Re: Oil, the Euro and Iraq

I think is a very strong argument. But the aim isn't to maintain the
supremacy of dollar, but the sumpremacy of USA. The question is wheter the
American hegemony is really falling down as Wallerstein and Arrighi (among
others) have been defending. I would say yes, if I think as Arrighi that
hegemony means leadership (political, economic, moral and militar) and
coercitive power. As USA have been acting without the agreement of the UN,
it means a lack of legitamacy. The roots of this situation was exposed by
Arrighi in "The Long Twentieh Century". At least, from 1978 the Europe
nation have been reacting to the dangerous (to them) economic policies of
USA (see Arrighi, The long...) .
We can't forget that in our world system the power of the states is linked
with their economic power, that means, their capacity to carry the world
capital (and profits) to value to  the country. At least from the 1970, USA
have been reached this goal with the dollar supremacy.

Pedro Antonio Vieira


----- Original Message -----
From: n0705590 <Damian.Popolo@newcastle.ac.uk>
To: <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 5:14 AM
Subject: Oil, the Euro and Iraq


> Dear all,
>
> I generally dislike posting articles or material freely available on the
net.
> However, this one caught my eye, and I'm not quite sure how to work it
out:
>
> http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html
>
> Basically, it attempts to demonstrate that the war was necessary because
of a
> clear thret to the Dollar hegemony.  Still, I'm not sure whether I should
buy
> the whole argument.  Perhaps AGF could enlighten us on this.  By the way,
find
> below another article on the issue
>
> Defending the dollar
> 07.04.2003 [08:35]
>
>
>
>  Writing in the Sunday Times on March 30, Judge Richard Goldstone stated
that
> there were only two lawful ways in which the U.S. could use military force
> against Iraq. One was if the UN Security Council sanctioned it; the other
was
> in the case of "dire self-defence". The U.S. war against Iraq is in dire
> defence of dollar imperialism against the threat of the euro.
>
> Put another way, the war is about world economic dominance. That,
according to
> Australian analyst Geoffrey Heard, is the reason for the Bush
Administration's
> determination to oust Saddam Hussein's regime, because his policy of
selling
> oil in euros is threatening U.S. global hegemony.
>
> The origin of Establishment America's problem with Iraq goes back to 1999
when
> Iraq broke ranks among the oil producers and began to trade its oil in
euros
> instead of U.S. dollars. As Heard notes, under an Opec agreement all oil
has
> been traded in greenbacks since 1971. America's monopoly of the oil
business
> has premised the U.S. dollar's supremacy among world currencies. Initially
the
> U.S. scoffed at Iraq's move to the euro but by 2001 disdain had turned to
> alarm. Iran indicated an interest in changing to euros while Russia has
been
> seeking to increase its oil production aimed at European sales - in euros,
of
> course. Venezuela, the world's fourth largest producer, has been cutting
out
> the dollar in its dealings and bartering with various countries, including
> Cuba.
>
> The net result of these developments meant that the dollar's stranglehold
on
> oil was slipping and with it America's dominance of world trade. With Iraq
> having the world's second largest oil reserves, the American
Establishment,
> which is sodden in oil investments, simply had to act against Saddam -
even if
> it meant going to war. The alternative was the meltdown of the U.S.
economy.
>
> America was in serious trouble long before the Al-Qaeda attacks of
September
> 11, 2001. Its real threat came not from the Middle East so much as from
the EU
> with its new currency, the euro. Commanding 40% of world trade, the EU
poses a
> major challenge to continued U.S. dominance. If only a few Opec members
> switched to euros, argues Heard, that would hurt the U.S. in two critical
> ways: it would result in a stronger euro and an increase in the "eurozone"
and
> it would trigger dollar dumping and depress the greenback's value.
>
> With the dollar facing bleak times, the only thing left for the Bush
> administration as the proxy of Establishment America (Al Gore would have
had
> to have done the same) was to come out fighting. In one respect, Bush has
been
> very frank about the purpose of this war. He has said it is to protect the
> American way of life. Indeed. And that means ensuring the reign of dollar
> imperialism.
>
> The war against Iraq is, therefore, a war both to defend and to assert
dollar
> dominance. Heard sees four objectives for the U.S. in this war:
>
>
> return Iraq's oil reserves to the dollar circle;
>
>
> send a clear message to other oil producers as to what will happen to them
if
> they try to leave the dollar zone; deal a setback to the EU and its euro;
use
> the war as a cover to get Venezuela's oil back into the dollar circle by
means
> of covert CIA action.
>
> The cost of the war is not measured in terms of the images shown on our
> television screens. In fact, in Uncle Sam's view the cost of going to war
is
> negligible compared to the cost of not going to war. The possible loss of
U.S.
> power and the end of dollar imperialism, as far as Washington is
concerned,
> far exceeds all other considerations.
>
> The final aspects of Heard's analysis provide insight as to the positions
of
> Australia and the UK. Having significant U.S. dollar reserves and strong
trade
> links with the U.S., it is in Australia's interests to support the U.S.
and to
> see to it that the ascendancy of the euro is checked. Britain, which has
yet
> to adopt the euro as its currency, stands to gain time and room to
manoeuvre
> by siding with the U.S. A U.S. victory would also, in effect, give the EU
> principals, France and Germany, bloody noses and place the UK in a
position
> either to demand a better deal from the EU for adopting the euro or to
> distance itself from Europe and to align with America. A weakened and
divided
> EU is a U.S. policy strategy.
>
> Whose side should South Africa be on? It's really a case of Hobson's
choice.
> When the U.S. economy went concave in 1929, the whole world was sucked in
to
> its depression. Only the mad mullahs would want a repetition of that.
Which is
> why the anti-U.S. rhetoric of the ANC government, compounded by Nelson
> Mandela's virulent anti-Bush remarks, is shortsighted. It would have been
far
> better to have adopted a neutral stance, particularly since an election is
due
> in a year's time. In 1999 the ANC's election expenses enjoyed considerable
> American and Middle Eastern funding. Given the physical and political
costs of
> the war, the chances of a repeat of such funding in 2004 must range from
> uncertain to unlikely. Nonetheless, the aftershocks of the war on Iraq may
> cost the ANC dearly.
>
>   &#1048;&#1089;&#1090;&#1086;&#1095;&#1085;&#1080;&#1082;:
> http://www.witness.co.za/content/2003_04/14315.htm
>
>
>
> Damian Popolo
> PhD candidate
> Newcastle University
> Department of Politics
> Room 301
>