ETERNAL VIGILANCE

The Virgin Oilfields of Iraq

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5305462/site/newsweek

A large part of the country is still mainly unexplored. Of the more than 80 oilfields discovered, only 21 have been developed.

By Leonardo Maugeri

Newsweek - July 5, 2004 issue

When it comes to oil, Iraq is—believe it or not—largely virgin territory. Though much of the talk about rebuilding Iraqi fields focuses on bringing production back up to prewar levels of about 3 million barrels a day, Iraq is the only Middle Eastern oil power other than Saudi Arabia with huge reserves that are untapped, even unexplored. Indeed, Iraq has the potential to match the 10.5 million barrel-a-day capacity of Saudi Arabia, which is now the only producer capable of using its excess capacity to moderate world oil prices.

The underdevelopment of Iraqi fields stems from their peculiar history. In 1918, British War Secretary Maurice Hankey foresaw that oil would be as important to the next great war as coal was to the first, and that the only big fields within British reach were in Persia and Mesopotamia. That imperative shaped British postwar policy toward Mesopotamia, which led to the carving out of a new oil state under British patronage. While oil dictated the birth of modern Iraq, though, there was no rush to develop the resource. By 1929 jockeying among the great powers led to the creation of the Iraq Petroleum Corp., a Western consortium led by four of the "Seven Sisters" (the world's largest oil corporations): the British predecessors of Shell and BP, the American predecessor of Exxon Mobil, and the future Total of France. Just as they secured control of this prized supply, the Wall Street crash of 1929 scuttled demand. Huge new fields were discovered in the United States, and an unprecedented glut inspired the Seven Sisters to limit global production.

They put the brakes on Iraq. Development stalled, exploration was restrained and Iraq Petroleum acquired all remaining concessions in order to shut out competition. This freeze lasted until the early '50s, when rising demand and the temporary nationalization of Iran's oil convinced Iraq Petroleum to resume development. Yet already, a new stage of overproduction had begun. The Seven Sisters controlled all major Middle East oil concessions and secretly decided to restrain output, but not equally across the region. Politically stronger or more attractive countries—such as Iran, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia—were penalized less than Iraq. By 1960, Iraq Petroleum had developed only eight out of the 35 oilfields discovered in Iraq.

The day of reckoning came in 1961, when the nationalist government which had ousted a pro-Western monarchy in 1958 expropriated the Seven Sisters' undeveloped holdings—or 99.5 percent of the total. Yet the new leaders did little to develop the oil themselves. Political turmoil would prevent the national oil company, formed in 1964, from matching the huge gains in production made by other states in the Middle East.

Then came a brief golden age. Amid relative political calm and rising oil prices, Iraqi production rose from 1.5 million barrels per day in 1972 to 3.5 million in 1979. A major exploration campaign discovered many new fields. But the new era was snuffed out by the 1979 rise to power of Saddam Hussein, who diverted oil revenue from development toward imperial goals and left the vast majority of newly discovered fields untapped.

Some figures reveal just how untouched Iraq is: since oil production began at the dawn of the 20th century, only 2,300 wells have been drilled in Iraq, compared with about 1 million in Texas. A large part of the country—the western desert area—is still mainly unexplored. Iraq has never implemented advanced technologies—like 3-D seismic exploration techniques or deep and horizontal drilling—to find or tap new wells. Of more than 80 oilfields discovered in Iraq, only about 21 have been at least partially developed. And 70 percent of current capacity derives from just three old fields: Kirkuk, discovered in 1927, and North and South Rumailah, discovered in 1951 and 1962, respectively. Yet even at this early stage, Iraq's current proven oil reserves exceed 110 billion barrels—second only to Saudi Arabia's.

Given this picture of underdevelopment, it is realistic to assume that Iraq has far more oil reserves than documented so far—probably about 200 billion barrels more. These numbers make Iraq—together with a few others—the fulcrum of any future equilibrium in the global oil market.

The temptation for outsiders to grab a stake will be enormous, but it would be a tragic mistake. Their history has made Iraqis perhaps uniquely sensitive to oil as a symbol of national pride and autonomy. During the '70s Iraq financed oil development through its own production. This may prove too heavy a burden for Iraq now. But either way, how to fulfill the promise of its oil is a question that the country must be left to answer alone.

Maugeri is group senior vice president for corporate strategies at Eni, the Italian oil and gas company.

© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.

A Tough Time for 'Neocons'

* Once, they exulted in the Iraq war. Now, with the setbacks in the region and the Chalabi spy probe, neoconservatives are feeling besieged.

LA Times - June 10

By Paul Richter, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — As U.S. tanks surrounded Baghdad 14 months ago, an ardent group of war supporters in Washington toasted the success of an invasion they had done much to inspire, as commentators spoke of their virtual takeover of the Bush administration's foreign policy.
Today, that same group, the neoconservatives, is itself under siege.

Many fellow conservatives have joined liberals in criticizing their case for the war. Rivals in the State Department and the Pentagon have taken charge of the U.S. effort in Iraq. And in a grave threat to their reputation, Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi, a longtime favorite of neoconservatives, is enmeshed in an FBI investigation of alleged intelligence leaks that supplied secrets to Iran.
"As these events have come one after the other, they've been feeling more and more embattled," said a Republican Senate aide.

"Neocons" — best known for advocating aggressive foreign and military policies — are in the painful zone between distinction and disfavor in Washington. They are losing battles on Capitol Hill. Their principles have stopped appearing in new U.S. policies. And where neoconservatives were once seen as having a future in Republican administrations, the setbacks in Iraq could make it difficult for the group's leading members to win Senate confirmation for top posts in the future....

Fourteen months ago, Kenneth Adelman was one of the prominent neoconservatives who took part in a now-storied victory celebration at the home of Vice President Dick Cheney that was described in Bob Woodward's book "Plan of Attack."

Since then, Adelman acknowledged, the group's influence has declined, because "Iraq didn't turn out to be as promising as it was billed."

Adelman, a former Reagan administration official, said that although he supported the rationale for the war, he was torn about what had happened since. "I still have to sort it all out. I'm just not settled yet," he said.

Other neocons worry that the real trouble for them could begin if President Bush is not reelected and, among conservatives, the finger-pointing begins — in their direction.

"Bush could end up looking like the worst president since Jimmy Carter because of Iraq, and people are going to say, 'You got us into this mess,' " said one Washington source who considered himself a neoconservative and spoke on the condition of anonymity. "It's going to be nasty and bitter and brutal."

While definitions vary, "neoconservative" generally refers to formerly moderate policy advocates who favor a hawkish and assertive foreign policy to implant democracy and American values abroad.

Neocons contrast with more traditional conservatives who are willing to deal with undemocratic regimes without necessarily changing them.

Neoconservatives have been especially focused on the Middle East, and they have argued that building democracy in the heart of the Arab world could foster reform throughout a troubled region.

Although Bush campaigned in 2000 on a platform that opposed nonessential nation-building missions, he moved sharply toward the neocon view after the Sept. 11 attacks. His administration includes a number of officials considered neocons, including Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz; Douglas J. Feith, undersecretary of Defense for policy; and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff.

Cheney shares many views with the neocons, but many analysts argue that because of his background and views, he is a traditional conservative.

Neoconservatives had been pushing the United States to oust Saddam Hussein for years, and they exulted in his fall. But they grew concerned when officials in charge of the U.S.-led occupation in Iraq took steps the neocons did not favor.

One group of neoconservatives, including onetime Reagan Defense official Richard Perle, was unhappy that the White House didn't move more quickly to turn sovereignty over to Iraqis and put the country in control of dissidents such as Chalabi.

Other neocons, including William Kristol, former chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle and editor of the journal Weekly Standard, contended that the Pentagon under Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had allowed security problems to spread by deploying too few troops.

In general, neocons felt as if "they had created a brilliant screenplay, and it had fallen into the hands of the wrong director," said one self-described neoconservative, borrowing a line from political satirist Bill Maher.

As the postwar problems deepened, many neocons found themselves in the strange position of criticizing the White House, while being blamed in various quarters around the world for provoking the war. An antiwar group in Brussels created a shadow international tribunal that convicted the Project for the New American Century, a neoconservative think tank founded by Kristol, for war crimes.

"It's not fun to be accused of war crimes," said Gary Schmitt, the center's executive director.

Some neoconservatives see an element of anti-Semitism among their critics, because many prominent adherents are Jewish. Neocons also discount views that they are a "cabal" that wields improper influence over the administration.

"It's very popular in Washington to believe that the president's mind is an empty vessel that's been filled by an unholy cabal," said Danielle Pletka, vice president of the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank associated with neoconservatism.

But problems in Iraq have made administration neocons lightning rods for criticism. Without significant improvements in U.S. efforts there, many of them would be unlikely to remain for a second Bush term, neoconservatives and congressional Republicans said.

Last year, Wolfowitz, a former senior State Department official, was frequently mentioned as a leading candidate to replace Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in a second Bush term. Now, congressional officials and neoconservatives agree there is little chance that Wolfowitz, seen as a primary advocate of the war, could survive a Senate confirmation.

"No way," said a senior Republican congressional aide.

Feith, the No. 3 Pentagon official, has been struggling to put to rest what he regards as unfair charges that he was trying to create a separate intelligence network in the Pentagon to guide administration decisions, and that he was an "intimate" of Chalabi. Feith met with Chalabi fewer than 10 times, said a spokesman.

Feith also has drawn criticism for shortcomings in the postwar planning. A spokesman said there was no truth to persistent rumors that Feith planned to leave government.

The allegations against Chalabi most threaten the reputation of neoconservatives, coming after the former financier was accused of putting forward defectors who offered phony evidence before the war on Hussein's alleged arsenals of banned weapons.

But the allegations have also exposed a deep rift between the neoconservatives and others in the administration.

Perle and others have charged that "wildly implausible" allegations against Chalabi were part of an effort by the CIA to try to discredit a longtime foe. "This is completely clumsy," Perle said of the alleged CIA effort in an interview. The CIA has not publicly commented on the leak investigation.

Pletka, of the American Enterprise Institute, said "the intended aim of this entire operation" against Chalabi was to reduce the neocons' influence.

No matter how the allegations turn out, the influence of the neoconservatives is likely to continue to wane.

James Mann, author of "Rise of the Vulcans," which describes the long personal ties between members of Bush's war Cabinet, said that the neocons' influence had been greatest on Iraq policy, but that it had declined steadily over the last year as the problems in Iraq deepened.

"Some people have assumed that they're running the administration," Mann said. "That's never been true."

In fact, Mann said the Bush administration had not followed neocon recommendations regarding Russia, North Korea, China or even Iraq's neighbors of Syria and Iran. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz vaguely threatened force against Syria last year, but they had not done so lately. "Nobody's talking about force any more," Mann said.

Despite the gloom of recent weeks for neocons, many of them see signs of a turnaround that could help restore the reputation of the U.S. effort — and theirs. A new interim government in Baghdad could help do so by earning Iraqi public support and beefing up security.

In addition, many note that Bush has emphasized his commitment to the neocon goal of building democracy. Schmitt, of the Project for a New American Century, was encouraged by Bush's words.

"His speeches are no less neocon than ever," said Schmitt.


Editor's comment: Below is a quote from the pen of John Quincy Adams and clearly spells out the historical reasoning behind my vitriol toward the neo-cons and Zionism. - BTP Holdings

“She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.... [America’s] glory is not dominion, but liberty.” John Quincy Adams, 1821

THE KEY TO THIS WAR:
THE EDUCATIONAL WAR PLANS OF THE PNAC

http://www.brusselstribunal.org/keys.htm#eng


The acronym PNAC is the key to GWII (the second Gulf War). Did you know? I didn’t. In the spring of 1997 neo-conservatives Robert Kagan and William Kristol of The Weekly Standard founded ‘The Project for a New American Century’ (PNAC). Richard Perle appears to be another founding member. Other distinguished founding members in the early days were: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Jeb Bush, brother of Bush II. Then there are also Richard Armitage, currently ‘Deputy Secretary of State’; Robert Zoellick, currently Secretary of State for Foreign Trade; I. Lewis Libby, Cheney’s right hand man as well as Zalmay Khalilzad, special envoy for Afghanistan. Paul Wolfowitz, previously Professor in International Politics and Dean of the Johns Hopkins University was initially director but left the position to become Defence Advisor to Bush Jr. The current director is Gary Schmitt. The PNAC describes itself as “an non-profit, educational organisation whose goal it is tot to promote American global leadership”.
Their mission statement is clear: "The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.” Because American leaders (Clinton in the first place) failed to comprehend this mission of world leadership, the Project for a New American Century was launched. The PNAC’s drew up an agenda to achieve its mission. Item one is to achieve a massive increase of the defence budget and is a lever to achieve items 2 and 3: to challenge regimes hostile towards our interests and values and to accept the responsibility for America’s unique role in the preservation and expansion of an international climate conducive to our safety, prosperity and principles.

The first action of the PNAC consisted of an attempt to convince Clinton, then president, to attack Iraq immediately. They wrote him a letter in 1998. But Clinton was not to be convinced. A letter of may 1998 to likeminded chums such as extremely conservative Newt Gingrich and senator Trent Lott is even more explicit: "We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam frompower". Mark the hierarchy of importance: first the permanent presence for ‘vital interests’ and then, when necessary, taking Saddam as a case. What are these vital interests? Although specialists never tire to tell us that oil is not at stake here, there is an obvious connection between those ‘vital interests’ and the fact that most of those involved are, often very directly (like Cheney or Condoleeza Rice), linked to the weapon and oil industries.

In September 2000, before Bush won the election, the PNAC published the crucial report “Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century”, in which they state clearly that to attack Saddam is but an alibi for American supremacy. It was written by Thomas Donnelly with the help of Donald Kagan of Yale University and Gary Schmitt, but a whole list of people contributed to the thought processes that lead to the report, amongst them some of the above founders like William Kristol and I. Lewis Libby, and beside them: Alvin Bernstein of National Defense Univeristy, Eliot Cohen of Johns Hopkins University, David Epstein working at that time for the office of the Secretary of Defense, Abram Schulsky of RAND corporation, James Lasswell of GAMA Corporation Dov Zakheim of System Planning Corporation and others. One name I want to add, who is probably now the most important of all of them: Paul Wolfowitz, now a crucial member of Bush jr.’s so called “War Cabinet”.

I quote some striking ideas of this report: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein”. (p.14) In other words, the fact that Saddam is only an alibi is not a figment of the imagination of the protesters against this war, it is stated explicitly by its master minds. (And: as early as 2000). The report argued for a large-scale upgrade of the army and estimated a budgetary increase of 15 to 20 billion dollars per year would be required to transform the army into a kind of imperial super force, keeping the lead in “the revolution in military affairs”. However, PNAC was well aware that this would not be plain sailing: “The process of transformation, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” (p. 51) This is a genuine quote. Need I say more? However, there is more. One of the core tasks of the transformed American army is “to fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars”. (p. IV. find the complete text of this report on www.newamericancentury.org). How about that for a shining and truly educational programme, worthy of an educational non-profit organisation? Truly unbelievable, but really true. Following such a brilliant report the ‘Project for a New American Century’ could only prosper. With Bush in power, Dick Cheney as Vice President and Donald Rumsfeld as Minister of External Affairs, the PNAC became lord and master of the foreign politics of the White House.

And then there was 9/11. Suddenly the New American Century had arrived: the long and eagerly awaited “catastrophic and catalysing” event had occurred. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Co must have considered it a real God sent. It was an immediate justification for agenda item 1: a massive increase in the defence budget. Ian Lustick, professor in foreign politics and Middle-East-specialist at the University of Pennsylvania, stated: “9/11, which had nothing to do with Iraq, produced a gigantic political capital that allowed the government to do whatever they saw fit, as long as they could connect it with national security and the Middle East”. According to a report from NBS television, an enthusiastic Rumsfeld scribbled down in telegram style, the definitive plan from the still smoking Pentagon as follows: “best info fast. Judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. at the same time. Not only UBL. …. Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.” For S.H. read Saddam Hoessein, and for UBL read Usama Bin Laden and the message becomes exceedingly clear: “all we need now is the right information to find an alibi for a massive attack on Saddam”. The real purpose is (according to the mission statement en report van de PNAC, cited above): to reinforce the American military and industrial world supremacy through a ‘total war’ (an expression of co-founder Richard Perle), such as The war on terrorism, the cleansing of Afghanistan and now the cleansing of the Gulf (and soon of Columbia). “Multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars” with as motto: “…. Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.” That is painfully clear. It is the real briefing for the troops, as they will shout in the near future ‘Hell breaks loose’.

Professor Lustick is of the view that the Zionist lobby, rather than oil, is behind the war schemes of the PNAC. The ‘Zionist’ logic appears to be that a forceful attack on Saddam would destroy the resolve of the Palestinians and tempt them into signing a peace deal the terms of which can be completely dictated by Israel. A logic Lustic considers deeply flawed. He views ‘this war plan as a triumph of simple ideology over the messy realities of global politics’. His conclusion is blunt: “This is not a war against fanatics, but a war of fanatics – our fanatics”.

(with thanks to William Bunch, writing for ‘Philadelphia Daily News’, and to Kurt Nimmo writing for Counter Punch, November 2002 and Christopher Bollyn, writing for American Free Press)

Prof dr. L. F.M. De Cauter

(he is independant writer and philosopher, he teaches at several institutions in Belgium and the Netherlands. He published several books. His speciality is Walter Benjamin and his hobby Jewish Thought from Adorno to Zahir).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


MEET THE MASTER MINDS
DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED ... OIL, MILITARY AND DRUGS INDUSTRY




To document the practice behind the PNAC-theory we pick a case study: Dick Cheney. He is, beside being Vice President of the United States of America and founding member of the ‘Project for a New American Century’(PNAC), the main individual shareholder of the giant transnational Halliburton, one of the flagships of the American industry. Brown & Root is an important corporation of the Halliburton group. In a hair raising article, Michael C. Rupert, ex LAPD agent, writes the following: “Of all the American companies dealing directly with the US military and providing cover for CIA operations, few firms can match the global presence of this giant construction powerhouse which employs 20,000 people in more than 100 countries. Through its sister companies or joint ventures, Brown & Root can build offshore oil rigs, drill wells and construct and operate everything from harbours and pipelines to highways and nuclear reactors. It can train and arm security forces and it can now also feed, supply and house armies.” What one calls an all round firm.

Brown & Root is one of the largest partners of the American army. It builds and provides logistics wherever the American army is present. In addition to dealing in pipelines and military logistics it specialises in arms deals (e.g. with Iran in the late seventies). On top of that it is apparently also an expert provider of drug pipelines. Currently it appears engaged in a Colombian-American joint venture, called Corfinsura, consisting of large building works for the Colombian Antioquia drug syndicate, with headquarters in Meddellin. Brown & Root purchased and leased gigantic amounts of land in Colombia (estimated to be in the order of one billion square meters), which can be transformed into military camps at the stroke of a pen, in case of an invasion by the American army – an invasion that, according to the newspapers, has started surreptitiously.

Dick Cheney is a specialist in al sorts of fields. “As the Bush Secretary of Defense during Desert Shield/Desert Storm (1990-91), Cheney also directed special operations involving Kurdish rebels in northern Iran. The Kurds' primary source of income for more than 50 years has been heroin smuggling from Afghanistan and Pakistan through Iran, Iraq and Turkey.” (ibid.). Brown & Root picked its share, as it did in Kosovo, where Cheney’s company earned hundreds of millions of dollars building facilities for the America army and where it still has a presence. And as the Kosovo Liberation Army controlled 70% of the European heroin import…

In 2000 the Centre for Public Integrity (CPI) (2000) published a report entitled “Cheney Led Halliburton to Feast at Federal Trough”. According to this report Halliburton, under Cheney’s leadership, received 3.8 billion dollars in federal contracts and government loans, mainly via Brown & Root. The loans were transferred via two banks, Exim and Opic. According to reliable sources those banks are CIA infiltrated and regularly distribute NOC (Non Official Cover, the code for drugs) to their officers. Etc. etc.

Group Alpha, a Russian banking conglomerate, traffics in oil and drugs. Via loans to Brown & Root it managed to launder this money, which in turn enabled Brown & Root to extend its oil drillings in Russia. (I present the key lines only, based on a report of the CPI, and the above mentioned article of Michael Rupert, since it would take ten volumes to unravel the intricate schemes involved). The Alpha Group is also in cahoots with Gilberto Rodriguez, currently in prison and the boss of the Kali drug cartel. Mostimportantly, much of this laundered money was subsequently used to finance Bush’s election campaign… And then there is Richard Armitage, also a member of the idealistic educational organisation PNAC, involved in drug trafficking in Laos…

Besides war, drugs, military logistics and the weapon industry, oil plays a key role. Whatever else can be said, the connection between the Bush dynasty, the oil industry and Halliburton, where Bush sr. started his career, appears to be conveniently forgotten nowadays. Perhaps Bush and Cheney intend to rebuild the Iraqi oilfields via Brown & Root, or exploit them via (via via) Halliburton. Or via Chevron Oil, which counts Condooleza Rice amongst its board members. Turkey however, does not agree with that strategy where it concerns Northern Iraq. Or perhaps they just intend to destroy the Iraqi oilfields, that is another way to compete. Did Machiavelli not advocate to “Destroy your enemies”? Even if there were no oil profits to be gained, this war would prove to be a goldmine for Brown & Root, as the key logistics company of the American army. As a captain of Industry and politician Cheney and his companions will always win, either way. ‘Vested interests’ is putting it very mildly indeed.

To cut a long story short, the destruction as well as the regeneration of Iraq would provide a golden opportunity for Brown & Root, and hence for Halliburton and therefore also for Dick Cheney, Vice President of the United States. One wonders why the press does not or only marginally covers this sort of crucial information. It beggars belief on two fronts: that this is happening and that we don’t seem to know about it. You can read all about it in Michael C. Rupert’s article: The Bush-Cheney Drug Empire (2001), Nexus Magazine, 8, 2 or on the following web site: www.nexusmagazine.com. But, as the saying goes: “Who wants to know”. Schemes from Medellin to Moscow… and time and time again Brown & Root. How come we don’t know any of this? Even if only half of it was true (although I rather suspect it is only the tip of the iceberg), doesn’t this really change the whole picture? Now it really does make sense why Bush, Cheney and co are hell bent on this war. It is just golden business opportunity.

In the New American Century politics, military logic, economics and organised crime have become a seamless continuum, one large global casino. Of course you can shrug your shoulders and say wearily: “Nothing ever changes, same as it ever was”. However, armed with such information we can at least debunk the sickly rhetorics of those poker players and the pathetic arguments of so called trustworthy politicians such as Blair, as well as the superficial small talk of most newspaper articles. And we can become aware that Cheney and his chums are true “World history personalities” (a term coined by Hegel to describe figures such as Napoleon). They are competent professionals: Many Birds with One Stone. That is the key to the great “Project for a New American Century”. Hence it better be a very large stone. A bazooka in the bowling game of the Middle East.

prof. Dr. L.F.M. De Cauter

(He is an independant writer and philosopher. He is teaching at several institutions, amongst them the Department of Architecture, Urban planning and Design of the University of Leuven (Belgium). He is currently doing research on the Architecture of Power)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE KEY TO PEACE: 'THE PEOPLE VS. TOTAL WAR INC.'




I could continue this series about the PNAC , The Project for a New American Century, and it’s tentacles endlessly. It is a genuine Hydra. There is: the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI), displaying its vested interests proudly in its name, the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf (CPSG), they are de precussors of the PNAC and a group of which I assume to be another ‘self help group for idealists’ and the Iracqui National Congress (INC), which aims to organise the opposition and hence the next Iraqi government, under the watchful supervision of General Wayne Downing. Not to mention “The committee for the liberation of Iracq”, a sister or daughter organisation of the PNAC. Its president is Bruce Jackson, a major contractor for Lockheed Martin. It beggars belief. The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq is nothing less than an NGO for the weapons industry. Named Bruce Jackson is also the person behind the letter of the ‘Ten of Vilnius’, the ten Baltic Nations that signed up for the war (who knows under what pressure of blackmail or promises from our Lockheed boy). At least now we know why. Jackson favours the liberation of Iraq in order to sell as many weapons as possible. It really is that simple, and that cynical. Why does the press not expose that Mr. Jackson works (behind the scenes) for the Bush administration but also for Lockheed Martin? It certainly sheds an interesting light on the situation. This man is obviously a true idealist, that much is clear.

God have mercy on America, that is should be led by this outfit (I can’t really find a suitable name for them) to a New American Century. It appears wise to attack this section of the Bush administration preventatively (isn’t that currently all the rage?) by accusing them of crimes against humanity. One can’t fail. The grand wisdom, the deep insights and the broad vision of the European ‘Atlantists’ (politicians, scholars, journalists) become immortal, and especially painfully risible, if one begins to explore those figureheads and their machinations. It only takes a careful reading of the report “Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century”. But time is of the essence. We know enough. The Project for a New American Century is the real design team and master-mind behind this war.

The situation defies belief on two levels: that this Project for a New American Century truly exists, and that I and millions of others with me, had no knowledge of its existence. Of course the reply of journalists and other specialists is bound to be: “But everybody knew”, the implication being that I am a mere amateur meddling in affairs of experts. Granted. But the world is too important to leave it in the capable hands of specialists and so called experts. So much is clear, once again. So accept my sincere apologies for my ignorance. What I would like to know is why all knowing journalists are so silent on the subject of the comings and goings of the PNAC. PNAC is not good news, but it does provide an opportunity for good journalism. So whence this respectful silence? I really would like to have an answer to that question.

So what’s the conclusion? This war is a conspiracy of the PNAC, despite ypur and my aversion of conspiracy theories. It appears to be true, the only truth to be found about this disgusting war. There are of course supplementary conspiracy theories to be explored, like the one about Rupert Murdoch and his media empire, with tens of newspapers (e.g. the Sun), supporting this war with a vengeance.

That Chirac sold his soul to Elf, or that Louis Michel, the Belgin minister of Foreign Affairs, is a lackey of France – just because he stated not to be a lackey of the United States – makes no difference: this war is a world wide conspiracy of scavengers. Heavy terminology, I know. But one would have a hard time convincing me that people such as Bruce Jackson, one of the most innocuous ones of the lot, are not scavengers? Do try. The evidence against Cheney is so overwhelming I would not begin to consider withdrawing my accusation.

Mister President, you are surrounded not by hawks, but by scavengers. I implore you to publicly condemn the cynical idea of “Total War”, as Richard Perle(mann) neatly summarises the basic tenet of the PNAC, before it is too late. Because total war leads to the demise of hundreds of thousands of human beings, and perhaps even to your own political demise. History will condemn you. Repent. Listen to the appeal of the highest representatives of your own church community, the United Methodist Church. This war is in contradiction with the bible and the message of Jesus Christ. I have no time for theological debates here, but I suspect they are right. As you well know. But, then Mister President, how could I bring you to change your mind…

However, let’s not surrender to the inevitability of the war schemes of the PNAC (soon to be exported to Colombia). Journalists and intellectuals of the world pick up your pen and declare war to despicable organisations such as the Project for a New American Century and The Committee for the liberation of Iraq. Now is the time for a holy war: a true ‘Jihad of and for Enlightenment’: ‘Écrasez L’infame désinformation’ (let us destroy the infamous misinformation, to paraphrase Voltaire), under the new and eternal motto of Kant: ‘Sapere aude’, dare to know.

Reading the report of the PNAC sheds a bright light on the dark and murky basis for this war. They want “to fight and decively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars”. We need to imprint this phrase, which was coined already in 2000 (I can’t emphasise this often enough), in the consciousness of humanity, because it is the truth, the only and veritable truth behind this war.

Because time is running out, I dream of the following action plan. First step: we establish a Russell Tribunal. As jurors I propose people such as Frederick Jameson, Manuel Castells, Giorgio Agamben, Ricardo Petrella, Ricardo Boff, Eward Said, Emanuel Wallerstein, Alain Finkielkraut, Amin Malouf, Edward Said, Woody Allen, you name it. I would choose Jacques Derrida to preside. Antonio Negri could be the chief prosecutor (although that might be tricky, he’d be refused). But then Noam Chomsky would even be better for the job. For the defence council… well, up to them really, although I would recommend Paul Wolfowitz himself, member of the PNAC and previously vice chancellor of John Hopkins University, and now a key figure in the Bush II War cabinet. A heavyweight as Wolfowitz would surely do justice to the cause of the defence.

The second: headed by Amnesty International and joined by Medicin Sans Frontieres, Voluntary Services Overseas, Greenpeace, Oxfam, and all other independent
NGOs, a completed report should be presented (people tell me it exists almost): an estimation of the humaninatarian, social, economical and ecological ‘cost’ and consequences of the PNAC-report. The conclusion would consist of depositing an emergency ‘pre enptive’ complaint at the International Court of Den Hague, or any where Else (Belgian has such a ‘genocide law’, but Israel has such a law aswell, specialists say) . The PNAC is to be accused of open and repeated incitement and planning of crimes against humanity. A media covered monster trial. J’accuse!
The third step is to be an international call for a worldwide day of strike and prayers. We ask the Pope, the chief Rabbi, the arch bisshops of the Episcoplean church (church of Bush sr.), the head of United Methodist Church (church of Bush jr.), and of course a whole selection of Ayatollahs and Patriarchs, to call a day of deafening silence and prayer for peace. The day the people of this earth declared a worldwide protest- Shabbat. The action could be code-named: Operation Desert Voice: The People (of Planet Earth) vs. ‘Total War Inc(orporated)’.

But, alas, who am I? All this is just a wet dream, I know. But please tell me then that the PNAC and its machinations is just a dream too. Just a nightmare. Pulp fiction. Or is this real?


Prof dr. L. F.M. De Cauter

(the author is an independent writer and philosopher. He is a Professor at the University of Louvain, and is now giving a workshop at the Dance School P.A.R.T.S and the film School RITS (Brussels) on the relevance of age old martial arts for contemporary performing arts and media politics)

The BRussells Tribunal:
Conclusions of the commission

http://www.brusselstribunal.org/home.htm#conclusions

Consistent with the tradition of the 1967 Russell Tribunal on the Vietnam War and the work of the People’s permanent tribunal and other similar tribunals such as the one held in Brussels in 1991, the BRussells Tribunal met on 14-17 April 2004. This Tribunal is the opening session of the World Tribunal on Iraq, a series of hearings scheduled to conclude in Istanbul in 2005.

The BRussells Tribunal focused on the programs and policies proposed by “The Project for the New American Century” (PNAC), a predominantly neo-conservative “think-tank” that has advocated global US hegemony, primarily through the threat or use of military power. The objective of the Tribunal, working as a commission of inquiry, was to establish whether there was a link between PNAC’s proposals and the foreign and military strategy of the current US government, and the subsequent invasion and occupation of Iraq. The Commission also examined the impact of policies and programs advocated by PNAC on the stability and security of international relations.

To establish its findings and shape its report the Commission heard testimony from specialists on international affairs and witnesses knowledgeable about the current conditions in Iraq. The Commission also relied on PNAC’s reports and official US government documents, as well as written analyses (*). The Commission came to the following conclusions:

First. The PNAC program consists of three main components:
to establish US hegemony in the new century, relying primarily on military and technological superiority; to prevent the emergence of any competing global or regional powers by imposing what is sometimes termed a “Pax Americana”; to exercise pre-emptive action against all perceived threats to American “interests” and security.

Second. A significant number of signatories to PNAC’s 1997 founding Statement of Principles” became senior members of the current US administration, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. The adoption of those principles by this administration is evidenced by official White House documents such as “The National Security Strategy” of September 2002. These principles have been put into action through the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Third. According to a clear majority of States and a large consensus of legal experts, the invasion of Iraq constitutes an act of aggression, a breach of one of the most fundamental norms of the international legal order. This demonstrates that the implementation of policies emanating from PNAC and endorsed by the current administration runs counter to the principles of the UN Charter and undermines the United Nations itself, which bears the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Fourth. The invasion of Iraq has resulted in more than 10.000 civilian deaths. With each passing day of occupation, the number of victims grows, as do the gross violations of humanitarian law and human rights, such as arbitrary detention, ill-treatment and deprivation in regard to basic needs. The situation of the Iraqi people has clearly deteriorated and the promises of democracy and freedom have proved to be illusory. The constant use of the words “democracy”, “freedom” and “human rights” in such a context amounts to a complete perversion of those terms.

Fifth. Far from bringing stability and peace in Iraq and the region, the invasion and occupation have created instability and chaos. Moreover, the deliberate destruction of Iraq has effectively promoted the Israeli government’s policies of further unlawful expansion and de facto annexation of territories as well as further annihilation of the rights of the Palestinian people. The Tribunal noted that PNAC itself called explicitly in 2002 for the US administration to align itself with the views of the Israeli government. These developments increase hostility between the peoples of the region and the West, contrary to the proclaimed objectives of making the world a safer place.

Sixth. There is evidence of a consistent US strategy, as envisioned by the PNAC report entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defences”, to establish global domination by military means. Contrary to claims that this domination would be a “benevolent hegemony”, it is more likely to lead to a state of permanent war. PNAC policies are based on brutal unilateralism and disregard for legality. As such, the ideas of PNAC constitute an intellectual crime. The war in Iraq is only one element of a global agenda which is linked with logics of the dominant economic system, inspired by neo-conservative ideology and supported by religious fundamentalism.

Seventh. Due to the growing resistance encountered by the occupying powers in Iraq and other unanticipated difficulties, the United States and United Kingdom have made cynical requests for the involvement of the United Nations in Iraq, thereby pre-empting the sovereign rights of the Iraqi people to determine their future. The United Nations should avoid complicity with -- let alone legitimise in any way -- the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. Any such action would further discredit this world body. The UN should restore its legitimacy through ensuring the complete withdrawal of all occupying forces and assisting the Iraqi people in recovering their full sovereignty. Any involvement of the European Union or of NATO to help the occupying powers should be refused.

Finally, the Tribunal calls upon the peoples of the world to demand that their governments deny military, political, financial or any other support to the occupying powers; and oppose the illegal implementation by occupation forces or their surrogates of any plans for the wholesale privatization of the Iraqi economy. The Tribunal also expresses its solidarity with the Iraqi people and its support for their attempts at recovering their full sovereignty.

Saturday April 17 2004.

François Houtart, Prof. Emeritus UCL, director of Centre Tricontinental;
Pierre Klein, prof. International Law at ULB;
Ludo Abicht, Prof. Emeritus UA, author
Samir Amin, author and director of "Forum du Tiers Monde";
Denis Halliday, Former UN assistant secretary general to Iraq;
Sabah Al Mukhtar, president of the Arab Association of Democratic Lawyers;
Nawal El Saadawi, medical doctor and novelist

[*] The oral and written testimonies as well as official documents are reproduced in a preparatory dossier entitled “Questioning the New Imperial World Order”.

Reaganism versus 'Neo-Reaganism'
The neoconservatives hail Reagan today – but yesterday they denounced him

by Justin Raimondo

The death of Ronald Reagan will no doubt prompt panegyrics from all the most prominent bastions of neoconservative thought – National Review, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, etc. ad nauseam. They will claim him for their own, aver that they are upholding his legacy, and give him an honored place in the neocon pantheon a few notches above Winston Churchill and just below Abraham Lincoln. And there is just enough truth to their claim to make it all sound so very plausible, at least on the surface.

After all, it was in Reagan's first term that the neocons achieved a measure of influence in the U.S. government, and began their long march through the national security bureaucracy. As John Judis succinctly summarizes their history and outlook: "They were Cold War liberals who searched for a Truman in the 1970s and found Reagan."

Ideologues are in the business of myth-making, and the iconization of Ronald Reagan as the progenitor of neoconservative foreign policy prescriptions began well before his death, in 1996, when William Kristol and Robert Kagan titled their post-cold war manifesto "Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy." "Benevolent global hegemony" – and nothing less – is the announced goal of this "neo"-Reaganism. "Peace through strength" became "peace through domination." "Trust but verify" was transmuted into "preempt and lie." Lots of conservatives noticed this revisionism, and it annoyed them at the time, but then came the 9/11 terrorist attacks, when neocon ideologues such as Richard Perle grabbed the banner of Reaganism and tried to run with it, arguing that Reagan would have endorsed the invasion of Iraq and claiming the Gipper's imprimatur for the neoconservative program of unrelenting bellicosity. The Rush Limbaugh know-nothings nodded and slipped back into their habitually narcotized state, while the War Party wrapped itself in the "Reaganite" flag, and the neoconservative movement enjoyed a post-9/11 boom.

But as Stefan Halper, who served in three Republican administrations, and is a senior foreign policy advisor to the Republican National Committee – and Jonathan Clarke, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute, pointed out in a piece that appeared last month, the neocon-ization of Ronald Wilson Reagan amounts to a radical rewriting of history:

"The implication is that Reagan too would have attacked Iraq. But would he? We make the case that the neoconservative interpretation of Reagan's foreign policy is, to be blunt, a travesty of Reagan's record. Moreover, Reagan's historic achievement – the defeat of Soviet communism – was secured largely because he rejected neoconservative policy recommendations, not because he embraced them."

It was Reagan, Halper and Clarke remind us, who reached an accommodation with the Soviet Union on arms control, moving in the opposite direction from the hardline policies advocated by the warlike neocons – who, right up to 1990, were still warning that Gorbachev and the Commies were pulling off an elaborate trick to snare the West and crack down on Soviet dissidents. Far from functioning as loyal Reaganites, the neocons, in their characteristically factional and manipulative fashion, constantly criticized Reagan in terms that would normally be reserved for one's bitter enemies.

In 1981, Norman Podhoretz, the neocons' scold-in-chief, berated Reagan for "following a strategy of helping the Soviet Union stabilize its empire" – because the President wouldn't impose an economic embargo on the long-suffering Polish people following the Commie crackdown on Solidarity.

Polish communism fell, anyway, and, not too long afterward, so did the rest of the Evil Empire, but even as it was decomposing the neocons refused to believe it. In 1983, Podhoretz, upset by Reagan's overtures to the Soviets, accused the Reagan administration of committing "appeasement by any other name." Two years later, the Committee for the Free World, founded by Podhoretz and Midge Decter, his wife, featured Michael Ledeen, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, Sovietologist Richard Pipes, and neocon "godfather" Irving Kristol at a conference, the main theme of which was the inability and apparent unwillingness of the Reagan administration to roll back Soviet influence. Even as the Kremlin was imploding, and Reagan was negotiating the terms of Gorbachev's surrender, the CFW group, including Norm and Midge, spent two days complaining that Reagan had gone soft on Communism.

Reagan had gone into retirement and retreated into a merciful dimness by the time the neocons achieved their present apotheosis. But Podhoretz kept up the attack. In an essay in Commentary that wondered aloud under what circumstances George W. Bush would "go wobbly" and deviate from the neoconservative timeline – which demanded not only an invasion of Iraq, but also attacks on Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, to start with – Podhoretz kvetched that previous Republican Presidents had sometimes failed to follow neocon prescriptions to the letter – and even, as in the case of Bush '41, defied them outright, by refusing to march on Baghdad in the first Gulf War. In Podhoretz's long litany of betrayals, Reagan figures prominently:

"Just hours after Ronald Reagan's inauguration in January 1981, the hostages were finally released by the Iranians, evidently because they feared that the hawkish new President might actually launch a military strike against them. Yet if they had foreseen what was coming under Reagan, they would not have been so fearful. In April 1983, Hizbullah – an Islamic terrorist organization nourished by Iran and Syria – sent a suicide bomber to explode his truck in front of the American embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. Sixty-three employees, among them the Middle East CIA director, were killed and another 120 wounded. But Reagan sat still.

"Six months later, in October 1983, another Hizbullah suicide bomber blew up an American barracks in the Beirut airport, killing 241 U.S. Marines in their sleep and wounding another 81. This time Reagan signed off on plans for a retaliatory blow, but he then allowed his Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger, to cancel it (because it might damage our relations with the Arab world, of which Weinberger was always tenderly solicitous). Shortly thereafter, the President pulled the Marines out of Lebanon.

"Having cut and run in Lebanon in October, Reagan again remained passive in December, when the American embassy in Kuwait was bombed. Nor did he hit back when, hard upon the withdrawal of the American Marines from Beirut, the CIA station chief there, William Buckley, was kidnapped by Hizbullah and then murdered. Buckley was the fourth American to be kidnapped in Beirut, and many more suffered the same fate between 1982 and 1992 (though not all died or were killed in captivity)."
He then segues into a denunciation of the Iran-Contra deal, neglecting to note that one of the chief figures in his "Committee for a Free World," Michael Ledeen, served as an essential go-between with the Iranian mullahs: and, somehow, Israel's key role in that affair also goes without mention.

Reagan was soft on terrorism, according to Podhoretz, and stands condemned as an "appeaser" – yet Field Marshall Podhoretz never explains why American Marines were in Beirut to begin with, nor what the American interest in such a presence was. Short of invading and permanently occupying Lebanon, one wonders what Reagan could have done except "cut and run" – especially given the militarily untenable position of U.S. Marines barracked like sitting ducks in a sea of perpetual hostility.

This, of course, is precisely the position U.S. troops in Iraq find themselves, much to their dismay, but to Podhoretz such matters as high casualties hardly matter. What's important is waging what he and other prominent neocons characterize as "World War IV" – an all-out decades-long struggle against Islam, which has now taken the place of Communism in the neocons' international rogues gallery.

That the neocons are claiming Reagan as one of their own is just the most recent example of a series of wholesale appropriations that they have so far managed to pull off, starting with their organizational and financial control over the "official" conservative movement institutions, the big philanthropic foundations and thinktanks, and including all of the major magazines and newspapers generally considered to be on the Right (National Review, the Washington Times, the New York Post, etc.). But if you look at the record, another story emerges: the neocons, given an entrée to government circles for the first time, responded to Reagan by relentlessly harping on his alleged shortcomings and criticizing him bitterly when he failed to conform to the "correct" line.

Halper and Clarke make a good case that the neocons are very selective when they point to the invasion of Grenada and U.S. military adventurism in Central America as the essence of the "Reaganite" foreign policy legacy, while ignoring what doesn't fit into their mythological narrative. The Halper-Clarke piece, which first appeared in The American Spectator and was widely reprinted, also points to a difference in tone and style between the bright optimism of Reagan's "morning in America" "shining-city-on-a-hill" rhetorical style and the dark vision of the neocons:

"When the technical analysis of Reagan's foreign policy philosophy and execution is laid aside, perhaps the more fundamental difference between him and today's neoconservatives is one of temperament. As George Shultz records, Reagan was optimistic; he 'appealed to people's best hopes, not their fears.' By contrast, the neoconservative vision is one that has mobilized fear as a binding political adhesive in support of a one-dimensional approach to global affairs.

"We detect a deep pessimism among neoconservatives about human nature and human society – and one that is much darker than the skepticism about human perfectibility often found in conservative thinking. They reject the notion – implicit in Reagan's striving for accord with the Soviet Union – that democracy can be brought to nondemocratic countries other than at the point of the bayonet or on the back of a Tomahawk cruise missile."

The death of Reaganism preceded the demise of its founder by quite a few years, but the flood of retrospectives and film clips over the weekend is enough to make any libertarian nostalgic for those halcyon days of the pre-9/11 era, when conservatives actually railed against Big Government and the evils of centralized authority.

How we reconcile this with the neoconservative program as advanced in, say, An End to Evil, a recent screed by Richard Perle and David Frum, in which they advocate a national ID card, and the organization of a secret political police to spy on Americans, is a question we'll leave for the cleverer neocons to clear up. Suffice to say that one can hardly conceive of Reagan condoning the "PATRIOT" Act.

Reaganism was a direct outgrowth of Goldwaterism, and good old Barry would surely have looked on the neo-authoritarian stance of today's "conservatives" with horror, and, along with Bob Barr, joined hands with the American Civil Liberties Union in opposition.

So, I suspect, would Reagan, 9/11 or no 9/11. There was real passion and conviction in his voice when he denounced the evils inherent in government authority, and that was one of the real problems being a Libertarian Party activist in the 1980s – the Gipper was borrowing our rhetoric, and even some aspects of our program (without, of course, following through). The genial, inspiring, funny GOP standard-bearer was stealing our thunder, dammit, and charming the country into believing that he would really roll back the power of government in America and set us all free.

The contrast with today's conservative movement – and with George W. Bush – could not be more dramatic. Instead of radical anti-government rhetoric, we hear paeans to the power and majesty of the State – coupled with record Republican spending proposals. Instead of a Great Communicator exuding benevolence, optimism, and a vision of America leading by example – that "shining city on a hill" – we have a Major Misspeaker emanating a fearful truculence, and a new foreign policy in which America leads by the edge of its sword.

That is why the remembrances of Reagan take on such a poignant quality, at least for me. Reagan, in his heyday, represented the spirit of a more innocent time. The neocons, although they had wormed their way into the Reagan coalition, had yet to amass the power and seniority they have now, in government and in the conservative movement. The man who, in effect, stopped World War III, by making the first moves toward comprehensive nuclear disarmament, and successfully negotiating the peaceful surrender of the Soviet bloc, would almost certainly not have started World War IV – and the neocons know it, which is why they spent a good part of their energies attacking him.

Reaganism was a product of the cold war, as was the post-World War II conservative movement. The Old Right of the pre-war Saturday Evening Post, and the ferociously antiwar Chicago Tribune, which crystallized in the America First Committee, survived the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but it was the cold war that really killed it. Such formerly key figures as John T. Flynn and Garet Garrett were marginalized, and a coven of ex-Communist and ex-Trotskyist intellectuals, who were instrumental in the founding of National Review magazine, was brought into prominence. Anti-communism trumped the old libertarian anti-imperialist impulses of the Old Right, and gave way to a tripartite coalition of anti-Communists, "free market" conservatives of a libertarian bent, and traditionalists such as Russell Kirk, the forerunners of today's "paleoconservatives." It was this coalition that built the Goldwater movement, energized by the two contradictory streams of conservative passion: a driving desire to confront the Soviet Union militarily, and an equally passionate hatred of centralized authority in all its forms, but especially that centered in Washington, D.C.

Reagan, in his early incarnation as a conservative luminary campaigning for Goldwater, embodied one aspect of the conservative passion, in 1964, when he warned his audience that his remarks would prove "controversial," and boldly declared : "I make no apology for this." The time had come to ask ourselves "if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the Founding Fathers," or "whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves."

It is a question, no doubt, that has occurred to many Iraqis today, who yearn for a choice not an echo when it comes to choosing their own leaders, but Americans, too, will find an eerie prescience in Reagan's words, uttered 40 years ago:

"You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream-the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path.

Reagan – a supporter of the emerging American police state? It's unimaginable.

On the world scene, he had a vision of peaceful transformation that was, in many ways, the polar opposite of the neoconservative hegemonism that dominates the foreign policy councils of this administration:

"… We are for aiding our allies by sharing our material blessings with nations which share our fundamental beliefs, but we are against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world."

Let the Coalition Provisional Authority – and the "conservative" globalists over at the American Enterprise Institute, who supply a good number of the CPA's central planners – take note.

Reaganism was the product of the cold war, and had reached the end of its tether by the time the Berlin Wall came tumbling down. The "national greatness" rhetoric of the neocons, and the invention of "Big Government conservatism," wiped out whatever remnants of old-style Reaganism still persisted on the right. The "neo-Reaganism" of Kristol, Kagan, and their fellow world "liberators" is Reagan without the benevolence, without any of the libertarian elements, reduced only to a willingness to waste multi-billions on a military build-up and a reflexive militancy in foreign affairs.

Reagan's orgiastic military spending fatally undercut his economic and tax-cutting efforts. Oh, but this is what defeated the Soviet Union, the neocons aver: we forced them to spend themselves into penury. Yet we suffered from the same effects: the unprecedented spending was a disastrous drain that eventually led to a major downturn. In any case, the Soviets would have collapsed on their own, perhaps sooner, since socialism – as conservatives like Reagan used to proclaim endlessly, and quite correctly – cannot work, and must in the end be impaled on its own inner contradictions.

Be that as it may: on the foreign policy front Reagan was hardly the warmonger he's made out to be by the left as well as the neocon right. But it's on the domestic side that I feel the most nostalgia for Reagan and that whole era, which rings, at least in memory, with the cadences of a libertarian distrust – an outright hostility – to government power. The attempt to liquidate the real legacy of Ronald Reagan – the ardent Goldwaterite who extolled liberty and disdained mere security – and portray him as a warmongering neocon, once again underscores the Soviet style of our "ex"-leftist neocons, who have an uncanny ability to rewrite history as quickly as it unfolds.

2003 JOHN PILGER
Prize Ceremony - speech by Prize winner, John Pilger
Oslo Sophie Prize-giving June 12, 2003
http://www.sophieprize.org/info.asp?news_id=75

My warm thanks to the Minister of Environment, Mr. Børge Brende, for presenting me with the Sophie Prize and especially the Sophie Foundation for this wonderful honour. I am grateful to Jostein Gaarder and Siri Dannevig for creating and sustaining the Sophie Prize, and with such imagination and enthusiasm. For me, this is an extraordinary occasion, for it suggests that I have contributed a positive voice in helping people understand the dangers that confront us today.

I would like to talk briefly about these dangers: about silence, power and optimism.

”The time has come when silence is betrayal”, said Martin Luther King, ”and that time is now.”

That was the 1960s. King was referring to the silence of the American liberal elite on the iniquities of racism and poverty and the horrors of the invasion of Vietnam. By linking these issues he told a truth that may well have cost him his life.

Today, a similar silence represents an even greater danger for humanity, partly because we live under many manufactured illusions, in what is known as the information age. In fact, it’s a media age, in which most information is repetitive and safe; and by safe, I mean that it propagates and celebrates the essential wisdom and benevolence of great power, while never attacking it as a system, no matter how rapacious and criminal it might be.

Of course, there has always been propaganda. But the word is associated mostly with dictatorships, not free societies like ours. In totalitarian states, people know they are being lied to, and they learn to read between the lines of their newspapers. It’s very different in democracies. I like the story of a group of important Soviet journalists who toured America during the Brezhnev era. They avidly read American newspapers and watched TV. And as they departed, they said to their hosts: ”This is an incredible system you have here. All the news is the same, and all the opinions in the media are the same. And you achieve this without throwing people in prison. It’s voluntary! What’s the secret?

The secret is a form of control we have only now begun to recognise. Today, in the United States, which constitutionally has the freest media in the world, the Federal Communications Commission is about to deregulate television completely and hand greatest source of public information to just five corporations. Murdoch, Disney, Viacom, GE and AOL Time Warner. If you say: But what about the Internet? Surely no one owns that.» consider this fact. In 1999, 110 companies attracted 60 per cent of all internet users. Today, just fourteen companies exercise the same dominant control.

Never has there been such a concentration of information media power. And most of it is dominated by an invisible force called public relations. In Britain, half the content of all the serious newspapers is supplied or manipulated by special interests using public relations companies and methods. So much of journalism is now pure public relations, or ”spin”.

At the same time, the media has become powerful as never before. We now have government by media, democracy by media, human rights by media and war by media. Never was a war more widely covered than the recent invasion of Iraq, yet never was the truth as smothered. The most important weapons in that war were not aircraft, tanks or troops, but journalists and broadcasters. Right up to the day the Anglo-American attack on Iraq began, a remarkable series of lies by the Bush and Blair governments, seeking to justify their illegal invasion, were channelled and amplified by the great media organisations. Instead of being exposed, these lies were transformed into subjects for legitimate national debate. ”Experts” debated them; the news agenda was set by them. And this way, Bush and Blair were able to define the main issue of the war – Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction – and so divert attention from the real aim of capturing an oil-rich country and controlling the Middle East.

Tony Blair’s lies about Saddam Hussein being a threat to the world were echoed incessantly: for example, the discredited claim that he had nuclear weapons. Then there were the lies of omission. The deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, mostly children, were almost never mentioned as the consequence of an embargo enforced by America for twelve long years and backed by Britain. Dennis Halliday, the Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations responsible for Iraq, called this ”a silent holocaust”. As of last July, the United States was blocking more than $5 billion worth of humanitarian goods for the people of Iraq -- which the Security Council had approven and Iraq had paid for.

This silent holocaust, which claimed the lives of perhaps a million people, received little coverage in the West – so hypnotised was the Western media with the false issue of weapons of mass destruction and the evil of Saddam Hussein.

As we know, it was a charade. Barely a day now passes without the media reporting further evidence of deceptions manufactured in Washington and London – the same media that gave such credibility to the lies that allowed the war to go ahead.

How bold these exposes nok look on the front page. But it’s all too late for the thousands of innocent Iraqis bombed and blasted to death. It’s all too late for those children who have been blown to bits by cluster bombs. It’s all too late for those contaminated by the dust of depleted uranium.

The number of people who have died in Iraq since 1990 as a direct result of Western actions is at least 400 times the number who died in America on September 11, 2001. That is the most important story of our times.

I have just come from Afghanistan. I have seldom seen a country as devastated. When the United States attacked this country following September 11, there was widespread approval in the Western media. Liberal journalists called the overthrow of the Taliban a ”famous victory”. That the Taliban was a creation of America was mentioned only in passing, if at all. And the victims of this famous victory were barely mentioned, if at all. Last week, in Afghanistan, I interviewed people who had lost up to eight members of their family in the American bombing – whole villages been wiped out in what George Bush calls, without a hint of irony, ”the war on terror”.

I know of only one journalist – Jonathan Steel in the London Guardian – who has taken the trouble to calculate a true and honourable total of the number who died. His figure is 20, 000, including people so dislocated by the bombing that no relief could reach them. That’s almost seven times the number who died on September 11th.

And what of the wider world? The World Food Programme has said that, because aid resources have been distracted by the war in Iraq, some 40 million people are at risk – mostly in drought regions in Africa – in countries like Eritrea and Sudan.

These are mere glimpses of the disaster imposed by great power that seeks to dominate us all. We cannot say we have not been warned. Who is to be next? Iran, Korea, Jordan? President Bush says he is prepared to use nuclear weapons. The British government has threatened, for the time in Britain’s modern history, to launch a nuclear attack against non-nuclear states. None of this is secret; most of it was spelt out last September when the Bush administration published its National Security Strategy in which the message required no de-coding – world domination.

Silence is betrayal, said Martin Luther King. In those great repositories of knowledge, Western universities, there is silence. Only accredited mavericks speak out. This is hardly surprising when the study of international politics so often orders humanity according to its degree of importance to ”western interests”.

Noble words like democracy are routinely emptied of their meaning, and become jargon terms, like ”good governance” and ”their way”. These are the vocabulary of imperialism – a liberal imperials that dares not speak its name, and a terrorism whose violence is far greater than anything dreamt up by Osama bin Laden. It is our terrorism.

Simply to state that truth is deemed unscholarly, so better to say nothing. In journalism, reference to it is unthinkable. And yet it’s terrorism understood by millions of people all over the world: by those who have been bombed, or squeezed almost to death by the imposition of debt and ”structural adjustment” policies. For these people, terrorism is the death, every day, of 24,000 human beings from the effects of poverty. It cost America $10 billion to bomb Afghanistan. Only a fraction of that has been sent to rebuild that stricken country. That is terrorism.

At the beginning, I mentioned optimism. The good news, the very good news, is that, across the world, a movement of resistance is growing rapidly. In every country, people are stirring. From the great landless people’s movement in Brazil to the anti-privatisation movement in South Africa, to the epic campaigns against so-called free trade and debt, and the even greater anti-war movement, nothing like this has happened in my lifetime. Indeed, it’s my view there are now two superpowers in the world: the superpower of Washington and its satellites, and the superpower of public opinion.

For too long, the mantra of many of my colleagues in the media was that the public didn’t care; that people were apathetic and simply not interested in politics. This was always wrong, and it was shown to be wrong during two days in February when some 20 million people filled the cities and towns of the world to speak out against an illegal, unprovoked attack on an impoverished country. And that was just a beginning.

Milan Kundera wrote that ”the struggle of people against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting”. Those whose lives are distorted by the military and economic violence of western terrorism understand this. But what about those of us who live comfortable lives, on whom bombs never fall and for whom there is always clean water and decent food and hospitals and schools?

Is it time that those of us privileged to have a platform broke our silence about the current danger of rampant power. ”Why?” you may ask. ”What have we got to lose by remaining silent?” The answer is simple. Behind the conquest of countries like Iraq is the prospect of the conquest of us all – the conquest of our minds, our humanity and our self-respect, at the very least. If we say and do nothing, victory over us is assured. If we speak out, we join a resistance that is the very best of us. The choice is ours.