FYI,
On the topic of the US and Islam,
I recommend to the List a book by Richard Labévière: Dollars for Terror: The US and
Islam, (1-892941-06-6) 400 pp, from Algora. http://www.algora.com/book_list.htm#2000%20Catalog
Labévière is a well-known French investigative journalist with the French
International TV in Paris. His work has concentrated on Arab and African
countries; his previous books have discussed democracy and world events.
U.S. REVIEWS
In a provocative exposé, Swiss TV journalist Labévière
argues that the real threat to the West from radical Islamic fundamentalism
comes not from Iran or Iraq, but rather from America's solid allies, Saudi
Arabia and neighboring oil monarchies. Based on his four-year
investigation, Labévière charges that Saudi Arabia is the principal backer of
extremist Islamist movements around the world. The linchpin in this
operation, he states, is Saudi billionaire Osama bin Ladin. . . .
In
Labévière's riveting, often shocking analysis, the U.S. is an accessory in the
rise of Islam, because it manipulates and aids radical Moslem groups in its
shortsighted pursuit of its economic interests, especially the energy resources
of the Middle East and the oil- and mineral-rich former Soviet republics of
Central Asia. Labévière shows how radical Islamic fundamentalism spreads its
influence on two levels, above board, through investment firms, banks and shell
companies, and clandestinely, though a network of drug dealing, weapons
smuggling and money laundering. This important book sounds a wake-up call
to U.S. policy-makers.
(May)
PublishersWeekly: Starred Review, April 10, 2000
To many historians of
Islamic radicalism, it is an irony of history that the United States may
increasingly become a target of attacks. In a book to be published in English
this spring, Swiss journalist Richard Labeviere charts what he sees as U.S.
complicity in the rise of violent Muslim movements
"For America, the
bill is now coming due," Labeviere
said.
Los Angeles Times Thursday, January 13,
2000
FRENCH REVIEWS -
Book of the Week: Dollars
for
Terror.
Le Point
In the Gulf We Trust: Labévière shows that . . . the world's
greatest democracy is playing a leading role in propagating Islamic
fundamentalism. Here is an audacious view of the globalization so loudly
promoted by the
U.S.
Le Figaro Magazine
Challenges Washington's role in Islamic terrorism and
analyzes the strategic errors of America's response. . . and proposes that the
unifying thread in Islamic terror is not religion, but money.
L'Alsace
"Geneva, like London, is an Arab capital: the financial
interests of the Saudis are a major factor there." The financial backers
of Islamic fundamentalism stroll today in 3-piece suits in the grand hotels of
Europe; they are making money, not
politics.
Info-Dimanche
-----Original Message-----
From:
wsn-owner@csf.colorado.edu [mailto:wsn-owner@csf.colorado.edu]On Behalf Of
KSamman@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 11:00
PM
To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu; iwaller@binghamton.edu;
socgrad@listserv.binghamton.edu; nveroli@igc.org; arrighi@jhu.edu;
grosfog@ix.netcom.com
Subject: US Hegemony &
Islam
Islamic Terror is Good for US Hegemony
My argument, to put it crudely, is simple: US Middle East Policy
is based on escalating the Arab-Israeli conflict and creating a climate
of hate and violence. With the decline of US hegemony in the past
couple of decades, the US has resorted to creating a religious
social
movement (Islam) to pose as a threat to "world stability."
Yes, a
conspiracy theory is what I'm proposing. The Islamic hype
has become
a resource for the US to create and produce instability
in the Middle East
for the purpose of selling itself not only to the Arab
regimes, but to
Japan and Europe (Unlike the US, these countries
receive most of their
energy sources from Islamic states).
It is the classic case of
"protection rent." The only difference here
is that the protector
renting his service is also, ironically, producing
the source of
instability that calls forth the demand in the first place.
The US is
projecting itself as THE only power capable of protecting
the
international community from such a terror. When it comes to
the
Middle East, it continuously demands unilateral diplomacy in the
most
obsessive manner, insuring that no other powers enter into
the region.
Such scenarios are permitted only under the umbrella
of a US led
mission. This goes not only for UN investigation of
Israeli human
rights violation, but for all and every case imagined.
Think also
about the following:
1) Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban: Many of
the key players
of the organizations that the US has defined as
"terrorist," and who
are now operating in the Middle East, originally
received support
(militarily and economically) directly from the CIA.
Indeed, when
the United States bombed Afghanistan in 1998, the
military base
that was destroyed by the missiles was originally built by
the
United States.
2) Israeli-Palestinian conflict: I
recently attended an exceptional talk
by Stephen Zune who made the
argument that on many occasions
the US took a more reactionary line
towards the Palestinians and
Lebanese than even right wing Zionist figures
like Netanyahu. In
one instance, Netanyahu was attempting to
convince the US that
Israel should pull out of southern Lebanon, only to
be urged by
the US to maintain their military presence there. Zune's
also
argued that in one instance Netanyahu wanted to negotiate with
the Palestinian Authority the issue of Jerusalem, only to be again
urged not to do so by the US.
3) Iraq and sanctions:
The US, as most of you know by now, is having
some difficulty
maintaining the sanctions over Iraq. Indeed, even the
biggest Arab
puppet states of the US are looking for ways to pull out.
There have been
cases, for example, that both the Saudis and the
Kuwaitis have asked the
US to ease up on the issue, only again
to get the cold shoulder from the
US.
These kinds of examples, I believe, point to the fact that it may
be a US policy to maintain a level of conflict between Israel and
the
Arabs and Palestinians in order to retain its coercive hold
over the
region and important sectors of the international
community.
What do you think? The argument needs some work and more
research, but I think it raises points worth thinking about seriously.
Does anyone know of any sources on the theme of how chaos
and decline
in world hegemony leads to the types of scenarios
I am talking about?
Khaldoun Samman
|