www.balochistanpost.com Monday, March 10, 2003     By David Duke

"How many towns have We destroyed (for their sins)? Our punishment took them on a sudden by night or while they slept for their afternoon rest." The Quran, Al-A'raf, 4

America under George Bush is rushing headlong toward war. This is a war that has been promoted for years by the most radical Jewish supremacists in Israel and America. Some people who oppose this war have taken up the slogan "no blood for oil," saying the coming war is being promoted by big American and European corporate oil interests.

Is oil the real reason for this war? Today, I will discuss the true driving force behind the Iraq War and why this war is actually one that that will be fought against the true interests of the United States of the America. First, let's deal with the "War for Oil" argument.

In actual fact, the Iraq war will more likely hurt Western oil companies than help them. After an initial flurry of oil prices, a regime change in Iraq would eventually let the oil flow freely again and oil prices would fall dramatically. That would hurt the Western oil companies by lowering the value of their underlying reserves. Western oil companies have almost all of their oil reserves outside of the Mideast. Their reserves are in places such as Texas, Alaska, Mexico, Venezuela, the North Sea, Siberia and elsewhere.

And don't suppose America will just go in and start stealing the oil, for that is not even a remote possibility. Oil will be sold by the new regime just as it always has been. It is true that there will be a division of spoils promised to the occupying powers as an inducement for their support of the war, but those spoils are in the form of contracts to buy oil, as well as to develop and refine oil products and other commercial concerns available in an non-embargoed

Iraq. In truth, big oil corporate interests will be harmed in a regime change accomplished by war or simply by normalization of relations with Iraq. In either case, the oil would flow freely again and ultimately hurt the big oil interests by increasing the oil supply and lowering the underlying value of their own reserves.

A war against Iraq threatens regime change not only in Iraq, but across the Mideast. It is likely the new regimes will be violently against European-American interests, and their targets will certainly include the large corporate oil companies. The millions of Americans who live and work overseas and the billions of dollars of American investments would be gravely threatened. The war on Iraq will certainly unleash a torrent of hatred and terrorism against Americans around the world. It will create exactly what bin Laden and other anti-American fanatics desire.

Bush also claims that the war could bring democracy to many nations in the Mideast. But, the truth is that the vast majority of people of almost every country of the world are far more anti-Israeli and anti-American than are their ruling entities, so more democracy would probably even produce more anti-Israeli and even more anti-American sentiment. Even in Turkey, where the ruling party recently supported bringing in American troops to use against Iraq, the people of that country are over 90 percent opposed to involvement in the Iraq war, and their recently-elected parliament voted against it.

So, the big oil companies have no interest in this war, but actually face huge long-term risks from the war. So who exactly does have an interest in war?

There is no credible evidence that Iraq poses any real threat to the United States. Dozens of other nations have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has had them for decades but never used any of them against the United States, even in the Gulf War. With UN inspectors roaming the country at will, and with the knowledge that the United States would knock Iraq into the stone age if it ever dared to use them, there is probably less risk from Iraq then from any other of a dozen other countries. North Korea, for example, has atomic warheads and the missiles to carry them to American cities. Furthermore, North Korea has openly threatened to use them against us if we move against them. Yet, we refrain even from embargo against North Korea. Iraq poses no real danger to the United States, but an Iraq war poses great dangers to American interests here at home and abroad.

One way the war will hurt us is by damaging our economy. For instance, American officials have sought to bribe Turkey with upwards of 26 billion American dollars. For what, you might ask? To simply use Turkey as a staging area for Bush's war against Iraq. That's six billion in immediate cash and 20 billion in loans, and these loans are almost never repaid. That's 26 billion dollars! That's a huge amount of money taken from the American taxpayer, and that incredible amount is only a tiny bit of the overall costs of this war.

The administration is also talking about giving Israel an additional 14 billion dollars on top of our normal payout of around 7 billion dollars a year. One must also factor in the military cost of the war and the occupation afterwards. That would certainly cost at least 200 billion dollars and probably a lot more. One must factor in the temporary huge increase in oil costs because of the war and the economic damage done by this war. That cost has already amounted to hundreds of billions of dollars and it climbs every day. Every time you take a drive, every time you pay an increased utility bill or any other bill, you are paying for this insane policy.

As badly as this war will hurt our economy (far from the stated purpose of protecting America) this war will make us far less secure. Our involvement in Mideastern conflicts and America's support for the criminal actions of Israel have caused millions of people around the world to hate America. Many of them are even willing to sacrifice their very lives to get at us. America's support for Israel's agenda directly led to the 911 attack upon America. America's Israeli-controlled foreign policy led to the carnage of thousands of lives lost on September 11. It has caused America to live under a constant threat of terrorism and threatens our most precious Constitutional freedoms.

By any standard, this Iraq war is of no benefit to the United States of America, nor is it of any benefit to the commercial oil industry. So, for whose benefit does America wage this war? The answer is Israel, Israel, Israel! Radical Jewish supremacists in Israel launched this drive for war. Their agents all over the world, both in government and media, have been the real power behind this war.

Pro-Israeli, Jewish supremacists are found in key government positions all over the world and they also hold powerful positions in the ownership and hierarchy of media. In the political sector, the hawks driving the push to war are called Neocons. Neocon is an abbreviation for neo-conservative. As crazy as it might sound, many of the leaders behind the Neocons are pro-communist Jews who once opposed the Viet Nam War. These Marxists were peaceniks who opposed the Vietnam War but radical hawks for Israel. That's right; many of them were former Marxists: such as the man behind the Jewish supremacist magazine, Commentary, Norman Podhoretz. Other radical Zionists pushing for this war include the former Marxist Daniel Horowitz, President Bush's official spokesman Ari Fleischer, his speechwriter David Frum, and close advisors Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, David Wurmser and Douglas J. Feith.

Back in 1996, long before the current push for war, a prominent Zionist group led by Richard Perle wrote a report titled: A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. (www.israeleconomy.org) It called for war on Iraq. It was written not for the United States but for the incoming Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. The report basically argues how destruction of Iraq will protect Israel's monopoly of nuclear weapons and give Israel a free hand to defeat the Palestinians and impose whatever colonial settlement Israel has in store.

Not only have Jewish agents in the government pushed for this war, but they drive the media push for war. The war could not be possible without the massive support it has gotten from the media. A great deal of the news reporting around the world is biased for the Iraq war and against the Palestinians. In America, there is an unrelenting call for war by thousands of pundits, editorial writers, news editors and pro-war reporters. And, make no mistake about it, there is no shortage of Jewish supremacists among them.

The fact is that almost all of the major media in America, and much of it in Europe, have been cheerleaders for this war. For instance, most of those in media never challenge any of the basic premises of the war.

When it is alleged that we must go to war against Iraq because it violated UN Resolution 1441, no major pundits retort by saying that if this is a valid reason to go to war, then we must go to war against Israel, a nation that has violated far more UN resolutions than has Iraq. For instance, for 35 years Israel has violated Resolution 242, a UN resolution that demanded that Israel leave the occupied West Bank, a resolution that was even supported by the United States.

When it is stated that Iraq must be attacked because it has, quote, "weapons of mass destruction," why do no television news authorities respond by saying, "If we go to war against Iraq for having weapons of mass destruction then we also must go to war against Israel, which has one of the world's biggest arsenals of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."

When it is said that there must be inspections in Iraq, no newspapers suggest that if we demand inspections of Iraq, the same demand should be made of Israel, a nation that has one of the world's deadliest arsenals of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. On this score, Iraq cooperates on this vital matter while Israel does not.

When it is said we should go to war against Iraq because its regime has invaded other countries, killed thousands of civilians and tortured thousands more in their jails, no TV networks suggest that we must also go to war against Israel, a nation led by war criminal Ariel Sharon and guilty of the same crimes.

When it is said that we should go to war against Iraq for not allowing freedom and self-government, no journalists suggest that we also must go to war against Israel for their brutal military occupation over 3 million Palestinian civilians, people not allowed even elementary freedoms.

This same news media tells us constantly, quote, "at least Israel is democratic," but we hear no voices responding by saying "How can Israel be called democratic, when 3 million Palestinians suffer under brutal military occupation for 35 years and are not allowed democratic control of their own society?"

In truth, Jewish supremacists in the media have even controlled the anti-war debate. They make a number of issues off limits. One is allowed to argue whether or not Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. One can argue whether or not Iraq is in material breach of UN resolutions. One can argue whether inspections should be given more time. But, it is forbidden to mention Israel's horrendous arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, Israeli's refusal to allow inspections, or even that Israel violated far more UN resolutions than has Iraq.

It is also off limits, of course, to suggest that the great weight of Jewish ownership and management of the mass media creates the media bias for war, and that this Jewish influence actually helps to shape the anti-war debate itself. It is verboten to point out the conflict of interest by the many Jewish supremacists who are key advisers to both Bush and Blair. Yes, there are certainly Gentiles who support the war for varying reasons, but how many of them have been influenced by the weight of Jewish power? Gentiles in government and media learn very quickly what they can and cannot say. If they go along with the Jewish hawks, they will prosper handily, but if they dare to expose Jewish supremacism, it is practically an act of self-immolation.

It is not big oil or capitalism that it leading the pro-Israel, pro-war voice of the media and government. It is Jewish supremacism.

These same Jewish media powers have decreed that it is quote, "anti-Semitic," unquote, to suggest that many of these Jews in the media and in critical positions in government could be more loyal to the interests of Israel than to the nations in which they live. In last week's broadcast, I quoted the words of Stephen Steinlight, the former head of national affairs of the largest and most influential Jewish organization in the United States, the American Jewish Committee. In a Jewish magazine article, Steinlight recently wrote that as a typical Jew of his generation, he was taught from childhood to salute a foreign flag, sing foreign national songs, to view Israel as the true homeland and that Gentiles are inferior to Jews.

It is true that in spite of the fact that Jews comprise the great bulk of the media and political forces driving it on, there are some Jews who oppose this war. They should be applauded, but even most of them don't talk about the real issues I discussed earlier. There is too little said about the real reasons we are being driven to war. You see, the pro-Israel media has made it permissible to oppose the war based on the "no war for oil argument." One can say that without incurring the wrath of the Jewish media.

If fact, the Israel-Firsters who are busily promoting this war must smile a little bit when they hear the oil argument, first because it is easily refutable, and secondly, because it deflects attention from the real driving force behind the war. War with Iraq, and upcoming wars with Iran, Syria, Lebanon and even Saudi Arabia have been long- standing objectives of Israel and its loyal servants in the United States.

So one can say, "No War for Oil," but just don't say, "No War for Israel," for if you do, all hell will break loose on you.

It is similar to the deception the Jewish media used after the attack on the World Trade Center. The kosher word-shapers of the media immediately told Americans that we were attacked, quote, "because the hijackers hated freedom!" In his many interviews before 911, bin Laden never criticized America's freedom: he criticized the fact that Americans had let themselves be controlled by the Zionists. Bin Laden and the hijackers had no hatred of freedom. Their hatred of America was born from America's support of Israel's brutal suppression of the Palestinian people.

One must respect the cleverness of these Jewish supremacists. If the world was told the truth that we were attacked because of our support of Israel, it might just dawn on millions of Americans to ask the unaskable: if supporting the criminal acts of Israel is really worth it? Is it worth the economic cost estimated by a writer for the Christian Science Monitor: one trillion dollars since the founding of Israel? Is it worth the thousands of lives lost on September 11? Is it worth the terroristic attacks of Israel against the United States such as the attack on the USS Liberty and the terrorism against America in the Lavon Affair? Is it worth the continued threat of terrorism to us and our children, and the loss of our most precious freedoms?

We must expose the Jewish supremacists as the ones behind this war. We also must expose their moral hypocrisy. On Sunday March 2, I watched a CNN program hosted by the very pro-Zionist, Wolf Blitzer. Blitzer hosts the Showdown Iraq show on that network and appears for hours every day shaping opinions for the war. He had an interview with none other than Elie Wiesel, survivor of Auschwitz and Noble Peace Prize recipient. This so-called, "man of peace," went on to advocate a massive Iraq war, a war that will kill tens of thousands of Iraqis and cause millions of innocents to suffer, as well as throwing much of the world into turmoil and hatred.

Blitzer treated Wiesel as though he was talking with a god. Wiesel went on to tell us that we had to attack Iraq because of what Iraq did to Iranians during the Iran-Iraq War. Blitzer, of course, didn't dare ask fellow Jewish supremacist Wiesel the obvious question of why Mr. Wiesel did not speak out about the Iraqi slaughter of Iranians during the years when the war occurred. Wiesel did not speak out at that time, of course, because he is a Jewish supremacist who could care less about Iranian lives. He cares about Iranians only when he can point to their death in order to inspire us to kill the enemies of the Jews.

During the time of the Iraq-Iran war, Israel saw Iran as its most dangerous enemy. So Israel through its dutiful servant, the United States, supported the Iraqis as part of their divide-and-conquer strategy. America, at the behest of Israeli agents in the American government, actually gave Iraq the chemical and biological weapons Iraq used in that war. Sworn testimony in the United States Senate proves this fact. As soon as Iran was vanquished, Iraq, with its strong military might and oil reserves, suddenly went from American ally and friend to an enemy of America. Why? It is because after Iran became exhausted, Iraq at that time became Israel's number one enemy.

Wiesel and the other Jewish supremacists around the world are touted by the Jewish supremacist press to be moral paragons and men of peace, even when they support the worst sort of murder and hatred. In my book, My Awakening, I quote directly from writings of Elie Wiesel exposing the depth of racial hatred in his heart.

"Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate - healthy, virile hate - for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead."

Imagine if any Palestinian leader or spokesman would have said the same thing about Jews after Ariel Sharon's massacre in Lebanon:

Every Palestinian, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate - healthy, virile hate - for what the Jew personifies and for what persists in the Jew. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead.

Can you imagine the outrage that would erupt from such a statement?

Remember, it was not so long ago that Menachem Begin, a terrorist with the blood of thousands of innocent women and children on his hands, won the Nobel Peace Prize. And recently, President Bush called one of the worst war criminals one earth, Ariel Sharon, a "Man of Peace. "

Why is this war being waged against Iraq? It has nothing to do with the interests of the big oil companies and absolutely nothing to do with the real interests of the United States. In fact, this war will be terribly damaging to the safety, freedom and economic well-being of America and Americans. This crazy, insane, unpatriotic war could not go on without for the tremendous power exerted by the disloyal Jewish supremacists in our political process. It also would impossible to pursue this terrible war without the tremendous weight of Jewish supremacists and their agents in the world media.

When the history of the United States is written fifty years from now, I feel certain that it will be accepted fact that the Iraqi War became a critical turning point in American history.

The war, for all of the terrible damage it will inflict upon Iraq and ultimately upon America, will cause millions of Americans to finally see the ugly face of Jewish supremacy over our country. Even before the invasion has begun, this unjust war has already caused an awakening among millions people in Europe and around the world.

I believe that this evil war and all its subsequent damage to the United States -- will eventually help lead to our own liberation from the hatred and suppression of Jewish supremacism.

It is my hope that for the sake of our brave, young fighting men, and indeed, for the people of our nation, that by a miracle we can avoid this Jewish war. Our voice must now be raised in America and around the world:

No War for Israel!

www.alertnet.org 10 Mar 2003 01:25 By Jeremy Lovell

LONDON, March 10 (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair, battling on the diplomatic front over preparations to wage war on Iraq, now faces a home front revolt with the first public threat of a ministerial resignation on the issue.

Blair, increasingly isolated at home and abroad over his unswerving support for U.S. President George W. Bush's determination to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, has already suffered a parliamentary slap in the face.

But on Sunday his International Development Secretary Clare Short, describing Blair as "reckless", said she would resign if there was no second United Nations' resolution for invasion.

"I will not uphold a breach of international law or this undermining of the U.N. and I will resign from the government," the government minister, renowned for speaking her mind, said.

Her public threat, confirming months of rumours, came as one junior government member resigned his post amid speculation four others could follow as Blair's Labour Party faced its biggest internal rift since it came to power in 1997.

More than 120 Labour parliamentarians recently voted against the government over war against Iraq, and more are expected to sign up to the revolt if there is no support from the U.N.

Britain, Spain and the United States are expected to press for a vote on a second resolution this week after British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw put forward a draft resolution giving Saddam until March 17 to disarm or face military action.

France has warned it may exercise its power of veto on the resolution, saying U.N. weapons inspectors are making headway.

Iraq denies possessing banned weapons of mass destruction.

Short accused Blair of making a major blunder, politically, diplomatically and personally.

"The current situation is deeply reckless; reckless for the world, reckless for the undermining of the U.N. in this disorderly world...reckless with our government, reckless with his own future, position and place in history. It's extraordinarily reckless, I'm very surprised by it," she said.

British newspapers took up the theme in editorials on Monday.

"Make no mistake...this is now extremely dangerous for the Prime Minister," The Independent newspaper said.

"If no second resolution is passed, and the war starts later this month, resignations from the Cabinet might follow and a further revolt among Labour MPs would be a certainty," it added.

It was a theme echoed by the Times newspaper, which said it would be Blair's biggest test as leader and warned that even a quick military victory in Iraq would not paper over the cracks exposed within the Labour Party.

Throughout the growing domestic crisis, Blair has benefited somewhat uncomfortably from the support of the opposition Conservative Party in his stance on Iraq.

www.alertnet.org NEWSDESK   10 Mar 2003 01:45 (Adds British cabinet minister threatens to quit) By Arshad Mohammed and Dominic Evans

WASHINGTON/BAGHDAD, March 9 (Reuters) - The diplomatic battle dividing the West intensified on Sunday as each side tried to woo wavering Security Council members into its camp before a U.N. vote on war in Iraq.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said the United States had a "strong chance" of getting nine or 10 states in the 15-member Council to vote for a U.S.-backed draft resolution setting a March 17 deadline for Iraq to disarm but he would not be surprised if France blocked it with a veto.

Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, Washington's closest ally, lobbied foreign leaders by telephone on Sunday, among them Chinese President Jiang Zemin, China's official media said. Powell and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice were poised to travel to press the case in person.

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin was about to embark on a whistle-stop tour of Guinea, Cameroon and Angola, "swing voters" in the Security Council, in the hope of persuading them to reject the U.S. draft.

"I would not be surprised if they (France) vetoed, because they have been pretty clear that they want to stop that resolution," Powell told "Fox News Sunday."

"Right now I would expect the French to do everything they can to stop it, including possible use of the veto, although they haven't used the veto word."

A defeat of the resolution alone is unlikely to avert war. Washington says it will lead a "coalition of the willing" into Iraq without U.N. approval if necessary, and more than 200,000 U.S. and British troops are in the region, ready to strike.

U.N. AUTHORISATION HAS HUGE VALUE FOR BLAIR

But U.N. authorisation would be of huge value to governments of U.S. allies in placating public misgivings -- especially in Britain, whose deployment of 45,000 troops is by far the biggest after the Pentagon's.

Most Britons would support war if it had U.N. backing but only 15 percent would do so without, a poll indicated on Sunday. Blair faced a home front revolt in his Labour Party, with one cabinet minister publicly threatening to quit over the issue.

International Development Secretary Clare Short, describing Blair as "reckless", said she would resign if there was no second United Nations' resolution for invasion.

Her public threat, confirming months of rumours, came as one junior government member resigned his post amid speculation four others could follow. Labour is now facing its biggest internal rift since it came to power in 1997.

A Security Council resolution needs a minimum nine votes for adoption and there must be no veto by any of the five permanent members: the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China.

Russia and China join France in opposing any resolution implicitly or explicitly authorising war. But U.S. and British officials say a vetoed majority would be a moral victory.

"I think we have ... a strong chance ... that we might get the nine or 10 votes needed for passage of the resolution, and we'll see if somebody wants to veto it," Powell said.

The United States so far has the declared support of only Britain, Spain and Bulgaria. Six members seem to oppose it, instead wanting arms inspectors to have more time in Iraq.

An Iraqi official surprised a news conference in Baghdad on Sunday by saying chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix might visit Baghdad on the deadline day. "I don't know really, but he might, he might visit us on the 17th of this month," General Hussam Mohammad Amin said without elaborating.

Ewen Buchanan, a spokesman for Blix, said: "I am not aware at this point of any official invitation for Mr Blix to go to Baghdad. And if there were an invitation we would study it to see what would be the purpose of such a visit and what would be gained if anything."

A delegation of Arab foreign ministers will go to Baghdad within two days for talks aimed at averting war.

U.S. promises of economic aid to impoverished swing vote states may yet prove more tempting than political argument.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder on Sunday backed France's call for heads of state to attend the vote. Powell has said he sees no need for President George W. Bush to be there.

The vote could come on Tuesday or later. Driving the diplomatic pace is the military's desire to attack before soaring early summer temperatures in the Gulf make fighting in chemical and biological protection suits especially arduous.

U.S. COMMANDERS MAY DELAY WAR

But analysts say U.S. commanders may delay war until April 1 as Turkey's reluctance to be a conduit for Western forces means they must plan another way to occupy northern Iraq -- and because early April offers a moonless sky for aerial bombing.

Iraq said on Sunday U.S. and British warplanes attacked targets south of the country over the weekend and hit civilian areas, but reported no casualties.

U.N. military observers on the Iraq-Kuwait border said they were withdrawing some staff to Kuwait City for their own safety. The U.S. military had said on Saturday warplanes on U.S.-British air patrols attacked an Iraqi mobile radar system in a southern "no-fly" zone.

Gates wide enough to allow a column of tanks to pass are being installed in the fence between Kuwait and Iraq.

While Kuwait is the main launchpad for a ground invasion, Iraq's Arab neighbours are quietly playing roles they prefer not to advertise to publics strongly opposed to war.

American and British special forces are already mounting missions in western Iraq, using eastern Jordan as a base. Jordan has allowed an Iraqi opposition group, the Iraqi National Accord, to set up its main base on its soil.

Saudi Arabia said it was allowing U.S. troops to use airfields near the Iraq border, but only for defence or to prepare for a flood of refugees.

Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said Saudi Arabia would not shelter Iraqi President Saddam Hussein if he chose exile to avert invasion.

Up to 800,000 people gathered in Indonesia's second city, Surabaya, on Sunday to pray for peace. Thousands protested against war in Damascus.

Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, winner of last year's Nobel Peace Prize, said in a New York Times opinion piece that Iraq did not directly threaten U.S. security and a unilateral U.S. attack would not meet standards for a "just war".

An attack, however, could destabilise the region, fuel terrorism directed at the United States and undermine the United Nations, he said.

Iraq scrapped more banned missiles on Sunday in a process Bush has dismissed as a "wilful charade," accusing it of covertly making more al-Samouds.

www.dailytimes.com.pk By Chris Floyd The war is always coming; it’s always here, either in utero, full fury or chaotic aftermath. The newest war the invasion of Iraq will come because a gang of like-minded men is willing it into being. They want it it’s as simple as that. They want what they believe this war will give them: wealth, dominion, and empire. The ultimate goal is not Iraq that bombed, blockaded state partially controlled by a witless thug whom the gang once succoured but domination of the world’s oil supplies in the coming century, when the surging nations of China and India will reach their economic peak. These vast entities could eventually tilt the imbalance of world wealth away from the Anglo-American elites who have for so long held the high and palmy ground of privilege. But the voracious economies of the Asian behemoths will require unstinting draughts of the oil reserves now locked under the sands of Iraq and Saudi Arabia. There is oil elsewhere, yes but nowhere else in the world are there reserves deep enough to satisfy the thirsts of China and India as they come into their own.Therefore it is imperative for the Anglo-American elites to dominate this indispensable resource, if they are to maintain their wonted ease beneath the palms. Or so they believe. Actually, the narrowly-concentrated wealth of the West is so staggeringly great that these elites could quite easily devote abundant resources toward developing new forms of energy, national self-sufficiency, and what used to be known in Abraham Lincoln’s day as “internal improvements” roads, schools, hospitals, parks, the extension of liberty, leisure and opportunity and still keep their corpulent noses planted deep in the trough of their unearned riches. But alas, they too like the thugs they hire and fire so easily (Noriega, Saddam, bin Laden) are moral idiots. They don’t care about their own nations. They don’t care about the hapless people they rule except, of course, as cannon fodder or hired help. The “national interest” is what best serves the elites and their retainers. Throughout history, elite factions have always acted in similar ways to maintain and augment their dominance. At various times, for various reasons, their interests converge and they act loosely in concert; at other times, they tear each other to shreds killing millions of people in the process. You can see this pattern of behaviour the belligerent lust for dominance coupled with crafty temporary alliances at work among many primate groups. Our modern “elites” (the Ba’athist clique, Al Qaeda, the Bush Regime, the British Establishment, etc.) are simply secretions of the most primitive and ape-like elements still lurking in our brains. They’re a kind of heavy scum that forms on the free-flowing, light-dazzled stream of human existence. So, the attack on Iraq isn’t really a war for oil, not in the strictest sense. The United States doesn’t need Iraq’s oil. In recent years, America has been carefully diversifying its own sources of foreign oil, and is no longer overly dependent on the Arab-held fields. In fact, that’s one reason the long-planned attack on Iraq is coming now. Before, America couldn’t risk a military takeover of one of the major oil states (minor Kuwait, of course, has been occupied since 1991): Too much could go wrong, irreplaceable supplies could be cut off. Now, however, the game is worth the candle; even in the highly unlikely event of disaster an Arab oil embargo, a long, intractable war the Bush Regime believes they can ride it out until the situation stabilizes by drawing on other sources: Africa, Venezuela, Russia, plus the oil still lying off America’s coasts and under its scarce remaining wilderness. Iraq is not the end, but the means. What America needs or rather, what the thugs in the Bush Regime desire is dominance of Middle Eastern oil in order to hold the economies of China and India hostage in the coming decades. The aim is not conquest, in the classic sense; our elites are imperialists, not colonialists. They don’t want to settle amongst all those funny-looking foreigners; heaven forefend! It’s bad enough there are so many of them in God’s country already, where, as one august national leader, Republican Representative Sue Myrick, noted recently, they “run all the convenience stores,” thus posing the ever-present danger of gustatory terrorism. (“What’s that white powder on my donuts? Aieee!”) No, what is sought what is demanded, what will be enforced with human cannon fodder and treasure extorted from ordinary citizens (“You’re under attack! Give us your money!”) is that the emerging powers become pliant “friends” and business partners, along the lines of Western Europe. Naturally, this will require a heavy US military presence in the vicinity for generations, as in Europe (58 years and counting); naturally, as in Europe, obedience to US “interests” will be mandatory or else, as warlord Donald Rumsfeld recently threatened Germany, there will be “punishment”: the threat of economic ruin. And of course, there will be the overarching “missile shield,” the exciting “new generation” of nuclear weapons the Regime is developing, and the “full spectrum dominance” of space-mounted super weapons to provide that hint of violent coercion so essential to any warm friendship. So the game’s afoot; the knives are out; the gangs are on the march. What happens next, no one can tell, but this much is certain whatever the cost, in lives and lucre, the elites will not be paying it. —The Moscow Times

www.financialexpress.com Jyoti Sagar

War worry. Cold wave. Production pitfalls. Looks like a “perfect storm” is brewing in the oil prices market. Despite the outpouring of public outcry at the prospect of attack on Iraq, President Bush seems to be politically and strategically poised on the brink of war. This has created a ’fear psychosis’ sending oil prices north-bound. The cold weather is contributing to the price-spiral creating an unprecedented demand for heating oil in countries like US and Canada, sending inventories down and prices up. To add to the brimming woes, the Venezuela oil workers’ strike shows no sign of a let-up leading to a ’scarcity phobia’. Result: worldwide oil panic. A panic that is sending governments, politicians, economists and analysts in a tizzy as they conjure up images of likely war scenarios and their impact on oil markets, global recession and macro-economic parameters. What would be the impact of a Middle-east war on India? Can we withstand the shock? What is the prescription we have in hand? Will it insulate us from the storm or at least give enough cover till it blows over?

Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and petroleum minister Ram Naik, with the customary political bravado have made light of the situation saying that forex reserves were enough to import more oil should the situation demand, that oil production from other countries would make up for the shortfall from Iraq, (the move from ad valorem duty structure to specific duties over a long period would minimise the impact on consumers) and measures like car-less days could help tide over the crisis in the short-term. For the longer term, the government has gone ahead and announced the setting up of strategic oil reserves at a capital cost of Rs 4,300 crore. This would be besides an inventory cost of Rs 1,800 crore annually. This cost, announced the government, would be met through a special cess on petroleum products. Brave, new step. But it raises several questions. Here’s why:

First, the cost factor. Whereas the government claims that the inventory-cost of 45-day strategic oil reserves (approximately 90-100 million barrels) is Rs 1800 crore annually, data culled from various government sources reveals that taking into consideration the storage, transportation, insurance, safety and protection costs, evaporation losses etc, total carrying cost of the reserves will not be less than a whopping Rs 15,600 crore. Whether the government decides on a cess or one-time grant to finance this, the fact is that ultimately it will be the consumer who will directly or indirectly pay for this. The question is can India afford this ’solution’?

Second, storage logistics. The government says that to begin with, it will create storage tanks at Rajkot, Mangalore and Vizag to stock 5 million tonne of crude oil. These tankages will take three and a half years to build and pose several issues that need to be addressed. For one, oil is a physical/liquid asset. It is vulnerable to evaporation, accident and spillage losses. It may even pose a security and defence threat. Remember the torching of oilfields and oil wells by Saddam Hussain in Kuwait in the 1991 Gulf war.

Third, quality and specification issues. That we will build oil reserves is the simple part. More complex is what type of crude will we import? There are some seven grades of oil available like Arab light, Brent, Arab Middle Distillate, West Texus Crude, Dubai Fateh, Isthmus, Minas and the mix. What may be good for one refinery may not be good for another. Crude procurement and storage therefore has to be location specific. Besides, the procurement must be product-specific and dictated by the demand. This requires a detailed study of product demand so that reserves can be built accordingly. conducted. Fourth, the rationale for creation of oil reserves is insulation from international price volatility, especially the sudden swing in prices dictated by unforeseen circumstances, like the impending war. However, in reality when countries start building reserves in anticipation of price hike, it actually creates ’artificial scarcity,’ akin to grain hoarding in times of famine. The net impact is price distortion.

Besides, there are other mechanisms available today to minimise international oil price volatility. Hedging is one. Through financial instruments like futures and options, one can secure supplies and optimise costs. Long-term trade agreement can also help in insulating against periodic swing in prices.

Creation of strategic oil reserves, at best, is a short-term supply-side security. Any long-term policy must take into account four factors-equity, security, efficiency and environment. Such a policy has to take into consideration development of alternative sources of energy especially bio-fuels, solar and wind energy in our country to arrive at a good energy-mix.

(The author is Managing Partner, J Sagar & Associates)