitary goal�the defeat of Bolshevism.
      Thorstein Veblen wrote that wiping Bolshevism off the
      map was not simply a secret clause in the Treaty of
      Versailles, it was the very �parchment� of the Treaty
      (Essays in Our Changing Order, 1934, p. 464). However,
      the plan to isolate and bring down the Soviet Union
      was interrupted by the Great Depression and by the
      Second World War, which developed out of the struggles
      of the axis powers, Germany, Italy, and Japan, to
      carve out larger spaces within the world system.

      A third phase of imperialism emerged after the Second
      World War. During the war, the United States, as the
      new hegemonic state within the capitalist world, had
      developed a plan for gaining control of what it
      considered to be the strategic centers of the world
      economy�an ambition that was then only limited by the
      existence of the Soviet sphere of influence. Writing
      in this space in November 1981, Noam Chomsky described
      the formation of U.S. geopolitical strategy in this
      period as follows:

      The general framework of thinking within which
      American foreign policy has evolved since the Second
      World War is best described in the planning documents
      produced during that war by the State Department
      planners and the Council for Foreign Relations who met
      for a six-year period in the War and Peace Studies
      Program, 1939�45. They knew, certainly by 1941�42,
      that the war was going to end with the United States
      in a position of enormous global dominance. The
      question arose: �How do we organize the world?�
      They drew up a concept known as Grand Area Planning,
      where the Grand Area is defined as the area which, in
      their terms, was �strategically necessary for world
      control.� The geopolitical analysis behind it
      attempted to work out which areas of the world have to
      be �open��open to investment, open to the repatriation
      of profits. Open, that is, to domination by the United
      In order for the United States economy to prosper
      without internal changes (a crucial point which comes
      through in all of the discussions in this period),
      without any redistribution of income or power or
      modification of structures, the War and Peace Program
      determined that the minimum area strategically
      necessary for world control included the entire
      Western hemisphere, the former British empire which
      they were in the process of dismantling, and the Far
      East. That was the minimum, and the maximum was the
      Somewhere between the two came the concept of the
      Grand Area�and the task of how to organize it in terms
      of financial institutions and planning. This is the
      framework that remained constant throughout the
      postwar period.
      The liberation of Europe�s colonies and the defeat of
      Japan�s ambitions in the Pacific allowed U.S. capital,
      backed up by U.S. military power, to begin to
      penetrate markets that were previously inaccessible.
      While the Bretton Woods Agreement provided a new
      economic framework for the imperialist powers, U.S.
      military might and covert operations were projected
      around the globe with increasing frequency�wars in
      Korea and Vietnam, the overthrow of governments in
      Iran, Guatemala, and Chile, the attempted overthrow of
      the Cuban government, and interference in numerous
      civil wars in Central America and Africa.

      Crucial to the whole conception of the Grand Area was
      control of the Middle East, which was regarded as part
      of the old British Empire, and absolutely essential
      for the economic, military, and political control of
      the globe�not least of all because it was the
      repository of most of the world�s proven oil reserves.
      The United States thus began a long series of overt
      and covert interventions in the region in the 1950s,
      the foremost of which was the 1953 overthrow of the
      democratically elected Mossadegh government in Iran,
      which had nationalized foreign-owned oil companies.
      The success of the U.S. drive was clear. Between 1940
      and 1967, U.S. companies increased their control of
      Middle Eastern oil reserves from 10 percent to close
      to 60 percent while reserves under British control
      decreased from 72 percent in 1940 to 30 percent in
      1967 (H. Magdoff, Age of Imperialism, p. 43).

      The long delayed meaningful integration of Western
      Europe, partially caused by the effects of economic
      stagnation, meant that it was not able to become the
      bulwark against U.S. interests that European leaders
      had hoped. With a weak Europe and Japan unable to
      mount a serious challenge to U.S. interests in Asia,
      the defeat of actually existing socialism in Europe by
      the early 1990s paved the way for a renewed period of
      U.S. hegemony, which had partly faded in the 1970s and

      Viewed from the standpoint of the historical evolution
      of imperialism, it is clear that the real motive
      behind Washington�s current drive to start a war with
      Iraq is not any genuine military threat from that
      country, but rather the goal of demonstrating that the
      U.S. is now prepared to use its power at will. As Jay
      Bookman, deputy editorial page editor of the
      Atlanta-Journal Constitution observed in that paper
      (�The President�s Real Goal in Iraq,� September 29,

      The official story on Iraq has never made sense....It
      [the threatened invasion of Iraq] is not about weapons
      of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or UN
      resolutions. This war, should it come, is intended to
      mark the official emergence of the United States as a
      full-fledged global empire, seizing sole
      responsibility and authority as planetary policeman.
      It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more
      in the making, carried out by those who believe that
      the United States must seize the opportunity for
      global domination, even if it means becoming the
      �American imperialists� that our enemies always
      claimed we were....Rome did not stoop to containment;
      it conquered. And so should we.
      The Defense of Empire

      Wars of imperial expansion, however unjustifiable they
      may be, always demand some kind of justification.
      Often this has been accomplished through the doctrine
      of defensive war. In his 1919 essay, �The Sociology of
      Imperialisms,� Joseph Schumpeter wrote of Rome during
      its years of greatest expansion,

      There was no corner of the known world where some
      interest was not alleged to be in danger or under
      actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they
      were those of Rome�s allies; and if Rome had no
      allies, then allies would be invented. When it was
      utterly impossible to contrive such an interest�why,
      then it was the national honor that had been insulted.
      The fight was always invested with an aura of
      legality. Rome was always being attacked by
      evil-minded neighbors, always fighting for a
      breathing-space. The whole world was pervaded by a
      host of enemies, and it was manifestly Rome�s duty to
      guard against their indubitably aggressive designs.*
      Of course for many (if not most) of the imperial
      adventures of the nineteenth century there was never
      much latitude for pretending that the motives were
      defensive. The Opium Wars were fought not against an
      aggressive China, but rather to impose free trade in
      opium. The struggle amongst the European powers to
      divide up Africa was not directed against a
      belligerent Africa but rationalized as the �white
      man�s burden.�

      The pretense that an endless series of defensive wars
      was needed to check evil-minded forces bent on
      aggression in every corner of the known world did not
      die with the Roman Empire, but was part of the
      rationale for the expansion of British imperialism in
      the nineteenth century and American imperialism in the
      twentieth.* This same mentality pervades the new
      National Security Strategy of the United States,
      recently transmitted from the executive branch to
      Congress (New York Times, September 20, 2002). This
      document establishes three key principles of U.S.
      strategic policy: (1) the perpetuation of unrivaled
      U.S. global military dominance, so that no nation will
      be allowed to rival or threaten the United States; (2)
      U.S. readiness to engage in �preemptive� military
      attacks against states or forces anywhere on the globe
      that are considered a threat to the security of the
      United States, its forces and installations abroad, or
      its friends or allies; and (3) the immunity of U.S.
      citizens to prosecution by the International Criminal
      Court. Commenting on this new National Security
      Strategy, Senator Edward M. Kennedy declared that,
      �The administration�s doctrine is a call for 21st
      century American imperialism that no other nation can
      or should accept� (October 7, 2002).

      Washington�s ambition to establish a global empire
      beyond anything the world has yet seen is matched only
      by its paranoid fear of innumerable enemies lurking in
      every pocket of the globe ready to threaten the
      security of the �homeland� itself. These external
      threats only serve to justify, in its eyes, the
      extension of U.S. power. The targeted enemies of the
      United States at present are conveniently located in
      the third world, where the possibilities for outright
      expansion of U.S. imperialism are greatest.

      Iraq under the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein
      is presented as the foremost rogue state, global enemy
      number one. Although Iraq is not yet armed with the
      most feared weapons of mass destruction�nuclear
      weapons�it is claimed by the Bush administration that
      it may soon obtain them. Moreover, because of the
      purported utter madness of its leader, Iraq is said to
      be so irrational as to be immune to nuclear
      deterrence. As a result, there is no choice, we are
      told, but to strike this evil regime quickly, even
      before it obtains the feared weapons. The UN
      inspection process is largely useless at this stage,
      the Bush administration has insisted (though overruled
      in this respect by the other Security Council
      members). Saddam Hussein, it is contended, will always
      find a way to hide his most critical weapons
      operations somewhere in the extensive complexes
      dedicated to his personal security, which will not be
      opened fully to UN inspectors, however much Iraq may
      agree to unconditional inspections. There is no real
      choice then but �regime change� (installing a puppet
      regime) through exercise of force�either by military
      coup or invasion.

      It is by instilling fear in this way in an American
      public already primed by the events of September 11,
      2001 that the administration has sought to pull the
      country and the world toward war. If a U.S. president
      and his administration can stand up day-after-day and
      insist that the United States is vulnerable to an
      imminent attack by weapons of mass destruction
      (raising the question of a surprise attack involving a
      �mushroom cloud� even in a case where the nation
      concerned has no such weapons capabilities), a large
      part of the population is bound to be carried along.
      The ceaseless repetition of these dire warnings under
      something like the big lie principle, coupled with the
      echo chamber provided by the mass media, gradually
      wears away at popular skepticism. �If public support
      is weak at the outset,� Defense Secretary Donald
      Rumsfeld has written with respect to convincing the
      population to back an unpopular war, then the �U.S.
      leadership must be willing to invest the political
      capital to marshal support to sustain the effort for
      whatever period of time may be required� (New York
      Times, October 14, 2002).

      So crazed have been the claims emanating from the Oval
      Office, in its efforts to concoct the merest shreds of
      a justification for an invasion, that none other than
      CIA Director George J. Tenet has been compelled to
      step out and challenge the false assertions of the
      president. Thus Tenet has openly contradicted the
      president�s claim that Iraq constitutes an immediate
      nuclear threat to the United States, pointing out that
      it would take Iraq until the second half of the decade
      at the very least to produce enough fissile material
      for a single nuclear weapon. The administration has
      attempted to get around the weakness of its case with
      respect to nuclear weapons by placing more emphasis on
      the chemical and biological weapons threats of Iraq.
      In a speech delivered in Cincinnati on October 7 the
      president said that Baghdad might attempt at any time
      to attack targets in the United States with these
      weapons if aided and abetted by terrorist networks in
      delivering the weapons to their targets. Yet the CIA,
      in a letter to Congress signed by Tenet that same day,
      contradicted such an assessment, arguing that Iraq
      shows no signs of developing chemical and biological
      weapons except for purposes of deterrence and that it
      could be expected to refrain from sponsoring terrorist
      attacks in the foreseeable future if the United States
      does not attack it first. �Baghdad for now appears to
      be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist
      attacks with conventional or C.B.W. [chemical and
      biological weapons] against the United States,� the
      letter read. However, �should Saddam conclude that a
      U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred,� the
      letter continued, �he probably would become much less
      constrained in adopting terrorist actions� (New York
      Times, October 10, 2002).

      The Trojan Horse

      The fact is that Iraq today probably does not possess
      functional chemical and biological war capabilities
      since these were effectively destroyed during the UN
      inspection process in 1991�1998. Its earlier
      capabilities in this respect date back to the 1980s
      when Iraq under Saddam Hussein was an ally of the
      United States. During 1985�1989, overlapping with the
      Iran-Iraq War of 1980�1988, and after Iraq�s use of
      chemical weapons against Iran in 1984, U.S. companies,
      with the approval of the Reagan and the first Bush
      administrations, sent numerous fatal biological
      cultures, including anthrax, to Iraq. Eight shipments
      of cultures were approved by the Department of
      Commerce that were later classified by the Centers for
      Disease Control as having �biological warfare
      significance.� Altogether, Iraq received at least
      seventy-two shipments of clones, germs, and chemicals
      with chemical and biological warfare potential from
      the U.S. in these years.* The United States continued
      to ship such deadly substances to Iraq even after Iraq
      reportedly used chemical weapons against the Kurds in
      northern Iraq in 1988.

      It is no secret that the United States is the country
      that has by far the largest weapons of mass
      destruction capabilities and the most advanced
      technology in this area. It is hardly surprising
      therefore that Washington is viewed by much of the
      world as operating with double standards, when
      confronting nations such as Iraq. As former chief
      weapons inspector for the United Nations in Iraq,
      Richard Butler, has pointed out: �My attempt to have
      Americans enter into discussions about double
      standards have been an abject failure�even with highly
      educated and engaged people. I sometimes felt I was
      speaking to them in Martian, so deep is their
      inability to understand.� In Butler�s view, �What
      America totally fails to understand is that their
      weapons of mass destruction are just as much a problem
      as are those of Iraq.� The view that there are �good
      weapons of mass destruction and bad ones� is false. As
      a UN arms inspector, Butler found himself confronted
      with this contradiction every day:

      Amongst my toughest moments in Baghdad were when the
      Iraqis demanded that I explain why they should be
      hounded for their weapons of mass destruction when,
      just down the road, Israel was not, even though it was
      known to possess some 200 nuclear weapons....I
      confess, too, that I flinch when I hear American,
      British and French fulminations against weapons of
      mass destruction, ignoring the fact that they are
      proud owners of massive quantities of these weapons,
      unapologetically insisting that they are essential for
      their national security, and will remain so....This is
      because human beings will not swallow such unfairness
      (Sydney Morning Herald, October 3, 2002).
      Far from consistently opposing the proliferation of
      weapons of mass destruction, the United States, which
      has a greater vested interest in such weapons than any
      other country, has frequently blocked international
      attempts to limit them. For example in December 2001,
      two months after the September 11 attacks, President
      Bush shocked the international community by killing
      the proposed enforcement and verification mechanism
      for the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention on the
      spurious grounds that if biological weapons
      inspections were to be carried out in the United
      States they could threaten the technological secrets
      and profits of U.S. biotech companies.

      Washington�s objectives in Iraq in the years following
      the Gulf War were inconsistent with the UN inspection
      and disarmament process, which was aimed at ridding
      that country of weapons of mass destruction. According
      to Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq
      in 1991�1998, this was evident through U.S. unilateral
      subversion of the inspection process.* By 1998, 90�95
      percent of the proscribed weapons capacity estimated
      to be in Iraq was accounted for and had been destroyed
      as a result of the UN inspection process. The sticking
      point in the inspections related to the extensive set
      of structures devoted to Saddam Hussein�s personal
      security and the security of the Ba�ath Party. A
      procedure, known as �Modalities for Sensitive Site
      Inspection,� was therefore agreed upon through which
      four UN inspectors could enter immediately into and
      search those facilities. Yet, in the case of the
      inspection of a Ba�ath Party headquarters in Baghdad
      in December 1998, the United States, rather than
      simply allowing the UN to send in its four inspectors,
      acted on its own, by insisting on sending in
      additional intelligence officers. The goal was to
      penetrate Hussein�s security apparatus, unrelated to
      the inspection of weapons of mass destruction�and to
      provoke an international incident. The whole
      operation, according to Ritter, was directed by the
      U.S. National Security Council, which gave orders
      directly to Richard Butler, who was then the head of
      the UN inspection team.

      Iraq protested against this gross infringement of the
      Modalities for Sensitive Site Inspection and the
      United States used this as the pretext, in Ritter�s
      account, for a �fabricated crisis,� ordering the UN
      inspectors out and two days later initiating a
      seventy-two-hour bombing campaign, known as Operation
      Desert Fox, directed at Saddam Hussein�s personal
      security apparatus. Intelligence on Ba�ath Party
      hideouts obtained through U.S. violations of the UN
      weapons inspection process was used to guide the
      bombings. After that Iraq refused to readmit
      inspectors to sensitive sites, objecting that these
      inspections were being used to spy on the Iraqi
      government, and the UN inspection process fell apart.

      In this way, Washington effectively torpedoed the
      final stage of the UN inspection process and made it
      clear that its real goal was �regime change� rather
      than disarmament. It had used the inspection process
      as a Trojan horse in its attempts to destroy the Iraqi

      Oil Hegemony

      Military, political, and economic aspects are
      intertwined in all stages of imperialism, as well as
      capitalism in general. However, oil is the single most
      important strategic factor governing U.S. ambitions in
      the Middle East. In addition to the profit potential
      of all that oil for large corporations, the fact that
      the United States, with about 2 percent of the known
      oil reserves in the world, uses 25 percent of the
      world�s annual output gives it an added impetus to
      attempt to exert control over supplies. There can be
      no doubt that the United States seeks to control Iraqi
      oil production and the second largest set of proven
      oil reserves in the world (next to those of Saudi
      Arabia), consisting of over 110 billion barrels, or 12
      percent of world supply. The Middle East as a whole
      contains 65 percent of the world�s proven oil reserves
      (see map facing page 11). Of seventy-three fields
      discovered in Iraq so far, only about a third are
      producing at present. The U.S. Energy Department
      estimates that Iraq also has as much as 220 billion
      barrels in �probable and possible� reserves, making
      the estimated total enough to cover U.S. annual oil
      imports at their current levels for ninety-eight
      years. It is calculated that Iraq could raise its oil
      production from three million to six million barrels a
      day within seven years after the lifting of sanctions.
      More optimistic figures see Iraqi oil production
      rising to as much as ten million barrels a day.*

      The U.S. Department of Energy projects that global oil
      demand could grow from the current 77 million barrels
      a day to as much as 120 million barrels a day in the
      next twenty years, with the sharpest increases in
      demand occurring in the United States and China. At
      present about 24 percent of U.S. oil imports come from
      the Middle East and this is expected to rise rapidly
      as alternative sources dry up. OPEC under the
      leadership of Saudi Arabia, however, has kept oil
      supplies low in order to keep prices up. Middle East
      oil production has stagnated over the last twenty
      years, with overall OPEC production capacity (despite
      massive reserves) lower today than in 1980 (Edward L.
      Morse and James Richard, �The Battle for Energy
      Dominance,� Foreign Affairs, March/April 2002.). For
      this reason the security and availability of oil
      supplies has become a growing issue for U.S.
      corporations and U.S. strategic interests. As
      right-wing pundit and Yale professor, Donald Kagan,
      has stated: �When we have economic problems, it�s been
      caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a
      force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil
      supplies� (quoted in Bookman, �The President�s Real
      Goal in Iraq�). Already U.S. oil corporations are
      positioning themselves for the day when they will be
      able to return to Iraq and Iran. According to Robert
      J. Allison Jr., chairman of the Anadarko Petroleum
      Corporation, �We bought into Qatar and Oman to get a
      foothold in the Middle East....We need to position
      ourselves in the Middle East for when Iraq and Iran
      become part of the family of nations again� (New York
      Times, October 22, 2002).

      At present the French oil giant TotalFinaElf has the
      largest position in Iraq, with exclusive negotiating
      rights to develop fields in the Majnoon and Bin Umar
      regions. The biggest deals after that have been
      expected to go to Eni in Italy, and a Russian
      consortium led by LukOil. If U.S. armed forces enter
      and establish either a puppet government or a U.S.
      mission, all of this is brought into question. Which
      country�s oil companies should we then expect to do
      the negotiating for new contracts�as well as obtaining
      a healthy share of the oil now owned by the French and
      other non-American companies?

      However, direct U.S. access to oil and the profits of
      U.S. oil corporations are not enough by themselves to
      explain overriding U.S. interests in the Middle East.
      Rather the United States sees the whole region as a
      crucial part of its strategy of global power. The
      occupation of Iraq and the installation of a regime
      under American control would leave Iran (itself an oil
      power and part of Bush�s �Axis of Evil�) almost
      completely surrounded by U.S. military bases in
      Central Asia to the north, Turkey and Iraq to the
      west, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Oman to the
      south, and Pakistan and Afghanistan to the east. It
      would make it easier for the United States to protect
      planned oil pipelines extending from the Caspian Sea
      in Central Asia through Afghanistan and Pakistan to
      the Arabian Sea. It would give Washington a much more
      solid military base in the Middle East, where it
      already has tens of thousands of troops located in ten
      countries. It would increase U.S. leverage in relation
      to Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern states. It
      would strengthen the global superpower�s efforts to
      force terms favorable to Israeli expansion, and the
      dispossession of the Palestinians, on the entire
      Middle East. It would make the rising economic power
      of China, along with Europe and Japan, increasingly
      dependent on a U.S. dominated oil regime in the Middle
      East for their most vital energy needs. Control of oil
      through military force would thus translate into
      greater economic, political, and military power, on a
      global scale.

      A Unipolar World

      In the early 1970s, as a result of the loss of
      economic ground to Europe and Japan over the course of
      the previous quarter-century, and due to the delinking
      of the dollar from gold in 1971, it was widely
      believed that the United States was losing its
      position as the hegemonic capitalist power. However,
      in the 1990s the collapse of the Soviet Union, which
      left the United States as the sole superpower, and
      faster growth in the United States than in Europe and
      Japan, suddenly revealed a very different reality. The
      idea arose in U.S. strategic circles of an American
      empire beyond anything seen in the history of
      capitalism or of the world, a true Pax Americana. U.S.
      foreign policy analysts now refer to this as the rise
      of a �unipolar world.� The consolidation of such a
      unipolar world on a permanent basis has emerged as the
      explicit goal of the Bush administration a year after
      the September 11 attacks. In the words of G. John
      Ikenberry, professor of geopolitics at Georgetown
      University and a regular contributor to Foreign
      Affairs, published by the Council on Foreign

      The new grand strategy [initiated by the Bush
      administration].... begins with a fundamental
      commitment to maintaining a unipolar world in which
      the United States has no peer competitor. No coalition
      of great powers without the United States will be
      allowed to achieve hegemony. Bush made this point the
      centerpiece of American security policy in his West
      Point commencement address in June: �America has, and
      intends to keep, military strengths beyond
      challenges�thereby making the destabilizing arms races
      of other eras pointless, and limiting rivalries to
      trade and other pursuits of peace.�...The United
      States grew faster than the other major states during
      the decade [of the 1990s], it reduced military
      spending more slowly, and it dominated investment in
      the technological advancement of its forces. Today,
      however, the new goal is to make these advantages
      permanent�a fait accompli that will prompt other
      states to not even try to catch up. Some thinkers have
      described the strategy as �breakout,� in which the
      United States moves so quickly to develop
      technological advantages (in robotics, lasers,
      satellites, precision munitions, etc.) that no state
      or coalition could ever challenge it as global leader,
      protector and enforcer (�America�s Imperial Ambition,�
      Foreign Affairs, October 2002).
      Such a grab for unlimited imperial dominance is bound
      to fail in the long run. Imperialism under capitalism
      has centrifugal as well as centripetal tendencies.
      Military dominance cannot be maintained without
      maintaining economic dominance as well, and the latter
      is inherently unstable under capitalism. The immediate
      reality, however, is that the United States is moving
      very rapidly to increase its control at the expense of
      both potential rivals and the global South. The likely
      result is an intensification of exploitation on a
      world scale, along with a resurgence of imperialist
      rivalries�since other capitalist countries will
      naturally seek to keep the United States from
      achieving its �breakout� strategy.

      The goal of an expanding American empire is seen by
      the administration not only as a strategy for
      establishing the United States permanently as the
      world�s paramount power, but also as a way out of the
      nation�s economic crisis that shows no signs at
      present of going away. The administration clearly
      believes it can stimulate the economy through military
      spending and increased arms exports. But enhanced
      military spending associated with a war may also
      contribute to economic problems, since it will
      undoubtedly cut further into spending for social
      programs that not only help people but also create the
      demand for consumer goods that business needs badly to
      stimulate economic growth. Historically, attempts to
      use imperial expansion as a way around needed economic
      and social changes at home have nearly always failed.

      In the end what it is most crucial to understand is
      that the new U.S. doctrine of world domination is a
      product not of a particular administration (much less
      some cabal within the administration), but rather the
      culmination of developments in the most recent phase
      of imperialism. Reversing the drive to greater empire
      will not be easy. But the will of the people can play
      a critical role in how far Washington is able to
      proceed with its imperial ambitions. For this reason,
      mobilization of the population both in the United
      States and abroad in a militant struggle against both
      war and imperialism is of the utmost importance to the
      future of humanity.


      * Recently the Bush administration has also said that
      �regime change� could be stretched to include an Iraqi
      government under Saddam Hussein that cooperates fully
      with UN inspections and disarmament, in terms
      acceptable to the United States. But the
      administration has declared this to be highly
      improbable, and its position in this respect can thus
      be interpreted as part of a diplomatic-legal strategy
      to garner support for its threatened invasion, in the
      event that Iraq is declared to be non-compliant with
      the U.N. inspection process.

      * Joseph Schumpeter, Imperialism and Social Classes,
      edited and introduced by Paul M. Sweezy (New York:
      Augustus M. Kelley, 1951), p. 66.

      * Of course for many (if not most) of the imperial
      adventures of the nineteenth century there was never
      much latitude for pretending that the motives were
      defensive. The Opium Wars were fought not against an
      aggressive China, but rather to impose free trade in
      opium. The struggle amongst the European powers to
      divide up Africa was not directed against a
      belligerent Africa but rationalized as the �white
      man�s burden.�

      * Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban
      Affairs, United States Dual-Use Exports to Iraq and
      their Impact on the Health of the Persian Gulf War
      Veterans, 103rd Congress, 2nd sess., May 25, 1994, pp.
      264�76; Buffalo News, September 23, 2002.

      * See William Rivers Pitt with Scott Ritter, War on
      Iraq (New York: Context Books, 2002); Newsday, July
      30, 2002; The Guardian, October 7, 2002.

      * www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html; Middle East
      Report, Fall 2002; San Francisco Chronicle, September
      29, 2002.


      It�s time to answer!!

      About the reactivation of the Nuclear Reactors in the
      DPR of Korea

      and the US piracy

      By: Alejandro Cao de Benos de Les y Perez

      Special Delegate of the Committee for Cultural
      Relations with Foreign Countries �DPRK Government

      President of the Korean Friendship Association (KFA)

      URL: www.korea-dpr.com

      E-mail: korea@...

      13th December 2002 (Juche 91)

      Few months ago. A peaceful night in Pyongyang, ten
      friends inside the hotel room, after a busy and happy
      day of many activities, my North Korean comrades -some
      of them senior officials of the Korean People�s Army-
      and I had a small party with snacks. In the Korean
      Central TV a great film of heroes fighting Taekwondo
      to defeat the enemies.

      Then I raised a subject� let�s talk about the nuclear
      issue, the missiles and what do you think about the
      Agreed Framework.

      We had one common thought: The nuclear weapons are
      weapons of mass destruction mainly designed for
      offensive means and we didn�t want to attack, but to
      defend the country from the US Empire; so considering
      that the orders of the �First Army Policy� from the
      Supreme Commander Kim Jong Il are purely defensive we
      knew that was no need to focus the energy to work in
      this technology, although pointing that in case of
      attack more advanced and accurate weapons had to be
      used to make the White House regret of its actions.

      The opinions were divided when talking about until
      which point the DPRK had to tolerate the pressure from
      the USA and stick to the Agreed framework, specially
      considering the delays in the construction of the
      first reactor and the intentions from the
      International Atomic Energy Agency of inspecting
      military non-nuclear related sites and out of the
      signed contract: some of my friends thought that the
      country had to wait and be more patient, while some of
      us wanted to continue the construction of the nuclear
      plants as soon as possible to revitalize the economy
      and provide energy to all the houses and factories. We
      thought that the hypocrite and arrogant Bush
      administration will find ways to delay more the
      constructions of KEDO, and that the delay was a dirty
      trick to get all kind of concessions from our

      After a while our hypothesis was confirmed, the Oil
      supply was stopped and the �anti-terrorist� mask of
      the USA felt into pieces showing its real intention of
      stifle the DPRK sovereignty: The IAEA became the
      servant of the imperialist interests and acting not as
      an independent organization but as a pathetic puppet
      of the big boss, followed the arrogant steps of its
      master and immediately requested further inspections.

      It�s time to answer!! the patience of the Korean
      people has a limit. The DPRK demonstrated its
      willingness to stop the nuclear power plants in
      exchange of peace, but the result was that the USA
      never fulfilled its promises.

      Finally, the government decided to resume the nuclear
      energy development demonstrating one of the basic
      principles of Juche: friendship will be answered with
      friendship, but a single aggression will be punished
      one hundred times.

      Many news agencies and war maniacs in Washington are
      asking why the DPRK isn�t treated like Iraq, why the
      President Bush is using double standards? The answer
      is simple: Although their intelligence is really small
      it�s enough to know that in case of a US attack, the
      Korean People�s Army will wipe out the 40.000 American
      soldiers in the South in just one day, and that the
      latest missiles Nodong and Taepodong can turn the East
      Coast into ashes.

      At the same time a DPRK cargo ship was seized by the
      Spanish Navy under the orders of the CIA. Another dog
      called �Satellite� following his US owner in exchange
      of a dirty bone with burger flavour.

      This time both servant and master had to throw their
      faces in front of the public opinion. I can imagine
      how brave is the Navy stopping a DPRK civilian ship
      with unarmed crew, considering that the Spanish Army
      has many things to do first like cleaning the drug
      mafia that invades many of its battalions or stop the
      all-sort of abuses to the soldiers.

      The shameful mission performed by both the CIA and
      Spain is an act of piracy and intrusion. A violation
      of sovereignty and interference in internal affairs
      that deserves a formal apologize and compensation.

      The reader can see how the media manipulated the news
      to distort the real image of North Korea. As soon as
      the Spanish TV received the information they started
      saying that the missile shipment could be delivered to
      Al Qaeda, talking about illegal transport, chemical
      and biological weapons and other nonsense.

      This time the plan of the USA was to find an excuse to
      link the DPRK to the terrorism and have an excuse to
      invade it, but they failed. Once again.

      Nothing and nobody will stop the spirit of the Korean
      flying horse Chollima. After the arduous march and
      several difficulties created by the nature, the DPRK
      looks to the bright future leaded by the Dear General,
      the future of a perfect society where the country will
      become a socialist superpower in all the spheres.

      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.