Chapter 30

France & Germany Challenge USA

French Big Oil Rivals US Big Oil

“Global Clash of Races-Diplomacy of Civilizations” © (2006) Kalki Gaur

30(1) Purport

(1) OPEC Justify Euro-Colonialism

One. Only a fool would believe that the descendants of Hitler and Napoleon, namely Germany and France, would not like to have their own oil-colonies in the Middle East and Africa. Two. Post-2001 Petro-Imperialism and Oil-seeking Colonial Empires shall take birth, just as post-1500 European Colonialism took birth because of the search for alternate route for Indian spices. The post-1500 European Colonialism was the direct result of European powers to escape from Ottoman price gauging for Indian spices essential for European meat preservation during winter months. The post-2003 new age of Oil Colonialism is the direct result of the price gauging of the Middle Eastern OPEC that artificially manipulated the price for a barrel of crude oil to triple in three years, from $25 in April 2003, to over $72 in April 2006.

Three. It is cheaper for the United States, Germany, France, China and India to invade, occupy and administer as colonies selected oil-producing OPEC nations than paying for the imported oil bill. Thinly populated wealthy oil producers have signed their death warrants by hiking up the oil prices.

Any crude oil price above $25-a-barrel makes imperialistic invasions of thinly populated oil-producing countries an economic necessity for oil-importing industrial economies.

Four. The price gouging by OPEC nations to cross $70 per barrel gave a new age of Oil Colonialism. The civilized world feels that ever rising oil price rise justifies the return of new age of Oil Colonial Empires in terrorism prone Middle East, Central Asia and Africa. Colonization of thinly populated oil-producing countries in the Middle East and Central Asia by leading oil-consuming nations and industrial powers shall provide for energy security in the populous civilized world, while causing some hardship for colonial populations in the oil-producing world. Unchecked oil-price rise shall cripple the economies of the industrialized world.

 

Five. Just as black agents of slave traders helped enslave blacks, similarly American Oil companies conspiring with Arab masters to rape and loot America and Europe to enrich their Arab masters and themselves. American BigOil raping America, American economy and American public to enrich themselves and their OPEC masters, just as Black agents of White slave traders captured blacks in Africa and delivered them to Slave ships. Profits of American BigOil do not promote the national interests of America rather harms it. It is high time that American State should directly own the oil and gas reserves of the Middle East, as then only it would reduce taxes, public debt and trade imbalances.

 

Six. The era of Nation-State system is over. Oil producing countries in the post-nation state world orders shall become colonies of the great powers. The European Union portends the days of nation states nearing its end in 21st Century. OPEC was created by conspiring American Big Oil to profit by artificial price rise by artificially production manipulation by OPEC oil producers.

 

Seven. Arab women prefer European Colonialism to Wahhabi regimes. Oil producing nations are artificial creations. American and British secret services mobilized Bedouin Wahhabi clergy to engineer their secession from Ottoman Caliphate. The CIA supported Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia to engineer the secession of Muslim republics from the Soviet Union. United States engineered Shiite fundamentalism to overthrow Shah of Iran. United States engineered the Taleban rule in Afghanistan with direct help of Saudi Arabia, UAE and Pakistan.

 

Eight. The 9/11 attacks on United States signed death warrants on Wahhabi oil producers that provide sanctuary to Islamic terrorists. The terrorism promoting oil-producing nations has signed their own death warrants failing to stop the terrorist attacks on the United States, Russia, India and China.

 

Nine. Like the 1885 Partition of Africa, the great powers should negotiate and arrive at Partition of Oil Producing Middle East, Central Asia and Africa among major oil importing industrial powers, namely, United States, China, India, Japan, Germany, France, Britain and South Korea. The colonial occupation of thinly populated oil-producing nations by populous industrialized nations is lesser an evil than the disruption of the industrialized economies that would result, if the oil-producing nations continued to manipulate oil prices. Partition of Oil-Producing Nations into colonies of world powers is a moral imperative otherwise the civilized world shall face the specter of $100-a-barrel oil prices, which could translate into a $6-a-gallon gasoline and heating oil and worldwide Depression and end of the Industrial Civilization as we know it.

 

Ten. American and European public will endorse albeit demand American and European imperialism and oil colonialism provided it brings back the retail price of gasoline and heating oil to below $1-a-gallon for American and European consumers.

 

(2) Oil Rivalry is the Goal of Diplomats

One. The 21st Century is the Century of Oil and diplomats define the national interests of nations in terms of Oil power. Oil is the Achilles’ Heels of the United States. France and Germany could overthrow the hegemony of the United States by joining forces with China and India to develop oil and gas resources of oil-producing nations, in competition with the United States to rival the American Big Oil. France and Germany as great Oil powers could dream to rival United States as world’s diplomatic power.

 

Two. Neither France nor Germany has the economic strength to play a great power role in 21st Century as it played in the Concert of Europe during the 19th Century Europe. Germany and France can lead 25-member European Union to emerge as rival to the United States, only if Germany and France succeed in developing closer economic and strategic ties with China, or India or Russia, the world’s 2nd largest, 4th largest and 10th largest economies respectively and nuclear weapon military powers.

 

The Great Powers of the world ranked as follows in the declining order: 1United States, 2China, 3India, 4Russia and 5European Union. The largest economies of the world are: 1United States ($8.4 trillion), 2China ($4.1 trillion), 3Japan ($3 trillion), 4India ($2.2 trillion), 5Germany ($1.8 trillion), 6France ($1.3 trillion), 7Britain ($1.2 trillion), 8Italy ($1.2 trillion), 9Brazil ($1 trillion), and 10Russia ($929 billion) (Source, World Bank, “World Development Report 2000/2001).

 

The combined GNPs of China, Japan and India ($9,299 billion), exceeded the combined GNPs of 15 European Union States ($8,018 billion) and exceeded the combined GNPs ($9,076 billion) of USA and Canada. The combined GNPs of 15 European Union states less than the GNP of United States. The Sino-Indian détente of 2003, heralded the Age of Asia, the 21st Century of Asia, when giant Indian Elephant decided to mate with giant Chinese Dragon, to create an Asian Common Market of China, India and Japan, with the combined GNP at PPP of $9.3 trillion.

 

Three. The 25-member European Union led by France and Germany can emerge as rival to the United States if it secured closer economic and military ties with fellow Eurasian land powers, namely, Russia, India and China. By be securing closer ties with Russia, India and China could France, Germany and European Union join the ranks of world powers and become major players in the new world order, which is multi-polar.

 

(3) Eurasian Big Oil Rivals Yankee Big Oil

The 21st Century is the Century of Asia, led by China, India and Japan. The top four world powers are: 1USA, 2China, 3India and 4Russia. India and China joined the ranks of Super Powers in the aftermath of the failed American colonial occupation of Iraq, when Pentagon started to beg the world leaders for Peacekeeping Forces after Iraqi guerrilla resistance started killing American soldiers.

 

The national interests of oil-imports dependent Germany, France, China, India and Japan coincided in the oil-rich Arabian Gulf and Caspian oil basin of Central Asia. Germany and France possess the required oil exploration and production technology and can rival United States, by joining forces with China, India and Japan to secure oil-production leases in the oil-producing countries of Arabian Gulf, Caspian Central Asia, West coast of Africa, Venezuela and Colombia.

 

Europe led by France can rival United States only when Europe in partnership with China and India succeeds in developing oil-exploration and production sharing contracts with the oil-producing nations in the world. Only by emerging as rival oil power France, Germany and Belgium would successfully challenge and undermine the political and economic hegemony of the United States in the world. European Big Oil can rival American Big Oil if Europe developed oil-joint ventures with India, China and Japan. Europe-Asia Big Oil can rival American Big Oil worldwide. Europe, China and India should jointly attack the Oily Achilles’ Heels of America to hold America in check.

 

(4) Rise of France India China Big Oil

Just as Cardinal Richelieu of Catholic King of France, supported German Protestant Princes against Catholic Habsburg Holy Roman Empire, influenced by Raison d’etat, White Christian President Chirac and Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder should support brown Hindu India and yellow Buddhist China to develop Euro-Indian-Chinese Big Oil and compete against American Big Oil to promote the Europe’s Oil interests in the 21st Century.

 

Just as France’s Richelieu didn’t allow religion and race to influence France’s foreign policy, similarly France and Germany should join forces with Hindu India and Buddhist China to tame and hold in check Bully White Protestant America.

 

30(2) Talk Points

(1) 21st Anti-American Century

The 21st Century emerged as the Anti-American Century, simply because historically world powers gathered to oppose the dominant Bully of the age, which happened to be United States, led by a no-nonsense Neo-Conservative President, who saw his father lose the presidential elections 1992, after having won the 1991 Gulf War I. First, the 17th Century was anti-Hapsburg Holy Roman Empire and Anti-Papacy Century. The 18th Century was anti-Spain Century. The 19th Century was anti-France Century. The 20th Century was anti-Germany Century. The 21st Century fast shaping up as the Anti-American Century. The PEW 2002 Global attitudes Survey on anti-Americanism confirmed that Canada, Germany and France emerged as the major challenger to the United States and anti-Americanism grew by leaps and bounds in Canada, Germany and France. Before the end of this decade Canada-US relations may resemble Pakistan-India relations. Germany and France may be on the opposing side of the battle lines in the Third World War. Very few countries liked American Yankee Big Bully. Every nation hates hegemony of America because America is a bully, unless of course those who seek American goodies and aid.

 

(2) Rise of Republican Neo-Conservatives

Second, the unprecedented rise of Neo-Reaganesque Neo-Conservatives represented the political alliance of Protestant Christian Religious Right conservative conspiracy, pro-Segregation whites, Zionist Cabal, Semite Wahhabi oil collaborators and American oil colonialism. Yankee Neo-Conservatives have undermined the pro-Affirmation gains of 1964 Bill of Rights. Republican Neo-Conservatives embarking upon imperial America not upon Pope’s Crusades.

 

(3) Chirac is Khrushchev of 2003

Third, France can emerge as the world power leading the anti-US bandwagon. President Chirac could play the role Soviet Premier Khrushchev played in holding the US in the check in 1950s and 60s. If France could lead the world’s opposition in holding bully America in check, and succeed in restraining America’s unbridled appetite for oil colonies, then France would emerge as a World Power. France could emerge as the world’s second power if it could restrain the arrogance of preeminent superpower United States. France led by Chirac would tame the arrogant United States, just as Khrushchev tamed Yankee presidents and protected the freedom and independence of the Non Aligned Movement.

 

(4) US New War Map Targets 3rd World

Fourth, the Pentagon’s New War Map in 2002 outlined that after former Soviet colonies in the Second World joined the expanded NATO, the First World’s Pentagon embarked upon the grandiose imperial plan to colonize the Non aligned Third World, and America’s war on Iraq represented the first step in that direction. Pentagon wanted to establish American Oil colonies throughout the Arab World, the Third World, and the Non Aligned World. Pentagon wants to become the Leviathan of the Middle East.

 

(5) Pentagon Fighting Wahhabi’s War

Fifth, Republican Neo-Conservatives, Zionists and Yankee Oil imperialists could colonize and conquer Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE to rape OPEC Oil, interestingly with the help of Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda terrorists and tyrants of Saddam Hussein. However if America invaded Syria, Yemen or Iran then America would be fighting the War of Semite Mecca Caliphate not American oil imperialism. India would support American oil imperialism but vehemently oppose Semite Wahhabi Mecca Empire.

 

(6) NATO died in rubble of oil-rich Baghdad

Sixth, American oil colonialism in Iraq caused the demise of NATO because America refused to share oil loot with other European powers, notably Germany, France and Belgium.

 

(7) Population Decline in Europe

Seventh, the population decline of Western Europe ruled out any major great power roles for Germany and France, unless they join Defense pact with India. However, the Oil colonialism is the only great power game France, Germany and Russia can play faced with the declining population.

 

(8) Third World War in the Middle East

Eighth, the Third World War shall be fought for oil reserves of the Arabian Gulf states and it shall start in the Middle East. It would be suicidal for France, Germany, Russia and China to allow Pentagon establish American Oil Colony in Iraq, as it would give America great head start in the War. President Bush’s invasion of Iraq to establish Oil colony in Iraq would trigger World War III.

 

(9) Saudi Arabia, Pakistan & Iran

Ninth, In early 1900’s the Ottoman Empire was the Thesis, and British-American supported Wahhabi fundamentalism the Anti-Thesis and it resulted in the disintegration of Ottoman Empire and synthesis of the alliance of Rule of Al Saud family in Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and the American monopoly over Saudi Oil and British monopoly over Iraqi oil and religious monopoly of Mecca-based Wahhabi Clergy. In 1947, the British Indian empire was the Thesis, the British Spy agency supported Mohammad Ali Jinnah and M.K. Gandhi was the Anti-Thesis, and the result was the synthesis of partition of Indian Empire. In 1980 the Pahlavi Monarchy of Iran was the Thesis and the CIA Spy Ayatollah Khomeini the Anti-Thesis and it resulted in the synthesis of the tyranny of fundamentalist Ayatollah Khomeini and the downfall of the liberal, secular Aryan Pahlalvi Monarchy of Shah of Iran.

 

(10) Bush’s Petro-Imperialism

Tenth, Bush is not a religious nut, but an oil imperialist. Bush waged America’s war for oil colonialism, not a war for propagation of Christian interests. Catholic French wrongly condemn President Bush as a nut on grounds of religion.  President Bush is a danger to the world, not because he attempting to promote the fundamentalist God’s designs on the world by war, but because he want to control and conquer the world by establishing American oil colonies in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE.

 

(11) Oil is Great Game of Eurasia in 2003

Eleventh, the Anti-Americanism determined that France and Germany supported the Russia’s control and influence over Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus. Russia supported the idea of greater German and French influence over Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus, rather than increased NATO and American influence. The Geo-politics of Great Game of the 21st Century demands that Europe as well as Russia, India and China should not allow United States control over Caspian Oil reserves of Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. The land powers of Eurasia, Germany, France, Russia, China and India should deny the United States, the foreign sea power and the air power, from developing any permanent military bases in Central Asia and should not allow United States to control the Caspian Oil and gas resources and oil and gas pipelines in Central Asia.

 

(12) Europe Must Counterbalance America

Twelfth, French scholar Jacques Derrida and German scholar Jürgen Habermas published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the European intellectuals’ own original "hot idea". Arguing for a counterbalance to American global hegemonic pretensions, Derrida and Habermas maintain that this can only be accomplished through a unified European foreign policy led by the pioneering "core" European nations. Derrida-Habermas call for a European identity more significantly linked to the belief that Europe must act to curb American primacy and unilateralism. French view of Europe is a separate power-to-be in a world of competing poles, including the United States, Russia, China, and India. The world of the next decades will function this way" creating a situation that would be "much better than a single power ruling over the affairs of the planet. In a few years Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld will have opposite him a united Europe. The French view foresees the European Union evolving into an international force that could be defined as a rival of the United States. France has clear visions of Europe's developing into a rival power. However, Europe can emerge as world power only when it secured closer military ties with either India or China.

 

(13) Euro is World’s Co-Reserve Currency

Thirteenth. The Euro helped France Contain the USA. With the Cold War behind, the key question of international politics, as seen by the French political and administrative elite, is this: Now that there is no military threat to Europe from the Soviet Union or anyone else, how to contain the United States? In this logic the Euro Currency must become an alternative, or co-reserve currency alongside the dollar. This would deprive the US of its Soft Power and its free ride in the world economy. After all, the special international role of the dollar permits the US to run staggering trade deficits and to escape the balance of payments discipline that holds all other nations in check. This French believe, boosts America’s ability to finance military and political power beyond its real means. The primary goal of French and European foreign policy is therefore to shift portions of the foreign exchange reserves of the world into Euros. The value of the Euro against the dollar may or may not rise as a result. The Euro is not fundamentally about exchange rates and exports and imports, although they are terribly important. The use of Euro as the co-reserve currency alongside dollar is about the political independence and power that the Euro as co-reserve currency buys. It was the Euro, not the UNSC Veto that enabled France to oppose President Bush on Iraq so boldly. Absent the Euro, it would have been relatively easy for the US to quietly bring the French back into line. A stealth US attack on the French franc, and on French financial markets would do the job, and it did the job more than once before. In 1956, when France and Britain invaded Egypt to retake the Suez Canal, Eisenhower was outraged. Some stern statements by Dwight Eisenhower backed by discreet mutterings about Franc and Pound Sterling currencies and discreet attack on French financial markets did the trick. The French and British promptly retreated from Suez in 1956. The European Union idea is a political not an economic project, though achieved through economic means. The first goal was to create a unified Europe to bring an end to European wars. The means were economic: a Common Market, or free trade zone, to be expanded to include the free movement of capital then the free movement of labor. Behind the agreement was a basic bargain between France and Germany: France would open to German industry and Germany would support French agriculture. In the full Gaullist vision, France in order to stay independent and powerful, France would have to enter a Europe unified behind French political power supported by German economic power. This is the argument author makes in this Chapter.

 

30(3) Anti-American 21st Century

(1) Anti-American 21st Century

The 21st Century fast shaping up as the Anti-American Century, and five world powers, namely France, Germany, Russia, China and India pooled their diplomatic assets to tame Yankee Oil Colonialism in early 2003. President George Bush’s naked imperialist war on Iraq, the country with the second largest oil reserves to establish American Oil Colony over Iraq, to exploit and rape the oil riches of Iraq, reminiscent of the 18th or 19th century European Colonialism, would herald a New Age of Colonial Empire in the 21st Century. The Great Powers of the world led by France, Germany, Russia, China and India coordinating their diplomacy on Iraq crisis to tame and check the preeminence of the United States, which lost its head wrongly believing that it is the sole superpower of the world after 1991 End of the Cold War. Concert of the World Powers seeks to create the better balance of power in the world by holding the United States in check, just as the Congress system evolved after 1814 Congress of Vienna, sought to create a better world balance by holding France in check, from 1814 to 1914, by applying the principles of Balance of Power. France’s First Minister Cardinal Richelieu sought to create a better world balance by holding the pro-Papacy Catholic Holy Roman Empire in check and to keep German Princes divided, by applying the principles of Raison d’etat.

 

“ If the past 100 years (20th Century) were widely considered the American Century, this new one (21st Century) is fast shaping up as the Anti-American Century. A mother lode of goodwill fostered in the decades after the defeat of Nazi Germany has been reduced to dust in recent years. A growing number of foreigners see some of the United States’ political decisions (pulling out the Kyoto Treaty on global emissions) and personal choices as at best unilateral and at worst selfish. The confrontation over Iraq is just more fuel on a bonfire,” thus summed up the leading American daily, USA Today, its assessment of prevailing anti-Americanism in its front page cover story, on March 4, 2003, with title, “Yankee Stay Home,” and subtitle Ugly sentiments sting American tourists as Europeans cite frustrations with US policy. The current Anti-Americanism climate in Europe is in stark contrast to the breathtaking we-are-all-Americans sentiment that gripped Europe and India on Sept. 11, 2001. European Media and public portray Americans as culturally inferior, ignorant of world politics, arrogant in their interaction with the rest of the world and worst of all, the bully of the neighborhood. Europeans believe that America had no culture. During the weekend of Feb. 15, ’03, more than 6 million people in roughly 60 countries hit the streets in some of the largest anti-war protests since the Vietnam War. Speaking as European and for the vast majority of their fellow Europeans, the European intellectuals consider such anti-American behavior morally wise and patriotic. The European and Third World intellectuals, and the diplomats of the five world powers, France, Germany, Russia, China and India united by their common perception that only by holding in check the United States, which is the world’s bully, unilateral and selfish power, could the world avert the menace of the looming new age of Colonial Empires in the early decades of the 21st Century. The 17th Century was anti-Hapsburg Holy Roman Empire and Anti-Papacy, the 19th Century was anti-France, the 20th Century was anti-Germany, and the 21st Century fast shaping up as the Anti-American Century. France, Germany and Canada would lead the world in articulating Anti-Americanism perceptions of the diplomats, the policy makers and the public. Five World Powers France, Germany, Russia, China and India believes that regime change in Iraq to establish American Oil colony over Iraq that hold world’s second largest reserves of oil, is a detour on the road to ridding the world of terror and made a mockery of the President Bush’s War on Islamic Terrorism. President Bush has stalled the anti-terror campaign over the 2002 in favor of a Persian Gulf buildup to attack Iraq to establish oil colonialism. 

 

The naked diplomacy of Oil Colonialism pursued by President Bush exposed the camouflage of Wilsonian morality, and world realized how imperfect was the post-Cold War world order that touted United States as the sole Super Power of the world? The barbarian threat to the world Civilizations exposed the religious intolerance of newly independent nations and world realized how imperfect was the post-Second World War world, which saw the emergence of numerous smaller independent states after the decolonizaiton of European colonial Empires? It is likely that many dozen smaller, independent sovereign states might lose their independence and become part of the Neo-Colonial Empires fueled by the scramble for and control of oil reserves of the world. It is likely that five world powers, namely, France, Germany, Russia, China and India would succeed in creating a stable multi-polar world order by jointly holding the United States in check. The concert of World Power may legitimize the Neo-Colonial Empires as well as hold American Oil Colonialism and American Empire in check. The unbridled colonial dream and neo-colonial policies of President Bush has fundamentally changed the world order, and the world would never be the same. Every diplomat of the world realized the imperfect new world order that replaced the old world order after the demise of the Soviet Union, the collapse of the Communism and the end of the Cold War. Many dozen independent and sovereign states would lose their independence in the early part of the 21st Century because of the changes that would occur due to the neo-colonial policies of the Bush Administration, and in this manner, President George W. Bush would go down in this history as the single person that changed the flow of world history in 21st Century, followed by Osama Bin Laden. President Bush is an “Itihaas-Purusha” or the “Man that Changed the History.” Would the new world order be less imperfect than what it replaced? The end result of the diplomatic activities of the Christian President George W. Bush as well as result of the terrorist activities of Arab Wahhabi Osama Bin Laden would be as follows; firstly, the forced demise of numerous smaller sovereign independent States, and secondly, the return of the new Age of Colonial Empires in the 21st Century. The changes brought about by Bush and Osama is historically irreversible, and it would take its own course through the world history. The genie is out of the bottle and no diplomat and no power can put the genie of Colonial Empires back into the bottle. The world leaders and diplomats of world powers could hold this genie in check and attempt to control and tame it but cannot wish it away. The demise of numerous smaller states and the return of the Colonial Empires represent the twin reality of the new world order in the 21st Century.

 

(2) Imperfect New Age

The post-Cold War Old World Order had become rotten due to the bad behavior of Bully America. Diplomat-Geopoliticians realize: Without rot, things don’t get soft enough for anything to happen. It is the beginning of the divine process. Old world order rots to give birth to the new world order. Gautam Buddha said: Change is the only certainty. The change of the world order is inevitable. Hindu Holy scripture “Gita” says: Soul leaves the old body after death and enters the new body during birth. Soul is eternal, it never dies, it neither kills, nor it can be killed. Just as man throws away old garments and wears new garments, the Soul leaves the Old Body at death and enters the new body at birth. Historians understand that the soul of the world order changes the old body of the world system and enters the body of the new world system, after the old world order becomes rotten, dysfunctional and archaic. Rising world powers replace the old powers. India and China will replace Europeans as the leading world powers in the 21st century. Even as late as 1750 AD, The economies of India and China produced one-quarter and one-third of world’s total manufactured goods, respectively. With the advent of the new order old world order can never be recreated, except in the next cycle of change.

 

(3) US Portrayed As Arrogant in BBC’s Poll.

Post-Sept. 11 America was "a Wounded Giant, full of anger that feels it's got to exercise its power all over the world, that's becoming a Frightening America, said former British Cabinet member Clare Short, who quit her post to protest the invasion of Iraq. The Americans were judged to be a greater threat than Russia, China, Syria and two members of Bush's Axis of Evil Iran and North Korea. The al-Qaida terrorist organization was ranked more dangerous than the United States. Even in South Korea, where tensions along the Demilitarized Zone run high, 48 percent of respondents judged the United States to be a greater threat to world peace than the communist neighbors to the north, with their nuclear program. A sampling of public opinion in 11 nations finds many see the United States as an arrogant superpower that poses a greater danger to world peace than North Korea. President Bush failed to impress 58 percent of those questioned by pollsters for a British Broadcasting Corp. They said they had a fairly unfavorable or very unfavorable view of the American president. If the American respondents were removed from the sample, the number rose to 60 percent. But the way the United States wields its power worried many of those questioned for the program, "What the World Thinks of America." Only 25 percent excluding Americans said U.S. military might was making the world a safer place. The poll questioned 11,000 people in May and June 2003 in 11 nations: Australia, Brazil, Britain, Canada, France, Indonesia, Israel, Jordan, Russia, South Korea and the United States. The poll conducted by pollsters including ICM in Britain and IPSOS Reid in the United States. The BBC did not estimate a margin of error. Forty-one percent agreed with Prime Minister Tony Blair's opinion that the United States is a force for good in the world, and 55 disagreed. Sixty-five percent overall and a majority in every country, including the United States said America is arrogant. Forty-seven percent said America is friendly, and 33 percent find the United States antagonistic. Many said their own countries were becoming more like America 81 percent of Australians agreed with that statement, as did 64 percent of Britons and 63 percent of Israelis. Fifty-six percent said the United States was wrong to attack Iraq. That number reached 81 percent in Russia and 63 percent in France, two nations that led world opposition to the war. Overall, 37 percent said the war was right 54 percent in Britain, 74 percent in the United States and 79 percent in Israel.

 

(4) Jacques Derrida- Jurgen Habermas Thesis

French scholar Jacques Derrida and German scholar Jürgen Habermas published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the European intellectuals’ own original "hot idea". Arguing for a counterbalance to American global hegemonic pretensions, Derrida and Habermas maintain that this can only be accomplished through a unified European foreign policy led by the pioneering "core" European nations. Derrida-Habermas call for a European identity more significantly linked to the belief that Europe must act to curb American primacy and unilateralism. Europe's old laggards will never balance US power even after adopting the Draft Constitution of Europe and creation of the single President of Europe, because for Europe to be an effective counterweight to preeminent United States would require far-reaching changes European policies and solid defense ties with Russia or India or China. European counterbalance to American global hegemonic aspirations and Pax Americana can be accomplished through a unified European foreign policy led by the pioneering core European nations, namely France or Germany. It is moral imperative for Europe to curb American primacy and unilateralism and most of Europeans support this approach. This articulates what many in Europe are thinking. American earlier came up with slogans such as "the clash of civilizations" and "the end of history" which allowed president Bush to wage wars of oil colonialism disguised as America’s war on Islamic terrorism and Islamic WMDs. Constitutional decisions, like creating the office of a single foreign minister, would go a long way towards enhancing the role of Europe in world affairs.

 

(5) How Europe Can Counterbalance USA?

Multipolar world order would enhance the diplomatic role of France and Germany in world affairs. By making India and other the permanent members of the UN Security Council the international system shall become multipolar system. Reform of the permanent Membership of the UN Security Council would make Europe more relevant in the world. If Europe really wants improved international structures that provide peace and prosperity, it must push for serious reform of the United Nations, especially in the composition of the permanent veto members of the Security Council, so that countries such as India, Brazil and South Africa may also achieve that status. Perhaps Europe should confront the fact that it is over-represented on that body. There have been proposals from time to time for a single, rotating "European" permanent seat, an idea France always threatens to veto. Second. Europe should work towards abolishing the agricultural subsidy system practiced by European Union, United States, and Japan. Abolition of European agricultural subsidies would make Europe more relevant in the world. Europe must make a massive push against protectionism, especially in agricultural goods, and to assist poorer countries in Africa and the Caribbean in the export of their produce. But France is the most obstinate foe of free trade in agriculture and drags a complicit Germany along with it. Is it any wonder that developing countries are cynical when Europe talks about boosting world markets - when most trade experts believe that the single biggest boost to African and Caribbean nations would be to scrap Europe's and America's, and Japan's agricultural protectionism.

 

Europe should encourage intermarrying with Indians to increase the population growth in Europe. Europe should allow unlimited immigration from India to increase the population of Italy, Spain, France and Germany, which are becoming aging nations. Europe needs to get its youthful population going again. The astonishingly low fertility rates in much of Europe, especially in Italy, France, Spain, in contrast to the population increases forecast for the US over the next 50 years, is as important as the differences in defense spending. With the decline of the European population the Europe’s role in world affairs would also decline. Fourth. Europe must increase its military spending to become greater military powers. Europe must develop greater military capacity, scrap national conscript armies and develop multi-Service fighting force. Many of the "old" European countries talk about military reforms, but the small defense budgets of France, Germany and Italy give the game away.

 

(6) German Marshall Fund Sept 2003 Report

In Italy and Germany, disapproval of current President Bush’s foreign policy in 2003 surged by 20% points from 2003. While 64% of Europeans from Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Netherlands and Poland favored a strong American presence in the world in 2002, only 45% favored the strong American presence in the world in 2003. In France 70% and 50% Germans and 50% Italians said American global leadership was undesirable. Nearly 73% of Americans would endorse the use of force to keep Iran from getting biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. Only 44% Europeans said they would support military action to disarm Iran. The 84% of Americans and only 48% of Europeans said that war can be viewed as just, or war may be used to achieve justice. The 63% Americans and 37% of Europeans supported using force to keep North Korea from acquiring WMDs. The difference between American and European attitudes is widening, the longtime allies of the United States increasingly chafe under American leadership. The Trans Atlantic split over war in Iraq has undermined America’s standing with Europeans. The public opinion survey conducted by the German Marshall Fund of the United States and Compagnia di San Paolo of Turin, Italy, in Sept 2003 collected views on both sides of the Atlantic about international threats, global leadership and the use of force to resolve conflicts. Europeans are increasingly uncomfortable with the United States’ global leadership, with majorities in almost every European nation, Germany, France, Britain, Italy and Netherlands opposing the direction of President Bush’s foreign policy.

 

30(4) Europe is Rival to USA

(1) America not Rival of Europe for Germany

Germany does not recognize or seek a multipolar world, but accepts a multilateral one in which issues of importance are decided through discussion and on the basis of international law. A strong future Europe must not be developed in rivalry with the United States. Rather, Europe can be "strong only together with the United States and not as its rival. It was a clear demarcation of the German position on Europe's global role. It differentiates Germany's view on Europe's development from that of France. Germany expressed its viewpoint on Europe as a starting point in discussions with all of Germany's allies, including the United States. Germany supports a trans-Atlantic partnership after the Iraq war in which "we must bring all our capabilities together to win the peace." Germany offered relief efforts and economic help in Iraq. Germany believes in the primacy of multilateral institutions.

 

(2) Germany’s Joschka Fischer

Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer of Germany, the leading candidate to become the European Union's first foreign minister under its new constitution, has said in Washington that a strong future Europe must not be developed in rivalry with the United States. Rather, Europe can be "strong only together with the United States and not as its rival." A German official in Berlin, in response to a reporter's question, said Mr. Fischer's remark was a clear demarcation of the German position on Europe's global role. It differentiates Germany's view on Europe's development from that of France, which talks of Europe as a separate power-to-be in a world of competing poles, including the United States, Russia and China. Mr. Fischer's visit to Washington was his first since the split with the United States over the war in Iraq. He met with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell; Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser; and Vice President Dick Cheney in an apparent effort by both sides to mend the rift over Iraq. The German position does not recognize or seek a multipolar world, but accepts a multilateral one in which issues of importance are decided through discussion and on the basis of international law. Mr. Fischer's expressed viewpoint on Europe was a starting point in discussions with all of Germany's allies, including the United States. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer has made no secret that he wants to become the European Union's first foreign minister. No certain date has been set for creating the post, but it could be as late as 2006. Although the Americans have no direct role in selecting the European Union foreign minister however much their preferences might be noted. German media noted that there have been some signs of reticence in the Bush administration about Joschka Fischer's candidacy. Joschka Fischer talked of a trans-Atlantic partnership after the Iraq war in which "we must bring all our capabilities together to win the peace." He also restated the German offer of relief efforts and economic help in Iraq. Joschka Fischer seemed intent on making it clear that this was neither Germany's position nor one he would carry forward representing Europe in its foreign affairs. Joschka Fischer’s position appeared to be in line with Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, who pleaded for the primacy of multilateral institutions.

 

(3) Europe is Rival to America for French

France, talks of Europe as a separate power-to-be in a world of competing poles, including the United States, Russia and China. The world of the next decades will function this way" creating a situation that would be "much better than a single power ruling over the affairs of the planet. In a few years Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld will have opposite him a united Europe. The French view foresees the European Union evolving into an international force that could be defined as a rival of the United States. France has clear visions of Europe's developing into a rival power. That could create instability in Europe-United States relations.

 

(4) Michele Alliot-Marie & Alain Juppe

The French view, emphasized recently by Defense Minister Michèle Alliot-Marie and Alain Juppé, who heads President Jacques Chirac's Gaullist party. While visiting Moscow, Mr. Alain Juppé, head of the French Gaullist party, who is close to Mr. Chirac, designated Russia as one of the poles and said that the idea of a "strategic partnership between the European pole and the Russian pole" did not exclude "dialogue with the other poles, the American pole, of course, and China." Mr. Alain Juppé, a former prime minister and foreign minister and head of the Gaullist party, said, "The world of the next decades will function this way" creating a situation that would be "much better than a single power ruling over the affairs of the planet." The previous month, talking to Chinese military leaders in Beijing, Ms. Alliot-Marie predicted that in a few years Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld will have opposite him a united Europe." In spite of attempts to thaw American-French relations, high French officials have shown no inclination in the last two months to change their minds.

 

(5) European US Rivalry Creates Instability

President Bush and the British prime minister Tony Blair, expressed concern in April ’03, about French visions of Europe's developing into a rival power. That would create instability. Mr. Blair urged Europe and the United States to work instead as a one-polar world in tackling problems.

 

30(5) Pope’s War on Bush

(1) Papal Wars on Protestant USA

Gains for American oil colonialism and American victories in war on Islamic terrorism, represented losses for Catholic Religious Right Conservative conspiracy, as it harms the historic alliance of Monotheist religions, between fundamentalist Catholicism and fundamentalist Wahhabi Islam. During 2003, on America’s war on Iraq Polish Pope John Paul II emerged as the greatest adversary of President Bush, while Polish President greatest supporter of President Bush. The neo-conservatism flourished in the post-Cold War era on the unrestricted support of the Religious conservatives as well as the oil imperialists.

 

Iraq war exposed the inherent contradiction of the American Oil Colonialism and Christian Religious Right Conservatism when it bluntly sought to establish oil colonies in the Arab world. The Papacy led by arch Conservative Polish Pope John Paul II, served the interests of American by undermining the leadership of France and Germany in the Vatican government. However, on the issue of American Oil Colonialism and America’s war on terrorism, the Republican Neo-Conservatives are split between their loyalty to Pope and their greed for oil colonies in Iraq and Afghanistan. The proselytizing Evangelical interests conflict with the interests of oil colonialism and war on Islamic terrorism.

 

To Pope John Paul II the gains of alliance of Monotheism between fundamentalist Catholicism and fundamentalist Wahhabi Sunni Islam outweigh the temporal interests of American Oil Colonialism. President Bush would lose the support of the Religious Right Conservatism if he pursued the interests of oil colonialism at the cost of the proselytizing common interests of Monotheist religions. In the perception of the conservative Papacy the imperialistic Protestant Americanism could become evil similar to that to Communism, if it became hindrance in the apocalyptic destiny of the Church.

 

Catholic Religious Right Conservatism opposed President Bush’s war on Wahhabi terrorism, because Papal Conservatism secured theological ties with Wahhabi fundamentalism to proselytize pagans in Africa. The anthrax attacks that followed the 9/11 attacks could be the work of extreme Christian Religious Right Conservatism. Christian Religious Right Conservatism leading world opposition to President Bush’s war on Islamic terrorism and imperial war on Iraq. Neo-Conservatism based on the twin support of the Christian Religious Right Conservatism and American Oil Colonialism or naked imperialism or pro-segregation policies.

 

Catholic Christian Religious Right Conservatism not prepared to sacrifice religious proselytizing interests by supporting America’s war on Islamic terrorism and on Iraq, as both the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq sought to establish American oil colonies. The Neo-conservatism the NeoCons facing ideological split because of the inherent contradiction and conflicts between the forces of Christian Religious Right Conservatism and American Oil Colonialism.

 

The diplomatic lesson the 1980s is that under certain circumstances, sharp rhetoric, and a big military, and just as important, a willingness to talk and negotiate with the adversary could succeed in peacefully brining down a rotten regime, the regime of the Soviet Union. President Reagan used the “evil” word, the Evil Empire, and ushered in a new era of American foreign policy making. During Reagan Administration, America undertook little direct military action, and none against the Soviet Union.

 

Twenty years ago, speaking to the national Association of Evangelicals on March 8, 1983 the 40th president Ronald Reagan denounced the Soviet Union as the “evil empire.” The Christian pro-Papacy audience loved it, of course, but critics loathed it. To the secular audience, it was the worst presidential speech in American history. The fear was that Reagan’s seemingly apocalyptic rhetoric, plus his Pentagon buildup, was taking the world toward war. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists moved the hands of its nuclear doomsday clock to just three minutes to midnight, the most ominous time since 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

 

The purpose of the apocalyptic rhetoric “Evil Empire” was to mobilize the Catholic assets in the Eastern Block to bring about the Doom of the Communism in the Eastern Bloc. The Ronald Reagan the Gipper’s moral clarity had done the trick. It showed that the American people could be summoned to meet the challenges of the global leadership if statesmen make the case loudly and clearly, with moral and strategic clarity.

 

Though the apocalyptic rhetoric and mobilization of religious assets brought down the Evil Empire, because it had become the Rotten Empire. Evil Soviet Union would have survived the Reagan-Bush onslaught had it not become a Rotten Empire. The CIA staged the military coup as the backlash of the Soviet Communist conservatives, which motivated patriotic Boris Yeltsin to break up the Soviet Union to maintain the white Slav Russian monopoly over power in Russian Federation. But then something happened that few had foreseen, during the President Bush’s 41st Administration (1989-1993).

 

The Berlin Wall fell, peacefully in 1989 and two years later in 1991, the Soviet Union the Evil Empire itself imploded, without America firing a shot. Indeed, starting in 1985, Reagan decided that he could work with the new Soviet Leader Mikhail Gorbachev and Foreign Minister Eduard Sheverdnadze. President Reagan had exploited the polish Pope to unite the resources of Polish Roman Catholic Church and Church in other east European Catholic countries to unite the resources of the Church and the CIA to bring down the Communist regimes. This end game was perfectly executed by President Bush, the former Director of the CIA. One may even argue that even Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev (March 1985-August 1991), and Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Sheverdnadze could pass as the CIA agents.  

 

The 41st President George Bush (1989-1993) capitalized on the combined resources of Roman Catholic church and the CIA to bring down the Communism the in the Eastern bloc. The 43rd president George Bush (2001-) doesn’t realize that the combined resources of the Roman Catholic Church and the CIA led by Pope John Paul II could be working against United States in the 2003 to bring down the Protestant hegemon to expedite the secession and liberation of the Catholic States from United States. The Vatican conspired to expedite the secession of Catholic Ireland from Britain in 1919, secession of Catholic Slovenia and Croatia from Yugoslavia in 1990’s, and secession of Catholic Czech from Czechoslovakia.

 

Vatican leads the world’s war on America. The Catholic Religious right conservative conspiracy value theological alliance with Wahhabi fundamentalism more than the war on terrorism and greed for American oil colonialism. Roman Catholic Church, which cooperated with the CIA to bring down the Communism and the Soviet Union, now joined forces with Germany, France and Belgium to bring down the hegemony of the United States. The political base and international support of pro-oil colonialism American Neo-Conservatives greatly undermined by the opposition of American Catholic religious right conservatism who want to dump Bush’s war on Islamic terrorism to renew the theological pact of Catholic fundamentalism with Wahhabi fundamentalism. Catholic religious right would not jettison its pact with Wahhabi fundamentalism in favor of American oil colonialism. To the religious right the religious interests outweigh the oil colonial interests. America would lose the war on terror as well as the war for American oil colonialism, because its support among Christian religious right conservative conspiracy has greatly weakened because of his war on Islamic terrorism.

 

(2) Return of Age of Neo-Colonial Empires

Whenever the entities constituting the international system change, their character, a period of turmoil inevitably follows. The Counter Reformation Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648) was in large part about the transition from Medieval Dark Age semi-civilized Christian European feudal societies based on the oppression of pro-Inquisition Roman Catholic Church and claims of Papacy for an Universal Christian Empire in Europe, to the modern state based on raison d’etat and claims of the political leadership to tame and control Christian religious clergy and Church. The Thirty Years’ Wars gave birth to the rise of legitimate secular King and ended the pretensions of the Priest-Kings, and the dreams of the Pope to be the Priest-King of Europe.

 

The wars of the French Revolution marked the transition to the nation-state defined by common language, culture, nationalism and patriotism, and Pope ceased to be political force in Europe. The 20th Century’s First and Second world Wars were caused by the disintegration of the Habsburg Empire and Ottoman Empire, represented the end of the world of multi-national Empires, and started the trend of ethnic and religious separatism, end of the dominance of Europe and end of colonialism. The Civilization-States of United States, Russia, China and India became the leader, as they alone could unite large populations under a single nation concept.

 

The dominance of Europe, and the system of Colonialism and Colonial Empires, which had been taken for granted for centuries in the post-Columbus and post-Vasco da Gama Age, from 1500 to 1950, suddenly became anachronistic after 1960 at the end of the Second World War. The multinational states became anachronistic and colonialism became anachronistic in twentieth century.

 

(3) Demise of Smaller Weaker States

The sudden growth of the new states in Africa and Asia, in the post-Second World War world, in the Age of Non-alignment and Bipolar Cold War, the concept of smaller, weaker, states had been taken for granted, from 1950 to 2000. The legitimacy of the smaller states got is boost during the disintegration of the multi-ethnic Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. The world order that protected the independence multitude of smaller states threatened with extinction after 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks on United States, Expansion of European Union and NATO to include East European countries, and legitimization of American Oil Colonialism by President Bush.

 

The religious intolerant, pro-terrorism, weaker, thinly populated states that presently enjoy independence and sovereignty, suddenly became anachronistic in the 21st Century, and Neo-Colonialism, especially Oil-Colonialism staged a come-back as the legitimate entities constituting the international system. The supra national confederations like European Union, the Civilization Nations like Russia, China, India and USA, and the Neo-Colonial Empires would become the entities constituting the international system. Since the 1945, nearly a hundred new nations came into being. The collapse of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia spawned another twenty nations. The American Oil Colonialism in Afghanistan and Iraq, signals the end of the age of smaller states. Osama Bin Laden destroyed the legitimacy of the smaller states.

 

(4) Shorter Duration of World Order

The international order that grew out of Peace of Westphalia lasted 150 years (1648-1800). The Congress of Vienna maintained itself for 100 years (1814-1914). The international order characterized by the Bipolar Cold War and Non Alignment lasted 45 years (1945-1990). The one-superpower system lasted 10 years (1990-2001). The 9/11 terrorist attacks ended the sole superpower status of the United States, as these attacks exposed the Achilles’ heel of the maritime superpower in the age of wars of economic infrastructure that United States legitimized during air war on Kosovo and Yugoslavia during President Bill Clinton’s Administration. In the post-Cold War world, after 1990, the traditional European nation-states, the countries, which formed the Concert of Europe (1814-1914) until the First World War, lacked the resources for a global role.

 

The expansion of European Union to include the East European countries failed to enhance the power of Germany and France. The entry of the former Bolshevik Poland and East European countries into NATO made European Union become military satellite of the United States, because Poland’s President would serve the interests of United States and harm the national interests of France and Germany. The coronation of Bolshevik Polish Bishop as Pope John Paul II resulted in the similar loss of power and influence of Italian, German and French Bishops in the Vatican.

 

Pentagon’s Boss Donald Rumsfeld correctly said that France and Germany represent Old Europe and that center of gravity has shifted eastward. However, Rumsfeld scared to admit the truth that the center of gravity of power drastically shifted eastward towards Asia, from Western Europe after 2000. The Rise of the East, rise of China, Japan and India and decline of the West and decline of France and Germany touted as geopolitical reality by American scholars, to keep Western Europe under American bondage, to scuttle every plan of independent military capability of European Union.

 

(5) Old Europe Resurrects Old Raison d’etat

Old Europe, France and Germany have resurrected the Old Diplomacy of Raison d’etat and Balance of Power and open rivalry for establishing Oil Colonies in the oil-producing nations, transformed the Trans Atlantic Fraternity of Capitalist Christian nations into open diplomatic wars for colonial empires in the 21st Century. France and Germany are likely to be on the other side of the battle lines than United States in the Third World War as they were during Second World War. Second World War resulted out of the refusal of the United States and Britain to share colonial empires and colonial markets with Germany and Japan. Germany, France and Russia would join forces to wage war on Untied States to dismantle American Oil Colonialism in the Middle East. The world war of the 21st century would be replay of the Second World War and fueled by the refusal of the dominant economic groupings to open up their markets to new world powers, namely France, Germany and India.

 

Immature Diplomats get sick of their worries about looming international catastrophes, hostile barbarians threatening the civilized world order, preeminent world power dreaming the conquest or control over world’s oil reserves, Polish Pope sidelining Italians and Latin language in Vatican bureaucracy, the growing clash between Christian Right and Right Christians, the growing anti-Americanism in the White Christian Europe and Germany, France, and Russia moving towards a formal Alliance, and German-French Big Oil preparing for war with American Big Oil in the World War of Oil Colonial Empires of 21st Century. World leaders sick of their fears of the worried, hostile world power, feel that the world needs transportation into a new world order, because the old world system and the principles that guided the post-Second World War system became anachronistic in the 21st Century.  

 

(6) Scramble for Oil Colonies

President George W. Bush of United States inadvertently unleashed the genie of Neo-Colonialism, thus ending the Age of de-Colonization that began after the Second World War. The Colonialism has returned and would come to haunt the world throughout the 21st Century and the genie of colonialism cannot be put back into the bottle again. Just as birth of the multitude new states caused the end of the European colonial empires in Africa and Asia, the rebirth and return of the Age of Oil-Colonialism would result in the demise of a multitude of smaller and weaker nations, especially if they happen to be rich in oil, natural gas and other mineral resources.

 

To president George W. Bush, the America’s War on Terrorism is just hogwash to camouflage the march of American Oil Colonialism. Oil industry leaders occupy the key decision-making positions in the President George W. Bush’s Cabinet, and 43rd Administration is aptly called Bush Oil Administration, presided over by Bush Oil Administration, and the key interest pursued by the State Department is the oil and gas interests, and the Pentagon seeks to deploy American troops worldwide to establish American Oil colonies throughout the oil-producing world. To understand the mindset of President George W. Bush, look through the goggles of the Oil and Gas. Great powers international diplomacy in the 21st Century, to enhance national power defined in terms of control over world’s oil and gas resources as Crude Oil is the key factor that influences national power in the Industrial Age. In the Great Oil Game all great powers are brutally naked in the scramble for oil colonies. The world order of the 2000’s has nothing to offer but its imperfections. America’s Wilsonian foreign policy failed to camouflage the Bush Doctrine 2002’s naked neo-imperialistic Oil-Colonialism in Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Colombia and Venezuela. The acceptance of the new world order in the new age is a pillar of wisdom in New Age Diplomacy. America of the Bush Oil Administration is a hero with nothing to offer but capitalist oil-goodies to American Big Oil, even if means war with white Christian buddies of Europe, namely Germany and France. President Bush is barely articulate in the doublespeak and newspeak. To West Europeans America is not beautiful not even especially nice. The persistent, at times vicious, hostility displayed by France and Germany toward America based on practical, materialistic and sordid oil interests. President Jacques Chirac and Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder expressed their fury at the notion of Texas adolescent President Bush wielding more power than European sophisticates, and they identify Bush Oil Administration with brutal power politics and gung ho militarism to establish American Oil Colonies in Iraq, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Colombia and Venezuela. Mixed in this French and German bouillabaisse of anti-Americanism rage are fears of America’s domination of the world if it succeeds in establishing American oil colonies in Iraq, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Venezuela, Equatorial Guinea and Angola.

 

(7) NATO Supports US Petro Colonialism

President George W. Bush got into the White House disdaining his aristocratic heritage as scion of Bush dynasty, and he offered nothing but his imperfections, anti-intellectualism, past bouts with alcoholism and strained married life. Bush Administration restated America’s national interests defined in terms of oil interests, and Bush Oil Administration set about methodically to establish American Oil colonies in the 21st Centuries, just as President Dwight Eisenhower set about to establish overseas American military bases during the Cold War. Despite all this, President Bush attained a measure of contentment: When allies began to arrive with military and diplomatic support, it seemed the ultimate miracle, to have good European nations love American Oil Colonialism, freaked-out, self-centered American Bush Doctrine that it is. Tony Blair argued that Expanded Europe and United States heading expanded NATO, instead of being hostile competitors, ought to be allies. Tony Blair’s policy has consistently been to promote Britain as a bridge, and as the adhesive between Washington and Brussels. No fewer than eight European countries see it Blair’s way.

 

30(6) Pew 2002 Global Attitudes Survey on Anti-Americanism

Growing Anti Americanism Dec. 4, 2002

Canada, Germany and France would emerge as the major challenger to the United States in near future. Anti-Americanism is growing by leaps and bounds in Canada, Germany and France. Anti-Americanism would determine the policies of Canada, Germany and France in near future.

 

HUNGER IN AMERICA: Canada is the only country in the West in which a majority of those surveyed express satisfaction with national conditions. Pew Survey finds that fully 15% of Americans say there have been times in the past year they have been unable to afford food, which is the highest proportion in any advanced economy. France has not declined over the past two years. Still, French ratings of the United States continue to be among the lowest in Europe.

 

OPTIMIST INDIANS & CHINESE: Nevertheless, the Chinese and Indians are extremely optimistic about their futures. In fact, many people in Asia expect their lives to get better. This is the case in the Philippines, Vietnam, South Korea and Indonesia. The Chinese and the Vietnamese, in particular, have great confidence that their children will lead better lives than they have. By contrast, the Japanese are among the gloomiest people in Asia, whether reflecting on the past, present or the future. Smaller world is not a happier world.

 

DECLINE OF AMERICAN IMAGE: Despite an initial outpouring of public sympathy for America following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, discontent with the United States has grown around the world over the past two years. Images of the U.S. have been tarnished in all types of nations: among longtime NATO allies, in developing countries, in Eastern Europe and, most dramatically, in Muslim societies. Since 2000, favorable ratings for the U.S. have fallen in 19 of the 27 countries where trend benchmarks are available. While criticism of America is on the rise, however, a reserve of goodwill toward the United States still remains. The Pew Global Attitudes survey finds that the U.S. and its citizens continue to be rated positively by majorities in 35 of the 42 countries in which the question was asked. True dislike, if not hatred, of America is concentrated in the Muslim nations of the Middle East and in Central Asia, today's areas of greatest conflict.

 

OPINIONS ABOUT AMERICA: Opinions about the U.S., however, are complicated and contradictory. People around the world embrace things American and, at the same time, decry U.S. influence on their societies. Similarly, pluralities in most of the nations surveyed complain about American unilateralism. But the war on terrorism, the centerpiece of current U.S. foreign policy, continues to enjoy global support outside the Muslim world. Attitudes toward the United States are most negative in the Middle East/Conflict Area. Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush are much better regarded by their constituents than are the Russian and U.S. governments, respectively.

 

CANADA GERMANY FRANCE: In fact, critical assessments of the U.S. in countries such as Canada, Germany and France are much more widespread than in the developing nations of Africa and Asia. While Europeans view Saddam as a threat, they also are suspicious of U.S. intentions in Iraq. Large percentages in each country polled think that the U.S. desire to control Iraqi oil is the principal reason that Washington is considering a war against Iraq. In Russia 76% subscribe to a war-for-oil view; so too do 75% of the French, 54% of Germans, and 44% of the British. In sharp contrast, just 22% of Americans see U.S. policy toward Iraq driven by oil interests. Two-thirds think the United States is motivated by a concern about the security threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Ironically, criticisms of U.S. policies and ideals such as American-style democracy and business practices are also highly prevalent among the publics of traditional allies. Many people around the world, especially in Europe and the Middle East/Conflict Area, believe the U.S. does not take into account the interests of their country when making international policies.

 

AMERICAN MOTIVES ON IRAQ: Iraq is seen as a threat to regional stability and world peace by overwhelming numbers of people in allied nations, yet American motives for using force against Iraq are still suspect. Souring attitudes toward America are more than matched by the discontent that people of the planet feel concerning the world at large.

 

AMERICAN OIL COLONIALISM: While Europeans view Saddam as a threat, they also are suspicious of U.S. intentions in Iraq. Large percentages in each country polled think that the U.S. desire to control Iraqi oil is the principal reason that Washington is considering a war against Iraq. In Russia 76% subscribe to a war-for-oil view; so too do 75% of the French, 54% of Germans, and 44% of the British. In sharp contrast, just 22% of Americans see U.S. policy toward Iraq driven by oil interests. Two-thirds think the United States is motivated by a concern about the security threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In addition, respondents in the five nations surveyed (aside from the U.S.) express a high degree of concern that war with Iraq will increase the risk of terrorism in Europe. Two-thirds of those in Turkey say this, as do majorities in Russia, France, Great Britain and Germany. By comparison, 45% of Americans are worried that war will raise the risk of terrorist attacks in the U.S.

 

SUSPICIONS ABOUT AMERICAN MOTIVES: Suspicions about U.S. motives in Iraq are consistent with criticisms of America apparent throughout the Global Attitudes survey. The most serious problem facing the U.S. abroad is its very poor public image in the Muslim world, especially in the Middle East/Conflict Area. Favorable ratings are down sharply in two of America's most important allies in this region, Turkey and Pakistan. The number of people giving the United States a positive rating has dropped by 22 points in Turkey and 13 points in Pakistan in the last three years. And in Egypt, a country for which no comparative data is available, just 6% of the public holds a favorable view of the U.S. The war on terrorism opposed by majorities in nearly every predominantly Muslim country surveyed. This includes countries outside the Middle East/Conflict Area, such as Indonesia and Senegal. The principal exception is the overwhelming support for America's anti-terrorist campaign found in Uzbekistan, where the United States currently has 1,500 troops stationed. Sizable percentages of Muslims in many countries with significant Muslim populations also believe that suicide bombings can be justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. While majorities see suicide bombing as justified in only two nations polled, more than a quarter of Muslims in another nine nations subscribe to this view.

 

IMAGE OF THE UNITED STATES: U.S. image problems are not confined to Muslim countries. The worldwide polling conducted throughout the summer and fall finds few people, even in friendly nations, expressing a very favorable opinion of America, and sizable minorities in Western Europe and Canada having an unfavorable view. Many people around the world, especially in Europe and the Middle East/Conflict Area, believe the U.S. does not take into account the interests of their country when making international policies. Majorities in most countries also see U.S. policies as contributing to the growing gap between rich and poor nations and believe the United States does not do the right amount to solve global problems. U.S. global influence is simultaneously embraced and rejected by world publics. America is nearly universally admired for its technological achievements and people in most countries say they enjoy U.S. movies, music and television programs. Yet in general, the spread of U.S. ideas and customs disliked by majorities in almost every country included in this survey. This sentiment is prevalent in friendly nations such as Canada (54%) and Britain (50%), and even more so in countries where America is broadly disliked, such as Argentina (73%) and Pakistan (81%). Similarly, despite widespread resentment toward U.S. international policies, majorities in nearly every country believe that the emergence of another superpower would make the world a more dangerous place. This view is shared even in Egypt and Pakistan, where no more than one-in-ten have a favorable view of the U.S. And in Russia, a 53% majority believes the world is a safer place with a single superpower.

 

SMALLER WORLD: Smaller world is not a happier world. As 2002 draws to a close, the world is not a happy place. At a time when trade and technology have linked the world more closely together than ever before, almost all national publics view the fortunes of the world as drifting downward. A smaller world, Pew surveys indicate, is not a happier one.

 

DISEASE: Disease is the First Prime Problem. The spread of disease is judged the top global problem in more countries than any other international threat, in part because worry about AIDS and other illnesses is so overwhelming in developing nations, especially in Africa.

 

RELIGIOUS & ETHNIC VIOLENCE: Religious and Ethnic violence is the Second Prime Problem. Fear of religious and ethnic violence ranks second, owing to strong worries about global and societal divisions in both the West and in several Muslim countries. Nuclear weapons run a close third in public concern.

 

UNHAPPINESS: Public is Unhappy with National Conditions. Dissatisfaction with the state of one's country is another common global point of view. In all but a handful of societies, the public is unhappy with national conditions.

 

PUTIN & BUSH: Many heads of state are rated better than the governments they lead. In particular, Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush are much better regarded by their constituents than are the Russian and U.S. governments, respectively. On the other hand, Canada's Jean Chretien, and Great Britain's Tony Blair get lower grades from their citizens than do their nation's governments.

 

ECONOMY, CRIME, POLITICAL CORRUPTION: The Economy is Number One National Concern. The economy is the number one national concern volunteered by the more than 38,000 respondents interviewed. Crime and political corruption also emerge as top problems in most of the nations surveyed. Both issues even rival the importance of the spread of disease to the publics of ADS-ravaged African countries.

 

IRAQ: Huge majorities in France, Germany and Russia oppose the use of military force to end the rule of Saddam Hussein. The British public is evenly split on the issue. More than six-in-ten Americans say they would back such an action. But the six-nation poll finds a significant degree of agreement in Europe that Iraq is a threat to the stability of the Middle East and to world peace. More people in all countries polled say the current Iraqi regime poses a danger to peace than say the same about either North Korea or Iran. Majorities in Great Britain, Germany and France also agree with Americans that the best way to deal with Saddam is to remove him from power rather than to just disarm him. However, the French, Germans and Russians see the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians as a greater threat to stability in the Middle East than Saddam's continued rule. The American and British publics both worry more about Iraq than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Turkish respondents differ from Europeans about the danger posed by Iraq. They are divided on whether the regime in Baghdad is a threat to the stability of the region, and just a narrow 44% plurality thinks Saddam Hussein should be removed from power. Fully 83% of Turks oppose allowing U.S. forces to use bases in their country, a NATO ally, to wage war on Iraq. Further, a 53% majority of Turkish respondents believe the U.S. wants to get rid of Saddam as part of a war against unfriendly Muslim countries, rather than because the Iraqi leader is a threat to peace.

 

AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE WORLD: The American public is strikingly at odds with publics around the world in its views about the U.S. role in the world and the global impact of American actions. In contrast to people in most other countries, a solid majority of Americans surveyed think the U.S. takes into account the interests of other countries when making international policy. Eight-in-ten Americans believe it is a good thing that U.S. ideas and customs are spreading around the world. The criticism that the U.S. contributes to the gap between rich and poor nations is the only negative sentiment that resonates with a significant percentage of Americans (39%).

 

GLOBAL DISCONTENT: Global Discontents In most countries surveyed, people rate the quality of their own life much higher than the state of their nation; similarly, their rating of national conditions is more positive than their assessment of the state of the world. Even so, the survey finds yawning gaps in perceptions dividing North America and Western Europe from the rest of the world. Americans and Canadians judge their lives better than do people in the major nations of Western Europe. But that gap is minimal when the publics of the West are contrasted with people in other parts of the world. Asians, South Koreans excepted, are less satisfied with their lives than are Western publics. Personal contentment is especially low among Chinese and Indian respondents, and relatively few feel they have made personal progress over the past five years. Nevertheless, the Chinese and Indians are extremely optimistic about their futures. In fact, many people in Asia expect their lives to get better. This is the case in the Philippines, Vietnam, South Korea and Indonesia. The Chinese and the Vietnamese, in particular, have great confidence that their children will lead better lives than they have. By contrast, the Japanese are among the gloomiest people in Asia, whether reflecting on the past, present or the future. Latin Americans present a very mixed picture of their lives. Mexicans, Hondurans and Guatemalans express a much higher degree of satisfaction than do people in South America. These positive assessments are notable given the large percentage of people in Mexico and the two Central American countries who say there have been times in the past year when they have been unable to afford food, health care or clothing. Argentines are at the opposite end of the attitude spectrum. Most felt their lives have gotten worse in recent years but only a few expressed optimism about improved better lifestyle in the near future. Brazilians rate their lives at present in about the same way as Argentines, but more expect progress in the future. By nearly all measures, the Turks are among the unhappiest people surveyed. More generally, the publics of the six countries in the Middle East/Conflict Area are dissatisfied with the state of their lives, and a relatively high proportion of respondents in this region also report they have been unable to afford basic necessities in the past year. But not having enough money for essentials is a common experience for many people outside of the advanced economies. Overwhelming majorities of African respondents say there have been times in the past year when they did not have enough money for food, clothing or health care. In much of Latin America, as well as Russia and Ukraine, majorities say there have been times in the past year when they had too little money to afford food. Only in the industrialized nations are reports of doing without the basics of life limited to a distinct minority of the population. Yet the range of problems confronting the world's people goes well beyond personal deprivation. Health care is high on the list of people's concerns, as are crime and political corruption. In most countries, majorities cite crime as a major national issue. The Global Attitudes survey finds that people living in the most globalized countries express more satisfaction with their lives and a greater sense of personal progress than do people living in less globalized nations. However, the most globalized nations are also the richest. Among poorer countries, a nation's degree of globalization has no bearing on its citizens' satisfaction with life, feelings of personal progress or optimism.

 

MEDIA MORE OPTIMIST: Global Esteem for Military and Media People around the world are generally more satisfied with their national governments than they are with national conditions.

 

VIEWS ABOUT ECONOMY: Generally, views of the economy have a much greater bearing on public satisfaction with the national government than do people's concern for other top problems such as corruption. Unlike many publics, the Russians have a much better opinion of the United States than they had in 2000. Six-in-ten Russian respondents have a favorable view of the U.S. now, compared with 37% two years ago.

 

FAVORABLE VIEW OF MILITARY: Military is rated favorably in many countries. Perhaps reflecting international worries the military emerges as highly rated institution in most countries of the world. The notable exceptions are Latin American countries, notably Guatemala, Argentina and Peru. The military not only gets a better rating than the national governments in most countries, it also is more highly regarded than religious leaders in most of Europe, Asia and many countries in the Middle East/Conflict Area. This is not the case, however, in most African and Latin American nations. Despite displeasure with national and international conditions around the globe, there is no evidence of an international shoot-the-messenger syndrome.

 

TELEVISION: In the 44 nations surveyed, nearly everyone cited television news as their predominant source of information about national and international affairs. Lopsided majorities in just about every country surveyed say that news organizations have a beneficial impact on their societies. In almost every country, the media rates higher than the national government. There is also global unanimity as to where people go for news.

 

FRANCE: France has not declined over the past two years. Still, French ratings of the United States continue to be among the lowest in Europe. There remains a substantial gap in personal satisfaction in Germany, with respondents in former West Germany more positive about their lives than their counterparts in the East. But former West Germans are the sole European public that showed no increase in personal satisfaction since the early 1990s. The post-communist generation in Eastern Europe is much more upbeat about their lives than those age 35 and older. Despite deep dissatisfaction and pessimism about their lives and country, an unusually high proportion of Japanese say they have no major personal concerns. People in the West express more satisfaction with their lives than do those in emerging nations. But this pattern is reversed when respondents are asked about the future of their nation's children. Asians, in particular, are much more optimistic about prospects for the next generation than are Americans or Europeans. Publics all around the world are more satisfied with their family lives than with their incomes or jobs. But people in several countries - in Africa, the Middle East/Conflict Area and Eastern

 

DEPRIVATIONS: Canada is the only country in the West in which a majority of those surveyed express satisfaction with national conditions. Fully 15% of Americans say there have been times in the past year they have been unable to afford food - the highest proportion in any advanced economy. But levels of reported deprivation in Angola are highest in the world; 86% of Angolans report being unable to afford food at some point in the last 12 months. Africa is the only region in which a significant minority volunteers hunger as a personal problem. Canada is the only country in the West in which a majority of those surveyed express satisfaction with national conditions. Europe - voice significant discontent with their family lives. While crime is a top national problem all around the world, it ranks high as a pressing personal concern in Latin American countries, especially in Honduras.

 

ANTI-AMERICANISM HAS COME TO STAY: Anti-Americanism in Canada, Germany and France is not a passing fad, it is based on permanent attitudes towards life and world perspectives. Canada would soon join the ranks of Germany and France to lead the anti-American coalition in the world. World distrusts the motives of the United States in invading Iraq. World believes that American bent upon creating American Oil Colonialism in the world.

 

30(7) France Tamed America

(1) Nuclear France Rides Rich German Horse

If France could lead the world’s opposition in holding bully America in check, and succeed in restraining America’s unbridled appetite for oil colonies, then France would emerge as a World Power. France could emerge as the world’s second power if it could restrain the arrogance of preeminent superpower United States.

 

There is a huge and widening gap between France’s global pretensions and her physical power to influence events on the world arena in the age of Oil Colonialism. Awareness of this weakness has led France to move closer to Germany and to the idea of a European Union dominated by two great powers, with both France and Germany providing EU presidents, the permanent Joint-Presidents of the EU. In the French view, Paris would be the senior partner in the axis with Berlin, and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder accepts the junior diplomatic role of Germany, in exchange for senior economic role for Germany. France will be the political and diplomatic rider because of its Veto power and the nuclear weapons and Germany will be the economic horse. The problem is that German economy is not what it was. Virtual nil growth, total absence of old dynamism, low productivity, and low investments in new plants and machinery, and 4 million unemployed Germans, casts doubt as prospective engine of European economic revival. The French economy is in better shape than Germany, hence the idea of Veto-power holder Nuclear France, will become the diplomatic and political rider of the German-French economic horse to restore great power status to Western Europe. The problem is that Britain playing the role of Trojan horse of European Union, secretly conspiring to sabotage the military rejuvenation of Western Europe, as the continental unification had historically harmed the national interests of the maritime insular British Isle.

 

(2) 1915 Sykes-Picot UK-France Agreement

The secret Sykes-Picot agreement of 1915, during the First World War, between Britain and France, gave France colonial power rights over half of the Ottoman Islamic Empire in the Middle East, while Britain was to get the colonial power rights in other half of the Ottoman Empire. Yet the French ended up with only Syria and Lebanon, which had no oil. American President Woodrow Wilson and British Prime Minister David Lloyd George ensured that Britain had colonial power over Iraq, Trucial States, Kuwait, Oman and Yemen. United States became paramount colonial power in Saudi Arabia. Britain backed by America expelled France from Syria and Lebanon during Second World War, due to the alliance between Vichy France and Nazi Germany (1940-44), and awarded mandate over Lebanon to Syria after the Second World War. President Jacques Chirac has long and bitter memories about the way in which les Anglo-Saxons (the United States and the United Kingdom) have frustrated French ambitions in the Middle East. President Chirac believes that France was swindled out of their hard-earned spoils at the end of the World War I. France would be willing to go to war against United States, provided Germany and Russia joins it to frustrate America’s oil colonialism in Iraq, Kuwait, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.   

 

(3) Berlin Baghdad Railway Project

Germany has past, present and future plans to share Iraq’s riches. German imperial ambitions in Iraq go back to World War I, when the project of a Berlin-to-Baghdad railway was launched. Germany’s defeat in the First World War put an end to that dream of a railway link between Germany and Iraq, bypassing the maritime route of Suez Canal. The railway linking Arabian Gulf to continental Europe would turn the tables against maritime powers, namely United States and Britain. Germany in 1940-41 backed Rashid Ali coup in Iraq against British stooge King Faisal. Germany cultivated the anti-British grand mufti of Jerusalem, as Germany was totally opposed to the idea of the establishment of the Jewish State of Israel. Rashid Ali was the precursor of Saddam Hussein. Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was the precursor of Yasser Arafat. Iraq has consistently maintained closer diplomatic ties with Germany and France and bought considerable amount of military hardware from Germany and France. France and Germany have past, present and future plans to share Iraq’s oil riches. Indian Empire controlled the oil-riches of Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and UAE before 1947. The oil-interests define the persistent, vicious hostility displayed by Germany and France towards American Neo-imperialism. French and German Big Oil want to get a share in the Iraq’s oil by one means or another. France and Germany would have backed president Bush had he given them cast-iron guarantee that French interests would be rewarded when Saddam is overthrown. But this president Bush has flatly refused, for both altruistic and practical reasons. Oil flare has dismantled the USA-France and USA-Germany Atlantic Alliance. American would punish France and Germany after it gains control over Iraqi oil, to force Germany and France jettison the idea that under leadership of France and Germany the enlarged European Union would replace United States as a superpower. After the demise of the Soviet Union, the United Germany and Nuclear France, the undisputed leaders of the European Union, emerged as the principal adversary of the United States in the 21st Century post-Cold War world order. The conflicts for oil underlie the growing wave of Anti-Americanism in Germany and France, which may someday cause the start of the Third World War. Crude Oil is the Achilles’ heels of the United States, Germany, France and Russia may decide to undermine America’s control over American Oil Colonies in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq to erode the basis of America’s super power status. In the age of the War of Economic Infrastructure, control or denial of the control over Oil Colonies of the Middle East may decisively determine the outcome of the Third World War. Oil caused the irreparable split in the Atlantic Alliance and gave birth to the Concert of World Powers. United States went to war against Germany in First and Second World War, so the very idea of American-German friendship appears to be foolish. Why shouldn’t Germany and France become mortal enemy of United States and enter into defense treaty with Germany and France to tame the American Oil Colonialism.

 

(5) Rise of France as Anti-US World Power

If France could lead the world’s opposition in holding bully America in check, and succeed in restraining America’s unbridled appetite for oil colonies, then France would emerge as a World Power. France could emerge as the world’s second power if it could restrain the arrogance of preeminent superpower United States. France wants to become the savior of Non Aligned Nations. France led by Chirac would tame the arrogant United States, just as Khrushchev tamed Yankee presidents and protected the freedom and independence of the Non Aligned Movement. America targeted Non Aligned Nations and neutralized its leaderships, namely, Iraq, Indonesia, Cambodia, Laos, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Egypt, Congo, Yugoslavia, Chile and Venezuela. Jacques Chirac wants to become the Nikita Khrushchev of 2003. President Jacques Chirac wants France to become the principal adversary in the second Cold War, the challenger to the les Anglo-Saxons Yankees. The main French concern is the US attempt to forge a new right to pre-emptive action. France, like a number of other countries, is pretty alarmed at the prospect of a superpower that can take military action anywhere it wants without restraint, so for them the focus becomes influencing that power as much as anything else. The French, like most Europeans, don't want to give carte blanche to the Americans. To France it is the last best hope for reining in the US juggernaut. France's real concerns about Iraq, is about what it sees as an America prone to a pistol-packing diplomacy.

 

For the French government, use of the Security Council veto over US action in Iraq would actually constitute defeat for both France and the international system in that it would free the US to act largely alone in a key region. Should France veto any resolution authorizing use of force by an intimidating US? If France waives the veto, it will deprive France of influence and the capacity to be part of the international game.

 

President Bush telephoned his French counterpart, Jacques Chirac, to lay the groundwork for what promises to be days, if not weeks, of hard-nosed negotiations between the world's sole superpower and a country thought by many to have diplomatic ambitions far surpassing its resources and power. French challenge to Washington at UN is about preemptive doctrine as much as Iraq. And there, in a General Body where not all 191 members are created equal, much of the US effort to forge a common purpose will focus on France.

 

For France, this diplomatic pas de deux is about America's place in the future workings of the international system; as it is about Iraq's threat to international security. For the French, this is about America and its relations with them and the world. France disliked the way Bush administration snubbed other global organizations; such as the International Criminal Court, or the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. French seized upon the Iraqi crisis as the last best hope for reining in the US juggernaut. The French, like most Europeans, don't want to give carte blanche to the Americans.

 

French ponder broad interests in Middle East, than focusing solely on their relations with the US. Among France's other interests are its economic ties to Iraq and the Middle East, France’s historical role in the Middle East, and France’s un-European recognition of the role of military might in the world today. Paris clearly wants to safeguard its commercial dealings with Baghdad and the Arab world. It also wants to be involved in any post-Hussein planning for Iraq. France wants to influence: Who's going to be influencing events in the Middle East in the future, that's key for French policy making? France is one of the very few countries that can contribute to a military operation in Iraq or anywhere, and they want the US, to be mindful of that. With a view on what history would say, France don't want to look back some day and say of this crisis, that was when the US was left on its own in the Middle East. France want the history to record that France played an important role in this crisis and tamed American juggernaut, and thus emerged as the second most important world power in the world, next to United States, the role the nuclear Soviet Union played during the Cold War as the principal adversary in the Cold War. President Jacques Chirac wants France to become the principal adversary in the second Cold War so that hot war may not take place in the world. Jacques Chirac would use the diplomacy of Nikita Khrushchev to attain super Power Status by checking and taming the dominant bully of the world.

 

France Preventing American Hegemony after the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. After the end of the ideological divide in Europe, however, French policy began quickly to reorient itself. As early at 1996, the incoming French foreign minister, Herve de Charette, described the role of French foreign policy as "Preventing American Hegemony."

 

Failure of President Bush to capture even a single leader of Al Qaeda terrorist network exposed the oil colonialism motives of Bush Oil Administration in Afghanistan, Caspian Basin and Iraq. The Franco-German argument that al-Qaida would probably be a better focus for America's might than Iraq is one that finds agreement with India and within the Pentagon. The name-calling and diplomatic backstabbing went on within the NATO alliance, European Union summit Meeting and in the UN Security Council. No one wears a white hat in this screenplay of accusations and counter accusations. President Bush’s outright disdain for debate or international opinion feeds paranoia about America's long-term intentions in France, Germany, Belgium and the European continent.

 

Failure to prove military capability during military operations in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan proved that European Union would not emerge as independent military power, to play independent military operations outside Europe. Bosnia, above all, is cited as proof by Bush administration hawks that European powers cannot muster the backbone to take tough action against despots. European military officers covered during that conflict conceded their frustrations to me. Military weakness of European Union exposed during Bosnia operations set back the idea of unifying European defense and foreign policy by decades. Europe has 'rules of engagement' to blame, but the fact is, when people's lives were at stake, European Union hid behind ‘rules of engagement’ rather than push for their revision. It smacks of Czechoslovakia, 1938.

 

France lost its control over French Colonial Empire because of the United States. United States supports Islamic fundamentalists that wages war on the modern government in Algeria. America destroyed French control over the French Colonial Empire in Indo-China, West Africa and North Africa. France saw a deliberate attempt by the United States to prevent it from re-emerging as an independent force in world politics after the war, and many to this day blame the United States for not aiding French attempts to hold onto Algeria and Indochina and for thwarting an Anglo-French-Israeli attempt to prevent Egypt from nationalizing the Suez Canal. France never recovered from the triple humiliation of capitulation, occupation and collaboration during World War II, even though De Gaulle’s "Free French Forces" led the march of the victorious Allied troops into liberated Paris. America and Churchill hated Charles De Gaulle and engineered his loss in the elections after the war.

 

By the early 1960s, De Gaulle was demanding that France wean itself from "American tutelage. By mid 1960s De Gaulle had ordered that all U.S. troops be removed from French soil. This led Secretary of State Dean Rusk asked whether the order included those buried in French soil. Despite US-France rifts, France never left NATO, though it did drop out of the alliance's integrated command for a several decades. White House counted France as a reliable ally throughout the Cold War. As unpleasant as American tutelage was to the French, the Soviet version of friendship appeared a lot less desirable. With the demise of Russia, France would like to co-opt Russia into the France, Germany Russia triangle. France can pretend to be paper superpower, if it could buy influence over Putin’s foreign policy. France would like to be the rider on the Russia nuclear Bear, just as it rides the German economic horse, to come to the rescue of the Third World damsels, especially in the Middle East. 

 

(6) Rumsfeld Woke up Old Europe

Donald Rumsfeld would come to regret when he insulted proud Germans as Old Europe. The insulting retort of Rumsfeld may give birth to new Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler. Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus a reference to an early 1990s self-help book on the differences between men and women. Germany is a latecomer to this thinking - and certainly, for most of its history, hardly anyone's idea of Venusian or Feminine. As recently as the Kosovo war the Germans, citing their historic duty to oppose the kind of genocide they once perpetrated in Europe, had been aggressive advocates of the use of force. In the relatively short time since the 1999 Kosovo conflict, however, Germans, too, have grown wary of American power. Polls showed a majority of Germans supported the American war in Afghanistan, but early Bush administration snubs of Europe over trade, the environment and other issues had prepared the ground for trouble.

 

Did German Minister insult or praise George Bush, when she compared Bush to Hitler? May be German Minister exonerated Adolf Hitler, when she compared George Bush to Hitler. Germans believe that George Bush follows the tactics of Adolf Hitler. President Bush’s stated position that America would go to war for national interests on Iraq, regardless of what the United Nations says runs counter to everything Germans have been taught, in large part thanks to American de-Nazification efforts since 1945. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder somewhat cynically tapped into anti-Nazism to win re-election. But his position reflected public attitudes more than it shaped them. However, very few Germans hate Hitler. Even chancellor Kohl appeared to respect what Hitler did to enhance the power of Germany. Looking at what President Bush doing now, they would now onwards justify the imperialist wars launched by Nazi Hitler.

 

President Bush finds America confronted by united Germany and France inside European Union that adamantly opposed American oil colonial schemes in the oil-producing world. America and Europe deserve each other. America needs France and Germany. America as well as France and Germany are equally arrogant. America and Europe bear equal guilt for how the world views their motives. The only real difference is that one of them America can call the shots and the other the Europe can only call bluffs. This fact, perhaps more than any other, is driving the last-minute efforts of France, Germany and now Russia to prevent a conflict on America's terms. They know that, if the United States has now crossed the Rubicon and is willing to defy the United Nations, they are powerless to prevent it.

 

Europe must start spending on defense. Decline of European military power is the fault of the Europeans. It is Europe’s own fault. Even without Russia's economy and military know-how, the European Union's GDP of $8.5 trillion and its population of 377 million people should easily be able to create a military force on par with the smaller United States. Without credible European military capability, European words are just that: words. Europe's bantamweight military power increases America's frustration with partners who speak loudly but carry little firepower. America ignores Europe in the larger debate, because Europe lacks military capability. In the meantime, the world is left to watch as the serious issues of the new century reduced to idiotic spectacle of a reckless, bloodthirsty cowboy versus an ungrateful, cowardly bunch of Euro-weenies. European Union must support the moves of France and Germany to secure the assertive role of Europe in world diplomacy otherwise European Union would lose its relevance and become a satellite of the United States. Failure of Germany and France in the light of Rumsfeld’s insults could give birth to Adolf Hitler and Napoleon. Germany is no sissy nation.

 

United States engineered the expansion of European Union and NATO to include Poland and East European Union against the better judgment of the founders of European Union, hoping the expansion of European Union would undermine the leadership of Germany and France in the European Union. Had Germany and France been foolish to invite Muslim Turkey to European Union, the fate of the European union would have been sealed. If European Union and NATO can agree on a common approach towards Unite States, then they will be able to agree on many other foreign policy issues. If Europeans each continue to walk separate paths in their strategies towards the United States, for many years to come then Europe's embryonic Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), will become a debating society without any real clout and capability. Bush Administration finds this prospect extremely appealing. But the United States should think twice about whether it serves America’s long-term interests to deliberately weaken the EU's international diplomatic role. America will need a strong ally, one who shares many of America’s values and who is ready to use its own political, diplomatic and military means for shared goals. European Union did and still does in Afghanistan or Macedonia, or in the fight against Islamic terrorism, or for economic development in the Third World. Powerful European Union searched for ways to restart the world economy. United States has a considerable long-term interest in abstaining from deepening the divisions among West Europeans but also in actively fostering Europe's painful unification effort, where Germany provides the economic leadership and France provides the diplomatic and political leadership. Poland and any of the satellites of United States in the European Union can neither provide the economic leadership like Germany, nor the diplomatic leadership like France.

 

France as a permanent member of the UN Security Council (UNSC) feels responsible for speaking out and upholding the principles of international law and to protect the rights and interests of the Non Aligned Nations. Mr. Chirac got President Bush to make his case against Saddam Hussein at the UN and to accept a new resolution was a diplomatic success of France. Chancellor violated one of the most important principles of German post-war foreign policy: never walk alone. Due to her history, Germany, more than other countries needed and needs political allies to exercise international influence. Gerhard Schroeder could be in big trouble but French President Jacques Chirac would remain in great shape as France as become the 2nd super power of the world in international stage, the position Soviet Union had occupied throughout the Cold War.

 

France, Japan, Germany and Canada are world powers, behind China and India and Russia and every one of these powers has rights due to the great powers. President Jacques Chirac and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder hoped to return France and Germany into the ranks of great powers whose views have to be taken into account in international diplomacy. Germany’s renewed fame risks to be short-lived. France still holds considerably more international clout than Germany. German Foreign Minister Fischer accepted that reality. France can more easily alter its position - and Mr. Schröder will either have to swallow hard and follow or be more isolated than ever.

 

Germany and France are natural leaders of the European Union because of the size of their economies. India is world’s 4th largest economy with GNP at PPP ($2.2 trillion), Germany is the world’s 5th largest economy ($1.8 trillion) and France is world’s 6th largest economy ($1.3 trillion), followed by Britain (7th, $1.2 trillion), Italy (8th, $1.2 trillion), Spain (14th, $659 billion), and Poland (23rd, $306 billion). Weaker European powers joining force with United States to check the preeminence of Germany and France in the European Union.

 

Weaker European powers Britain, Italy, Spain and Poland joined forces to challenge German-French leadership of European Union by supporting United States on Iraq issue. The Iraqi conflict serves as a magnifying glass for the primary source of dissent among Europeans: their relationship to the United States. But in this old European debate, the Iraqi conflict has created new front lines. Whereas Germany and France traditionally found themselves in different camps of the transatlantic debate, the government of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder teamed up with France and its Gaullist tradition of extreme reluctance to blindly follow the United States. As a result, Mr. Schröder and French President Jacques Chirac find themselves openly challenging Britain's Tony Blair, Spain's Jose Maria Aznar and Italy's Silvio Berlusconi who are eager to unconditionally back America's leadership, and to portray their common opposition to the Franco-German Alliance and its traditional claim to leading the European Union (EU). Britain, Spain, Italy and Poland opposing France and Germany and blindly support United States, to secure American blessing to undermine Germany-France leadership role in European Union and NATO. As early at 1996, the incoming French foreign minister, Herve de Charette, described the role of French foreign policy as "Preventing American Hegemony." France, Germany are natural adversaries to the United States and twain shall never meet. United States fought World War I and II against Germany, and it is likely that United States would be on the other side of the battle lines than Germany, France and Russia in Third World War. There is no use that France and Germany should continue the charade of friendship with United States. Germany and France are born enemies of the United States. Germany, France and Russia would create a Second Bloc in the new world order and directly compete with American Oil Colonialism in Caspian Basin, Arabian Gulf, Venezuela, Guinea and Angola. Why should major world powers allow America establish Oil Colonies in the Islamic World, when France, Belgium, Germany and Russia can do the same. Germany and France would finance France-Russia’s Oil Colonialism in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan in exchange for Russian nuclear umbrella over Germany and France. The public in Canada, Germany and France leads the world in anti-Americanism. It is likely that Canada would soon join Germany and France in anti-American Coalition.

 

(7) Resurgent Germany

Rise of Germany, as a world power is good for the world. Now North Korea has joined the ranks of nuclear weapons power, in 2002. It is high time that Germany and Japan develop nuclear weapons and become legitimate world powers, economic powers and military powers. To many Germans the Second World War ended when German minister of Justice compared Bush to Hitler, she legitimized the legacy of Adolf Hitler and imperial Third Reich as no different than the hegemon US. It ended the guilt German felt for causing Second World War. German minister of Justice succinctly compared Bush to Hitler. She lost her job in the process, but signaled the emergence of an independent voice in Berlin for the first time since Germany crumbled in World War II. Gerhard Schroeder has won a second term as Chancellor primarily because he upheld Germany’s opposition to what President Bush planned for Iraq. The language of German Chancellor is what Indians used to hear from Nehru, Nasser and Tito. A new voice is rising in Europe. History has many cunning passages, and none more cunning than the rite of passage devised in the recent German election. For the same Germany, which took the world to disaster in the 20th century, is now poised to save the humiliated Europe in the 21st century. Germany expresses the enormous resentment in the European Union over the subordinate role assigned to the EU and even NATO by Washington DC. Till now it had been an impotent rage. German people who by their vote have said a clear and uncompromising ‘No’ to the US claims as a hegemon. German ‘No’ is being echoed in every corner of Europe.

 

German Justice Minister Herta Daubler-Gmelin, said, “Bush wants to divert its attention from his domestic problems. It’s a classic tactic. It’s one that Hitler also used.” It demonstrated how anti-Americanism has moved to the center of national political debate in Germany. This remark should be evaluated by the underlying public opinion in Germany, which suggests that vast majority of Germans, privately love Hitler and are very proud of Nazi imperialism, and secretly awaiting an opportunity to unleash German expansionism over European Union. The European Unification brought about by German leadership, realizes the imperial goals of the Third Reich. Whenever Germany develops and deploys nuclear arsenal, it would consolidate German domination of European Union. Triumphant Germany has peacefully achieved what German armies failed to achieve in the First World War and the Second World War. Every German, whether Rightist or leftist continues to secretly harbor the ideals that catapulted Hitler into power after the defeat in the First World War. Germany is awaiting the acquisition of nuclear arsenal, before it would galvanize European Union into Empire-making frenzy.

 

Gerhard Schroeder was born after the Nuremberg trials. He is also the first chancellor elected by a united Germany. Free, therefore of the complexes of both defeat and partition, he came up from behind to win an unexpected second term, only because he outbid his opponent in the final phase of the campaign in voicing Germany’s warnings against incipient Hitlerism in US foreign policy across the Atlantic. It Hitler’s marching song was, ‘Deutschland uber Alles’ (Germany above everyone else), Gerhard Schroeder’s is ‘Deutschland uber Allies’ (Germany above all other NATO Allies).

 

That this has happened is no coincidence. Germany is most populous (82 million), most prosperous ($25,350 GNP per capita), with largest GNP ($2.079 trillion), third largest in terms of GNP and 5th largest GDP the GNP measured at PPP, large surface area (357,000 sq. kms.). United States and Soviet Union could develop Atom Bomb and missiles only after talented German scientists transferred Hitler’s technology and scientific knowledge to Americans and the Soviets. The new voice of resurgent Germany is a voice that is being shushed. But that it is being voiced at all is a turning point of the highest significance in the 21st Century. For even if the present German squawk does not deter the American hawk, the hegemon has been put on the notice that not all his allies are the push over that Britain is. Bush doctrine has declared that the US as hegemon has the unbridled right to wage wars where he liked, against whom he liked, for whatever cause he wished.

 

Germany under Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is no longer hemmed in, as much by its present as by its past, as it was from Konrad Adenauer to Helmut Kohl. The looming shadow of the Soviet Union has been removed and half the country is no more in hock to the enemy. Russia may turn out to be a friend in the event of any future Germany-USA clash. Germany is thus set to occupy the place for which it has been predestined by its geopolitics, geography, and economy and the immense talent of its people.

 

The Eurasian land mass is stirring. Instead of cravenly submitting to the US quest for global dominance, India now has an option to forge military ties with emerging forces in Europe. India’s diplomatic resources should be redeployed out of London to Brussels, Berlin and Paris, as London is no longer one of the significant diplomatic capitals in the world. President Charles de Gaulle failed in his ambition of making France become an alternative fulcrum of a new world order, because France lacked the economic muscle and political clout. Britain has given up any pretence to independence in foreign policy, when it fondly declared its ‘special relationship’ with Washington, which allows Britain to ride to glory piggyback on the Americans. Germany is the only hope of the Europe. Perhaps Germany would someday develop and deploy nuclear weapons. Nuclear Germany may not be bad for Europe.

 

(8) Concert World Powers in 2003

Foreign-policy alignments have gone mad worldwide. A bizarre diplomatic coalition consisting of Russia, China, France and Germany confronted the United States, Britain, Italy and Poland, in February 2003 at UN Security Council Meeting on Iraq Crisis. Who could have imagined such a combination just 10 years ago besides readers of political thrillers? Iraqi President Saddam Hussein provoked the great divide in world politics. The situation is diplomatically tough because if Pentagon goes to war in Iraq over the objections of Moscow, Beijing, Paris and Berlin, the entire Mid East situation may deteriorate, and France and Russia may regain their influence over oil-producing Arab world. Germany and France will have to take decisions to preserve European Union’s unity and to assert Western Europe’s role on the world stage. If Germany and France fail to jointly present a common European front to the United States, it will be impossible to continue working closely with the United States on a long-standing basis while retaining European dignity and self-esteem. What is at stake is Europe’s determination to be heeded and to play a leading role on the world stage. It seems hard to believe that this disunity; and America’s relationship with Germany and France could ever get repaired. The relationship between France and America would deteriorate still further to the point of no return.

 

(9) 8-Power 21st Century Concert of World Congress System

Throughout history the preeminence of any single nation in world order has caused wars. The Raison d’etat and Balance of power principle determine the counter moves of the other major world powers that unite to balance the preeminent power. The preeminence of France in (1618-1814) period caused Napoleonic wars. The preeminence of Germany in early part of 20th century caused First World War and the Second World War. The preeminence of United States after 1945 caused numerous wars, military coups, though it was kept in check by the Soviet Union and the Non-Aligned Movement led by India. The demise of the Soviet Union and the preeminence of United States gave birth to American imperial wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Only the 8-Power Concert of Eight World Powers would maintain world peace and stable world order in 21st Century.

 

30(8) Pentagon’s New War Map

(1) Pentagon to Colonize NAM Nations

After taking over former Soviet colonies in the Second World, the First World’s Pentagon embarked upon the grandiose imperial plan to colonize the Non aligned Third World, and America’s war on Iraq represents the first step in that direction. United States wanted to establish American Oil colonies throughout the Arab World, the Third World, and the Non Aligned World, hoping it would retain its economic predominance, by looting the wealth of the colonies, in the event American economy lost its growth potential and Dow Jones Index raced downward. United States took over the Second World, when the former Soviet satellite states joined the NATO. Non Aligned Nations remains the only obstacle in America’s grandiose plan for world conquest. The entire white Europe, except Germany and France solidly joined on the side of American imperialism, the Third World or the Non Aligned World alone stand as obstacle to America’s conquest of the world. The Second World abjectly submitted to the domination of the First World, and agreed to support the First World’s conquest of rest of the world, the leaders of Non Aligned Nations, notably, India must take lead the Non Aligned Third World to thwart the imperial march of Pax Americana in the Third World. Without the leadership of India, the Third World countries would lose their independence and become part of the neo-colonial empires. Should India lend its support to imperial Pax Americana or lead the Non Aligned Third World to thwart the Yankee imperial designs? Either way India stands to gain great.

 

(2) Precision Guided Munitions Revolution is a Double Edged Revolution

Western colonial empires after 1500 AD exploited the technical advantage of cannon equipped ships to destroy the coastal navies of the Indian Ocean and heralded the age of European colonial Empires. Pentagon aimed to establish American colonial empires in the Third World exploiting its military technological lead in Precision guided Munitions. President Bush rushing United States into wars of American Oil colonialism, to preempt the deployment of long-range Anti-ship Cruise missiles equipped with Precision Guided Munitions technology, capable of sinking American Aircraft carrier battle groups. The PGMs allowed American Air Force to drop precision bombs from aircrafts flying 30,000 feet high beyond the range of anti-aircraft guns, apparently heralded the age of Air Power in the 21st Century. However the PGMs also heralded the end of the Age of Aircraft Carriers, and end of the age of Tanks and end of the age of mechanized warfare, with the development of the long-range Anti-Ship cruise missiles, anti-tank missiles equipped with Precision Guided Munitions technology and GPS technology. The very American military revolution of PGMs that made American Air force the dominant in land warfare also made American Navy sitting ducks and highly vulnerable to the anti-ship Cruise missiles. Since victory by air cannot translate into victory on land, America intends to use US Navy to secure America’s domination of the oil-producing world, before the deployment of the anti-ship cruise missile could make US Navy and aircraft carriers vulnerable to the Asian anti-ship cruise missiles.

 

(3) US to Play Full-time Leviathan

US Naval War College wanted the Pentagon and the CIA to play the role of Leviathan full-time in Iraq and the Middle East, in immediate future. The only thing that will change the nasty environment in the Middle East and open the floodgates for change is if some external power steps in Middle East and plays Leviathan full-time. Taking down Saddam Hussein will force the United States into playing that role far more fully than it has played over the past several decades. Pentagon’s New War Map outlined by US Naval War College Professor of Warfare Analysis Thomas P.M. Barnett, (“The Pentagon’s New Map,” Esquire, March 2003, pp 174-179) could give a clue to the factors motivating Great Powers like Germany and France to join forces with Russia and China to nip the menace of American Oil Colonialism in the Third World. Germany, France, Belgium, Russia and China have no option but to oppose the United States before Pentagon crosses the Rubicon and entrenches itself as the Leviathan full-time of Iraq and the Middle East. If United States entrenches itself as the Leviathan full-time of Iraq and the Middle east, than it can only be removed by all out Third World War. The prevent the Third World war the Concert of World Powers, namely, Germany, France, Russia, China, India, Canada and Japan must hold a summit Meeting like the 1814 Congress of Vienna and devise common foreign policies based on raison d’etat and balance of power to tame and neutralize the imperial ambitions of the United States in the first decade of the 21st Century, before imperialist United States crosses the Rubicon and becomes Leviathan full-time. The preeminence of the United States in the 2000’s threatens the world order, no different than the preeminence of France under Napoleon Bonaparte and preeminence of Germany under William Kaiser and Adolf Hitler presented to their contemporaries. America’s imperial ambitions as outlined in the Bush Doctrine 2002, doctrine of Preemptive strikes and Clinton’s Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention should be opposed before it becomes the menace to the world, and America crossed the Rubicon in quest of world domination.

 

(4) Non-Alignment to Fall like Communism

Pentagon aims to direct its fury to colonize the Non Aligned Third World, since it has taken over the Communist Second World before the end of the 2002. US Naval War College believes that the September 11 attacks did the US national-security establishment a huge favorably pulling America back from the abstract planning of the future high-tech wars against near peers into the here-and-now threats to global order. (Barnett, p. 227)

 

Since the end of the cold war, the United States has been trying to come up with an operating theory of the world- and a military strategy to accompany it, to leverage the one-superpower status United States, feels it currently enjoys in the world order. The leading contender of the operating theory of the world involves identifying the problem parts of the Third world and aggressively shrinking them, by making them American colonies or satellites, as United States has already taken over the former Soviet satellite states in the Eastern Europe. US Naval War College aggressively promote the idea of American Colonial Empire in the erstwhile Non-Aligned World, which encompass the Third World, and even today remains outside the alliance structures of the United States.

 

Ever since the end of World War II, America has assumed the real threats to its security resided in countries of roughly similar size, development, and wealth-in other words, other great powers like America. During the Cold War, that other great power was the Soviet Union. When the big Red machine evaporated in the early 1990s, America flirted with concerns about a United Europe, a powerhouse Japan, and most recently a rising China. What was interesting about all these scenarios is the assumption that only an advanced state can truly threaten America. The rest of the world, those less-developed parts of the world were referred to in Pentagon military plans as the “Lesser Included,” meaning that if we built a military capable of handling a great power’s military threat, it would always be sufficient for any minor scenarios America might have to engage in the leas advanced world. That assumption was shattered by September 11. America was not attacked by a nation or even any army but by a group of “Super-Empowered Individuals willing to die for their cause. Because of 9/11 America launched the global war on terrorism. The War on terrorism is the prism through which White House should view every bilateral security relationship America has across the world.

 

(5) Non-Conventional Warfare Capability

Classic state-on-state wars are becoming fairly rare, so if the United States is in the process of transforming its military to meet the threats of tomorrow, then what it should look like. We fight fire with fire. If the civilizations live in the world increasingly populated by terrorists who are super-Empowered Individuals, willing to die for their cause, then Civilizations should also create the military of Super-Empowered Individuals willing to die to kill terrorists wherever they may be. The populous countries India and china have a historic role to play to develop Super Infantry in the 21st Century.

 

(6) Entire Gap (acronym for NAM)

US Naval War College asserts, “Military engagement with Saddam Hussein’s regime in Baghdad is not only necessary and inevitable, but good for the United States. America’s next war in the Gulf will mark a historical turning point-a moment when Washington takes real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalization.” The real reason Naval War College support a war like Iraq is that the “resulting long-term military commitment will finally force America to deal with the entire Gap” (Non Aligned World) as a strategic threat environment. Disconnectness defines danger. Problem areas requiring American attention called the “Gap” (acronym for Non Aligned World). Shrinking the Gap (NAM world) is possible by stopping the ability of terrorist networks to access the core via the “seam states” that lie along the Gap’s (NAM’s) bloody boundaries. In this war on terrorism, the US will place a special emphasis on cooperation with these states. What are the classic seam states? Mexico, Brazil, Algeria, Greece, Turkey, South Africa, Morocco, Pakistan, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia. Great powers and civilization states must join efforts to foil the attempts of the terrorist networks to access the Civilized world via the “Seam States” that lie along the Great Powers “Core” and the “Gap” “Third World”, namely Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Morocco, Algeria, Greece, Turkey, Pakistan, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia. United States ahs focused to takeover these counties, the “Seam States” to control the global access of the terrorists. America feels that Russia, China and Australia are also concerned about the threat of the global access by the terrorists via these Seam States, hence would accept the logic of joining force with United States.

 

(7) Functioning Parts of world

What parts of the world can be considered functioning right now? North America, South America (Brazil, Argentina, Chile), Expanded European Union, Putin’s Russia, Asia (Japan, China and India, Australia and New Zealand, which accounts for roughly four billion out of a global population of six billion. This area is the Core of the Globalization. The major players in the Core of the Globalization are United States, European Union, Russia, Japan, China, India, Canada, Mexico, Australia, and Brazil.

 

(8) Gap Nations Excluded from Globalization

The US Naval War College argues that the “Gap,” the regions of the world that are excluded from globalization’s growing core-namely all oil-gas producing nations, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Iran, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Yemen, Libya, Algeria, Equatorial Guinea, Angola, Venezuela, Colombia. The Gap also includes all nations involved in global trade in heroin and cocaine, namely, Laos, Cambodia, Burma, Pakistan Afghanistan, Colombia, and Panama. The Gap includes all of Africa minus South Africa, the Caribbean Rim, Central America, Andean America, the Balkans, the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Middle East, South West Asia and South East Asia. It includes the entire Third World or entire Non Aligned World minus India, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, and Chile.

 

(9) Menacing US Leviathan in Middle East

“The Middle East has long been neighborhood of bullies eager to pick on the weak. The only thing that will change that nasty environment and open the floodgates for change if some external power steps in an plays Leviathan full-time. Taking down Saddam, the region’s bully-in-chief, will force the U.S. into playing that role far more fully than it has over the past several decades, primarily because Iraq is the Yugoslavia of the Middle east- a crossroads of civilizations that has historically required a dictatorship to keep the peace. As a baby-sitting jobs go, this one (Iraq) will be a doozy, making America’s lengthy efforts in post war Germany and Japan look simple in retrospect. But it is the right thing to do, and now is the right time to do it, and America is only country that can. Freedom cannot blossom in the Middle East without security, and security is America’s most influential public-sector export. By that author does not mean arms exports, but basically the attention paid by American military forces to any region’s potential for mass violence. America is the only country on earth capable of exporting security in a sustained fashion, and America has a very good track record of doing it.” (T.P.M. Barnett, “The Pentagon’s New Map”, Esquire, March 2003, p. 228)

 

(10) Open Floodgates of Change in Arabia

France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, China and India oppose America’s war on Iraq because America misusing its military preeminence to attempt world conquest. America and Pentagon determined to change the world environment and open the floodgates of change in the Middle East by forcing its way to step into the Middle East as the external occupation force and determined to play Leviathan full time. United States wants to destroy the multi-ethnic nations that have been at the cross roads of the civilizations, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Soviet Union, Afghanistan. United States want to impose an occupation force on Iraq as it did in Germany and Japan. Professor Thomas P.M. Barnett, Professor of Warfare Analysis, United States Naval War College, the leading influence on policy makers in the Pentagon, the CIA and the White House, declared that United States wants to step in as external power, the foreign occupation forces, and wants to play Leviathan full-time. Taking down Saddam Hussein, the Middle East’s secular bully-in-chief, will force the United States into playing the role of the Leviathan full-time. Failure of the Convert of World Powers, France, Germany, Russia, China and India to tame and defeat America’s colonial designs on Iraq, before United States crosses the Rubicon and become the Leviathan full-time threatens the world peace. America led by President Bush became a danger to the world, as had been Napoleon Bonaparte, William Kaiser, Adolf Hitler. The disintegration of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq had been the military objective of the United States. America intends to conquer the Oil-producing Third World and establish American Colonial Empire in the 21st Century. France, Germany, Russia, China, India and Japan should pool military resources and defeat the Pentagon’s dreams of becoming the Leviathan full-time in the Middle East, before the United States crosses the Rubicon, lest only the Third World War remains the last recourse for Germany, France, Russia and China to bring down the Leviathan full-time dream of the United States in the Middle East. The Concert of World Powers should be created by great powers by convening 1814 Congress of Vienna’s reincarnation in 2000’s to check the menace of American transforming into a Leviathan full-time, before United States crosses the Rubicon.  

 

(11) Play full time Leviathan in Iraq Iran

US Naval War College believes that taking down Saddam Hussein would allow United States to step in the Middle East and play Leviathan full-time, and it is the right thing to do, and America is the only country that can do it and now is the right time to do it. Germany, France, Russia, China and India do not believe that it is the right thing that an external power should step in the Middle East and play Leviathan full-time. Germany, France, Russia, China and India do neither believe that now in 2003 is the right time to allow an external power to step in the Middle East and control it, nor that United States is the only country that can step in the Middle East as the outside power and play Leviathan full-time, because every one of the great power has the military capability to do so. China, India, Russia and Germany can also step in the Middle East and play Leviathan full-time. Chinese Mongol Empire ruled the Baghdad Caliphate and the Islamic world in the 13th Century and offshoot of the Mongols ruled the Islamic world after than till the end of the First World War in 1920. Indian Empire ruled over Iraq, Kuwait, UAE, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain and Yemen as late as 1947. India controlled Iran and Persian Gulf now called Arabian Gulf had been Indian Lake in 18th, 19th & early 20th Century. India as well as China is more capable and resourceful to step in and play Leviathan full-time in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and the Middle East more than United States. In terms of warfare analysis it is stupid to argue that United States is more capable than India and China to step in as outside power in the Middle East and play Leviathan full-time. If United States steps in as an outside power and plays Leviathan full-time in Iraq, then France, Germany, Russia, India and china also have right inherent to great powers to step in and play Leviathan full-time in the Middle East and carve out Oil Colonies in the oil-producing world.

 

(12) Bush at War

Bob Woodward reports in “Bush at War” that it was only days after the 9/11 attacks that Bush told his close advisers that wanted plans drawn up for a possible attack on Iraq. That was in September 11, 2001, and only in February 2003 that demonstrators began opposing Bush’s war plans on Iraq. Influenced by French, German and Belgium opposition to the Bush war moves on Iraq, Worldwide protests in February 2003, against Bush’s war plans on Iraq is a bad news for President Bush, a distinct shift against America on a key issue of American foreign policy for the first time since 9/11. The forces opposing America’s efforts to build an imperial coalition in support of colonial occupation of Iraq beginning to have an upper hand. America’s coming clash with Saddam Hussein has been among the most deliberate and slow-moving confrontation in the recorded history of warfare. It appears that those favoring the imperial invasion of Iraq, for establishing the Oil Colony in Iraq, might have seized the opportunity the 9/11 attacks provided to the American diplomacy. During the presidency of President George H.W. Bush (1989-1993) American Ambassador to Iraq had directly incited the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, by personally promising Saddam Hussein that United States would not intervene if Iraq attacked Kuwait, which had hitherto refused to allow American bases in Kuwait, unlike Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE and Bahrain. After defeating Iraq on Kuwait war, President Bush allowed Saddam to use helicopters to massacre Kurds that were rising in revolt against Saddam Hussein and President Bush allowed Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq, fearing that in the absence of Saddam Hussein Saudi Arabia and Kuwait might ask American troops to vacate the military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. It is no accident that American fighters shot down the American military helicopter that was carrying 5 top Kurd leaders to their scheduled meeting with the American top brass for possible Alliance for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. It had been known t hat Saddam Hussein took over power in Iraq with the support of the CIA. India, Russia and China got enraged when they learnt that the America’s war on terrorism was just a camouflage for American Oil Colonialism as phase one for the war on Iraq. The diplomats of India, Iran, Russia and China have to decide whether they should militarily join the war on the side of Iraq and inflict defeat on United States, or wait till United States gets fully exposed and become naked in the eyes of the world as menace to the world peace, so that world would rally around France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, India, China and Japan and defeat American Oil Colonialism and establish non-American colonial control over oil-producing Islamic world. United States would cease to be a Super Power, even a great world power if it loses control over Saudi Arabian, Brunei, Middle East oil. Superpower status of the United States depends upon its ability to exercise colonial control over American oil colonies, and the end of the American oil colonialism would result in the end of the great power status of United States. Oil is the Achilles’ heel of the United States. The purpose of the Third World War shall be to undermine America’s control over American Oil Colonial Empire in Saudi Arabia, Arabian Gulf, Brunei, Colombia, Venezuela, Angola, Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea and Libya. Top bring down the behemoth United States the military attack on mainland America is not required, the military invasion of Saudi Arabia, Brunei, UAE and Kuwait would suffice. The Third World War shall be fought for the control over oil and gas resources of the world.

 

(13) Senator Robert Byrd’s Crusade

The Executive Branch, the presidency is moving America towards dictatorship, violating the norms of democratic policy, flouting international law and taking unnecessary measures that would actually harm America’s national security. President bush wants to attack Iraq, a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be sometime in future. An attack on Iraq would be completely unprovoked and is completely not necessary at this time. Dealing with Saddam Hussein is no simple attempt to defang a villain. Rather it is a turning point in United States foreign policy and even of recent history of the world. What the president is doing is nothing less than the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way, the doctrine of preemption. Bush Administration refused to face questions about the Iraq war’s aftermath and even for contemplating becoming an occupying power.

 

(14) US Policing of Entire World

America is about to establish a world order based on policing of the entire world. Bush Administration is contravening international law, with the unfortunate result that United States intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. In the perception of the world threat to world peace comes from Bush Administration, Pentagon and America. Bush administration in engaged in reckless and arrogant policies especially that of an extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle, symbolized as outrageous. American Senate and America is sleepwalking through history. President Bush is wrong to engage in such acts as labeling whole countries, like Iraq, Iran and North Korea as evil.

 

Would America gain if Pentagon’s war on Iraq, even if won results in the unfortunate result that United States intentions suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation? Power is psychological different from naked force. World ganged against Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler primarily because it thought that napoleon and Hitler represented evil not good. It would damage United States if in the perception of the diplomats of the world, if President Bush and America loses its moral high grounds.

 

America’s Senate and America is sleepwalking through the turning point in the American Foreign Policy and the recent history of the world, since Bush-Cheney Oil Administration embarking upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary wary the doctrine of preemption to carve out American Oil Colonial Empire camouflaged as America’s War on terrorism, misusing the compassion world felt towards America in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. President Bush attempting to change the course of world history, by creating legal precedents and diplomatic conventions for creating Oil Colonial Empires in the 21st Century, justified by global war on terrorism.

 

(15) India supports Pax-Americana

White Christian Europeans in the name of spread of Christianity and Christian Civilization destroyed and conquered the superior Civilizations of Incas, Mayas, and Aztecs, and started the Age of White European Christian Colonial Empires after 1500. Similarly, President Bush started a new Age of Oil Colonialism with his deceptive invasion of Afghanistan for control over Turkmenistan Oil and gas Pipeline and fooled the world by camouflaging it in the name of war on Islamic terrorism. India fully supports America’s declared foreign policy objective to carve out American oil colonial empire throughout Islamic world, provided India gets a fair share of American Colonial empire, in kind as free oil for India’s need. If United States willing to handover Kuwait of UAE to India for colonial occupation than India is all out in favor of American Oil Colonial occupation of Iraq, otherwise India has no option but to join forces with China, Russia, France, Germany and Japan to carve out competing Oil colonial empire.

 

India is willing to militarily support American Oil colonial empire, if India assured a fair share of Oil Loot, otherwise India would have to join the adversaries of the United States, to get its fair share of the Oil resources of the Oil Colonial Empires. In the rush for Oil Colonialism India has no permanent allies or friends as India has only permanent Oil Interests. Whichever side wants to have the military support of India, should agree to let India have free crude oil and natural gas for India’s domestic consumption.

 

(16) Naked in Showers of Oil Colonialism

All great powers, including United States and India, are naked in the showers of Oil Colonialism in the 21st Century. Indian love president George Bush, because he is naked imperialist and pursues America’s foreign policy to promote the America’s naked imperial interests, not the hidden agenda of Catholic Christian religious Right conspiracy. India should be willing to provide 10 million soldiers to Pentagon to establish worldwide oil colonies, in exchange for Indian oil colonies in couple of oil-rich countries. India would like to follow the example of President Bush and conquer an oil-producing country or countries producing 5 million barrels a day crude oil, to meet India’s domestic requirement of oil and gas. India, China, Germany, France, Russia and Japan would love President Bush, if America’s occupation of Iraq established the precedent and customary international law that world powers could establish Oil Colonies at will, by doctrine of preemption.

 

(17) Visionary Bush Crossed the Rubicon

President George W. Bush is a great visionary and he crossed the Rubicon and led United States through the turning point in the United States foreign policy and the recent history of the world by reestablishing the new glorious Age of colonial empires in the 21st Century, which would result in the loss of independence and sovereignty of more than 100 states that became independent after the Second World War. The great multitudes of the newly independent states in the Third world that go by the name of Non Aligned Nations should be reorganized under 8 or 10 Colonial Empires, led by Great Powers, namely, United States, China, India, Russia, Germany, France, Japan, Canada, and Brazil. India loves America’s oil Colonialism but results when white Christians cheat India its fair share of colonial spoils. Indian Empire provided 6,500,000 troops for First World War and 3,500,000 troops for the Second World War, but was cheated out of its fair share of colonial empires. Had Indian Empire supplied to the Germany-led alliance 6.500,000 soldiers in the First World War and 3,500,000 soldiers during Second World War then Germany-led alliance would have won the First as well as Second World Wars. India played more important role than United States in the defeat of Germany during First World War. India wants to be paid for the contributions it made towards Allied victories in the First World War and the Second World War. Without the support of Indian empire allied Powers would have lost the First as well as the Second World War. It is because of the sacrifices made by Indian soldiers that France and Britain are free nation today.

 

(18) Indians Love Imperialist Bush

India would not oppose American Oil colonialism for the sake of opposition and for the sake of protecting the independence of the oil colonies, as India believes that great powers have an inherent right to create Oil Colonial Empires in the 21st Century. India would oppose American Oil Colonialism only if the anti-American Colonial powers offer India better deal in terms of oil-concessions. India would oppose American Oil colonialism in Iraq and Saudi Arabia only to join the hostile colonial alliance led by France, Germany and Russia, that too only if India gets a better deal and fair share of the incomes of the Oil Colonialism. India would not fight for Iraq to keep Iraq, independent and free from American colonial occupation. India may oppose American oil war on Iraq to impose Russian or French or German oil colonialism over Iraq in competition with Yankee Oil Colonialism. India would not support a colony against the occupying colonial power, though India may join with hostile colonial power to takeover American Oil colonies to establish the rule of new colonial powers. India had the bad experience during Non Aligned Movement, when India led the newly independent nations to freedom and independence, only to be insulted by newly independent nations. India wants the newly independent nations become part of new colonial empires that would replace the nation states as the principal actors in the international system in the 21st century. India would closely work with Colonial powers including United States, China, Russia, Japan, Germany and France, to impose just rule or New Colonial Empires over more than 100 newly independent states that currently enjoy sovereignty and membership of the United Nations, in the first half of the 21st Century. That is why Indians love president George W. Bush. President George W. Bush is a naked imperialist not a Papal agent, and Indians love him for America’s dream of American Oil Colonialism throughout Islamic world.

 

(19) India Supports Yankee Oil Colonialism

India would support American Oil Imperialism and president Bush War for Colonial Occupation of oil-rich Iraq, only if India guaranteed a fair share of the incomes of the Oil Colonialism, in terms of free oil for India’s domestic consumption, otherwise India would be forced to join the hostile coalition that opposed the American Oil Colonialism, only if the hostile coalition hoped to establish Alternate Oil Colonial Empire in competition with American Oil Colonialism. The purpose of the Concert of World Powers shall be to check the preeminence of American hegemony and expansion of American Oil Colonial Empire. India is a conservative world power and respects the rights of world powers to create colonial empires in the 21st century to make the world safe for world civilizations threatened with extinction due to the terrorist attacks launched by barbarian religious intolerant terrorists. India like United States believes in the right inherent in the great power status, which obligates the world powers to secure control over terrorism prone and terrorism promoting regions so that world become safe for civilized nations. President Bush is the brave new frontier leader guiding the World Civilizations in the 21st Century in the age of global terrorism and religious intolerant cults, so that tolerant World Religions could be free to propagate tolerant religious truths and promote tolerant culture in the world.

 

30(vii) France Tamed East Europe

(1) Old Europe Tamed New Europe

France and Germany had a rude awakening, when their supposedly protégé Poland and other former Soviet satellite countries, after joining the NATO took the lead to denounce the leadership of Germany-France Axis and cast their lot with United States, and conspired to make the expanded European Union a satellite of the hegemon America. France and Germany should not formally vote to admit those East and Central European countries that supported United States against France, Germany and Belgium in the Iraq Crisis. French President Jacques Chirac has summoned up the unmitigated gall of telling Eastern and Central Europe to shut up about Iraq, if they wanted to make it into the European Union. East and Central European ex-Iron curtain states humbly follow United States because they are used to taking orders from bigger countries, so they should better take orders from France and Germany who feed their impoverished economies. French President Chirac correctly adopted Soviet-style big-guy behavior, warning pro-American Central and Eastern smaller fellow on the European block that they had better play French and German way or they won’t play at all in the European Union. Former Soviet satellites need admission to the European Union for the sake of trade and political security. America is wrong to argue that East and Central Europe owes its current freedom much to the United States and far less to the France and Germany. It was German Ost-Politik that caused the Iron Curtain to fall. Ex-Iron curtain nations scold Chirac. Expanded European Union is no longer Napoleon's Europe but the Europe of dissidents. Chirac is doing exactly what he criticizes the United States of doing: telling other countries what to do. Just as United States is the preeminent power in the world, France is the preeminent power of Europe.

 

If smaller states of East Europe cannot accept the leadership of France and Germany then they should not join EU and rather apply for the membership of NAFTA to serve their new masters better. New East European members of the European Union are the Trojan horse of America and conspiring to destroy the leadership of France and Germany in the European Union from within. Ex-Soviet satellite states of Eastern Europe voice their loyalty to their new Yankee master by insulting France, whose vote would be crucial next year, whether these Ex-soviet satellite states join the European Union or not. Former Soviet colonies voice their indignation, coupled with their refusal to withdraw support for the U.S. threat of force against Saddam Hussein, underscored how the ex-communist countries of the "new Europe" are finding strength, solidarity and unprecedented diplomatic influence in Europe by sticking together in support of the United States to undermine the Paris-Berlin Axis that hitherto dominated European Union since inception. Just as election of Bolshevik Polish Bishop as Pope John Paul II resulted in the enhanced American influence in the Vatican government and decline of German, French, Italian influence in the Vatican, similarly the entry of the new East European members of the European Union means disaster for Germany and France.

 

The French president warned the 10 ex-communist countries invited to join the European Union in May 2004 signed declarations of support for the United States' tough position against Iraq that France may reconsider their entry into the European Union. "It is not well brought-up behavior. East Europeans missed a good opportunity to keep quiet. East European nations were on "dangerous" ground because the parliaments of the 15 western European countries that now make up the EU still must formally vote to admit the eastern newcomers. France told prospective EU members that joining EU gives a lot of rights but also creates a lot of obligations, including solidarity. As Chirac's remarks sank in fury erupted. "Chirac's outburst must be understood as the recognition that a dream is beginning to unravel. The New Europe imagined and created from rubble after the last war will not gravitate necessarily around the Paris-Berlin axis. Romania condemned France as “Le Petit Big Brother." Bulgaria has offered a 150-member non-combat unit in case of war against Iraq, and its President Georgi Parvanov summoned France's ambassador in Feb ‘03 in a show of displeasure and at a meeting with the envoy, Jean-Loup Kuhn-Delforge, Parvanov "expressed concern about the emotional statement" by Chirac, and said, "Bulgaria insists on mutual respect between EU members and applicant countries, between big and small states. Pressure by one state on another should not be allowed."

 

As seriousness of the President Chirac's remarks sank in fury erupted. "Chirac's outburst must be understood as the recognition that a dream is beginning to unravel. The New Europe imagined and created from rubble after the last war will not gravitate necessarily around the Paris-Berlin axis. Romania condemned France as “Le Petit Big Brother." Hungarian government respected France's right to express its opinion. But reaction elsewhere was ferocious. In many east European countries, Chirac's remark was translated as "shut up" rather than "keep quiet," only fueling the collective sense of outrage. Lithuanians said: "It looks like Chirac has forgotten that eastern European countries broke free from Communism and will not be the silent servants of Paris." Slovakia Pravda wrote "neither Slovakia nor any other candidate country will enter the EU to keep silent, but in order to make their voice be heard more." Romanians called Chirac a "hypocrite" and accused him of misreading its support for a quick and decisive end to the Iraq crisis. "What Chirac doesn't understand is that Romania is not pro-American, nor anti-French, nor anti-German, and least of all bloodthirsty for Iraq". "Did the Europeans and especially the French ever understand what Romania endured under Communism? Romania is desperate. Romania sees in the United States at this time the strongest guarantee that it won't have to return to the quagmire."

 

(2) Islamic Conquest of EU via Turkey

Both France and Germany are has-beens on the stage of history. Bloated welfare states have enervated both countries economies. German and French populations are literally dying off, kept on life support by immigration from the Middle East and Africa. With birthrate plummeting among native-stock Europeans, these newest immigrants may finally accomplish what the Ottomans couldn’t at the siege of Vienna: the Islamic conquest of Europe. In the wake of these demographic changes, relations between the United States and European Allies can only get worse. Americans may never get France and Germany to love United States. America does not care to earn the respect and undying affection of its faint-hearted friends. American media calls France and Germany “Putative Allies.” America got Polish Bishop elected as Pope John Paul II, which helped Americans gain control over Vatican government, and resulted in the decline of the influence of Germany and France in the Vatican. Americans profited by Poland and East European’s entry into the European Union and new members ganged up against the Paris-Berlin Axis in European Union. American lobbied for the entry of Turkey into European Union, hoping the Muslim Turkey would result in the Islamic conquest of Christian European Union and enhance American influence over Europe. The Ottoman conquest of Byzantine had similarly helped the Roman Catholic Church, and Rome had helped Ottoman conquerors in their conquest of the Eastern Christianity in Asia Minor. 

 

(3) Anglo-Saxons Hated French & Germans

Historically Anglo Saxons, British and Americans have hated French and Germans and vice versa. The public insults hurled by main media, on heads of the other adversary nations reflects the clash of civilizations. Sun the British tabloid tells Frenchmen that French President Chirac is a worm. No wonder French hate English and Yankees, more than they ever hated any other race in their history. France is asserting its natural role in Europe. France is not making France more important than what it is. France is the leading power of Europe. In the post Cold War new world order France is the Second Super Power of the world, heading the Second Pole to oppose the preeminence of the United States, the exalted role Soviet Union enjoyed during Cold War. Obviously England is ashamed that it could only become a servant of the United States. The GNP at PPP of top European powers in 2002 of Germany ($1.8 trillion), France ($1.3 trillion), and Britain ($1.2 trillion), makes Britain weaker than Germany and France and this is an insult Englishmen can’t stomach. Is Chirac a hypocrite because in the end, it speculated, he would back down and support military action? Why do British people feel Chirac is arrogantly strutting about trying to make France seem more important in the world than it really is? British tabloid tells Paris Chirac "worm" on Iraq. A British tabloid newspaper opened a new front in a war of words with France over Iraq in Feb ‘03 by attacking Jacques Chirac on his own turf in an edition handed out free in Paris that depicted the president as a giant worm. "Chirac Est Un Ver" (Chirac Is A Worm) blared the Sun's special front-page headline in French above a photomontage of an earthworm bearing his head and crawling out of a map of France. "We think your president, Jacques Chirac, is a disgrace to Europe by constantly threatening to veto military action to enforce the will of the United Nations in Iraq," the Sun said on the front page of the Paris version, written in French. Chirac resisted US and British pressure for a war on Baghdad, irritating US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair but winning strong support from the overwhelming majority of his own electorate in France. France called the Sun's tone contemptuous, aggressive and vulgar. Englishmen have become paranoid of French economic miracle, while England is sinking. British subjects hate that the British Monarch acts like a maid to Yankee President and German Chancellor. Britain has reconciled to the sudden rise of France as the world’s second Super Power, the status earlier enjoyed by Soviet Union during Cold War.

 

(4) French Like Russians More than Yankees

German and French people like Russians more than they like British and Americans. France and Germany would develop closer military and diplomatic ties with Putin’s Russia to retaliate against the insults hurled by Americans and British on President Chirac. English hate French and Germans. Americans now hate French and Germans. The Atlantic solidarity is dead. Atlantic Alliance would soon die also. Germany and France would fight the third World War on the other side of the battle lines than Britain and America. It is the clash of Anglo Saxon Civilization against Gothic and Frank Civilization of Europe. The relations between England and France during 21st Centuries would attain level of animosities it had during 18th and 19th centuries. If American press reflects American public opinion and public taste then it is certain that France and Germany would remain mortal enemies of the United States throughout the 21st Century, and the Atlantic Alliance is dead. Germany cannot allow American troops in German soil, after this display of public hatred towards France and Germany. American Press highlighting German invasions of France to sow seeds of discord in the current France-Germany Détente. Echoing a line used last week by US tabloid the New York Post, also owned by media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, the Sun recalled the sacrifices British and American soldiers made for France in two world wars. The Post made waves in France with a front-page photograph of American war graves in Normandy. "British people feel Chirac is arrogantly strutting about trying to make France seem more important in the world than it really is. Are you not ashamed of your president?" the Sun asked, calling Chirac a hypocrite because in the end, it speculated, he would back down and support military action. When Saddam Hussein has gone, people in Britain and America will look at France and ask themselves whether France is much of an ally of America any more. American people will ask themselves why anyone should bother with France and its leader. France and Germany would never again be friends of Britain and United States and the fate of NATO sealed and American would have to move out its troops from German soil. France and Germany are no more Allies of the United States and Britain and they may become the enemies in the Third World War. The growing rift of Britain and United States with France and Germany provide new diplomatic opportunity for Indian and world’s Diplomats. Just as Henry Kissinger and President Nixon exploited the growing Sino-soviet rift to cement Sino-US strategic relationship, President Putin would also exploit growing rifts of France and Germany with United States and Britain to cement triangular military alliance of Russia Germany and France.

 

In 2000’s France would head the anti-Britain and anti-US coalition, as Soviet Union led the world against American imperialism. French now firmly believe that English Anglo-Saxons are uncouth and uncivilized like English language. French politicians are disgusted by the insults hurled by les Anglo-Saxons. President Jacques Chirac's spokesman Catherine Colonna told, "Insults often say more about the people who make them than about those they claim to describe." "It's disgusting," said French Transport Minister Gilles de Robien. Jean-Jacques Aillagon, the French Culture Minister said: "It's aggressive, very disagreeable, pretty vulgar and shows contempt for our country. I'd say they've been very badly brought up." People of Germany and France have historically better opinion about Russian Slavs than they have had for les Anglo Saxons. The recent insults hurled by American and British Press against French leadership would result in the military and diplomatic Alliance forged by France Germany and Russia in early part of the 21st Century to the detriment of American Oil Colonialism, NATO and United States.

 

The relations between America and France and Germany, and between Britain and France would never be same again. France has long and bitter memories about the way in which les Anglo-Saxons have cheated France of its role in the world. France would like to bring about the increase in her ability to influence the events on the ground and world diplomacy.

 

France by its expert diplomatic maneuvering brought about the diplomatic alliance among Germany, France, and Russia, and started the new course in world diplomacy, the Concert of World Powers to tame the preeminence of United States in the 21st Century. French President Jacques Chirac warned Bulgaria, Poland, Lithuania and other former Soviet satellites in Central and East Europe, to shut up about Iraq and not declare their support to the United States, if they want to make it to the European union, as the European Parliaments have to make the final vote about their entry into the European Union. Germany and France would veto the entry of pro-American new members into European Union. Why should France and Germany subsidize those that are used to taking directions from bigger countries, and have replaced Soviet Union with United States as their masters, disregarding the better claims of Germany and France, for their total loyalty and subordination. Germany and France should boot out of European Union such new members from Central and East Europe as declared their pro-American anti-French and anti-German positions and conspired to undermine Paris-Berlin Axis of the European Union.  

 

30(10) Post-Iraq Saudi Reforms

(1) KSA & Kuwait to Fall After Iraq & Iran

America invaded Iraq to establish American oil colony in secular Iraq, just a first step toward Pax Americana throughout the Arab world. Washington-Mecca Axis the alliance of American Oil Colonialism and Wahhabi fundamentalism could provide the blueprint to reorganize the secular liberal Iraq. Would America change secular Iraq to become fundamentalist like Saudi Arabia, as the Wahhabi Hashemite King Faisal I installed by British secret services in Iraq in 1921, after the First World War? However, American could also plan to conquer and colonize Saudi Arabia directly, once Iraq is colonized and subdued. Britain and America presently may favor the Muslim Prime Minister in Turkey, since he favored the American war efforts more than the secular MPs of the Turkey’s Parliament. Would United States promote Turkey as the paramount power of the Middle East to bring Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE under the direct occupation of the NATO, and governed by the successors of the Ottoman Empire. British and American oil colonialism destroyed the Ottoman Empire to establish American oil colonies by allowing Wahhabi House of Al Saud to rule Saudi Arabia and Wahhabi clergy to rule Mecca & Medina. However, with Turkey as the anchor of NATO in the Middle East and more reliable an American Ally than Saudi Arabia, the Pentagon may prefer the direct rule of NATO and Turkey over Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE. Why should American Oil companies pay high price for Saudi Arabian oil, if they could loot it at will, and take oil virtually free? Ruler of Abu Dhabi during the last Arab Summit in February 2003 demanded that Saddam Hussein stepped down and allowed Armed forces of Arab League nations to enter Iraq and govern it for some years, before democratic elections could be held to transfer power to the elected representatives of the Iraqi people. Perhaps the same logic would justify that in the post-Saddam era, the political power in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE could be transferred to the armed forces of Turkey, Iraq and other Arab League nations, for some years before the elections would elect the new governments in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE. The principle that justified the transfer of sovereignty and political power in Iraq to the armed forces of the Arab League nations, would also justify the transfer of political power and sovereignty of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE for a few years to the Islamic troops of Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and other Arab League nations for the period it would require to transform the Wahhabi ruled society to become secular liberal democratic society responsible to elect democratically elected representatives of the people. The American conquest of Iraq would mean that Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Oman and Yemen would lose their independence and sovereignty within a few years and become part of the neo-colonial Empires.

 

(2) Birth of the Oil Colonial Empires

The United States, European Union, China, Japan and India headed for economic disaster, if they fail to establish Oil Colony in Iraq and exploit its oil resources to enrich America. America’s GNP estimates of $ 8 trillion, based on the fraudulent accounting frauds of numerous companies, like Enron, World Com, leading many economists to wonder whether the correct estimate of USA’s GNP for 2002 would be around $6 trillion rather than $8.3 trillion estimated by World Bank. Only as an Oil Colonial Power could United States reestablish its economic predominance in the world economy. Without American Oil Colonies in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, the United States economy would lose its luster. The rush for Gold created European Colonial Empires after 1500 AD. The rush for Crude Oil and Natural Gas creating a New Age of Oil Colonial Empire in the 21st Century. The Eight World Powers would compete headlong with United States in their scramble for creating rival colonial empires. The year 2003 would go down in the history, as the time when the genie of the Colonial Empires, let loose by the Bush-Cheney Oil Administration, with its naked War for Oil Colonialism on Iraq. No body can put the genie of the colonialism back into the bottle, where it suffered after the Second World War. Timing is everything, as America and its NATO allies, and its Eight World Power detractors are about to discover in the Iraq’s war. For the Iraq war America will fight and had fought is not the war that American Oil Colonialism wanted, and its intensity and its dimensions are likely to be far greater than Bush Oil Administration anticipated, when the American Oil Colonialism strategy was first designed. American ahs waited too long, cool 12 years, to establish American Oil Colony in Iraq, after victory in the Kuwait Gulf War in 1991. The rivals of American Oil Colonialism, the Eight Great Powers, have also prepared a common strategy to profit by the return of the new age of Colonial Empires that President Bush’s war on Iraq in 2003 gave birth to. 

 

Eight Great Powers would interpret America’s colonial occupation of Iraq as a license granted to all Eight Great Powers to carve out Oil Colonies throughout the oil-producing world, with or without the consent of the United States. Why stop in Iraq: here's a chance to reform the entire Arab world? America’s naked aggression on Iraq to establish American Oil Colonialism in Iraq, gives great powers great powers to militarily intervene in the Arab world to reform the Arab world and remake the Arab Muslim world in the image of the Christian European world, to militarily guarantee the Arab women the same rights and freedom women enjoy in Europe. Eight Great Powers of the world, namely, France, Germany, Russia, India, China, Japan and Canada after the Iraq war, should be ambitious about its push for democracy in the Middle East, and work toward bringing down the medieval regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE to militarily guarantee the rights of women throughout the Islamic world, with or without the support of the United States. The main issue is the extent of Great Power ambition in the Arabic-speaking countries after that's all done in Iraq. This foreshadows the debate likely to dominate foreign policy circles for decades: what should be Great Powers’ role in the world, especially the oil-producing Islamic world?

 

(3) Europeanize Arab World

The civilized Eight Great Powers cannot but directly involve in reforming the reigning medieval political culture in the Arab countries, the belligerent religious intolerance and demoniac suppression of Muslim women in Arab world, its retreat from modernist culture, and its embrace of conspiracy theories. The vigorous exercise of military force of the Great Powers provides the best chance for improvement. No great apologies ought to be made for unilateralism and preemptive strikes by the eight world powers. The Arab region can live with and use that Great Power unilateralism.

 

The will and prestige of the civilized Eight Great Powers shall tip the scales in favor of social and political modernity, rights of women and democratization of the polity. Great Powers should intervene and change Arab political landscape and diplomats should call on Great Powers to aim high. Beyond toppling the regime of Saddam and dismantling its weapons, and to establish American Oil colonialism in Iraq, the driving motivation of a new Great Power endeavor in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and in neighboring Arab lands should be modernizing the Arab world and militarily guarantee the rights of the Arab women and guarantee religious freedom and democratic elections. .

 

(4) Colonial Arab Women’s Rights

The civilized Eight Great Powers would guarantee rights of Arab women. Arab Muslim men are scared of educated Muslim women, who would replace them in jobs, and threaten the very concept of male superiority, as Arab women are better educated than Arab men. Semite Arab Muslims have little affinity for democracy due to historical, cultural and religious factors. Arabs understand that freedom implies disposable marriages, sexual license and abortion on demand as much as it does self-government and the rule of law, and Arabs decline the package of Democracy, because democracy and freedom of women would destroy Islam as a religion and abolish the special privileges that the Muslim clergy presently enjoys in the society. Efforts to inculcate democratic values will find few allies from within Arab societies, where advocates for liberal values constitute at best a small minority. Advocates for an ambitious democratization of Arab world point to Germany and Japan as models, forget the protracted, ugly and unpopular US failures in the Philippines, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Haiti and South Vietnam. The Arab countries will more likely fit the latter pattern than the former. Unlike Germany and France the Saudi Arabians are not civilized and still represents barbarian civilization. Instead of trying to bring the Arab Muslims into ideological sympathy with the western democratic experiments, the goal of the Great Powers should be to improve Arab governments' behavior, by show of military force. Concepts such as parliaments or women's rights may strike Saudi princes as alien. On the other hand, Saudi Princes have no difficulty grasping the significance of a B-2 bomber or a carrier battle group, and would readily toe the line of Great Powers.

 

(6) Militarily Impose Colonial Democracy

The civilized Eight Great Powers would militarily impose democratic institutions throughout Arab world. Japan had about as much affinity for democracy in 1945 as the Arab Nations have affinity with democracy in 2003, yet democracy took hold in Japan after 1945. There is no indication that an open political system inexorably leads to higher divorce rates and the other social changes again, look at Japan. Arab society can be reformed and made to resemble Christian European society as Mediterranean Sea binds the European and Arab cultures. The Arab women would readily adapt to the Western Christian culture and customs, and wholeheartedly reject the barbaric Islamic customs and practices, whenever Christian Great Powers militarily impose Western laws and culture over Arab world. Millions of Arab Muslim women would convert to Christianity overnight and marry European Christians voluntarily, thus making Muslim Arabs a minority in the Arab world within a decade. Overwhelming majority of Arab Muslim women would become Christian and marry civilized Europeans and transforming barbaric Arab culture into civilized European society within a year. A US victory in Iraq and the successful rehabilitation of that country will bring liberals out of the woodwork and generally move the region towards democracy. Saudi leaders are leaking their plans to establish elected assemblies, something totally unprecedented in their kingdom. The eight world powers cannot pass up a unique chance to remake the world's most politically fevered region. Sure, the effort might fail, but to not even try would be a missed opportunity.

 

Iran’s hard line Hashemi Rafsanjani proclaimed in Feb 2003 that the presence of American troops in Iraq would be worse than Saddam Hussein. Bush administration contemplated that an American-led military government in Iraq would last at least a couple of years, if nor decades. Pentagon planed for a long-term military government of Iraq, so that United States could loot the oil riches of Iraq to rebuild American economy. Eight Great Powers agree that Christian United States engaged in the Clash of Civilizations against oil-producing Islamic nations, which profess 7th century culture and society in the 21st century and suppress their women. The civilized eight Great Powers also want to see a free Iran, a free Syria, a free Kuwait, a free United Arab Emirates and a free Saudi Arabia, where women regain their dignity, freedom and political rights. The eight Great Powers would militarily support the rebels fighting the imperial American presence in Iraq, the replay of the CIA’s role in financing Mujahideens war on Infidel Soviet troops in Afghanistan. Syria, Iran, Algeria, and Libya would secure military ties with France, Germany, Russia and India to neutralize American imperialistic and oil colonialism moves in their countries.

 

(7) Swap Caspian Oil for Iraqi Oil

President Putin hinted that Russia would treat Georgia, an American ally, and gateway to the Caspian Oil, in the same way as Washington treated oil-rich Iraq, Russia's business partner. The first salvo made by President Putin, who issued an ultimatum to Georgia to root up "international terrorists" or face Russian action. Russia would use the opportunity provided by American oil colonialism in Iraq to establish Russian oil colony in Georgia and Azerbaijan. The salvo was aimed as much at Georgia's President Eduard Shevardnadze, as at the US President George Bush. It was a pre-emptive strike on the eve of Mr Bush's speech at the United Nations, where he was expected to issue an ultimatum to Iraq. Moscow was hinting that it would treat Georgia, an American ally, in the same way, as Washington was about to treat Iraq, Russia's business partner.

 

Would Russia consent for American conquest of Iraqi oil, in exchange for American consent for Russian conquest of Caspian oil and gas? Russia would end up colonizing oil-rich Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, if America succeeds in establish oil colony in Iraq. If Iraq can be conquered, colonized and enslaved, then every Islamic oil-producing nation ripe for foreign conquest, colonization and foreign occupation. Russia wants to swap Georgia and Caspian basin for Iraq. Observers believe a quid pro quo has been in the making. It may work both ways: either Moscow and Washington abstain from hitting their respective targets, or give each other a free hand. 'Saddam for Shevardnadze.' President Putin, they say, wouldn't have taken such a dramatic step had he not sensed Washington's willingness to strike a deal. After all, the US Ambassador to Moscow, Alexander Vershbow, publicly admitted there were al-Qaeda agents in Chechnya. Russia says they infiltrate from Georgia, where they train and arm themselves. So, Georgia in Russian view is not much different from Afghanistan under the Taliban, or, indeed, Iraq accused by the US of involvement in international terrorism. As a conservative Russian newspaper Trud put it, "Let's swap Saddam for Shevardnadze" is the 'worrying logic' of the America’s oil colonial war on Iraq. The US does not appear to have accepted the offer, to let Russia takeover Georgia and Azerbaijan in exchange for America’s takeover of Iraq. Russia says Pankisi Gorge is a safe heaven for Chechen rebels. If the US can hit, whoever it suspects of harboring terrorists, the Russian say, why can't Russia do the same where Russia see fit. This logic is not worrying, but represents real politics. Diplomats of the Eight Great Powers warn the international coalition against terror may crumble, if America and Russia pursue its Oil Colonial agendas in Iraq or Georgia respectively. This has more to do with cheap oil and spheres of influence, diplomats say, than international security of America and Russia. Diplomats of eight great powers urge Russia and America to stop wrangling for oil colonies and find a common ground, so that all great powers granted similar rights over their oil colonies worldwide. France, Germany, India and Japan should pool their resources to establish Oil Colony over Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan. Oil-producing nations are militarily weak and vulnerable to foreign conquest and colonial occupation. Why should Germany, France, Japan, India and China allow United States walk away with takeover of oil-rich Iraq, without giving similar rights to other Eight World powers to establish oil colonies of their own? The fundamental issue that legitimizes the concert of world Powers shall be the recognition of the right inherent in the Great Power status to establish Oil colonies. What America can do in Iraq, France can do in Algeria and Libya, Germany can do in Sudan, Russia can do in Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, and India can do in Bangladesh and China can do in Brunei. 

 

(8) Need For Change in the Middle East

White French Oil Colonialism would usher in social modernization in the oil-producing Arab world, American oil colonialism would work hard to restore the exalted status of the fundamentalist Wahhabi clergy and terrorists in the Arab society. So long as Arab oil-producing world under the control and influence of American Oil Colonialism, Wahhabi fundamentalists would retain their control over political, religious and social power. The Arab Middle East is the perfect place to start reforming the medievalism. The diplomacy cannot work in Middle East, where the biggest source of insecurity lies not between states but within them, as Wahhabi regimes based on the medieval principles of suppression of women and rule of the religious clergy. Britain and United States promoted, nurtures and supported fundamentalist Islamic clergy in the former territories of the Ottoman Empire, Indian Empire, Soviet Empire, Yugoslavia and the Commonwealth, and placed militant Muslim clergy into power, in exchange for their acceptance of American and British control over Islamic oil resources.

 

United States and Britain conspired to place Wahhabi regimes into power in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Yemen and Oman in exchange for American & British control over their oil resources. Britain promoted Islamization of Malaysian Bhumiputras to undermine the political influence of economically dominant Chinese community and to sideline Indians in Malaysia. Britain and United States harnessed the power of Islamic militancy to create public outrage against communism in Malaysia, and Indonesia. United States supported Islamic fundamentalists in Egypt, Sudan, Nigeria and Algeria, hoping that fundamentalist Muslims would be more pro-American than secular Muslims, who are more likely to be swayed by socialistic ideals and Non Alignment.

 

What is most wrong about the Arab Muslim world is the lack of personal freedom and rights of women and that translates into dead-end lives for most of the Arab Muslim population. What stands in the path of the change in the Arab world? Fear stands in the path of change in the Middle East. America’s fear of losing control over American Oil Colonies in the Arab world, if the modern Arab men and women acquires political power and say in the policy making. America has developed very close ties with the corrupt regimes in Pakistan, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and UAE that any change in the regimes would end the American monopoly over Arab Oil resources. Arab regimes fear of tradition unraveling and fear of Mullah’s disapproval, as Mosques remain the only place expression of political dissent is still tolerated by the despotic Arab regimes. Fear of being labeled bad or traitorous Muslim regime or Muslim state, forced many Arab regimes pay terrorists protection money to buy local peace. Fear of becoming a target of radical groups and terrorist networks, forced many Arab regimes give more powers to Wahhabi clergy to further strangulate freedom in the society. Only when Great Powers directly intervene in Arab world and recast the society, system of government in the image of Europe, could Middle East become free and modern in the 21st Century. The present ruling elite should be militarily replaced to reform the Arab world.

 

America is not interests in reforming the Arab society, if only wants to gain control over Arab oil and gas resources and would be very content to leave the governance to the fundamentalist Wahhabi clergy, so long as they do not work against American Oil Colonialism. However, Russian Oil Colonialism, French Oil Colonialism, German Oil Colonialism, Indian Oil Colonialism and Chinese Oil Colonialism would modernize the Arab society to remove entrenched Wahhabi fundamentalists from position of power and influence in the Arab oil-producing world. American and British Oil Colonialism are very comfortable with the fundamentalist Wahhabi Clergy and sacrifice the rights of Arab women in exchange of monopoly of American Oil colonialism over Arab oil resources. However, rivals of America would do their best to undermine the power of Wahhabi clergy in order to find new supporters for rival oil colonialism. America waged imperialistic war on Iraq to bring back Wahhabi clergy rule over Iraq. American would establish the rule of Taliban-type Wahhabi regime in Iraq to develop deeper foundation for American oil colonialism in Iraq.

 

India would support French Oil colonialism to establish French oil Colonies in Algeria, Libya, Iran and Equatorial Guinea, if India gains equitable share of the incomes of the oil colonialism. French oil colonialism would promote modernization of Arab society, while American oil colonialism would promote fundamentalist Wahhabi militancy in the Arab world. Eight World Powers should support French Oil Colonialism in the Arab world as it would promote modernization of the Arab society and undermine the dominance of the Wahhabi clergy. Indian and Chinese Oil colonialism in Arab world would empower Arab women and restore freedom, rights and privileges of Arab women.

 

India recognizes that Turkey, the successors to the Ottoman Caliphate has inherited the right to establish oil colonialism in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE, so long as turkey agreed to impose Turkish laws over Arabian Peninsula. Turki Oil colonialism in the Middle East would impose secular Turkish Laws over Shariah throughout the Arab world. India would support Turkish oil colonial rule over Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE as it would modernize the Arab society and give burial to Shariah. Restoration of Ottoman Caliphate in modern version of Turkish Caliphate would not be bad, as it would bring Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE into the 21st Century and Arab women would regain the rights they lost during Wahhabi regimes. India would support the occupation and conquest of Arabian Peninsula by secular Turkey, if Turkey would impose secular Turkish laws over Islamic Shariah laws in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE have never existed as nation or society ever in history and these lands in Arabian Peninsula, historically belonged to one of regional powers, namely, Egypt, Iran or Turkey, who alone have the rights to the oil and gas resources of these Wahhabi states.

 

India should militarily oppose American Oil colonialism in Iraq, if it resulted in the rule of the Wahhabi fundamentalists in secular Iraq. Mohammad Bin Qasim from Baghdad had attacked India at the beginning of the second Millennium and destroyed Somnath Temple in Gujarat. India has a right to join the war coalition to bring Iraq under Indian Oil Colonialism to avenge for the Iraqi invasions of India in the past. India opposes American Oil Colonial rule over Iraq, not to support the independence of Iraq, but to assert India’s right for the fair share of the incomes of the Christian Oil Colonialism in the Oil-producing Islamic world.   

 

Hindu India accepted the emergence of Muslim Pakistan as the new Caliph of Islam, after the downfall of the Ottoman Caliphate, and thus acquired rights to occupy the Arabian Peninsula and establish Pakistani Caliphate over the oil-producing Arab world. India accepts the rights of Pakistan to occupy Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and UAE and marry 10 million Arab women to Pakistani men, to establish permanent colonies in the Arabian Peninsula, so long as Pakistan agrees to give India a fair share of the incomes of Oil Colonialism. Pakistan as the New Caliph of Islam should become the custodian of the Islam’s Holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Pakistan’s army officers should marry 4000+ royal family Princesses in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman. Pakistan’s dominant Islamic sect shall replace Wahhabi sect as the dominant Islamic religious ideology of Arabia. Either Urdu or Turki should replace Arabic as the lingua franca of the Arab world.

 

The success of American invasions of Iraq and subsequent establishment of American Oil Colony in Iraq, would establish a historical precedent granting every one of the eight Great Power the right inherent in the Great Power status to establish oil colonies throughout the oil-producing world. If Muslim Iraq could be occupied and colonized by American Big Oil Colonialism, then all Islamic countries and Arab countries are vulnerable and ripe for colonization and foreign occupation. If Iraq can be conquered, subdued and colonized then no oil-producing Arab nation, and no-oil-producing Muslim nation can afford to ward off foreign colonial powers, and would succumb to foreign occupation and colonial exploitation. The curtain will fall and end the freedom and independence of the Islamic world in the 21st Century, thanks to the precedent established by American oil colonial wars on Iraq led by President Bush. The successful Christian American occupation and colonization of Iraq would forecast the end of the Islamic Civilization, enslavement of the Islamic world and the colonization of the Muslim nations in the 21st Century. Would American conquest and colonization of Muslim Arab Iraq forecast the end of Islam as a world religion and end of Arab Civilization in the fifteenth century Hijra?

 

Arab world can survive as independent nations only if Arab oil-producing nations jointly invite French-German Oil colonialism into Arab lands to replace American Oil Colonialism. India would prefer the victory of German-French-Japanese Oil colonialism in the Arab world, if India gets a fair share of the oil incomes. Since the source of American preeminence lies in the American control over Middle East oil-producing countries, so the coalition of eight World Powers would target American colonial interests in the Arab world to undermine the political clout of American Oil colonialism in the Arab world. The France-Germany-Japan Axis can replace United States as the preeminent power of the world, if they could successfully compete with American Oil colonialism and establish Great Powers’ Oil colonies throughout the Oil-producing Arab world. American would decline as the preeminent super power, if France and Germany Big Oil succeeded in establishing Great Powers Oil colonies in the Arab world, in alliance with Russia, India, China, Japan and Canada. The coalition of eight Great Powers can bring down American Oil Colonialism and reduce the preeminence of United States and make America one among the equals, one among the eight world powers, by undermining American Oil Colonialism in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Brunei. The New Cold War between imperial United States and Coalition of eight World Powers would be fought over oil fields in the Middle East and its outcome would affect the global balance of power and result in the return of the new Age of Colonial Empires in the 21st Century. Scramble for Oil colonies would provide a non-nuclear confrontation to bring down the hegemony of the United States and one superpower system that United States inherited after the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. In the new Cold War the eight world powers would combine their diplomatic, economic and military assets to tame the hegemony of the United States in the 21st Century. The Clash of French Oil Colonialism with American Oil Colonialism over Iraq sets the precedent for numerous clashes for oil colonies that the eight world powers would wage on American Oil Colonialism in the 21st Century. The Concert of World Powers would successfully tame the hegemony of the United States in the 2000s and restore peace and order in the world in the 21st Century, as the 1814 Congress of Vienna established Congress System to tame the hegemony of France in Europe and maintained the peace for 100 years from 1814 to 1914.

 

30(11) Third World War for Oil

(1) OPEC Oil Price Rise to Ignite WWIII

The Third World War shall be fought for oil reserves of the Arabian Gulf states and it shall start in the Middle East. It would be suicidal for France, Germany, Russia and China to allow Pentagon establish American Oil Colony in Iraq, as it would give America great head start in the War. President Bush’s invasion of Iraq to establish Oil colony in Iraq would trigger World War III. 

 

(2) Arabian Oil Caused World War I & II

Scramble for the control over the Oil of the Arabian Gulf would start the World War III, sometime in the first quarter of the 21st Century. On one side of the battle lines would be the coalition led by United States, and the adversaries on the other side of the battle lines would be led by France, Germany, Japan, Korea and Russia. India and China would side the winning coalition. The Third World War shall start in the Middle East and the principal military objective of all major powers shall be to control the oil and gas resources of the Arabian Gulf region, and to deny the adversary the control over these resources. France and India shall play an important role in the Arabian Gulf sector of World War III.

 

(3) Persian Gulf was an Indian Lake

The central Banks of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Trucial States, UAE, Oman and Yemen kept their foreign currency reserves in India currency, as late as 1965, before stupid Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi devalued Indian currency by 35% without informing the Central Banks of countries, which kept their foreign exchange reserves in Indian rupees. Persian Gulf, now called Arabian Gulf had been an Indian Lake, dominated by Navy of Indian Empire in 18th, 19th and first half of 20th Century. The Third world War shall be fought to secure control over oil resources of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Iraq and Iran. France and Russia would lead the anti-American coalition to deny and undermine American neo-colonial interests in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates and Iran.      

 

How should the eight world powers respond to secure their respective colonial oil interests in face of hostile American oil colonialism? Since American control over the Middle East crude oil and natural gas the Achilles’ heels of American economic and military juggernaut then eight great powers would attempt undermine America’s Oil colonialism in the oil-producing world to bring down America’s hegemony to make America as one among the equals in the concert of world powers.

 

(4) Response to US Petro-Imperialism

What should be the response of the eight world powers to American attempt to conquer the oil-producing world? The great powers shall welcome American Petro-Imperialism provided it also permitted other world powers to establish their own petro-colonial empires. Islamic Oil-producing world have realized that United States would conquer the Muslim oil-producing world, to establish American Oil colonies and to impose American colonial administration in the oil-producing world, to rape oil wealth of the Islamic world. The United States wants to conquer the world. India does not agree with the plan of America that the Middle East has to be reshaped. This is the job of the mature people of the Non aligned third World, not the job of the Christian colonial powers from the white world, who intend to impose white Oil colonies throughout the oil producing Islamic world. The world was in a state of terror, allowing a fear of Muslims to affect international policy, and a war on Iraq would be seen as a war on Muslims, said Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad on the eve of a three-yearly summit of leaders of the 114-member Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). The attack against Iraq will anger more Muslims who see this as being anti-Muslim rather than anti-terror. The world is in a state of terror. World is afraid of Muslims, of Arabs, of bearded people, since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. Diplomats are certain if Americans are successful in Iraq they will turn to Iran next and then to North Korea in a reference to the three nations U.S. President George W. Bush has branded an "axis of evil. "After that, who will become their victim? It is clear the Western powers want to conquer the world again. Iraq's old foe Iran was not afraid that it could become a target of U.S. aggression. Tehran did fear Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Iran does not agree with the plan of America that the Middle East has to be reshaped. This is the job of the mature people of the Middle East, not powers from outside. India accepts the rights of world powers to establish oil colonies in the oil-rich Arab world, so long as Americans do not export Wahhabi terrorism to India to buy peace in American oil colonies. Oil-rich Middle east would be the theater of Third World War. France, Germany, Russia, China, India and Japan would have to undertake preemptive strikes against oil-producing nations to establish oil-colonies before Untied states crosses the Rubicon and established oil-colonies throughout the Arab world.

 

(5) America Dreams to Conquer the World

In the perception of the world leaders and diplomats the United States led by President Bush became the threat to world peace, because of its obsession to carve out American Oil Colonies in the oil-producing world. Diplomats of the world powers and the people of the world have bad American Image. There is an absence of any recognition that Hussein is the problem. One American ambassador, who represents the United States in an allied nation, bluntly cabled in Feb ’03 that in that country, Bush has become the enemy. There has been a natural progression in Anti-American attitudes overseas. It was anti-War and anti-American. Now it’s anti-Bush, and anti-American. That image is stuck in perceptions of the world’s diplomats and people’s consciousness. The antiwar protests by millions of people in Feb ‘03 in the cities of major U.S. allies underscored a theme that the classified cables by U.S. embassies had been reporting for weeks. It is rather astonishing. There is an absence of any recognition that Saddam Hussein is the problem to world peace. One ambassador, who represents the United States in an allied nation, bluntly cabled that in that country, the major ally of the United States, President Bush has become the enemy, and replaced Saddam Hussein as the major threat to the world peace. This shift in public opinion has presented the President George Bush with a much different set of circumstances than U.S. officials anticipated last September, in a bid to create a coalition to confront Iraq, and radically different than the support United States received for its war on Afghanistan.

 

(6) Carter Doctrine 1979 On US Oil Security

President Jimmy Carter organized coup against Shah of Iran to control Iranian Oil and to deny the use of Iranian oil wealth for promoting Iran into a great power. Shah of Iran as a patriot wanted to use the Iran’s oil-wealth to make Iran a great power. Britain partitioned Indian Empire in 1947, even when Indian Empire supplied more than 1 million soldiers during First World War and 2 million soldiers during Second World War. India was partitioned so that India may not have direct land borders with Oil-rich Iran. Colonel Lawrence of Arabia fooled Wahhabi clergy of Mecca & Medina to oppose Ottomans, so that Ottoman or Turkey may not emerge as world power using the resources of Saudi Arabian and Iraqi oil wealth. Western powers supported fundamentalist Islam preached by Wahhabi Abdul Aziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia, Mohammad Ali Jinnah of Pakistan and Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran, to bring down the Muslim Ottoman Empire, Indian Empire and Iranian Monarchy. Britain, and America created and nurtured the very concept of fundamentalist Islam, and Islamic separatism to divide and rule the regional empires that would have threatened British and American oil colonial interests in the oil-rich Arabia.

 

President Woodrow Wilson, President Jimmy Carter, President Ronald Reagan, and President Bill Clinton supported and hired Muslim fundamentalists, Wahhabi terrorists to bring down the multi-ethnic empires, Ottoman Empire, Pahlevi Monarchy, Soviet Empire and Multi-ethnic Afghanistan respectively. President Carter used the arch-fundamentalist Ayatollah Khomeini to bring down the secular Muslim Empire of Mohammed Shah Reza Pahlevi of Iran, just as Britain, France and President Woodrow Wilson used Wahhabi fundamentalists to bring down the rule of Ottoman Empire in Arabian Peninsula. President Ronald Reagan financed and armed Muslim terrorists in Afghanistan to wage war on Soviets. President Billy Clinton used the services of Osama Bin Laden to bring Afghanistan under American influence.

 

In the perception of the world leaders and diplomats the United States led by President Bush became the threat to world peace, because of its obsession to carve out American Oil Colonies in the oil-producing world. Diplomats of the world powers and the people of the world have bad American Image.

 

30(12) World Oil Powers

(1) Leading 20 Oil Powers

The leading 20 oil powers in terms of oil reserves are, millions of barrels of oil as reserves as of Jan 1, 2002, (1) Saudi Arabia: 261,750; (2) Iraq: 112,500; (3) United Arab Emirates: 97,800; (4). Kuwait: 96,500;

(5) Iran: 89,700; (6) Venezuela: 77,685; (7) Russia: 48,573; (8) Libya: 29,500; (9) Mexico: 26,941; (10) Nigeria: 24,000; (11) China: 24,000; (12) United States: 22,045; (13) Qatar: 15,207; (14) Norway: 9,947; (15) Algeria: 9,200; (16) Brazil: 8,465; (17) Oman: 5,506; (18) Kazakhstan: 5,417; (19) Angola: 5,412; (20) Indonesia: 5,000 million barrels reserves. First 20 Countries: 975,148 million barrels of oil reserves. Rest of the World: 56,983 millions of barrels of oil reserves. Total World: 1,032,132 millions of barrels of oil reserves

 

The leading 20 producers of Oil in millions of barrels per day are: (1) Saudi Arabia: 8.528; (2) United States: 8.091; (3) Russia: 7.014; (4) Iran: 3.775; (5) Mexico: 3.560; (6) Norway: 3.408; (7) China: 3.297; (8) Venezuela: 3.137; (9) Canada: 2.749; (10) United Arab Emirates: 2.550; (11) United Kingdom: 2.540; (12) Iraq: 2.377; (13) Nigeria: 2.223, (14) Kuwait: 1.838; (15) Brazil: 1.589; (16) Algeria: 1.486; (17) Libya: 1.427; (18) Indonesia: 1.384; (19) Oman: .964; (20) Argentina: 825 millions of barrels of oil production per day. First 20 countries: 62.762 million barrels of oil per day production. Rest of the World: 12.464 million barrels oil per day production. Total World production is 75.226 millions of barrels of oil per day production estimated in 2002.

 

The leading 20 oil consuming powers in terms of the consumption of oil, million barrels per day are: (1) United States: 19.993; (2) Japan: 5.423; (3) China: 4.854; (4) Germany: 2.814; (5) Russia: 2.531; (6) South Korea: 2.126; (7) Brazil: 2.123; (8) Canada: 2.048; (9) France: 2.040; (10) India: 2.011; (11) Mexico: 1.932; (12) Italy: 1.881; (13) United Kingdom: 1.699; (14) Spain: 1.465; (15) Saudi Arabia: 1.415; (16) Iran: 1.109; (17) Indonesia: 1.063; (18) Netherlands: .881; (19) Australia: .879; (20) Taiwan: .846 million Barrels per day consumption. First 20 Countries consume 59.134 million barrels per day. Rest of the World consumption is 16.854 million barrels per day. Total World oil consumption is 75.988 millions of barrels per day, estimated on Jan 2002.

 

The ranks of world’s leading consumer nations of oil are United States (1st), China (3rd), and Russia (5th) have the GNPs at PPP in 2002 are USA ($8.4 trillion), China ($4.1 trillion), and Russia ($929 billion). United States, China and Russia are large consumers of oil and also have large oil reserves and large domestic oil production. United States has the 12th largest oil reserves in the world estimated at 22 billion barrels of oil and United States is the world’s second largest producer of oil estimated at 8.091 million barrels per day, and United States is world’s top consumer of oil estimated at 19.9 million barrels per day in 2002. China has the world’s 11th largest reserves of oil estimated at 24 billion barrels of oil. China produces 3.3 million barrels per day, 7th largest oil producer of the world. China consumes 4.9 million barrels per day and China is the world’s 3rd largest consumer of oil. Russia has world’s 7th largest reserves of oil estimated at 48 billion barrels of oil. Russia produces 7 million barrels per day, the 3rd largest oil producer of the world. Russia consumes 2.5 million barrels per day, the world’s 5th largest consumer of oil. The GNPs at PPP in 2002 are USA ($8.4 trillion), China ($4.1 trillion), and Russia ($929 billion).

 

In terms of the world’s leading consumer of oil the ranks of Japan (2nd), Germany (4th), South Korea (6th), France (9th), and India (10th) largest oil consumer of the world, make them ideal allies in the wars for oil colonial empires, as these large consumers lack the domestic oil resources and are heavily dependent o foreign oil. The GNPs at PPP are: Japan ($3 trillion), Germany ($1.8 trillion), South Korea ($ 686 billion), France ($1.3 trillion), and India ($2.1 trillion). Japan, Germany, South Korea, France and India are large consumer of oil and have no substantial oil reserves and no substantial domestic oil production. Japan consumes 5.4 million barrels per day of oil and Japan is world’s 2nd largest consumer of oil. Japan has no oil reserves and Japan has no domestic production of oil. Germany consumes 2.8 million barrels per day and is the 4th largest consumer of oil and ahs no substantial oil reserves and no substantial domestic oil production. South Korea consumes 2.1 million barrels per day and has no substantial oil reserves and no substantial domestic oil production.  South Korea is world’s 6th largest oil consumer of the world. France consumes 2 million barrels per day of oil and has no substantial oil serves and domestic oil production. France is world’s 9th largest consumer of oil. India consumes 2 million barrels per day of oil and is the world’s 10th largest consumer of oil. India does not have substantial oil reserves and doesn’t produce substantial domestic oil production. The GNPs at PPP are for Japan ($3 trillion), Germany ($1.8 trillion), South Korea ($ 686 billion), France ($1.3 trillion), and India ($2.1 trillion).

 

In terms of oil reserves the leading oil nations are: Saudi Arabia (1st), Iraq (2nd), UAE (3rd), Kuwait (4th), and Iran (5th), and they are all situated in the Arabian Gulf, which had been historically an India’s sphere of influence. The GNPs at PPP are Saudi Arabia ($128 billion), Kuwait ($30 billion), and Iran ($325 billion). In terms of the oil production the leading Arabian Gulf oil producers rank in world as follows: Saudi Arabia (1st), Iran (4th), UAE (10th), Iraq (12th), Kuwait (14th), Algeria (16th), Libya (17th), Indonesia (18th), and Oman (19th). Saudi Arabia has the world largest reserves of oil estimated at 261 billon barrels of oil. Saudi Arabia produces 8.5 billion barrels of oil per day, the top oil producer of the world. Saudi Arabia consumes 1.4 million barrels of oil per day and is world’s 15th largest consumer of oil. Iraq has world 2nd largest reserves of oil estimated at 112 billion barrels of oil. Iraq produces 2.4 million barrels per day. United Arab Emirates has the world’s 3rd largest reserves of oil estimated at 98 billion barrels. UAE produces 2.6 million barrels per day. Kuwait has world’s 4th largest reserves of oil estimated at 97 billion barrels of oil. Kuwait produces 1.8 million barrel per day oil, 14th largest oil producer. Iran has world’s 5th largest reserves of oil estimated at 90 billion barrels of oil. Iran produces 3.8 million barrels per day, 4th largest oil producer in the world. Iran consumes 1.1 million barrels per day and is world’s 16th largest consumer of oil. Venezuela has world’s 6th largest reserves of oil estimated at 78 billion barrels of oil. Venezuela produces 3.1 million barrels per day, 8th largest producer of oil. Qatar has world’s 13th largest reserves of oil estimated at 15 billion barrels of oil.

 

(2) 3rd World War to Control Mid East Oil

Arabian Gulf shall be the epicenter of the 3rd World War. The power that would control the Arabian Gulf shall determine the outcome of the War. United States would lose its Super Power status if it loses its control over the Arabian Gulf oil and gas resources. Iran would determine the power that would control the Arabian Gulf. Aryan Iran is the dominant regional power of the Arabian Gulf, not the Semite Arab Saudi Arabia. India should seek ling-term defense ties with Iran to play significant role in the Arabian Gulf.

 

The Third world War shall be fought to secure control over the oil resources of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, UAE, Kuwait, and Iran, the countries having the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th largest oil reserves in the world, and that produce world’s 1st, 12th, 10th, 14th, 4th largest oil producers of the world. The Great Power that controls the oil fields of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, UAE, Kuwait and Iran would control the destiny of the world in the Third World War. The Oil reserves and oil production fields of the Arabian Gulf is the Achilles’ heels of the United States. The New Cold War would be Clash of rival Oil Colonial powers seeking the control over the oil resources of the Arabian Gulf, namely, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, UAE, Kuwait, and Iran. India as the leading Indian Ocean Power enjoys the regional hegemony would play an important role in the clash of oil colonialism in the Arabian Gulf region in the Third World War. Military coalition of India and Iran can dominate the Arabian Gulf region. India, France and Russian Oil Cartel can establish colonial domination over Arabian Gulf Oil and thereby determine the outcome of the Third World War.

 

French Empire as well as Indian Empire was greater military power than United States in 1914, at the outbreak of the First World War. French Empire and Indian Empire contributed more towards victory of Allied Powers in the First World War than United States. Indian Empire and French Empire were cheated out of their fair share of the spoils of the World War I in the former territories of Ottoman Empire. India and France intends to regain for India and France respectively its share of Arab Oil resources and influence over Arabian Gulf in the Third World War.

 

France would lead the war coalition hostile to the United States control over the oil resources of

France was a greater world power in terms of military power, diplomatic status and military industrial complex in 1914. United States didn’t contribute much towards the French-British victory in the First World War. France not United States should have become paramount power over Saudi Arabia. Secret 1915 Sykes-Picot agreement is behind the gall of the Gauls that challenged the might of les Anglo-Saxons oil colonialism in Iraq, so that France may reclaim its role in the Middle east that France was swindled out of their hard earned spoils at the end of the First World War. France has long and bitter memories about the Middle East and the way in which les Anglo-Saxons (the USA and UK) swindled France of their hard-earned spoils of war at the end of the World War I. The secret Sykes-Picot agreement of 1915, signed between Britain and France, gave France power over half the Turkish Arab Empire, while Britain was to get the other half. President Woodrow Wilson and Prime Minister David Lloyd George ensured that Britain had power over Iraq and Trucial states, Kuwait and Arabian Gulf, and United States became paramount power in Saudi Arabia. France ended up with only Syria and Lebanon, which had no oil. After the Second World War Syria got the mandate powers over Lebanon. British and American secret services conceptualized the political and diplomatic usage of the fundamentalist barbarian Arab Wahhabi Sunni doctrine to mobilize nomad Bedouin of Arabian deserts to overthrow the domination of civilized, modern, liberal Muslim intelligentsia, as latter would object to the American and British exploitation of the Arabian oil and gas resources. France and Germany hope to undermine American and British influence in the Arabian Gulf by supporting Iraq and to mobilize Muslims against American Oil imperialism to replace America as the dominant oil power in the former territories of the Ottoman Empire, half of which should have gone to France under the secret 1915 Sykes-Picot Agreement. Only by challenging American Oil colonialism in the Arabian Gulf could France reclaim its status as the world power.

 

Had French opposition to the American oil imperialism in Iraq succeeded in averting direct American intervention in Iraq then United States would have declined as a sole super power of the world, just as the withdrawal of French and British invasion troops from Suez Canal Zone in 1956, signaled the decline of Britain and France as world powers. Russia’s support to France and Germany could turn out to be as crucial as it was for Nasser in stand off against Britain and France. France, Germany and Russia could replace United States as dominant player in the Arabian Gulf if they had succeeded in that standoff against President Bush and if he had backed down.

 

American Big Oil does not enjoy any special advantage over French Big Oil and German Big Oil in terms of Oil technology. France, Germany and Russia can become major players in the Middle East by exploiting twin menace of American Oil Colonialism and Israel towards freedom and independence of oil-producing Arab world. France, Germany and Russia could end up establishing French, German and Russian oil colonies in the Middle East during their principled opposition to the menacing expansion of American Oil Colonialism in Iraq. France, Germany, Belgium and Russia want to get their share of the Middle East Oil by one means or another. China, India, Japan and South Korea would also join the anti-American coalition France, German and Russia, because President Bush not give any nation cast-iron guarantee to share the oil-incomes of the American Oil Colonies in the Middle East. President Bush’s attempt to monopolize control over Middle East for American Oil Colonialism may organize other world powers form the rival coalition to undermine American Oil Colonies in the Middle East.

 

(3) Mongols Ruled Islamic World

American conquest of Baghdad in 2003 is the historical replay of the 1258 Mongol conquest of Baghdad Caliphate and the subsequent Ottoman conquest of Islamic world. The forefathers of Saudi Arabian Bedouin never played any important political role in the Islamic world except during first century of Islam during Mecca Caliphate, which Wahhabi fundamentalists trying to revive. Islamic world had been under the foreign rule of Mongol Empire after 1231 and Persian Caliphate was also a Mongol rule. The Ottoman Caliphate was the foreign rule of a offshoot of Mongol Empire. The Middle East and the Arab Islamic world had been under the foreign rule of the Mongols and its successors from 1231 onwards and ruled by non-Arabs and Arabic language had not been the language of the Islamic Empire after 1231. Only after the recognition of House of Al Saud in Saudi Arabia that Arab race became politically free and independent of foreign rule and foreign domination.

 

Buddhist Mongols could have militarily converted the entire Middle East to Buddhism between 1235 and 1295. Except when Buddhist Mongols ruled the Islamic world after the conquest of Baghdad, when Mongol horses pummeled the Baghdad’s Caliph of Islam to pulp and destroyed Baghdad Caliphate, Islamic world had never been militarily so vulnerable as it is now in 2003. In 1295, the Mongol Khans of Ilkhan Empire of Hulagu in Persia espoused the Moslem faith. The Persia was under Buddhist Mongol rule until 1295 AD. Buddhist Mongols conquered the Baghdad in 1258, and Tabriz in 1231, and it was under the rule of Mongol Buddhists until 1295. Mongol Buddhists ruled the Islamic Baghdad Caliphate for 38 years from 1258 to 1295 and ruled Shiite Persia for 75 years from 1221 to 1295. Dalai Lama was the religious leader of Mongols. Failure of Dalai Lama to develop the military version of Buddhism lost the great opportunity for Buddhism. The whole world could have become Buddhist under Mongol rule. Buddhism under Mongols would have eliminated Islam and Christianity from Asia and Europe. Dalai Lama failed to rise to meet the historic opportunity. Had Dalai Lama been more prudent, Buddhist Mongol conquerors would have converted the entire Islamic world, using the ferocious sword of the Great Mongol Empire.

 

(4) Lawrence of Arabia & Wahhabism

Colonel Lawrence of Arabia's promises of Arab independence was a well laid out trap to pave the way for American and Anglo-French supremacy in the Arab world. American conquest of Iraq represents the establishment of American Caliphate, as successors to Ottoman Caliphate and Mongol Caliphate. Mongol Caliphate led by Central Asian Mongols. Ottoman Caliphate led by Central Asians. American Caliphate would be as much legitimate as was Ottoman Caliphate, and Mecca would govern the Islamic world 

 

British Colonel Lawrence of Arabia conceptualized the geopolitical use of Wahhabi barbarian doctrine to mobilize nomad Bedouin Arabs to destroy the Muslim Empire of Ottoman Caliphate. Britain destroyed Muslim empire by the twin weapon of Secular Kemalism and arch fundamentalist Wahhabi Sunni doctrine, and ethnicity as the basis of the State rather than Muslim Ummah as the state.

 

Predator Islamic religious cults as well as predator Communist political philosophies funded by foreigners who sought loot of the riches of the civilizations threatened by predator intolerant cults and parties. The seventh century Damascus Jews and Arab traders agreed to finance the nomad Bedouin Arab Muslim raiding parties to profit by the loot the wealth of Christian Egypt, Syria and Libya. William Kaiser during First World War supported V.I. Lenin and supported him hoping that Communists would destroy and loot the riches of Russia. America supported Mao tse-tung in Manchuria by ordering General Chiang kai sheik to stop the attack on the key town in Manchuria under Communist control and arranged the Buddhist warlord in Yunnan to surrender to Communist forces, hoping that Maoist Communists would loot and destroy the riches of China. Just as African black slave traders supplied black slaves from Africa to white European slave traders and Arab slave traders, the Arab Wahhabi clergy agreed to supply all oil and gas wealth of the Arab world to America in exchange for special powers and rights to Wahhabi clergy over Arab women. The fundamentalist Arab Wahhabi Clergy and Wahhabi terrorists are American spies, who have agreed to sell the oil wealth to America in exchange for Wahhabi clergy’s control over Mecca and Medina and Mosques. Educated, liberal and nationalist Muslims have been suspicious of Western motives in the Middle East ever since Lawrence of Arabia led the Arab rebellion against the Turkish Ottoman Empire during the First World War. Militant Islamic cults and Wahhabi terrorism were designed and molded into diplomatic and political instruments by British and American secret services, to undermine the multi-ethnic, multi-racial Ottoman Muslim Empire.

 

The Muslim Empire, the Ottoman Empire, which caused fear among Christian states of Europe collapsed and the Arab World was divided by lines in the sand and separated by ethnic divide, which created numerous Muslim States, which separately became dependent upon United States for their survival. Colonel Lawrence of Arabia's promises of Arab independence turned out to be a well laid out trap to pave the way for Anglo-French supremacy in the Arab world.

 

Mohammed Ali Jinnah the founder of Pakistan, Kemal Pasha Ataturk the founder of modern Turkey, and Abdul Aziz Al Saud the founder of Saudi Arabia, were all spies of Christian powers. Western secret services promoted secularism of Kemalism, Nehruism, Maoism, and Leninism to destroy the Ottoman Empire, Indian Empire, Chinese Empire, and Russian Empire. Western secret services promoted arch fundamentalism of Saudi Arabian Wahhabi Abdul Aziz al Saud, Pakistani Mohammed Ali Jinnah, and Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini to destroy Ottoman Empire, Indian Empire and Imperial Iran. In the Muslim mind, the Americans have only taken forward the imperial mission of Colonel Lawrence of Arabia since the Second World War albeit with greater sophistication. Wahhabi clergy in Arabian Peninsula agreed to hand over Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar to American Oil Colonialism in exchange for political and religious control over Sunni Mosques in Arab lands and imposition of Shariah laws. British, French and American oil colonial interests agreed to give Arab Sunni Wahhabi Clergy unrestricted right to beat and subjugate Arab women, and in bargain got total colonial control and ownership of Oil and gas resources of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE and Qatar.

 

Arab world had been under foreign rule since the Mongol conquest of Baghdad in 1258, for over 700 years. Ottomans were Turks from Central Asia the offshoot of the Mongol Army. Islamic Arab world had been under foreign occupation and foreign rule for 700 years and after the First world War continued to under de factor colonial occupation of American Oil Colonialism, which gave Wahhabi Clergy the religious monopoly, and who agreed to hand over the oil riches of Arabia to America without murmur.

 

Arab had been under foreign rule and foreign occupation after the Mongol sacking of Baghdad. The sacking of Baghdad by the Mongols in 1258 is an important example. Genghis Khan's grandson, Helugu Khan, conquered the then capital of the Muslim caliphate, killing its people and burning down its great library "The House of Wisdom". Muslims interpreted this military defeat as a result of their embracing pluralism and worldly knowledge. While Colin Powell probably has never thought about this episode in history, Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida have both referred to the 1258 sacking of Baghdad in recent statements. The allusion is significant for true believers and for those who seek to defy rather than co-exist with and learn from unbelievers. Pakistan is not alone in this quandary of simultaneous alliance and hatred involving the United States. Muslim Ulema interpreted the Mongol conquest of Baghdad as the result of the secular civilization, and they reacted by reverting back to the barbarian Islamic traditions of 7th century Arabia. America should promote Pakistan not Turkey as the surrogate power to rule Arab world on behalf of the American Oil Colonialism. The Arab world is ripe for reorganization under foreign colonial rule, preferably American Caliphate, governed by Christians and Jews, just as they had been under Mongol rule and Ottoman rule. The only option the Arab nations have is to choose, which colonial ruler they should submit to, whether should become colonies of America, France, Germany, Japan, China, Russia, Pakistan or India.

 

(5) Jihad Exposed Weakness of Islam

For militant Islamists the military defeat and humiliation at the hand of the Mongols marked the beginnings of a religious revival. In less than a century, the Mongol conquerors converted to Islam and Islamic power, uprooted from the Arabian heartland, had been re-established in Turkey and Northern India. Turkey and India represents the real soul of Islam. President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, the first scientist head of the state of the world, and the President of one billion people of India, truly represents the Islamic nations of the world, and established India as the leader of the Islam. Islam should be led by civilized Islamic nations, namely, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and India, not by barbarian Islamic nations, namely Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Islamist movements are already arguing that the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the coming sacking of Baghdad should be seen as cataclysmic events that would purify Muslim souls and prepare them for an ideological battle with the West.

 

Jihad represents the Counter Reformation movement in Islam, which abandoned reasoned spiritual struggle and renewed focus on militant Jihad. It explains that Catholic Vatican, the leader of the Counter Reformation movement in Christianity, find common cause with Wahhabi the Jihadis the leaders of the Counter Reformation Movement in Islam. The Islamic concept of Jihad (Islamic terrorism) laid the foundation of the decline of Islam after the Mongol conquest of Islamic world in 1258. The emphasis on Ijtihad (reasoned spiritual struggle) was abandoned with renewed focus on militant Jihad (holy war). Soon thereafter, Ibn Taimiyah (1262-1327), a Syrian theologian, laid the theological foundations of militant Islam’s revival that remains the theological font of all counter-reformation thinking among Muslims. Saddam was avowedly anti-religion until the 1991 Gulf War, after which he started his pretense of championing Islamic causes. In doing so he played on a historic tendency that has characterized Muslim behavior since the Middle Ages. Muslims turn to literalism in interpreting religion and admire defiant militants whenever their Ummah (community of believers) is threatened by the military might of non-Muslims. American conquest of Iraq represents the 21st century version of the 1258 Mongol conquest of Baghdad and the Ottoman conquest of the Islamic world. Arab race would have to accept their fate under foreign occupation and they have no option but to remain under foreign occupation for few more centuries. Arab race survived under Mongol Caliphate, Ottoman Caliphate and would also survive under American Caliphate. Arab oil-producing nations are very wealthy in terms of oil and gas resources and very weak militarily and have very small population. Geopolitically no golden bird can fly free and its destiny is to find peace in a cage.

 

Oil-rich Arab nations can survive only under the protection of one of the foreign Oil Colonial powers, and they shall fail to hold on to their newly found freedom, independence and sovereignty during 21st Century, the age of neo colonial oil empires. Oil-producing Arab world must accept their fate under American Caliphate or French Caliphate just as they accepted their fate under Mongol Caliphate and Ottoman Caliphate, unless they voluntarily become part of Pakistan and handover the control of their oil and gas resources to nuclear Pakistan, and accept Pakistan as the new Caliph of Islam, and make all Arab lands part of the Islamabad Caliphate. French, German, Russian, Chinese and Indian oil interests are free to establish Oil Colonies in the oil-rich Arab world and the scramble for oil colonies would fuel the Third World War.

 

(6) Bush’s War Exposes Weakness of USA

The zeal with which President Bush pursued the America’s colonial invasions of Iraq, raised the suspicion that economy of the United States could be in severe doldrums, and America’s GNP could be way behind $8 trillion world Bank estimated it in 2002, as the GNP estimates were bloated like the fraudulent profits and sales of Enron, WorldCom. The Dow Jones heading downward and could stabilize at 7000 or go down even to 5000. Could American economy collapse without the colonial exploitation of the Iraq’s oil and gas wealth.

 

The Oil Pact of Japan, Germany, South Korea, France, India, makes great sense as these countries heavily dependent on imported crude oil and natural gas. The Oil Pact of Japan (2nd largest, 5.4 Mb/pd), Germany (4th largest, 2.8 Mb/pd), South Korea (6th largest, 2.1 Mb/pd), France (9th largest, 2 Mb/pd, and India (10th largest, 2 Mb/pd) the countries having 2nd, 4th, 6th, 9th & 10th largest consumption of oil in world, makes great sense, as they all lack substantial domestic oil reserves. Japan, Germany, South Korea and France should invest in the development of Russia’s oil and gas industry and support Russia’s takeover of Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, if it would mean secured oil supplies. Japan, Germany, South Korea, France and India consume 14.3 million barrels per day of oil, around 75% of United States consumption of 20 million barrels per day.

 

(7) Enigma of German Nazism or Pacifism

German Neo-Nazis as well as anti-war pacifists united against American war of Oil Colonialism in Iraq. Neither militarist Germans nor pacifist Germans support American Oil Colonialism and united behind their Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder to tame and neutralize American oil Colonialism. Without establishing American Oil Colony in Iraq, Untied States would lose its preeminence in the world. China, Japan, Germany and France would continuously expand their economies and America’s lead will diminish, unless United States established brutal exploitative Oil Colony over Iraq, the nations with the 2nd largest oil reserves of the world. American diplomats realize that America can continue to be the dominant power of the world, in spite of the steep fall of the Dow Jones Index and the economic cancer caused by Enron, WorldCom, Andersen scandals, only by giving birth to the new age of Colonial Empires in the 21st Century. Only as the Oil Colonial Power could United States survive as the leading economic, military and diplomatic power of the world. Americans derive their foreign policy from a strong sense of national interests, defined in terms of economic interests, imperial interests and oil interests informed by national ideals of American grandeur, which camouflaged Roosevelt’s Real Politik in the Wilsonian Idealism, through a prism of American identity that took shape during 20th Century, primarily after Second World War, when German nuclear scientists gave America the Atom Bomb, which President Truman dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even when their was no dire need to do so. Germans view international politics first through the prism of a German national identity that is yet to take a final form in the 21st Century. Germans of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer’s generation, which didn’t see the World War II, define themselves through opposition to the political values of their parents and grand parents and political values of Adolf Hitler and William Kaiser, and through support of the raison d’etat and balance of power policy of Otto von Bismarck. Ex-German Minister compared President Bush to Adolf Hitler and it allowed Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder to discover his anti-Americanism and anti-war populism to exploit the dominant anti-Americanism of German population to win the 2002 electoral victory, which though razor-thin was larger than President Bush’s 2000 election victory. Germans believe that President George W. Bush leading United States to attempt the conquest of the World’s Oil, just as Adolf Hitler attempted to make Germany the Ruler of the World. Germans directly know the menace any national leader determined to conquer the world could present, an elected leader of the leading industrialized nation. Geopolitically President Bush occupies the same position in 2003 that Adolf Hitler occupied at the start of the Second World War. Germans realize the destruction imperialist America could cause to Germany, France and to the world. Germany and France leading the world to organize the Concert of World Powers in partnership with Russia, China, India, and Belgium to neutralize the imperialistic ambitions of oil-crazy Super Power United States. Germany the world’s fifth largest economy could undermine America’s military and economic preeminence, by lining up with France, Russia, China and India. Japan and South Korea would join the rival oil colonialism led by Germany and France. Playing to latent anti-Americanism in the East Germany and the anti-war populism in the Western Germany make for good election politics and provides a solid foundation for the assertive foreign policy of United Germany, based on the time tested diplomatic principles of Richelieu’s Raison d’etat and Otto von Bismarck’s Balance of Power. Germany and France believe that the United States is bent on expansion of American Oil Colonialism and military expansion to establish newer military bases worldwide, to lay military, economic and diplomatic foundation for the future American conquest of the world to create Pax Americana.        

 

German Oil Colonialism clashed with American Oil Colonialism in Iraq. German anti-war pacifism clashed with Hitler-like American Oil Colonialism on Iraq. Imperialist Germans wants to create German-French Oil Colonies in the Middle East. Pacifist Germans would oppose Bush’s imperialism because Bush to them is the Hitler of 21st Century. In the eyes of the Germans Bush is Hitler. To continue supporting America’s imperialist wars in Iraq would to Germans mean the support to the American reincarnation of Adolf Hitler. The anti-war populist Germans do not want to support America’s War on Iraq, because it would mean the support to the Hitler-type imperialist. The pro-Hitler German would want support Iraqi war for American Oil Colonialism, because why should then they support German oil colonialism instead. Germans supported the America’s war on Afghanistan as Germany expected to profit by the Caspian Oil and Gas pipelines that would pass through Afghanistan. Germans are ashamed that they foolishly joined President Bill Clinton’s War on Kosovo, thinking it was to bring an end to the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Germany realized that the war on Kosovo was the war for control over the Oil gas pipelines that would transport Caspian Oil and gas to the European markets. Was German and US military intervention in Kosovo was about promoting regional stability in the Balkans, or about Auschwitz, in helping to bring an end to the “ethnic cleansing” in Kosovo? Did Germany get on the right side of the history by participating in the unjust war on Kosovo as part of the NATO? Germany stood by America after 9/11 and supported America’s war on Afghanistan. But to Germans to accept the logic of preventive wars, the preemptive strikes as enunciated in Bush Doctrine 2002, to justify the American War of Oil Colonialism in Iraq, camouflaged in war on terrorism and wars on WMDs, raised the specter of historical continuity, and Germans saw in American President George Bush the reincarnation of German Fuehrer Adolf Hitler. Germany destined to be mortal enemy of America in 21st Century. German imperialists and oil colonialists as well as anti-war German pacifists firmly united to oppose the onward march of American Oil Colonialism in the Middle East. German neo-Hitler and neo-Gandhi firmly united behind Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder to tame and undermine imperialist American Oil Colonialism in the Middle East. The twin dilemma to proud Aryan Germans is as follows: Why should descendants of Nazi Germany fear competing with Yankee Oil Colonialism? Why should anti-war anti-American Germans support Bush-led American Oil Colonial war on Iraq, when to Germans President George W. Bush is like Adolf Hitler? Germany is united as never before on the issue of opposition to American wars of oil colonialism, except when it united under Adolf Hitler. Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has the potential to tap the public discontent against America to emerge as the powerful German leader to rival the aura and image of Adolf Hitler in the early 21st Century. Donald Rumsfeld’s public insults hurled at Germany and France by calling the leading Civilizations of Europe the “Old Europe,” could come to haunt America for decades to come. 

 

Preventive doctrines led to World War I. Concluding that an industrializing Russia would constitute a threat to German domination of Europe, Germany’s William Kaiser was eager to force a showdown with Russia in 1914. Understanding that Paris would come to Russia’s aid if hostilities began on German-Russian frontiers, Germany preemptively violated Belgium’s neutrality and invaded France. Concluding industrialized Russia and Allied Victor Russia would demand reparation from defeated Germany at the end of the First World War, the German leadership supported Bolshevik V. I. Lenin to reach Russia and lead communist Revolution with German support, hoping revolution would eliminate Russia as power. Capitalist Engel hired prostitute-philosopher Karl Marx on annual salary of 350 Pound Sterling to produce the philosophic concoction that could justify the loot of Czarist Russian property. The generation of Germany would not look the other way and allow American Oil Colonialism to destroy Iraq, as it destroyed Yugoslavia and Afghanistan for securing interests of American Oil Colonialism. Germans realize that American and British secret services created Iranian Ayatollah fundamentalism and Arab Wahhabi Fundamentalism to secure American British control over Islamic oil resources in Aryan Iran and Semite Middle East. Germans and French realized that the CIA created Albanian Muslim terrorists to weaken and divide multi-ethnic democratic Yugoslavia.  Germans and French realize that to support American Oil Colonialism would place Germany on the wrong side of the History in the 21st Century. As a pacifist power, Germany gains nothing by supporting American Oil Colonialism in Iraq. As an imperialist power, German Oil Colonialism gains nothing by supporting American Oil Colonialism, because President Bush refused to share the incomes of American Oil Colonies with its Atlantic partners. Why should France and Germany allow United States rape the oil-producing world, when American Oil Colonies would not split its profits with France and Germany? Germans and French are not big a fool that White House believe them to be. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the leader of the world’s 7th largest economy, could be the Lap Dog of President Bush, the world’s top economy, and British Monarch may agree to become the maid of the White House, but proud Aryan German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of Germany and French President Jacques Chirac, the leader of the world’s 5th largest and 6th largest economies of the world respectively, would not accept America’s domination over world’s oil supplies. China, Japan, India and Russia would support, the world’s 2nd largest, 3rd largest, 4th largest and 10th largest economies respectively, would wholeheartedly support German and French plan to tame and neutralize the conspiracy of American-British Big Oil Colonialism to conquer and control the world’s oil and gas supplies.   

 

(8) France Opposed American War Plans

France warned that American invasion of Iraq would divide the World into two hostile camp. French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin warned in Feb ’03 that waging war against Iraq without exhausting all peaceful means for disarming Saddam Hussein would split the international community and "be perceived as precipitous and illegitimate. France remained committed to continued and strengthened weapons inspections in Iraq. Any military intervention, when all the chances for a peaceful solution have not been explored, would divide the international community. Let us make no mistake, it would be perceived as precipitous and illegitimate. French remarks come two days after France, Germany and Russia submitted a proposal at the United Nations for step-by-step disarmament of Iraq, part of a European drive to counter U.S. pressure for military action. France maintains that peaceful disarmament has not been exhausted fully. France pressed Iraq to cooperate with weapons inspectors and insisted that France's anti-war stance enjoys broad international support. France's position is supported by a majority of nations and public opinion. France did not support a U.S.-backed draft resolution submitted to the United Nations that would have paved the way for American Oil Colonial war on Iraq.

 

President Bush expected to outline his vision of a democratic Iraq, while military brass laid out their ideas of how the country would be run after the Iraqi regime was toppled, including an initial occupation force of several hundred thousand soldiers. Testimony by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki at the Senate Armed Services Committee in Feb ’03 offered a glimpse of the early stages of a transition. Shinseki said he couldn’t give specific numbers of the size of an occupation force but would rely on the recommendations of commanders in the region.  “I would say that what’s been mobilized to this point, something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers. Assistance from friends and allies would be helpful as Iraq is “a piece of geography that’s fairly significant.” And any postwar occupying force would have to be big enough to maintain safety in a country with “ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems.” Meantime, Pentagon officials have said that U.S. forces massed in the region number about 200,000, about half of them Army. Meanwhile, the head of the U.S. Agency for International Development said the organization had plans in place to keep Iraqis fed for at least nine months if war breaks out in 2003, but he acknowledged disruption of those plans could lead to disaster.

 

(9) UNO relevant on Taming America

United Nations would become irrelevant like the League of Nations if it failed to stop the march of American Oil Colonialism. League of Nations failed to stop the Hitler’s aggression. The United Nations would lose its relevance in the world politics if it failed to tame and neutralize American Oil imperialism, even when France and Germany opposed it. President Bush has continued his drumbeat warning that failure to follow his leadership on an invasion of Iraq would reduce the United Nations to "irrelevance." United Nations and Non Aligned Movement would become irrelevant if it failed to oppose President Bush’s naked oil colonialism in Iraq.

 

President Bush deliberately making UNO irrelevant by stating that if the world body doesn't go along with him, America will go ahead with its plans to invade and occupy Iraq even without UNSC Resolution. The president Bush and his subordinates have been particularly heavy-handed in accusing Germany and France. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has called Germany and France representing the "Old Europe" of leading the United Nations into irrelevance, by opposing American Colonial plans to establish Oil colony in Iraq. American Gen. Eric K. Shinseki at the Senate Armed Services Committee in Feb ’03 offered a glimpse of the early stages of a transition, by stating that he couldn’t give specific numbers of the size of an occupation force but would say that what’s been mobilized to this point, something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers. United Nations would become irrelevant it allowed the stationing of several hundred thousand American troops to establish American colonial rule over Iraq after the conquest of Iraq.

 

France and Germany are trying to avoid the blunder of Neville Chamberlain in Munich in 1938, by refusing to accept the appeasement of imperialist America in UNO by allowing UNO become deaf and mute witness to the American aggression on Iraq. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice suggested that France and Germany are following the "appeasement" path of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain at Munich in 1938, when he accepted the German aggression. The Bush administration obviously puts in that category the French-German counterproposal to authorize four months or more of continued inspections under a series of more specific deadlines for Iraqi compliance. In truth if France and Germany accept the American oil colonial occupation of Iraq, the history would record it as the appeasement of Imperialist American oil colonialism. In the eyes of French President Jacques Chirac and Germany’s Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder America represents the Hitler of the 1938 Munich.

 

France and Germany would emerge as world powers in the eyes of the world diplomats if they succeed to tame and neutralize American oil colonialism in Iraq. On the contrary, French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder are making a last effort to preserve the relevance of the United Nations in choosing further diplomacy over bullets and missiles, by opposing naked American colonial aggression on Iraq. The French and German opposition to American imperialism dismissed by President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld as mere whining against France and Germany’s own diminished world influence and jealousy for the exalted stature of America as the sole superpower of the world in the Post Cold War age. But France and Germany are hardly alone in resenting the muscle-flexing and only slightly veiled U.S. bribery of other U.N. members to go along with. Poor Eastern European members are grateful for U.S. support of their inclusion in NATO and ever hopeful for American financial aid. And not unnoticed was the way Turkey successfully held up Uncle Sam for a larger payoff for use of Turkish territory from which to attack northern Iraq.

 

By opposing American imperialism and American Oil colonialism in Iraq, United Nations became relevant once again during 2003. To a United Nations supposedly on the brink of irrelevance, no amount of Bush administration rhetorical bullying is likely to change the view in the United Nations and in most parts of the world that an American oil colonialism’s invasion of Iraq is not commensurate to any imminent threat from Iraq. Saddam Hussein by general acknowledgment is a monster, but no worse than the monsters that president Bush loves in other parts of the world, namely General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. But to those still opposing war, the case of imminent threat is still to be made, and unless the case of imminent threat is made, the United Nations can prove its relevance by opposing America’s war on Iraq. Insisting that it be made can demonstrate the relevance of the United Nations, not the contrary. Unheeding of public opinion around the world favoring further efforts to disarm Iraq short of pre-emptive war, the Bush administration is pressing the U.N. Security Council to approve a second resolution essentially ordering an end to inspections and a start to American military action to establish American Oil colony in Iraq.

 

Britain perceived as the second ranking European power, which no longer is a great power. Britain has lost is image as a world power, by becoming what the London tabloid the Sun called, the Lap Dog of President Bush. With Britain and Spain dutifully in the passenger seats, President Bush has begun an aggressive diplomatic drive to get the council to adopt the resolution. The UN Security Council is ambivalent, at best, about forcing Saddam Hussein from power. Four major council members are against the resolution, Germany, France, Russia and China, the last three with veto power, as well as Iraq's neighbor, Syria. Bush Oil Administration has its work cut out for them to achieve the nine votes out of 15 required under the U.N. Charter to claim approval of the world community, they must cultivate, woo or threaten, Mexico, Chile, Equatorial Guinea, and Cameroon. Beyond the three sponsors of the new resolution, only Bulgaria now supports America, meaning the administration is currently five votes short. One other non-permanent member of the council, Pakistan, is considered certain to vote against the resolution or abstain. That leaves five nonpermanent members, Mexico, Chile, Angola, Guinea and Cameroon, holding the key to the outcome of the UN Security Council. United Nations would become irrelevant it failed to stop American imperialism in oil-rich Iraq.

 

United Nations and Nonaligned Nations Movement got new life when it united to oppose American Oil imperialism in Iraq. India would not support the American war moves on Iraq and the United Nations is being severely tested on account of the continuing crisis. The U.S. role is such that it cannot be supported, by India. India will decide what India has to do next after seeing what form the Iraq war will take. Because of the Iraq issue, there was considerable `jaan' (life) in this Non Aligned Movement Summit in Kaula Lumpur. Non Aligned Movement (NAM) was formed by India, Egypt, Yugoslavia and Indonesia, with the objective of stopping a world war and prodding nations to move away from military blocs and adopt an independent foreign policy. World stood on the verge of war in Feb 2003, in this situation there was need for NAM. It was feared that NAM Organization might be divided on Iraq, but it didn’t happen and NAM nations united to oppose American war on aggression on Iraq in Feb 2003.

 

30(13) France’s True Goal

(1) France and Richelieu’s Raison d’etat

French Diplomats ideally suited to create a new coalition of world powers to hold in check. Cardinal Richelieu the First Minister of France during counter Thirty Years Reformation Wars (1618-1648) developed the doctrine of Raison d’etat to keep Germany weak and supported Protestant German princes against Holy Roman Emperor of Habsburg Holy Roman Empire. Being a victim side of the Congress System and 1814 Congress of Vienna France realized the restraining power of the coalition of world powers. France has harnessed the power of the Roman Catholic Church, Germany, Belgium Russia, China and India to attempt a world coalition of world powers to hold United States the preeminent power in check.

 

(2) Euro helped France Contain the USA

With the Cold War behind, the key question of international politics, as seen by the French political and administrative elite, is this: Now that there is no military threat to Europe from the Soviet Union or anyone else, how to contain the United States? In this logic the Euro Currency must become an alternative, or co-reserve currency alongside the dollar. This would deprive the US of its Soft Power and its free ride in the world economy. After all, the special international role of the dollar permits the US to run staggering trade deficits and to escape the balance of payments discipline that holds all other nations in check. This French believe, boosts America’s ability to finance military and political power beyond its real means. The primary goal of French and European foreign policy is therefore to shift portions of the foreign exchange reserves of the world into Euros. The value of the Euro against the dollar may or may not rise as a result. The Euro is not fundamentally about exchange rates and exports and imports, although they are terribly important. The use of Euro as the co-reserve currency alongside dollar is about the political independence and power that the Euro as co-reserve currency buys. It was the Euro, not the UNSC Veto that enabled France to oppose President Bush on Iraq so boldly. Absent the Euro, it would have been relatively easy for the US to quietly bring the French back into line. A stealth US attack on the French franc, and on French financial markets would do the job, and it did the job more than once before. In 1956, when France and Britain invaded Egypt to retake the Suez Canal, Eisenhower was outraged. Some stern statements by Dwight Eisenhower backed by discreet mutterings about Franc and Pound Sterling currencies and discreet attack on French financial markets did the trick. The French and British promptly retreated from Suez in 1956. The European Union idea is a political not an economic project, though achieved through economic means. The first goal was to create a unified Europe to bring an end to European wars. The means were economic: a Common Market, or free trade zone, to be expanded to include the free movement of capital then the free movement of labor. Behind the agreement was a basic bargain between France and Germany: France would open to German industry and Germany would support French agriculture. In the full Gaullist vision, France in order to stay independent and powerful, France would have to enter a Europe unified behind French political leadership and backed by German economic power.

 

(3) France-America Mortal Combat

Germany, Russia, China, Japan and India may support France’s noble goal to check America and thereby create a better world balance of power, based on the Richelieu’s principles of Raison d’etat and Concert of World Powers. France and Germany would do its utmost trying to check the unbridled imperial ambitions of America that threatens the world order. United States France and United States Germany confrontation stabilizes the world and is good for the world, otherwise the Third World would fear that all white nations are evil and conspiring to establish new Colonial empires in the 21st Century. America and France would never ever become friends again.

 

France and United States engaged in the mortal combat over Iraqi Oil resources, which would determine the future of the Oil Colonialism and the return of he age of colonial empires in the 21st Century. France is simply putting into practice, the Chirac doctrine laid out in November 1999, at the eve of the New Millennium, that France would create a better world balance by holding the United States in check.

 

The French grand strategic aim, shared by Germans and Russians aimed to inflict a humiliating defeat on the Hyper-power America. President Bush has upped the ante and sent a 200,000 strong force to Iraq’s borders, and if America forced to bring them back, would be terrible defeat for the United States, and great victory of the 114-member Non Aligned Nations, France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, and China. In the 2002 presidential election in France the Neo-Fascist leader Le Penn came second in the three-way presidential elections. French voters voted for Le Penn to warn the winner, Jacques Chirac that if failed to stand up to United States and assert the power and influence of France, a Neo-Fascist leader would be the next President of France. President Chirac has no option but to wear the shoes that pro-Right France expects from its leader in 21st Century, otherwise a genuinely Fascist President would get sworn in as the next President of France. France has no option but to enter into a mortal combat with America and do its best to create a better world balance of power by holding the American Oil Colonialism and neo-imperialism in check in partnership with Belgium, Germany and Russia and perhaps even China, Japan and India. France, Germany, Russia and China would join force to humble America to convince Americans that the very concept of sole-superpower world order is the fantasy of the opiate power drug addict Texan Cow-Boy, fooled by Oil colonialism.

 

For France, Germany and Belgium, and also for Russia and China and may be for India also the diplomatic struggle at the United Nations is about reigning in the President Bush’s imperial America, determined to reestablish American Oil Colony in Iraq and other oil-producing world, to loot oil wealth of the Arab world to salvage the economic rot and bear market that financial scandals and 9/11 attacks set in America.

 

In book, "Of Paradise and Power," Robert Kagan explained: "Americans are from Mars, Europeans are from Venus." But Kagan perhaps underestimated the appeal a trustworthy Mars can exert. In Feb ‘03, a whole lot of Venusians just jumped planets and began undermining the dominance of United States. Paris and Berlin together blocked U.S. and NATO efforts to plan to defend NATO ally Turkey in case of war with neighboring Iraq. There are three countries, France, Germany and Belgium that oppose America’s domination of Europe. There are 19 countries in NATO. So it's 16 to 3. In other words, as France and Germany go, so goes Belgium. What Donald Rumsfeld called the Old Europe stretched out its once-massive hand to dislodge American influence in NATO.

 

France, Germany, Russia and China on American Oil colonialism are concerned not with commerce and morality, but with a grand strategic aim: inflicting a humiliating defeat on the much vilified “hyper power.” Non Alignment Movement nations may also join the France-Germany bandwagon to tame America. President Jacques Chirac is simply putting into practice his foreign policy agenda laid out in November 1999 “to create a better world balance” by holding the United States in check. French diplomacy deliberately seeks to defeat the credibility of President Bush’s threat. France wants to longer the diplomatic process, because the longer the process is spun out, the greater will be the public perception that Iraq war is unnecessary. Delay is enemy of war and friend of the peace.

 

France could end up the winner of the New ongoing Cold War with Untied States, if other great powers and Non Aligned Nations succeed in forcing President Bush to call back the American troops from the Gulf region without going to war. Humbling America in Iraq is the best diplomatic maneuver to defeat United States without a Hot War. United States would lose its sole super power status if it failed to invade Iraq and arrest Osama Bin Laden. President Chirac suggests that if Iraq complies with the United Nations, then President Bush can withdraw the troops and declare victory. For President Bush to upped the ante and sent a 200,000 strong force to Iraq’s borders, only to bring them back with Saddam Hussein in place, would be a terrible defeat for the United States, and may result in the decline of the Super power status of the United States. France and Britain ceased to be world powers, after Soviet threat forced London and Paris withdraw their troops from Suez Canal Zone. After 1990 collapse of the Soviet Union America became colossus power. The last time American power was so obviously, disproportionately, and unilaterally influential was after World War II, but America was then only a relative colossus, as Europe lay devastated and the Soviet empire prepared to rise. Now, after two generations of peace and prosperity, underwritten by American willingness to defend free countries, America's power and influence, whether for good or ill, is dizzying and disconcerting to France and Germany, Russia and China, India and Japan, who no longer lay devastated, and do not depend upon America for their defense.

 

(4) Euro-Colonialism Vs US Oil Colonialism

Diplomats fear that president Bush’s America misusing its power for creating American Oil Colonial Empire. America had enjoyed power and prestige so long the world leaders believed that America stands for good and virtues. In 1782 America founded her empire upon the idea of universal toleration: America admitted all religions into her bosom, America secured the sacred rights of every individual. What appeared astonishing absurdity to Europeans, America saw a thousand discordant opinions live in the strictest harmony. America finally raised her to pitch of glory and luster, before which the ancient glory of Greece and Rome will dwindle to a point, and the splendor of modern Empires fade into obscurity. Soviet Union touted Brezhnev Doctrine after 1975 America’s defeat, but within 15 years in 1990, the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Cold War ended and the Communism lost worldwide. United States enjoyed one super power status after the demise of the Soviet Union in 1990, could also meet the fate of the Soviet Union, 15 or 20 years after the demise of the Soviet Union.

 

America gained respect at the cost of Europeans as it camouflaged its naked national interests in the Wilsonian idealism. Founding fathers such as Webster not only foresaw American national greatness, but they understood its cause: individual liberty that unleashed the power of the minds of millions of people who were born here, or who came here seeking freedom. Americans by and large have never sought power in the world for its own sake. The power and influence that we have on the world stage is a byproduct of the liberties we do seek and treasure for ourselves and for people around the world. However, diplomats doubt moral foundation of President Bush’s war on terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq and condemn it as a camouflage for American Oil Colonialism.

 

(5) Imperial France & Germany Reasserts

Germany and France would be led by Fascist Chancellor or President respectively, if Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and president Chirac failed to lead Germany and France into Great power status in the 2000’s. United Germany laid the foundation of France-German alliance against American preeminence when a German minister compared President Bush with Adolf Hitler. But for anti-Americanism Gerhard Schroeder won’t have won the elections. The unprecedented rise of the Far Right in French presidential elections 2002, when the extreme Far-right No-Fascist presidential candidate came in number two position in the presidential primaries, force the hand of President Chirac. The future of the whole world, hangs on the future of the enlarged NATO, and the tug of war between US-led alliance members and Germany, France and Belgium. It is wrong to say that Germany accidentally tripped into its present position, goaded by France. There is the brooding matter of Germany’s military-imperialist past, and the sense that binds German nationalists and that also bind Japanese nationalists, even when both Germany and Japan continue to wear these postwar loincloths of innocence that make Machtpolitik something of an impiety, let alone a economic question of tanks and missiles and bayonets.

 

Germany and France would be led by Fascist Chancellor or President respectively, if Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and president Chirac failed to lead Germany and France into Great power status in the 2000’s. United Germany laid the foundation of France-German alliance against American preeminence when a German minister compared President Bush with Adolf Hitler. But for anti-Americanism Gerhard Schroeder won’t have won the elections. The unprecedented rise of the Far Right in French presidential elections 2002, when the extreme Far-right No-Fascist presidential candidate came in number two position in the presidential primaries, force the hand of President Chirac. The future of the whole world, hangs on the future of the enlarged NATO, and the tug of war between US-led alliance members and Germany, France and Belgium. It is wrong to say that Germany accidentally tripped into its present position, goaded by France. There is the brooding matter of Germany’s military-imperialist past, and the sense that binds German nationalists and that also bind Japanese nationalists, even when both Germany and Japan continue to wear these postwar loincloths of innocence that make Machtpolitik something of an impiety, let alone a economic question of tanks and missiles and bayonets.

 

Canada, Germany and France led the world in 2002 in anti-Americanism, and their people hated America the most, principally for its arrogance and preeminence. Many future national elections in Germany would be fought on the plank of anti-Americanism. No pro-American candidate would ever be able to become German Chancellor again. During 2002 national elections there came the accidental success of marginal candidate Gerhard Schroeder, who brushed the anti-American cream off the top of the electoral vat and scored an upset victory. Schroeder and Germany are stuck with Anti-Americanism. President Bush fortified Anti-Americanism in Germany and France, when he refused to have the Summit level meeting with German Chancellor, during the historic NATO Summit meeting that brought East European and Central European countries into the NATO against stiff opposition of Germany and France.

 

(6) Eastward Shift of Power to Asia

Power has shifted eastward, not to Eastern Europe but to Asia, represented by China, India and Japan, the world’s 2nd largest, 4th largest and 3rd largest economies of the world. France, Germany and Japan may not be able to equal America in military prowess but without their support to the Western Alliance United States and NATO would cease to play effective role in Europe and Asia. The basic problem of modern France, which is that it isn't strong enough to figure dominantly on the international scene by the mere deployment of its geopolitical or commercial resources, as its GNP of $1.2 trillion makes it the sixth largest economy of the world, behind America, China, Japan, India and Germany. France devotes too much of its resources for cultural activities. This requires a very heavy load on its cultural resources. French cultural resources and leadership in culture is formidable, but how many operas are needed to float out the single French aircraft carrier? The French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle has scarcely left French harbor during its accident-prone existence. There is no chance of the French cutting a bella figura in any hostilities, and so the easy way out for her is to oppose them. The aircraft carrier's eponym intuited the problem in 1966, when as president of France, Charles de Gaulle dramatically pulled the French out of the NATO administration, but France did not pull out of NATO, and France is still a member of that alliance, but the authority to deploy French military remains that of France alone. It is because of that rupture that the NATO administration was relocated to Brussels, where it sits cheek by jowl with the European Union. If every one of the NATO powers were to abide by de Gaulle's maxims, never divest yourself of your own power, but engage in ad hoc alignments to magnify that power, a stable alliance would be impossible. United States has to absorb a NATO alliance with room given for the caprice of the two major nations of Old Europe, Germany and France. Without the active participation of Germany and France, NATO will cease to have any relevance in Europe.

 

Who are Americans to bash the French President and German Chancellor for daring to defy arrogant American president? President Jacques Chirac openly expressed the private beliefs of virtually every other world leader that George W. Bush's desire to start an unprovoked war with Iraq is both crazy and immoral. It has quickly disintegrated into a ferocious display of American nativism that would be hilarious if its gleeful idiocy wasn't so frightening. Axis of Weasel," howled the New York Post in reaction to France and Germany's U.N. stance. A North Carolina restaurateur replaced French fries with "freedom fries." In West Palm Beach, a bar owner dumps his stock of French wine in the street, vowing to replace it with vintages from nations that support a U.S. invasion of Iraq. In Palm Beach, a county official is working to boycott French businesses from government contracts:

 

(7) India’s Role in 1st 2nd World Wars

Indians feel that American gone nuts when they frequently tout the role American troops played in the 2nd World War. Indian Empire had supplied 1 million troops during First World War and 3,500,000 troops during Second World War. Should India also demand that America, France, and Britain must support Indian imperial moves in the Middle East because had Indian troops not fought in the Second World War, British and French may be speaking Deutsch now. Americans think that France's attitude toward President Bush’s war of oil colonialism is deplorable. "It's quite possible that if we didn't send our troops there, the French people would all be speaking German." Allied troops liberated the French in 1944. The least France could do, the French bashers argue, is show a little gratitude. They think that France should stand by or better yet help out--when U.S. troops go to invade/ liberate/ whatever other countries. Sovereignty and self-determination are fine as mere words, but sovereignty and self-determination are not right for France a country America rescued from Nazi occupation to disagree with America’s imperial policy 50 years later and threaten America with a U.N. veto.

 

(8) America Owes More to France

France has done for United States than Untied States did for France. Had Napoleon Bonaparte not sold the vast territories to United States for mere $15 million, United States would not have extended from New York to Los Angeles. Without French blockade Cornwallis forces would have emerged victorious and American would not have become independent. To be sure, France owed America a nice thank-you card for D-Day. But America owed France a more. Without France, the United States wouldn't even exist--it would still be a British colony. Every American schoolchild learns that a French naval blockade trapped Cornwallis' forces at Yorktown, bringing the American Revolution to its victorious conclusion. But fewer people are aware that King Louis XVI spent so much money on arms shipments to American rebels that he bankrupted the royal treasury, plunged his nation into depression and unleashed a political upheaval that ultimately resulted in the end of the monarchy. Franklin Roosevelt wrote some fat checks to save France; but Louis gave up his and his wife's heads, to save American Revolution. During the American Civil War, France bankrolled the Union to neutralize British financing for the Confederacy. How many Americans remember that the Statue of Liberty was a gift from French schoolchildren?

 

(9) Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention

Clinton Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention justified invasion of Yugoslavia. Carter Doctrine brought down the monarchy of Shah of Iran and imposed the rule of fundamentalist Ayatollah Khomeini. Bush Doctrine of Regime Change advocated invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq to impose pro-American regimes. The Bush Doctrine advocates invading weak states, imposing "regime change" and building an American empire composed of colonies whose dark-skinned races can be exploited for cheap labor. Napoleon Bonaparte had similar ideas. Napoleon Bonaparte easily outclasses present American Oil colonialists in the pure bellicosity department. Would America choose Bonaparte over Chirac?

 

(10) Americans Hated & Insulted French

France supposed to get paramount power over Saudi Arabia after the First World War. France and India played greater military role in First World War than United States, but United States President Woodrow Wilson and Britain conspired to cheat France out of its share of spoils of victory. United States didn’t play any significant role in the First World War. France and Indian Empire were superior to United States in military capability in 1914. Americans insulted General Charles de Gaulle and French military capability, to undermine the superiority of the French military industrial complex, which produced better military hardware, tanks, and guns than American industry. Some of the ugly contempt Americans hurl at French dates to France's quick defeat in the blitzkrieg of May-June 1940. "Do you know how many Frenchmen it takes to defend Paris?" joked Roy Blunt, a Republican who evidently represented the unfortunate voters of Missouri. "It's not known; it's never been tried." Because of 1.4 million French young men who sacrificed their lives for their country, Paris didn't fall. France lost a staggering four percent of its population during the Great War. Twenty years later, in 1939, the French army still suffered from a massive manpower shortage. It cost 100,000 lives of French soldiers during six awful weeks in 1940, though they failed to save Paris, but they died defending it.

 

(11) Bush’s Coalition of Willing

President Bush rushing into war suffering from traditional American blindness about the cost of the war and the instability it would produce in the international system. President Bush believes a "coalition of the willing" of almost any size is big enough to justify America’s war on Iraq to establish American oil colony. President Bush (1989-1993) didn't think so in 1990 and 1991, and as a consequence began a painstaking process of building the biggest war coalition in world history. Right now the United States can count on Bulgaria, Spain and Britain in the Security Council. That sounds more like a tennis foursome than a fearsome coalition. Poland is with Bush, too. It's hard to think of a sixth supporter except maybe Turkey, depending on the size of the American check. The administration has so bungled the diplomacy that the best it can hope for is a reluctant coalition of the whining.

 

President Bush proceeded with the notion that war with Iraq is more a mop-up operation than a mobilization for bitter, bloody combat. Saddam Hussein used mustard gas and the nerve agent Tabun against Iran, and unleashed hydrogen cyanide against the Kurds, could use anthrax, Botulinum toxin and Aflatoxin against American forces. Iraq can cause lots of damage to American troops. The consequences would be frightful. United States had trouble finding Manuel Noriega in Panama in 1989 and 1990 and has been unable to find Osama bin Laden in 2001, 2002 and 2003. What is the guarantee it can capture Saddam Hussein, who has more than a dozen body doubles, this spring or next?

 

(12) America’s Colonial Dreams in Iraq

The latest anti-Bush line from those who can’t seem either to embrace or to reject his war for oil colonialism in Iraq say that Bush has no vision of what will happen after the war is over. President Bush fleshed out his views in his speech before the American Enterprise Institute. President Bush has not explained the long-term implications of American victory in Iraq, the time years, not months an American occupation troops would require to keep Iraq under control, could strain American resources and patience. The mere presence of American troops and aircraft at Prince Sultan Air Base north of Riyadh in Saudi Arabia justified as a provocation that led to the destruction of the World Trade Center and the attack on the Pentagon, by Saudi Wahhabi terrorists. Actual American occupation of an Islamic land could be even more provocative to terrorist groups and even more destabilizing to the United States' few allies in the region. Middle East experts are sometimes fond of saying that the Arab-Israeli fight is a conflict between two sides that are both right. If barbarian Saudi Wahhabi terrorists could inflict 9/11 damage to the United States, how much more damage determined Iraqis could do to United States?

 

(13) The Threatening Storm

The Case for Invading Iraq

President Chirac following the clue presented in Pollock’s book, that if President Bush can’t attack Iraq in early 2003, then he would not be able to attack Iraq later on. Pollack’s book “The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq” influenced President Bush’s policy on Iraq. America is so far down the line that we can't walk away now: If President Bush doesn't go to war with Saddam Hussein in 2003, then America can't do it. If the United States unwilling to commit the forces necessary to ensure success and the resources necessary to rebuild a stable, prosperous Iraq afterward, it has no business trying to bring about Saddam's overthrow. Tough sentence. Tough world. Kenneth M. Pollack's ideas are not only in the ascendancy, they are holding the capital, country and world in their thrall. Pollack’s “The Threatening Storm” is a legal brief for why now is the time for the United States to invade Iraq. The remarkable thing about Pollack's role in the Iraq debate is his lineage in the foreign-policy world. The man whose ideas are fueling the Bush administration's drive against Baghdad held a high policy position in the Clinton administration. "The Threatening Storm" is on every night table in diplomatic Washington and elsewhere. Pollack's book carries the subtitle "The Case for Invading Iraq.”

 

America has been pretty good and sensible about avoiding colonialism and imperialism. America did occupy Germany and Japan after World War II, as it would have been insane not to. United States have occupied most every country in Central America, to say nothing of the Philippines, Haiti, Cuba, Indian country and California. Some might add Texas to the list.

 

To be more precise, the events marked begin with Ibn Saud's announcement that he controlled a new kingdom he called Saudi Arabia on Sept. 23, 1932. Exactly one month later, another desert king, Faisal, declared the independence of Iraq. The British, as you might suspect, had a hand in all this. The time-line ends with the bombing of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

 

Wolfowitz rebuked the Army chief of staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, who told Congress that occupation of Iraq might require hundreds of thousands of soldiers. Wolfowitz then asserted that few troops would be needed because Iraq has never had the kind of ethnic strife that has characterized places like the Balkans. Wolfowitz is wrong, Iraq is divided into three parts: Kurds in the north, Saddam Hussein's Sunni Muslims in the center, and the poor (and brutalized) Shiites in the south. That's what the "no-fly zones" were about. And, unless God is as kind as he is great, those people are going to try to chop each other into little pieces if they get half the chance. Sad but true, so send some maps to the Pentagon, too.

 

(14) Galbraith’s Forecasts

Peter W. Galbraith, a former ambassador who is now a professor of national security studies at the National War College, offered in Feb ’03, a view of what might happen next. Galbraith thought that there was a 25 percent chance of a quick Iraqi capitulation and an orderly transfer of power. Galbraith, who once handled the Iraq portfolio for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and was last in the country six months ago, listed four possible war and postwar scenarios, with his own estimate of their probability: The probability of Quick Iraqi surrender is 25 percent. The probability of chaotic Iraqi collapse is 50 percent. The probability of prolonged Iraqi resistance in urban is 20 percent. The probability of catastrophic use of weapons of mass destruction is 5 percent.

 

"Chaos," the most likely scenario, defined as including uncontrolled revenge killing and looting, particularly in the poor and overwhelmingly Shiite Muslim areas of southern Iraq and, possibly, in Baghdad as well. Also listed as possible was more controlled violence by hundreds of thousands of Kurds, expelled by Saddam from northern villages and homes after the 1991 Gulf War. Four thousand Kurdish villages were destroyed, covered over by Iraqi bulldozers, and more than 100,000 city homes given to Arabic Sunni Muslims. Armed Kurds, with or without leadership, are going to rush back to their homes and take them from the Arabs Saddam installed. Galbraith’s estimate of the number of refugees that chaos would produce was 50,000, with 1 million more displaced inside the borders of Iraq.

 

The quick victory for the United States scenario, Galbraith estimates, would produce 20,000 refugees and 200,000 displaced persons. In the "urban warfare" scenario, the Iraqi military, particularly the Sunni Republican Guards, would fight relatively effectively, perhaps even retreating into Baghdad and battling from house to house. Americans might have to go into the alleys of a city of 5 million people or lay siege to Baghdad in a very old-fashioned war. That, he estimated, would produce 75,000 refugees and 3 million displaced persons. Many of the refugees and displaced would be "bad guys" that is, supporters of Saddam's regime on the run from their oppressed neighbors.

 

Finally, there was a 5 percent chance "small but real" that Saddam would use "weapons of mass destruction" chemical and biological weapons against the Americans, the Kurds or Israel. In a nightmare scenario he laid out, Saddam would hit Israel and the Israelis would retaliate with nuclear weapons. There was a high probability that if Saddam ordered the use of WMD, his generals would ignore the order; the historical model for German generals ignoring Hitler's orders to burn Paris as the Allies liberated the city in 1944. That scenario would produce tens of thousands of deaths and estimated 4 million refugees and 11 million displaced Iraqis.

 

(15) Paying For Cost of Iraq War

President Bush wants to establish Oil Colony in Iraq and believed that Iraqi oil reserves would pay for all fiscal mess that Untied States may face for decades to come. President Bush wants to occupy Iraq and then partition the non-oil producing regions into separate independent states, and retain the states that have oil fields firmly under America’s colonial occupation. President Bush intends to loot the oil reserves of Iraq to pay for the cost of America’s war on Iraq. As during colonial era, the colonial gold and riches paid for the grandeur lifestyles of the Colonial Home lands. President Bush realized that American economy can maintain its economic preeminence if it brutally colonizes an oil producing nation. Some supporters of invasion argue that Iraq's oil reserves can be used to pay the costs of occupation and rebuilding. But funneling Iraq's oil profits into the U.S. treasury would simply throw another match on the Mid East tinderbox. The Arab world already believes the United States is using Saddam's tyranny as an excuse to confiscate Iraq's oil; shall we be so foolish as to prove them right? Does it matter that this war could be quite costly? Shouldn't the nation spend generously on defense? Indeed, it should. There would be less controversy over costs if this war were likely to make the nation more secure. Unfortunately, an invasion of Iraq could easily have the opposite effect, as Arab children grow up watching a Muslim nation under U.S. occupation. Even if the United States installs a friendly government, as we did in Afghanistan, it'll be clear the White House is pulling the strings.

 

(16) Oil Loot Pays Iraqi War Costs

President Bush heads an Oil Cabinet, knows that oil contracts would pay for the future Pentagon’s Budget. It's not surprising that Bush reluctant to face up to the costs of his nation-building project in Iraq. That yawning abyss could easily suck up the hopes and dreams Americans hold for the future. By the time the United States finishes paying for the president's imperial ambitions in the Middle East, there will be little money left for schools or health care or prescription drugs for the elderly or even homeland security. President Bush’s war on Iraq could cause severe strains on US economy, unless United States would loot the oil wealth of Iraq. Unless President Bush succeed in transferring oil incomes of Iraq to US treasury the European Union would overtake United States as economic power. No wonder France and Germany have snubbed this war. While the United States pays the costs of invasion and nation-building, those countries will have more money for their domestic needs: schools, health care, parks and recreation, and environmental clean-up. The European Union could outpace the U.S. because its members will have had the resources to revitalize their most important infrastructure their citizens. Even without counting the invasion of Iraq, the Bush budget proposes to shackle the next generation to an unconscionable burden of debt. With war and occupation, which could easily run to hundreds of billions, future generations could be paying off the costs of Iraq War. Direct Colonial Occupation of Iraq would solve all the financial worries of America and usher in a new Age of Oil Colonial Empires in the 21st Century.

 

(17) Algeria-France Alliance

American traditionally used the Wahhabi terrorists to destabilize secular, liberal Islamic nations. It is no wonder that Untied States undermined the secular liberal Islamic societies, namely, Shah of Iran’s liberal Iran, modern Algeria and secular Iraq. France would now onwards support the President Abdelaziz Boutflika’s war on Islamic terrorism that seek to impose Wahhabi Shariah laws over Algeria. United States aimed to establish Ayatollah Khomeini type regime in Algeria that would break French cultural influence in Algeria. United States supported Wahhabi terrorists that killed tens of thousands people in Algeria, to weaken French hold over Algeria. Chirac will discuss Iraq with Algerian leaders the two sides are expected to concentrate on strengthening relations. They also will speak about terrorism. Algeria's Islamic extremist movement has been a source of terrorist activities in Europe and North America, feeding international groups that helped Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaida network. Islamic militants have sought since 1992 to topple Algeria's military-backed government and set up an Islamic state. Algerian Islamic terrorists have massacred soldiers and civilians. About 120,000 people have died. Government security forces have also been accused of human rights violations. Trying to put the insurgency behind it and bring back investors, President Abdelaziz Bouteflika has offered amnesty to rebels who surrender their weapons. Thousands accepted the deal, but others fight on from mountain hideouts undermining government claims that the insurgency is beaten. Bush has taken the events of 9/11 and has manipulated the grief of the country that's reprehensible. Iraq’s war is about what most wars are about: hegemony, money, power and oil.

 

(18) Arrogance Widened Rift with Europe

It is strange that no major media either in print media and electronic media offer a divergent view opposing President Bush’s war of oil colonialism. American politicians and media have criticized with increasing irony and arrogance those who don't adopt their line, particularly their European friends, France and Germany. This means that the rift between Europe and the United States is widening at the alarming rate the same time as an American colonial attack against Iraq to establish American oil colonialism draws ever closer. In the United States, one often seeks to find an answer to the question: Why can't the naive critics of Bush Oil Cabinet understand that America must get rid of Saddam Hussein and establish American Oil in Iraq so that western world could become richer by looting the oil wealth of the Islamic world that launched 9/11 attacks? Why can’t French and Germans learn to cooperate with the American Oil imperialism? In Europe, instead, one hears the basic question: Why can't the United States understand that the victims and the risks involved in an attack on Iraq for establishing an American Oil Colony in Iraq, are too great, as it would unleash the New Age of Colonial empires in the 21st Century?'

 

(19) Anti-Americanism United UNO & NAM

United Nations regained its lost credibility by opposing President Bush’s unwarranted war on Iraq. United Nations and Non Aligned Movement nations summit proved it’s relevant in the multipolar world by standing against United States. The showdown at the U.N. Security Council is just a sideshow on the stage of world opinion. If the UN Security Council agrees with President Bush, then United Nations will have been useful to the Americans. If the council doesn't agree, then American media would declare United Nations irrelevant. The American superpower's decision to go to war has been made; it's only a question of when. President Bush asked his close aides to prepare the attack on Iraq, within days of the 9/11 attacks. United Nations could articulate the world public opinion in spite of American media warfare.

 

United States wasted the world’s compassion it received after 9/11 attacks, by its relentless pursuit of American Oil Colonial interests to establish oil colonies first in the Iraq and then in Iran. Because of 9/11 terrorist attacks from the Baltic to the Black Sea, from India to South Africa, from Indonesia to Japan there has been unanimity of government support and sympathy for America that, burgeoning America’s antagonism toward France and Germany, would have been unthinkable just a few months ago.

East Europeans would commit a hara-kiri if they decide to support American Oil Colonialism and oppose France and Germany that opposed American neo-colonialism. Eastern Europe and the Balkans, unlike their Western neighbors, have a sense of history, which, because of their recent turbulence, has a relevance to the present France-American, German-American conflict. Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder made a point of drawing a line under Germany's wartime guilt and took anti-war stand and compared president Bush to Adolf Hitler. France pointedly ignores its own wartime debt to America and asserted the glory and power of France otherwise President Chirac feared the Neo-Fascists would takeover France in the next elections. 

 

One shouldn’t spit at the face of the donor that feeds one. The leaders of East Europe and Central Europe would have to take humbling choice so soon after they got liberated from Soviet tyranny, to choose either Germany France or America as their new master. If they chose America then they can’t expect France and Germany to pay for their economic development. Would Yankee taxpayers pay for the economic development of East and central Europe, if thy get booted out of European Union? East Europeans took anti-French and anti-German stand to declare their open support to NATO imperialism in Iraq, hoping they would make a good living serving in American occupation forces in post-Saddam Iraq. East European admiration for America is firmly seated in gratitude for the covert and overt support of successive Washington administrations for political dissent during the years of Soviet domination. America is perceived by East Europeans as attaching a value to democracy that is lacking in France and Germany. Many parts of Eastern Europe feel let down by France and particularly Germany for breaking promises, made during German reunification process, to act as a bridge between Eastern Europe and Western Europe. East Europeans could have blocked the unification of Germany, had Germany and France not offered them great hopes of cooperation in future. East Europeans intend to teach Germany and France a lesson by undermining German-France Axis in European Union.

 

President Carter encouraged the election of Bolshevik Bishop as the Pope Paul II to undermine the influence of Italy, Germany and France over Vatican government. President Bush encouraged the entry of East Europeans into NATO to undermine the Germany and France leadership of the European Union. Tony Blair reviled in France, not because Britain wanted dominating European Union, but Britain refused to allow European Union become a counterweight to the United States. United States intended to bring down European Union, as the expanded European Union would challenge the domination of the United States. The United States, it seems, does not intend to encourage European unity, and it would be strange if it did. Why would the United States, with its receding economy, wish good luck to the European super state?''

 

Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel's explicit statement that Belgium is 'no lackey of the United States' did not go down particularly well in Washington. EU will finally complement its economic power with adequate political and military power so that EU became a credible alternative to the United States. Western Europe is currently better off than Eastern Europe, because the USA has never regarded its European allies as lackeys, but rather as partners, albeit not always in a very tactful way.'

 

British Capitalists want to join with France and Germany, because United States undermined British oil colonial interests in Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, Yemen, and Brunei, the former colonies of the India-British Empire. Conservatives would reverse pro-US policy of the British government. Ireland should learn that Ireland’s recent economic prosperity owes much more to Germany and France than to the United States. Should Germany and France squeeze the Euro flow to Ireland to punish Ireland for its support to United States? In Britain and Ireland, anti-war feeling directed at the Bush administration, not America as a nation. Between the U.S. and France, it's personal animosities and likely to cause long-term damage to French-American relations. In view of the abuse that America heaped upon France, the French response has remained remarkably restrained. Perhaps Americans should look in their own closet before whipping the French with history.

 

France today, busybody appears as the gleaming champion of the opposition to America. French and German opposition to American Oil colonialism unleashed a Franco phobic hysteria there and anti-Americanism in Germany that would make Germany and France permanent enemies of United States for decades to come. German French opposition to President Bush has undermined NATO and European Union, though they are not yet broken but are fractured beyond repair. If President Bush persists in wanting colonial war in Iraq that it ceaselessly announces, France and Germany will have to face the prospect of abstention, from US-led expanded NATO. In short, France and Germany may exit through the back door, and seek alternative defense ties with nuclear Russia to undermine American hegemony in NATO. Germany may ask American to withdraw its troops from bases on German soil.

 

France, Germany, Belgium, and Russia realized that American Oil Colonialism enjoys no inherent technical, financial, political and military advantages over rival French and German oil colonialism. America realizes that its economy is rotten from within and only by looting the oil wealth of Iraq, could America hope to remain an economic power in the 21st Century. It would be naïve for the Untied States to believe that France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, China, Japan and India would permit American Oil Colonialism to occupy and loot the Black gold of Iraq, as Spain had looted the gold of the Incas and Mayas. Iraq is also an ancient Civilization. Germany and France and Russia could emerge as the economic rival to the American economy, if they succeed to establish Oil colony in Iraq. China would overtake America as the world’s top economic power in 5 years, if China could establish Oil Colony in Iraq or Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. India could also overtake United States as the leading economic power in 10 years if India could establish Oil colony in Iraq, or Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. United States enjoys super Power status not because of the inherent strength of American economy or American industry but because of America’s colonial occupation of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE. India as well as China could overtake United States as the leading economic and military power, if they could establish oil colonies in Iraq or Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. In the 21st Century the Global Clash of Races ultimately boils down to the global clash of Oil Colonialism and the clash of neo-colonial empires. India, China should focus on Arabian Gulf in the Third World War and attempt the control of the Arabian Gulf Oil and attempt to deny other powers, whether hostile or friendly, the control Arabian Gulf Oil. He who controls the oil of the Arabian Gulf would determine the outcome of the Third World War and emerge as the Super Power of the world. During 18th and 19th Century the Persian Gulf or Arabian Gulf had been Indian Lake and controlled by Navy of Indian Empire. The Central banks of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and Yemen kept their foreign currency reserves in Indian rupee as late as 1964. As late as 1964, there were three foreign currency zones in the world, namely, American Dollar zone, British Pound Sterling zone and Indian rupee zone.   

 

30(14) Bush’s Oil War on Iraq

(1) Dialectics of Jihad, Crusades, Colonialism

American Oil colonialism succeeded in securing the support of United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia for American’s invasions of Iraq, in exchange for Saudi Arabia and UAE in the foreign occupation troops that would rule and govern Iraq after the ouster of Saddam Hussein. Wahhabi Arab nations United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia support American invasion of Iraq, as a necessary cost for maintaining Sunni Arab rule over Iraq, where Sunni Arabs represent only 16 percent of the population. Ruler of Abu Dhabi proposed Saddam Hussein should step down, and let Arab armies enter Iraq and rule Iraq as occupation troops, for some years so that the elections could be held and new democratically elected government could stabilize Iraq and avert ethnic civil war in Iraq. The Emirates proposal contained suggested that if Saddam Hussein stepped down, forces from Arab League countries should enter Iraq and try to stabilize the situation. These forces would serve in lieu of American forces. Emirates officials have gone out of their way to say that Washington did not generate the proposal for Mr. Hussein to step down. Similarly, American diplomats have said that the idea was the Emirates' own. Wahhabi UAE and Saudi Arabia entered into a Faustian agreement with America to establish American oil colonialism in the Arab world. The five world powers, namely, France, Germany, Russia, China and India opposed to this Faustian agreement of the Arab states to rape and loot the riches of Iraq and to impose the Arab Wahhabi rule over Shiite-Kurd majority Iraq. Either Iraq should be brought under the rule of five great powers, namely, France, Germany, Russia, China and India, or Iraq should be brought under the rule of the Non Aligned nations, led by India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia and Egypt, for the interim period it would required to hold democratic elections in Iraq. Neither United States nor Saudi Arabia and the Emirates should occupy Iraq in post-Saddam era. Libya correctly charged Wahhabi Saudi Arabia to have entered into an alliance with the Devil America, to establish American oil colony over Saudi Arabia in exchange for the rule of House of Al Saud in Saudi Arabia and the rule of Wahhabi clergy over Mecca and Medina. 

 

Christian Americans harnessed the power of Wahhabi fundamentalism to loot the Oil riches of Arabian lands, just as Damascus Jews harnessed the military power of Muslim Arab Bedouin raiders to loot the riches of Egypt and Syria in 7th Century and just as Roman Catholic Church harnessed the power of Muslim Ottoman Turks to loot the riches of Byzantine Christian Constantinople. Damascus Jews and urban Arab traders had financed the military expeditions of Bedouin Muslim tribes to loot Egypt and Syria after 640 AD to profit by the loot of the Civilizations. Hellenic Jews had joined the Christian armies unleashed by Christian Roman Emperor Theodosius I (d. 395 AD) to loot the riches of pagan temples of Greece, Rome, Egypt and Syria. The Catholic Crusaders during Fourth Crusade looted the Byzantine Christian Constantinople. Roman Catholic church supported the looting and rape of Constantinople at hands of Muslim Ottoman Suleiyman. United States and Britain supported Islamic fundamentalism to carve out spheres of influence to establish oil colonies in Saudi Arabia and Iraq by undermining Ottoman Empire by unleashing Wahhabi terrorism. American Oil colonialism financed Ayatollah Khomeini to establish oil colony in Iran by overthrowing the nationalist patriotic imperial regime of Shah of Iran. British oil interests financed and supported Mohammad Ali Jinnah to carve out a new Islamic state in Indian Empire by portioning India in 1947, so that India may not have direct borders with oil-rich Iran. United States supported Osama Bin laden and allowed Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, with direct support of Saudi Arabia and UAE to establish American oil colony in Afghanistan to control the Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India Oil-Gas Pipeline to transport the Turkmenistan Oil and Uzbekistan Gas to the oil terminals at Baluchistan port of Gwadar or to Indian markets.

 

National interests of United States, religious interests of Christian religious right conspiracy and Osama Bin laden coincide and they jointly seek to undermine and destabilize all other secular, liberal, moderate, democratic Islamic nations. President Bush’s invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and threatened invasion of Iraq in 2003 enhanced the power and influence of Wahhabi fundamentalism in Afghanistan and Iraq in particular and Middle East in general. But for the Wahhabi terrorist attacks of Sept 11, the Osama Bin Laden and President Bush might have been best friends. President Bush may be invading Iraq to establish American oil colony in Iraq and to establish Wahhabi fundamentalist regime in Iraq. It appears that Pakistan and United States provided safe passage to Al Qaeda leadership and Osama Bin Laden from Afghanistan and secured safe houses for them in Pakistan, and camouflaged it as political necessity for waging war on terrorism. It is likely that United States would help Osama Bin laden become ruler of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE to loot and overthrow the ruling royal houses in the Arabian Gulf, much like the Ayatollah Khomeini take over of Iran. The national and geopolitical interests of American Oil colonialism coincide with that of Osama Bin Laden and conflict with that of nationalistic secular Islamic regimes, namely, Iran, Syria, Algeria and Malaysia and democratic Pakistan. The interests of American Oil Colonialism, Christian religious right conservative conspiracy, Osama Bin Laden, Saudi House of Al Saud and militant Wahhabi Sunni fundamentalism coincide and radically conflict with the national interests of secular, nationalistic, patriotic and secular Muslim nations and societies. The national interests of France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, China and India conflict with those of Wahhabi fundamentalism and American Oil Colonialism.

 

(2) Thesis, anti-Thesis and Synthesis

In early 1900’s the Ottoman Empire was the Thesis, and British-American supported Wahhabi fundamentalism the Anti-Thesis and it resulted in the disintegration of Ottoman Empire and synthesis of the alliance of Rule of Al Saud family in Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and the American monopoly over Saudi Oil and British monopoly over Iraqi oil and religious monopoly of Mecca-based Wahhabi Clergy. In 1947, the British Indian empire was the Thesis, the British Spy agency supported Mohammad Ali Jinnah and M.K. Gandhi was the Anti-Thesis, and the result was the synthesis of partition of Indian Empire. In 1980 the Pahlavi Monarchy of Iran was the Thesis and the CIA Spy Ayatollah Khomeini the Anti-Thesis and it resulted in the synthesis of the tyranny of fundamentalist Ayatollah Khomeini and the downfall of the liberal, secular Aryan Pahlalvi Monarchy of Shah of Iran.    

 

(3) Secession of Saudi Arabia & Iraq

To be more precise, the events marked begin with Ibn Saud's announcement that he controlled a new kingdom he called Saudi Arabia on Sept. 23, 1932. Exactly one month later, another desert king, Faisal, declared the independence of Iraq. The British, as you might suspect, had a hand in all this. The time-line ends with the bombing of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. British Spy Colonel Lawrence of Arabia was the first to exploit the military potential of Wahhabi fundamentalism to undermine the Ottoman Empire. Arab Muslims lost their influence in Islamic Caliphates after Baghdad became the capital of the Islamic Abbasid Caliphate in 762, just 100 years after the advent of Islam in 640 AD in Mecca. The second Caliph of the Abbasid Empire Abu Ja’far al Mansour founded Baghdad in 762 AD. In 1258 Mongol invaders lay waste to Baghdad, ending the Abbasid dynasty, slaughtering hundreds of thousands, including the Caliph. In 1401 the Mongol Ruler Tamerlane massacres much of the population of Baghdad. In 1831, under the rule of the Turkish Ottoman Empire, floods and bubonic plague reduce the population of Baghdad by 66 percent. In 1917, Ottoman Empire, allied with Germans falls in World War I, and British forces occupy Baghdad and create the state of Iraq, which never existed in history. States of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Israel and Palestine have also never existed in history and were creation of British secret services. On September 23, 1932, artificial state of Saudi Arabia created by American secret services. And on October 23, 1932, the artificial state of Iraq created by British secret services. King Faisal II, was a British spy and agent and recruited by British Spy Colonel Lawrence of Arabia, and King Faisal agreed to hand over all Oil riches to Britain in exchange for the privilege to become the king. King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud had agreed to hand over all the oil riches to America and all religious powers to Meccan Wahhabi clergy in exchange for the right of al Saud family to rule Saudi Arabia. Artificial states of Saudi Arabia and Iraq were simultaneously created in oil-producing regions. The artificial states of Jewish Israel and Muslim Pakistan artificially created by British Secret Services that fomented communal riots in Israel and Pakistan almost coinciding. Without the continued support of the United States president no Arab Muslim nation would survive as independent nation, and America exploited this ground reality to secure American colonial control over Arab oil reserves and oil-generated wealth.

 

America’s 2001 Afghanistan War and 2003 Iraq war aimed to establish Wahhabi control over Afghanistan and Iraq and American Oil colonies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Whenever Islamic terrorism agreed to shun attacks on American oil colonialism, the Wahhabi terrorists would regain their high status as warriors of the CIA. Perhaps United States would install Osama Bin Laden or some one from Bin Laden Group as the new ruler of Saudi Arabia if he agreed to loot the assets of the Saudi Arabian royal family. Alliances periodically change in the world of Big Oil, Big Money and Big Politics.

 

France, Germany, Russia, China and India should not rule out the possibility of future alliance of Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden with the CIA to restore American Oil Colonialism throughout the Muslim oil-producing world. There has been no divorce in the marriage of the CIA and Islamic terrorism, though it could be a situation of forced separation due to 9/11 terrorist attacks, but in no case be termed as divorce. According to Shariah Muslim men can divorce just by uttering Talak four times and can remarry the divorced wife four times. After the American conquest of Iraq, Osama Bin Laden and the CIA could remarry and plan their next move to overthrow the tyranny of illegitimate House of Al Saud in Saudi Arabia and illegitimate regime of Al Sabah in Kuwait and other illegitimate Wahhabi Royal families in UAE, Qatar and Bahrain. Pakistan provided a safe heaven to Osama Bin Laden hoping he would some day become the ruler of Saudi Arabia after the imminent downfall of the corrupt House of Al Saud monarchy in Saudi Arabia.

 

(4) Jihad As Counter Reformation War

Jihad represented the Counter Reformation movement in Islam, which abandoned reasoned spiritual struggle and renewed focus on militant Jihad. It explains that Catholic Vatican, the leader of the Counter Reformation movement in Christianity, find common cause with Wahhabi the Jihadis the leaders of the Counter Reformation Movement in Islam. The Islamic concept of Jihad (Islamic terrorism) laid the foundation of the decline of Islam after the Mongol conquest of Islamic world in 1258. The emphasis on Ijtihad (reasoned spiritual struggle) was abandoned with renewed focus on militant Jihad (holy war). Soon thereafter, Ibn Taimiyah (1262-1327), a Syrian theologian, laid the theological foundations of militant Islam’s revival that remains the theological font of all counter-reformation thinking among Muslims. Saddam was avowedly anti-religion until the 1991 Gulf War, after which he started his pretense of championing Islamic causes. In doing so he played on a historic tendency that has characterized Muslim behavior since the Middle Ages. Muslims turn to literalism in interpreting religion and admire defiant militants whenever their Ummah (community of believers) is threatened by the military might of non-Muslims. American conquest of Iraq represents the 21st century version of the 1258 Mongol conquest of Baghdad and the Ottoman conquest of the Islamic world. Arab race would have to accept their fate under foreign occupation and they have no option but to remain under foreign occupation for few more centuries. Arab race survived under Mongol Caliphate, Ottoman Caliphate and would also survive under American Caliphate. Arab oil-producing nations are very wealthy in terms of oil and gas resources and very weak militarily and have very small population. Geopolitically no golden bird can fly free and its destiny is to find peace in a cage. Wahhabi fundamentalism is the diplomatic doctrine conceived by British American secret services and British American Oil Colonialism to disintegrate Muslim Ummah and to establish American Oil colonies throughout oil-producing Islamic world. Arab Wahhabi Sunni fundamentalism was the secret weapon designed and perfected by American Oil Colonialism to conquer and enslave Islamic nations and to loot Islamic oil wealth. Islamic nations would never remain free and control Islamic oil resources so long as Arab Wahhabi Sunnis remain in power in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE. Only by militarily destroying Arab Wahhabi fundamentalism and Islamic militancy in Arabian Peninsula could civilized Islamic nations regain power and prestige in the world and succeed in protecting Islam itself from sure self-destruction.

 

(5) Should Arab League Occupy Iraq?

Like the former black slave traders of Africa that captured black slaves for White and Arab slave traders, the Ruler of Abu Dhabi proposed that Armed forces of Arab League should acquire political control over Iraq in the post-Saddam Iraq and directly rule and govern it till the time elections could be held and power transferred to the elected representatives of Iraq, which may take years or even decades. The ruler of Abu Dhabi Sheik Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan threw the bait to rape and loot Iraq, to the fellow Arab League leaders, notably Egypt by suggesting that Armed Forces from Arab League countries could enter Iraq and occupy it and control its oil and wealth on behalf of the people of Iraq, for the interim period to transfer to the elected representative of the Iraqi people. What worried the most to the Arab League leaders was is possibility of Civil War in Iraq that carried a lot of anti-Arab Sunni vengeance among Shiite Arab tribes and Sunni Kurd tribes inside Iraq. Sheikh al-Nahyan offered the Arab League leaders chance to loot the oil wealth of Iraq and keep Sunni Arab domination over Iraq, even when Arab Sunnis represent only 16 percent population of Iraq. The UAE and Saudi Arabia had teamed up with Pakistan and United States to impose Wahhabi Taliban rule over Afghanistan in 1995. The Emirates and Saudi Arabia dream to establish Wahhabi Sunni regime in Post-Saddam Iraq. United States won the support of UAE by offering to share with the Arab League the loot of Iraq. The Emirates also maintained relations with the Taliban in Afghanistan and was the one of the three countries that recognized the government of Taliban, besides Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

 

America waging psychological warfare against Iraq, by inducing Saddam to resign and stroked the greed of UAE and Saudi Arabia by offering to hand over the oil and wealth of Iraq to Gulf Arab nations for colonial occupation and exploitation and for imposition of Wahhabi rule over Iraq. The Wahhabi King Faisal II had ruled Iraq from 1953 to July 14, 1958, before overthrown by the CIA inspired military coup. British secret services and Colonel Lawrence of Arabia had installed King Faisal I as ruler of Iraq in 1921 and he ruled till 1933. The Emirates proposal contained suggested that if Mr. Hussein left, forces from Arab League countries should enter Iraq and try to stabilize the situation. These forces would serve in lieu of American forces. Emirates officials have gone out of their way to say that Washington did not generate the proposal for Mr. Hussein to step down. Similarly, American diplomats have said that the idea was the Emirates' own. Two days before the Arab League meeting, Secretary of State, Colin L. Powell said that it would be helpful if the Arab countries called on the Iraqi leader to go into exile. Was this was merely "coincidence. In the 1990's, the Emirates among the first few Arab nations to ease up on the economic sanctions imposed on Mr. Hussein after the 1991 war. Until the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, the Emirates also maintained relations with the Taliban in Afghanistan, and directly supported Osama Bin Laden and Mohammad Omar. But in the late 1990’s, the United Arab Emirates has drawn closer to the United States. In 2001, the Emirates ordered 80 new generation F-16 fighter jets for an estimated $6.5 billion dollars, one of the biggest single orders ever for advanced American military aircraft, and these F-16 fighter jets carry nuclear weapons payload. The UAE may transfer these nuclear weapon capable F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan to launch preemptive nuclear strikes against non-Muslim targets.

 

(6) Shiites & Kurds Oppose Sunni Arabs

A conference of Muslim nations to mobilize the Islamic world to help avert a war against Iraq degenerated into a shouting match on March 5, 03. The Muslim leaders failed to publicly reconsider a proposal calling on Saddam Hussein to go into exile. Emirates Information Minister, Sheik Abdullah Zayed al-Nahyan, who was informally pushing the exile idea. The March 5, 03 Islamic conference followed a gathering of non-aligned nations in Malaysia 10 days ago, and a stormy meeting of the Arab League was held in Cairo. The most tantalizing notion of today's gathering was the proposal for Mr. Hussein to go into exile. The idea was first aired at the Arab League in Cairo, from the president of the United Arab Emirates, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan. Exile, the Emirates leader, prompted by United States the Emirates leader wanted the exile of Saddam Hussein as it would avert Iraqi war and would deal peacefully with President Bush's determination to achieve regime change, allowing United States to establish Oil Colony Iraq without sacrificing any blood. The proposal made an impression in Cairo because it came from an elder statesman of the generally fractious Arab world, as Sheik Zayed, in his mid-80's, is the overseer of the Emirates oil reserves, the third largest after Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and has learnt to profit by American oil colonialism. Sheik Abdullah, son of the Emirates president, floated the proposal around the conference side rooms. UAE was not in a position to officially propose it because the Arab League had refused to table it for discussion. Egypt, the head of the Arab League, gave the idea short shrift. Egypt realized that Untied States would expel all the Arab League troops from Iraq, the day Saddam Hussein stepped aside.

 

Arab leaders are worried about the Anti-Arab Sunni vengeance that would be unleashed by Arab Shiites and Sunni Kurds, and the civil war that would carry a lot of vengeance among tribes inside Iraq. Wahhabi Arab leaders want to support the American invasion of Iraq, so that they could use Arab Armed forces to impose the tyranny of Arab Sunnis over Iraq, even when Sunni Arabs represent only 16 percent of Iraq’s population. The Emirates proposal contained suggested that if Mr. Hussein left, forces from Arab League countries should enter Iraq and try to stabilize the situation. These forces would serve in lieu of American forces. Emirates officials have gone out of their way to say that Washington did not generate the proposal for Mr. Hussein to step down. Similarly, American diplomats have said that the idea was the Emirates' own. Earlier at the summit, the United Arab Emirates became the first Arab nation to openly call for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to step down to spare the region war. Emirates Information Minister Sheik Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan told reporters the proposal made by his father, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, was not seriously considered because the 22-member "Arab League doesn't have the courage to discuss it. Arab leaders debating whether to call on Saddam Hussein to step down peacefully are deeply divided and fearful it could set a precedent that would ultimately threaten their own authority, in their own countries. In the latest sign of Arab ambivalence, six Gulf States allied with the United States failed to endorse a proposal today that called on Mr. Hussein to relinquish power as a means of averting war.

 

(7) Is Kuwait a Monkey & Iraq Hypocrite?

Iraq correctly labeled Kuwait as the Monkey, as Kuwait has no military power, and Kuwait hoped to rape and loot Iraq by joining the occupation forces of Arab League that would enter Iraq after the ouster of Saddam Hussein. Kuwait correctly called Saddam Hussein as the ‘hypocrite.” Saddam Hussein had been the CIA Agent when in 1968, with the CIA’s support Saddam Hussein took power and emerged as the strongman of the small Baath (Renaissance) Party. Saddam Hussein had invaded Iran at behest of America. Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait, with the approval of the American Ambassador to Iraq. Kuwait correctly labeled Saddam as hypocrite as he had been a secret supporter of American oil colonialism before the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. In a scathing exchange that was a rhetorical replay of the Gulf War sparked by Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein's second-in-command lobbed insults at Kuwait's delegate to a conference of 57 Islamic nations. The underlying tensions erupted in the elegant Ritz Carlton hotel ballroom when the vice chairman of Iraq's Revolutionary Command Council, Izzat Ibrahim, told the Kuwaiti minister of state for foreign affairs, Mohammed Sabah al-Salem al-Sabah, to "shut up, you monkey." The Iraqi followed up with an Arab epithet, "Curse be upon your mustache, you traitor." The Kuwaiti responded by saying the Iraqi was a hypocrite. Kuwait information minister, Sheik Ahmed Fahd al-Ahmed jumped up to defend his country's honor by waving a miniature Kuwaiti flag. ''Shut up, you monkey!'' Izzat Ibrahim shouted at Kuwait's Sheik Sabah Al Ahmed Al Sabah, after the Kuwaiti voiced support for a United Arab Emirates proposal that Saddam Hussein should resign to avert war, and that Armed Forces from Arab League should enter Iraq and serve as occupation forces, till the elections could determine the new Iraqi leadership to take over the political power. 'Damn your mustache!'' Ibrahim added, lobbing an old Bedouin curse that challenges one's honor. He also called the Kuwaiti official ''a dog'' and ''a traitor to the Islamic nation'' for allowing thousands of U.S. troops in his country. Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafy, known for his rash remarks, said in his speech that Saudi Arabia had formed "an alliance with the devil" when it asked U.S. troops to protect it from Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War. Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah interrupted angrily from across the room, wagging his finger and calling Gadhafi "an agent for colonizers." Secretary-General Amr Moussa soon after wrapped up the Arab League Summit, reading a final communiqué that affirmed Arabs' "total rejection of any attack on Iraq," and calling for the crisis to be resolved under an international umbrella. The statement did not spell out how Arabs would contribute to finding a solution. "We are all targeted. We are all in danger," asserted Syrian leader Assad.

 

(8) Wahhabi Saudi’s Alliance with Devil

Libya correctly argued that Wahhabi Saudi Arabia from its inception in 1920’s had formed an alliance with the devil. American secret services installed Wahhabi Abdul Aziz ibn Saud as King of Saudi Arabia and Wahhabi Clergy as religious rulers of Mecca and Medina in exchange for establishing American Oil Colony over Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia correctly labeled Moammar Gadhafy as an Agent for colonizers. The CIA had supported the military coup led by Moammar Gadhafy against Libya’s King Idriss in exchange for establishing American oil colony over Libya. Arab leaders realize that many Arab nations would lose their independence and sovereignty within years of the American invasion of Iraq. Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafy said that Saudi Arabia had formed "an alliance with the devil." Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah angrily called Gadhafy "an agent for colonizers." The critical issue is Arab sovereignty. The United States was able to construct a strong Arab coalition to fight the Gulf war in 1991 because Arab countries saw a threat to their independence when one Arab state Iraq invaded another Arab state Kuwait. In 2003, the same principle of Arab sovereignty is working against efforts by the United States to win Arab backing. Arab countries fear that the United States, by forcibly removing Mr. Hussein, would be diminishing Arab sovereignty, and would bring down the government of Assad in Syria and House of Al Saud in Saudi Arabia. The United States explained its objectives in a way that frightens many Arab leaders. There's no doubt that the real purpose underlying the American invasion of Iraq is massive social and political change in the Middle East. There's a feeling that regime changes is going to be imposed throughout the Middle East, and this made Arab leaders nervous.

 

(9) Is Arab the Nation of Mice or Tigers?

In the eyes of Americans, the Arabs are lower than mice in the face of enemies of Arabs. Yet amongst Arabs, the Arabs are fierce as tigers, biting and eating each other. In Saudi Arabian Khaled al-Maeena, editor of Arab News was "shocked, appalled and saddened" by the broadcast feud. In front of the world Arab leaders have become a laughing stock. The Arab people are disappointed and confused." Arab News writer Nourah al-Khereiji expressed dismay at Arab apathy about this year's Summit. "I had expected the Arab people to shoulder their responsibilities in these critical times and be the first to protest and say no to a war with Iraq defying security forces and the police if need be so that the disgraceful actions of their leaders be laid bare to the world via satellite television. Arabs are lower than mice in the face of our enemy. Yet amongst ourselves Arabs are fierce as tigers, biting and eating each other." In terms of military capability it is true that Arab states are like mice, when they face enemies, even as small as cat as Israel. Due to the lack of law of primogeniture in Ottoman Empire, the newly crowned Emperor Caliph would arrange the murder of all his male brothers including infants on the very night of his coronation. The lure to loot the oil wealth of the oil-producing Muslim nations the fellow Arab leaders would not hesitate to massacre the entire royal family of the victim nation. Any Arab leaders would happily kill any number of the fellow Arab leaders to get the chance to rape and loot the oil wealth of the fellow oil-producing Arab nation. Just as Saudi Arabia and United Arab emirates would happily join the military bandwagon of the United States to rape and loot the wealth of oil-rich Iraq, the other Muslim nations, namely, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia would be more than willing to join the military bandwagon of America, whenever it decides to conquer and loot the oil riches of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, or Brunei, in exchange for a share of the loot. Islamic world is divided and ripe for foreign conquest and exploitation.

 

(10) Non Aligned Troops in Iraq

The Ruler of Abu Dhabi toeing American line when he proposed that Armed Forces of Arab League nations should enter Iraq after the ouster of Saddam Hussein and act as the occupation troops for some years. It would be better it armed forces of Non aligned nations, from India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Palestine and Egypt enter Iraq and stabilize the situation and avert the looming civil war in Iraq and prepare Sunni Kurds and Arab Shiites to take over political and economic power in Iraq over next few years. The Emirates proposal contained suggestion that if Saddam Hussein stepped down, forces from Arab League countries should enter Iraq and try to stabilize the situation. These Armed forces from Arab League nations would serve in lieu of American forces. Emirates officials have gone out of their way to say that Washington did not generate the proposal for Saddam Hussein to step down, which the Ruler of Abu Dhabi presented to the Summit. Similarly, American diplomats have said that the idea was the Emirates' own, and Colin Powell had nothing to do with it. The Arab League troops would rape and loot Iraq and impose the rule of Sunni Arabs that represent only the 16 percent of the population and would impose the rule of barbarian fundamentalist Sunni Wahhabi rule over secular liberal Iraq. Better still the political power in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates should be transferred to the Armed forces of Non Aligned Nations, headed by Pakistan, Egypt, India, Malaysia, Indonesia and Bangladesh for some years, till the time democratic elections are held in Arab nations and power transferred to the democratically elected representatives of the Arab peoples in these countries. Founded in 762 A.D., Baghdad served as the capital of the Abbasid Empire that ruled most of the Islamic world until the 13th century, and sacked twice by the Mongols first time in 1258 and again in 1401. American occupation of Baghdad in 2003 would result in the enslavement and occupation of the entire oil-producing Islamic world, including the establishment of American oil colonies in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE and Brunei. Iraq should be handed over to the Non Aligned Nations, so that leading NAM powers should administer it, till Iraq is ready for power transfer to democratically elected government. Bet still the armed forces of world powers, namely, France, Germany, Russia, China and India should stabilize post-Saddam Iraq and prepare Iraq for the peaceful transition to elected representatives of the Iraqi people. Defending the Iraqi from rape by United States, UAE or Saudi Arabia would be the first crucial test of the five world powers, namely, France, Germany, Russia, China and India. If the crusade led by France and Germany succeed in averting America’s invasion of Iraq, the Concert of World Powers would come into being and new Congress System of diplomacy would begin and five world powers would periodically realign their diplomatic assets to hold Yankee America in the check in the 21st Century.

 

30(15) Oil is Bush’s God!

(1) Bush Worships Pagan God of Oil

Bush is not a religious nut, but an oil imperialist. Bush waged America’s war for oil colonialism, not a war for propagation of Christian interests. Catholic French wrongly condemn President Bush as a nut on grounds of religion, influenced by the anti-Protestant propaganda of counter Reformation, and fail to realize that Bush did not wage Papal war of crusades against Muslims, but waged war or oil colonialism against Arab oil producers, and thus crossed the path of the imperial designs of Papacy. Bush is not a nut and a very sensible men dreaming to conquer the world. Bush could be a warmonger but he fighting war for oil not for promoting Papal interests. Catholic Neo-Conservatives condemn George Bush’s Protestant fanaticism. Religious Right Conservatives condemn George Bush’s naked thirst for Oil colonialism.

 

American Neo-conservatism split up into two hostile camps of Catholic neo-conservatism and Protestant neo-conservatism as well as between religious neo-conservatism and oil colonialism neo-conservatism. Protestant neo-conservatism joined forces with pro-segregation and pro-oil colonialism and anti-terrorism rhetoric. Catholic neo-conservatism joined forces with religious neo-conservatism, anti-segregation forces, and anti-war neo-conservatism. The neo-conservatism took birth in the aftermath of the 1964 Bill of Rights and got split into two warring camps, Protestant neo-conservatism favors war on Islamic terrorism to foster American oil colonialism in the oil-producing Muslim world, and president Bush is its cheer leader.

 

Christian neo-conservatism opposed the protestant war on Islamic terrorism and opposed America’s war to establish oil colonies in the Islam world, because oil colonialism threatens the alliance of Monotheism between fundamentalist Vatican and fundamentalist Mecca, and Pope John Paul II is its leader. United States promoted Mecca and Wahhabi fundamentalism to secure independence of Arab oil producing nations from Ottoman Empire and to secure American colonial control over Arab oil fields in exchange for Wahhabi control over Mecca and Medina. America and Britain promoted Hashemite Kingdoms in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq to secure control over Arab oil fields.

Pope John Paul secured Catholic-Wahhabi alliance to force African pagans choose one of the Monotheist religions, either Sunni Islam or Catholicism. Protestant President Bush’s war on Islamic terrorism to establish American oil colonies in the Islamic world would derail the Vatican-Mecca Axis for proselytizing pagan world. The Big Oil-Mecca Axis for Oil Colonialism unwittingly entered into a mortal combat with Vatican-Mecca Axis of Fundamentalism for Monotheism. Pope John Paul II has galvanized the vast resources of Roman Catholic Church to undermine the power of America, American Oil Colonialism and President Bush. The multi-state Alliance of Vatican, France, Belgium, Germany and Italy could succeed in removing President Bush from the Oval Office in 2004 elections. Indians like Bush primarily because he waged war for oil not for Christianity.

 

President Bush would be a danger to the world, if he attempted to promote the fundamentalist God’s designs on the world by war. President Bush would be a Savior of the world if wanted to control and conquer the world by establishing American oil colonies in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE. American is a danger to France, Germany, Russia, China and Belgium not because he is an American Christian fundamentalist at war in the name of God, but because Bush is a ruthless imperialist waging wars of oil colonialism world wide to establish American oil colonies throughout the oil-producing world.

 

American under Bush Oil Administration is not at war in Iraq in the name of God, but a sly imperialist that camouflaged his capitalist colonial interests in the name of god and war on terrorism. George W. Bush the 43rd president is neither a nuts nor a religious fanatic, he is simply a oil colonialist that camouflaged its imperial oil colonialism under the garb of religious fundamentalism, just as the Belgium colonists camouflaged their ruthless exploitation of Congo under the banner of spread of Christian Civilization.

 

The God that George Bush worships is the god of Oil not the God mentioned in the minds of religious fanatics. George W. Bush purposely cultivated the image of the non-academician blunt Texan to win the votes of those common folk that normally would resent the privileged born with the silver spoon in the mouth. George W. Bush the 43rd President as well as his father George Bush the 41st President never belonged to Christian religious right conservative conspiracy, unlike President Bill Clinton, President Jimmy Carter and President Ronald Reagan. President Bush acting the role of a religious fanatic just to win over the votes of the religious right conservatives. George W. Bush personally experienced the vicious mauling his father President Bush suffered during his campaign for the second term presidency, and the harm done to the presidential campaign of Bob Dole in 1996.

 

French as well as Germans here pretty much think George W. Bush is nuts, and his religiosity is seen as evidence of that. People in Western Europe, especially Germany, France and Belgium are afraid of President Bush. The polls declaring that Europeans think we are a greater threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein reflect real attitudes and certain logic: Saddam may be a monster, but he is a threat only to those in and around Iraq. What the Americans think and do touches every person on the planet. That's part of being the world's only superpower. It is a bit startling to hear old friends talk with feeling about the danger from America. History has shown that priests of various kinds are a great deal more dangerous than cowboys. It is much more intense than the suspicion of President Reagan when I lived here in the 1980s. Although his rather fundamental religious beliefs were not that different from those of George

 

French and Germans would be foolish if they believe that America’s colonial occupation of Iraq is the war waged by Protestant fundamentalist in the name of God. The God thing" is the latest European attempt to figure out why the Americans are so eager to go to war in Iraq. It has, for the moment, replaced "the Israel thing" as people on both sides of the English Channel, or at least political commentators, watch us marching as to war. Kiosks in France dominated by photographs of Bush at prayer. Le Point's cover line is "La Guerre Sainte de Bush." On the music magazine Les Inrockuptibles, it's "Amerique integriste en guerre au nom de Dieu," ("The American fundamentalist at war in the name of God."). Bush, Reagan rarely made a big deal of his godliness, and he was seen as being less religious than his born-again predecessor, Jimmy Carter.

 

In fact, though Europeans, governments and people alike, disagreed with Reagan about many things, he offered what is really wanted here: strong and predictable American leadership. President Bush is not seen as offering either of those things, namely strong and predictable American leadership. Europeans fear that American leadership has become unpredictable because of the religious beliefs.

 

American and British colonial occupation of oil-rich Iraq would herald the new age of colonial empires in the world in 21st Century and many more oil-producing countries would lose their independence and sovereignty in next few decades. America and Britain have waged wars of Oil colonialism and intend to establish permanent oil colonies in Iraq. America and Britain hope to rape Iraq and loot billions of dollars of oil for decades to come.

 

Indians would be happy if Indians could regain a foothold in Iraq as the invader from Basra had looted the Somnath Temple at the start of the 2nd Millennium and it started the foothold of the Mughal Empire in India. It is surprising that only Britain openly supported the American invasions of Iraq. Britain hoped to regain its past colonial role in Iraq. Iraq and Kuwait and Iran had been the British Oil colony after the First World War, and these territories were managed and controlled by the troops of the Indian Empire.

 

British Prime Minister during Afghan war gave a clarion call to recreate Colonial Empires. United States realized that blunt Yankee diplomacy would need the finesse of the British diplomats to divide and rule Iraq to keep Iraq under American colonial occupation. British troops maintained their bases in Iraq as late as 1958. Unlike their U.S. counterparts, the British would be returning to a country where they have a long and bloody past. British troops fought a tough campaign in Iraq against the ruling Ottoman Turks during World War I. As an occupying force with a mandate from the League of Nations, British soldiers then battled an extensive rebellion by Iraqi nationalists in 1920. Some British troops were still garrisoned in Iraq in 1958, when a bloody coup overthrew the British-installed Hashemite monarchy. Almost 45 years after the British were forced out of Iraq, they are preparing to return. Now in 2003, the British military assembling in northern Kuwait has been assigned to take the lead in occupying southern Iraq, including Basra and the rich southern oil fields, while the U.S. military pushes on toward Baghdad. British commanders have studied the British colonial history in Iraq and prepared to face the political and bureaucratic challenges of an occupation. As the United States and Britain fine-tune their war plans, they debated what sort of approach to take in southern Iraq. British commanders advocate a harsh initial strike against Iraq that would set an example and encourage surrenders. Some British commanders want to focus on winning the goodwill of the Iraqi population, especially Arab Shiites and Sunni Kurds to keep Iraq under colonial occupation. Hashemite King Faisal II was murdered in 1958, by military uprising while British troops were still garrisoned in Iraq in 1958. British troops will focus on southern Iraq, since they do not yet have supply lines to make it possible to move farther north. American war plans call for British ground troops to enter the country alongside the U.S. 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, then drop off to oversee Basra and the surrounding area, which includes Iraq's principal port, Umm Qasr and the Rumaila oil field, which represents 60 percent of Iraq's oil capacity.

 

France and Germany should realize that President Bush waging war of oil colonialism in Iraq. France and Germany is simply anti-religious. Much of "Old Europe," as Donald Rumsfeld has defined America’s allies of the past half-century, is simply anti-religious. That is not surprising after centuries of religious hatred, oppression and warfare over which face of God to worship. "I hate religion" is a routine second line of conversations here. Germans and French equate the Catholic fundamentalism and Evangelical fundamentalism with Islamic fundamentalism. There is regular and serious comparison around here of the destructive fervor of fundamentalist Muslims and Christians. The round of Bush-as-fanatic-Christian stories have replaced European columns reporting that much of Bush's recent rhetoric particularly the line, "We will stay as long as necessary, and not one day more" is word-for-word lifts of Gen. Ariel Sharon's statements when Israel invaded Lebanon. After their first invasion of Lebanon in 1978, the Israelis stayed there for almost 22 years, and not one day more and got nothing but grief for it. "What's the difference between Catholic and Evangelical fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism? The answer to that question is that the United States has laws and traditions that separate Church and State, which President Bush has sought to undermine by allowing Church recipient of Federal funding to use that funding for building the place of worship if part of that facility is also used for charitable purpose. Catholic and Evangelical fundamentalism no better that Islamic fundamentalism in the eyes of French and Germans. But success is its own reward. Europe, old and new, will fall in line, and stand in line for their share of desert oil, if the United States runs Saddam out of town and somehow maintains control of the Middle East. But that is not an easy thing to do. It could be that President Chirac just pretending to oppose President, while Germany and France would be first in the queue to rape Iraqi oil after the NATO conquest of Iraq. Scramble for oil not the scramble for propagating their Gods would determine the diplomacy of NATO nations after the success or failure of the America’s invasion of Iraq. If America failed to occupy Iraq then France, Germany, and Russia would control the oil of Iraq, Libya and Algeria. The god that all seek in Iraq is the god of oil and gas. George W. Bush is a naked oil imperialist seeking to establish American oil colonial empire and to call him Christian religious right conservative would be to exonerate his greed for oil colonialism and his insatiable appetite for oil and gas incomes.

 

30(16) Bush’s Iraqi Oil Colony

(1) Oil is God For Bush Cheney Halliburton

Oil is the God for Bush Oil Administration, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. President Bush didn’t invade Iraq to promote Christianity, though he might promote Wahhabi Sunni fundamentalism in Iraq to bring Iraq under the control of Mecca Caliphate, as Wahhabi clergy and House of Al Saud historically accepted American control over Arab oil resources in exchange for Wahhabi rule over Mecca and House of Al Saud rule over Saudi Arabia. President George Bush invaded Iraq in March 2003 to establish direct American oil colony over Iraq, having the world’s second largest proven oil reserves to weaken the stronghold of OPEC. It is very likely that American would invade Saudi Arabia to establish direct American oil colony over Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE. American Big Oil should pay no more than 42 per barrel to the Iraqis, Saudis and Kuwaitis and Emirates for extracting oil and American Big Oil should keep the profits. Britain has a right to establish colonial rule over Iraq, as Iraq had been a British colony and part of the Indian Empire after the demise of the Ottoman Empire. Indian Empire installed King Faisal I as the puppet ruler of Iraq, in exchange for British & Indian Empire’s control over Iraqi economic, military and foreign affairs. American had established King Abdul Aziz as king of Saudi Arabia in exchange for American control over Saudi Arabian military, foreign, oil and economic affairs. Iraq holds more than 112 billion barrels of oil - the world's second largest proven reserves. Iraq also contains 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and is a focal point for regional and international security issues.

 

President Bill Clinton refused to support the son-in-laws of Saddam Hussein even when they openly sought American help to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein, because Pentagon wanted to establish direct colonial rule over Iraq. President Ronald Reagan incited Saddam Hussein to attack Iran, to weaken Iran as well as Iraq. President Reagan gave chemical weapon technology to Iraq to neutralize the military superiority of Iran over Iraq. President George W. Bush (2001- ) launched American invasions of Iraq in 2003, to preempt France, German, Russian, and Chinese companies that had signed lucrative oil and gas exploration and production contracts with Saddam Hussein. The world public opinion increasingly demanded that the post 1991 UN imposed economic sanctions on Iraq be lifted, which would have allowed French, German, Belgium, Russian and Chinese Oil companies dominate the lucrative Iraqi oil industry in the first part of the 21st Century, to the great disadvantage of America. President George H.W. Bush (1989-1993) during 1991 Gulf War I purposely destroyed the Iraq’s oil industry infrastructure, to undermine the Baghdad’s challenge to the OPEC leadership of Saudi Arabia. President Bill Clinton systematically opposed the modernization of Iraqi oil and gas fields, oil and gas pipelines, oil refineries and electric power plants to bleed Iraq, so that it may be conquered by American troops. 

 

(2) Iraq is Oil Super Power

Britain used the concept of Religion as the basis of state to carve out Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iraq out of Ottoman Empire and Pakistan out of Indian Empire. Britain created Iraq, the artificial state carved out to protect British oil interests. To understand the motives of United States in Iraq it is essential to understand the role Oil played in Iraqi economy and life. The Iraq’s Head of Government was Saddam Hussein al-Takriti and its Deputy Prime Minister was Tariq 'Aziz. Iraq became Independent on October 3, 1932, when King Faisal I became the Puppet King and British Empire and Indian Empire controlled the economic, military and foreign affairs of Iraq. The population of Iraq (2002E) is 23 million and Iraq has landmass of 168,709 square miles, and its major cities are Baghdad (capital), Basra, Mosul, Karbala, Kirkuk and its major languages are Arabic, Kurdish. Iraq’s ethnic groups are Arab 75-80%, Kurdish 20-15%, Turkmen, Assyrian, or other 5% and its religious groups are 97% Muslim (Shi'a 60-65%, Sunni 32-37%), Christian or other (3%), and Arab Sunnis represent only 15 % of the population, but Arab Sunnis have controlled the political power in Iraq. Saddam Hussein’s Defense forces (2001E) had Army (375,000); Air Force (30,000); Navy (2,000). Iraq had 2,200 main battle tanks and over 300 combat aircraft of which as few as 100 may be serviceable; Paramilitary Forces of 42,000-44,000, included Security Troops, Border Guards, and "Saddam's Fedayeen. Iraqi Currency is Iraqi Dinar (ID), Unofficial Exchange Rate (12/02E): US$1 = ID1281, and the official rate is US$1 = ID 0.3). Iraq’s Gross Domestic Product (at market exchange rates) (2002E): $28.6 billion, and Iraq’s Gross Domestic Product (at purchasing power parity rates) (2002E): $15.5 billion (around one-third of 1989's economic output). Iraq’s Real GDP Growth Rate (Global Insight: Base Case Scenario) (2002E): (-3.0%)-1.5% (2003F): (-1.5%)-1.9% (2004F): 6.7%. Iraq’s Inflation Rate (Global Insight: Base Case Scenario) (consumer prices) (2002E): 24.6% (2003F): 17.6% (2004F): 11.0%. Iraq’s Major Export Products (2002): Crude oil and oil products (regulated by the United Nations). Iraq’s Major Import Products (2002): Food, medicine, and consumer goods (regulated by the United Nations). Iraq’s total Merchandise Exports (2002E): $13.0 billion, and Iraq’s total Merchandise Imports (2002E): $7.8 billion. Iraq’s Merchandise Trade Balance (2002E): $5.2 billion. Iraq’s Current Account Balance (2002E): $2.3 billion. Iraq’s Oil Export Revenues (2002E): $12.3 billion (includes $3 billion or so in smuggling). Iraq’s Oil Export Revenues/Total Export Revenues (2002E): 95% or more External Debt (2003E): estimates range from over $100 billion to more than $200 billion. Iraq’s Proven Oil Reserves (1/1/03E): 112.5 billion barrels (around 75 billion barrels of which has not yet been developed; "probable" and "possible" reserves are as high as 220 billion barrels). Iraq’s Oil Production (January-November 2002E): 2.02 million barrels per day (bbl/d), of which 1.99 million bbl/d is crude oil (note: Iraqi oil production was 2.45 million bbl/d in 2001). Iraq’s Oil Production Capacity, Maximum Sustainable (2/03E): 2.8-2.9 million bbl/d (declining by about 100,000 bbl/d per year). Iraq’s Oil Export Routes: Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline; Mina al-Bakr port; to Jordan and Turkey via truck; reportedly to Syria via the Kirkuk-Banias pipeline; smuggling by boat along the Gulf coast. Iraq’s Oil Consumption (2002E): 460,000 barrels per day (bbl/d). Iraq’s Net Oil Exports (January-November 2002E): 1.56 million bbl/d. The United States Oil Imports from Iraq (January - November 2002E): 449,000 bbl/d (down from 795,000 bbl/d during 2001). Iraq’s Crude Oil Refining Capacity (1/1/03E): 417,500 bbl/d (according to the Oil and Gas Journal). Iraq’s Natural Gas Reserves (1/1/03E): 109.8 trillion cubic feet (Tcf). Iraq’s Natural Gas Production/ Consumption (2001E): 97 billion cubic feet (Bcf). Iraq’s Electricity Generation Capacity (2002E): 4.3-4.4 gigawatts (90% thermal). Iraq’s Electricity Production (2001E): 36.0 billion kilowatt hours. Iraq’s Total Energy Consumption (2000E): 1.09 quadrillion Btu* (0.3% of world total energy consumption). Iraq’s Energy-Related Carbon Emissions (2000E): 20.2 million metric tons of carbon (0.3% of world total carbon emissions). Iraq’s Per Capita Energy Consumption (2000E): 47.4 million Btu (Vs U.S. value of 352.9 million Btu). Iraq’s Per Capita Carbon Emissions (2000E): 0.88 metric tons of carbon (Vs U.S. value of 5.6 metric tons of carbon). Iraq’s Energy Intensity (1999E): 14,895 Btu/ $1995 (Vs U.S. value of 11,138 Btu/ $1995). Iraq’s Carbon Intensity (1999E): 0.28 metric tons of carbon/thousand $1995 (Vs U.S. value of 0.18 metric tons/thousand $1995). Iraq’s Fuel Share of Energy Consumption (2000E): Oil (88.8%), Natural Gas (10.7%); Hydroelectric (0.5%). Iraq’s Fuel Share of Carbon Emissions (2000E): Oil (89.4%), Natural Gas (10.6%). Iraq’s Number of People per Motor Vehicle (1998): 17.8 (Vs U.S. value of 1.3). Oil reserves define the nature and character of Iraq and Iraqi people.

 

(3) Iraq Iran War (1980-1988)

The Iraq Iran War (1980-1988) and 1990 Iraq-Kuwait War and 1991 Gulf War I, represented classic American replay of British Divide and Rule Diplomacy, and were well orchestrated part of the American strategy to weaken Iran and to scare Kuwait and Saudi Arabia into the protective custody of the United States. United States encouraged Saddam Hussein to attack Iran. United states gave Iraq biological agents to wage biological war on Iran. On September 23, 1980, the Iran-Iraq War begins, with mutual bombing of installations. On August 20, 1988, following Iran's acceptance on July 18 of U.N. Security Council Resolution 598, which calls for a ceasefire, the Iran-Iraq War officially ends. On September 17, 1980, in the aftermath of the 1979 Iranian Revolution and overthrow of the Shah, Iraq broke its 1975 treaty with Iran and proclaims sovereignty over the Shatt al-Arab waterway. On September 23, 1980 the Iran-Iraq War began, with mutual bombing of installations, including the Abadan refinery, and an Iraqi ground offensive. On November 10, 1980 Iraq captured the Iranian port of Khorramshahr. On November 23, 1980, after seizing over 4,000 square miles of Iranian territory, Iraq suffered its first minor military setback since the war's outbreak. On January 1981 Iraq beat back Iran's first major counteroffensive. On June 8, 1981 Israel bombed the Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor. On September 27-28, 1981 Iran relieved its besieged port city of Abadan. On November 29, 1981 Iran launched a major offensive on the central front with Iraq. On March 1982, in a show of support for Iran, Syria closed Iraq's 400,000-barrels-per-day trans-Syrian oil export pipeline. On March 22-24, 1982 Iran launched an offensive in the Dezful region; recaptured Khorramshahr. On June 1982 Iran demanded $150 billion in reparations from Iraq, and pledged that the war will continue until Saddam Hussein, President of Iraq since 1979, stood trial. On June 10, 1982 Iraq declared a unilateral cease-fire in its war with Iran. On July 13, 1982 Iran launched its first attack into Iraq. On November 1, 1982 Iran attacked Dezful.  On April 1983 Iraq increased missile attacks on Iran. On July 20-30, 1983 Iranian troops moved into northern Iraq. On July 26, 1983 the United States warned of action to preserve navigation in the Persian Gulf. On October 1983 Iran attacked northern Iraq, threatened Kirkuk pipeline. On November 1983 Iran threatened to block the Straits of Hormuz, while Iraq threatened to attack Kharg Island, Iran's main oil export terminal. Saudi Arabia chartered 11 VLCC's (very large crude carriers) to store oil off the coast of the United Arab Emirates. On February 1984 Iran opened a "massive" offensive against Iraq. The U.S. Navy stood by to keep the Straits of Hormuz open. On February-March 1984 Iran captured Iraq's oil-rich Majnoon Islands; Iraq ordered use of chemical weapons. On March 27, 1984 "Tanker war" began with Iraqi attacks on shipping near the Iranian coast. In coming months, many tankers were attacked by both Iran and Iraq, war risk insurance premiums for tankers soar, and oil tanker traffic in the Gulf (particularly to Iran's Kharg Island terminal) was reduced. During May-June 1985, the "Battle of the Cities" began, involving heavy bombing and missile attacks on Iranian and Iraqi cities. On August 15, 1985 Iraq attacked Iran's Nowruz oil field, and launched its first air raid on Kharg Island, Iran's main oil export terminal. Through November, Iraq attacked Kharg Island 44 times in an attempt to destroy the facility. Kuwait put its Armed forces on alert. On February 9, 1986 Iran crossed the Shatt al-Arab and captured the southern Faw Peninsula. Saddam Hussein vowed to repulse Iran "at all costs." On February 20, 1986 Iraqi jets shot down an Iranian passenger plane, killing Iranian religious and political leaders. On May 7, 1986 Iraq bombed Tehran refinery. On July 27, 1986 Iraq bombed the central Iranian city of Arak; Iran threatened missile attacks on Arab Gulf states supporting Iraq. On August 2, 1986, in an open letter to Iran, Saddam Hussein offered peace. On August 12, 1986 Iran fired a missile at Iraq's Dawrah oil refinery, located near Baghdad. Iraq attacked five tankers at Iran's Sirri Island terminal, seriously disrupting Iranian oil exports.

 

America got involved in the Iraq-Iran War when it took its toll on oil-shipments in Arabian Gulf and threatened the exports of Kuwaiti Oil. On May 17, 1987, the USS Stark was damaged in an Iraqi missile attack that killed 37 crewmembers. Iraq apologized and said that the attack was a mistake. Shortly thereafter, the United States began military escorts of Kuwaiti tankers that had been "reflagged" as American, with US crews. On September 21, 1987 Iraq signed a contract for a $1.5-billion oil pipeline through Saudi Arabia to the Red Sea port of Yanbu. On September 22, 1987, the US forces attack an Iranian mine-laying vessel in the Persian Gulf. On October 19, 1987, in retaliation for Iran's attack on the "reflagged" tanker, Sea Isle City, US forces destroyed an Iran's Rostam oil platform. On March 16, 1988 Saddam Hussein used nerve gas to attack Kurds. In the northern Iraq town of Halabja, nearly 5,000 men, women and children were killed. On April 29, 1988 the United States announced protection for all shipping in the Persian Gulf. During April-August 1988 Iraq achieved a series of military victories over Iran, including recapturing the Faw peninsula and the Majnoon Islands, plus a major northern offensive into Iran, which captured huge amounts of artillery and armor. On August 20, 1988 following Iran's acceptance on July 18 of UN Security Council Resolution 598, which called for a ceasefire, the Iran-Iraq War officially ended.

 

(4) Iraqi Oil-for-Food Program

United States exploited the greed of the United Nations bureaucracy by letting them earn a piece of the action in the Oil-for-food program, which became a very large business enterprise. While Iraq no longer could buy military hardware under “Oil-for-Food” programs, and post-1991 UN sponsored economic sanctions weakened Iraq, President Bush prepared for the invasion of Iraq, right after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. During the 1980s and 1990s, Iraq experienced two major wars Iran-Iraq War (1980-19088 and the 1990 Iraqi-Kuwait War, and 1991 Iraq-America Gulf War I, and suffered from 1991 onwards UN economic sanctions. As a result, the country's economy, infrastructure, and society deteriorated significantly, which made Iraq weak and vulnerable to defeat by American attacks. On May 14, 2002, the U.N. Security Council approved a change in the "Oil-for-food" program for Iraq that made use of an extensive list of "dual-use" goods, the goods that could have a military as well as civilian use. Under the modification, Iraq was allowed to use its oil revenues, which go into a UN escrow account out of which suppliers exporting products to Baghdad are paid, in order to purchase items not on the list of dual use goods. After May 2002, Iraq could not use the Oil-for-Food program for buying any good that could have a military use. On October 16, 2002, President Bush signed a resolution by the U.S. Congress authorizing him to use force against Iraq if necessary. On November 8, 2002, the U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1441, demanding that Iraq give U.N. inspectors the unconditional right to search anywhere in Iraq for banned weapons. Iraq was also required to make an "accurate full and complete" declaration of its nuclear, chemical, biological and ballistic weapons and related materials used in civilian industries within 30 days. The resolution required violations to be reported back to the Security Council by inspectors before any actions could be taken against Iraq for violating weapons bans.

 

(5) Iraq War is For Oil Reserves

President Bush invaded Iraq because America need to control the 112 billion barrel oil reserves of Iraq. Iraq contains 112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the second largest in the world behind Saudi Arabia. Iraq's true resource potential may be far greater than this, however, as Iraq is largely (90% or so) unexplored due to years of war and sanctions. Deep oil-bearing formations located mainly in the vast Western Desert region, for instance, could yield large additional oil resources for Iraq possibly another 100 billion barrels, but have not been explored. Iraq's oil production costs are amongst the lowest in the world, making it a highly attractive oil prospect. However, only 15 of 73 discovered fields have been developed, while few deep wells have been drilled compared to Iraq's neighbors, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE. In Iraq only 2,000 wells reportedly have been drilled in Iraq of which about 1,500-1,700 are actually producing oil, compared to around 1 million wells have been in Texas USA. Iraq generally did not have access to the latest, state-of-the-art oil industry technology (i.e., 3D seismic), sufficient spare parts, and investment in general throughout most of the 1990s, but has instead reportedly been utilizing questionable engineering techniques (i.e., over-pumping, water injection/"flooding") and old technology to maintain oil production levels. Iraqi oil reserves vary widely in quality, with API gravities in the 22o to 35o range. Iraq's main export crude come from the country's two largest active fields: Rumaila and Kirkuk. The southern Rumaila field, which extends a short distance into Kuwaiti territory, has around 663 wells and produces three streams: Basra Regular; Basra Medium (normally 30o API, 2.6% sulfur); and Basra Heavy (normally 22o-24o API, 3.4% sulfur). Basra Blend normally averages around 32o API, 1.95% sulfur, but reportedly is worse currently at around 29-30o API and 2%+ sulfur content. The northern Kirkuk field, first discovered in 1927, has around 337 wells and normally produces 35o API, 1.97% sulfur crude, although the API gravity and sulfur content both are reported to have deteriorated sharply in recent months. Kirkuk's gravity, for instance, has declined to around 32-33o API, while sulfur content has risen above 2%. Declining crude oil qualities and an increased "water cut" as well could be the result of over-pumping as Iraq attempts to sell as much oil as possible. An additional export crude, known as "FAO Blend," is heavier and more sour with a 27o API and 2.9% Sulfur.

 

(6) War for Increasing Iraqi Oil Production

American realized that time has come to increase the oil production capacity of Iraq, but it has to be done without involving France, Germany, Russia and China. Given a choice Saddam Hussein would not award lucrative oil contracts to American companies.

 

America attacked Iraq to increase Iraqi oil output. American Big Oil encouraged President Bush to invade Iraq, so that American Oil colonialism could undertake remedial measures to increase oil production of Iraq. After 1990 Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the 1991 UN economic embargo on Iraqi oil exports, Iraqi oil production fell to around 300,000 barrels per day (bbl/d), from 3.5 million bbl/d in July 1990. For the first 11 months of 2002, Iraqi crude oil production averaged 2.02 million bbl/d, down from about 2.45 million bbl/d in 2001 and 2.69 million bbl/d in 2000, with large weekly and monthly fluctuations. Iraqi monthly oil output was lowest in April 2002, at 1.2 million bbl/d, and highest in February 2002, at 2.5 million bbl/d. Iraqi had hoped to increase the country's oil production capacity to 3.5 million bbl/d by the end of 2000, but did not accomplish this given technical problems with Iraqi oil fields, pipelines, and other oil infrastructure. Iraq claimed that oil production capacity expansion was constrained by refusal of the United Nations to provide Iraq with all the oil industry equipment it had requested. Oil industry assessed Iraq's sustainable production capacity at no higher than about 2.8-2.9 million bbl/d, with net export potential of around 2.3-2.5 million bbl/d including smuggled oil through Turkey. In comparison, Iraq produced 3.5 million bbl/d in July 1990. Iraq faced challenges in maintaining, let alone increasing, oil production capacity. Iraq battled with "water cut" damaging intrusion of water into oil reservoirs especially in the Iraq’s southern oil fields. Iraq was able to increase its oil production through use of short-term techniques not generally considered acceptable in the oil industry i.e., water flooding, injection of refined oil products into crude reservoirs. Iraqi oil production capacity was expected to fall sharply if Saddam Hussein regime had continued, because he didn’t want to address the technical and infrastructure problems associated with Iraqi oil production. Approximately 2 million bbl/d of Iraq's production capacity came from oil fields in the southern part of the country, particularly North and South Rumaylah (1.3 million bbl/d), West Qurnah (225,000 bbl/d), Az Zubair (220,000 bbl/d), Majnoon (50,000 bbl/d), Jabal Fauqi (50,000 bbl/d), Abu Ghurab (40,000 bbl/d), Buzurgan (40,000 bbl/d) and Luhais (30,000 bbl/d). Iraq's remaining oil production capacity is located in the northern and central fields of Kirkuk (720,000 bbl/d), Bai Hassan (100,000 bbl/d), Jambur (50,000 bbl/d), Khabbaz (40,000 bbl/d), Saddam (30,000 bbl/d), East Baghdad (20,000 bbl/d), and 'Ayn Zalah (10,000 bbl/d).

 

(7) Iraqi Oil-for-Food Oil Exports 

UN sponsored Iraqi Oil-for-Food program is the multi-billion dollar business. About three-fourths (75%) of the proceeds from Iraqi "oil-for-food" sales were used to purchase humanitarian goods for Iraq, while 25% are earmarked for reparations to Gulf War victims, pipeline transit fees for Turkey, and funding for U.N. weapons monitoring activities. Turkey claimed that the UN embargo on Iraq cost Turkey more than $35 billion since 1990. U.N. Resolution 986 (April 1995) allows Iraq to sell specified dollar amounts of crude oil over six-month periods, in part for the purchase of humanitarian supplies ("oil-for-food") for distribution in Iraq under U.N. supervision. Under the Phase XII renewal, which ended November 25, 2002, the U.N. Security Council made use of an extensive list of "dual-use" items (goods that could have military as well as civilian use). Iraq was allowed to make use of "oil-for-food" revenues to purchase items not on the list. The current 6-month phase (Phase XIII) began on December 4, 2002 after a two-week delay over the goods review list issue. Official "oil-for-food" exports from Iraq were about 1.55 million bbl/d in December 2002 and 1.79 million bbl/d in January 2003. During 2001, Iraq averaged official U.N. monitored net oil exports of around 2 million bbl/d, although this number fluctuated greatly through the year, and fell sharply during the first part of 2002 to under 1.5 million bbl/d during the first 9 months of the year. The Iraqi oil exports in 2002 declined due to Iraq's unilateral one-month embargo of oil exports in April 2002 in support of the Palestinians. United States clamped down on Iraq's practice of charging an illegal "surcharge" on their U.N. -authorized oil exports. Increased Iraqi oil exports to the America during 2002 helped fill the loss created by a major oil strike and general unrest in Venezuela beginning in December 2002. In addition to U.N.-sanctioned oil exports to Jordan, which are currently carried by truck plans for a 150,000-bbl/d pipeline to Jordan's Zarqa oil refinery approved by Jordan's cabinet in December 2001, and Jordan received more than 30 offers from firms interested in building the Iraq-Zarqa oil pipeline with possible completion in 2004. Since mid-December 2002, Iraq increased its oil production and oil exports sharply, with production reportedly reached 2.6 million bbl/d bbl/d Iraqi "Oil-for-Food" exports at 1.8 million bbl/d, and illegal Iraqi oil exports at around 400,000 bbl/d. American supported the UN Iraqi Oil-for-Food Program because it helped fill the supply shortages caused by the Venezuelan strikes.

 

(8) USA Opposed Oil Industry Modernization

America opposed the modernization of Iraqi oil fields, because Iraq could become more powerful by smuggling larger quantities of oil through its neighbors. Iraq wanted to modernize Iraqi oil fields so that it could earn extra incomes by smuggling larger quantities of oil through Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Iran and Dubai, and German, French, Belgium, Russian and Chinese oil companies were ready to invest in Saddam’s Iraqi oil industry. Iraq smuggled oil to Turkey  (100,000 bbl/d), Jordan (10,000 bbl/d), Syria (150,000 bbl/d), Iran and Dubai, earning about $2 billion per year. Iraq earned around $30 per barrel by pricing its oil in Euro instead of dollars. Iraq has reportedly smuggled 200,000-400,000 bbl/d of crude oil and products via a number of routes, that included oil smuggled to Turkey as high as 100,000-150,000 bbl/d, mainly of fuel oil by truck through the Habur border point, and this smuggling was stopped from September 18, 2001 through January 7, 2002. Iraq smuggled oil to Jordan possibly 10,000-30,000 bbl/d above domestic needs by truck. Iraq smuggled oil to Syria 150,000-200,000 bbl/d or more, mainly via the Kirkuk-Banias pipeline, with smaller volumes possibly moving via a railway line from Mosul to Aleppo. Iraq smuggled oil to Iran along the Gulf coast and via Qais Island. Iraq smuggled oil to Dubai with the use of small tankers sailing from Umm Qasr. These illegal shipments provided Iraq with as much as $600 million-$2 billion per year in illegal revenues. The US General Accounting Office study May 2002 estimated that Iraq had earned $6.6 billion from oil smuggling and illegal surcharges from 1997 through 2001.

 

United States exploited the UN’s Iraqi Oil for Food Program allowed American Big Oil control Iraqi oil trade to establish American domination of oil markets. During the first eleven months of 2002, the United States imported an average of 449,000 bbl/d from Iraq. In January 2003, approximately 1.2 million bbl/d of Iraqi oil went to the Americas, up from 910,000 bbl/d in December 2002 and 515,000 bbl/d in November, while 430,000 bbl/d went to Europe and 140,000 bbl/d to Asia. Britain and United States were very concerned when Iraq priced its oil in Euro not in US Dollars, which caused great fluctuations in the foreign currencies. In late October 2001, the U.N. Sanctions Committee imposed a so-called "retroactive pricing" mechanism proposed by the UK and supported by the United States to alter the way in which Iraqi oil prices are set. The United States and the UK were concerned that Iraq was using oil price fluctuations to impose a de facto surcharge on oil purchasers, and that this money was going directly to the Iraqi government outside of UN control. This was also part of a continuing effort by the United States, the UK, and others to stop Iraq from forcing buyers to pay a $0.30-$0.60 per barrel surcharge, paid directly to the Iraqi government. United States earned around $500 billion a year because the world price of Oil is priced in US dollars not in Euro.

 

(9) America Damaged Southern Iraqi Fields

President George H. W. Bush during 1991 Gulf War I destroyed southern Iraqi fields, to increase the OPEC market share of Saudi Arabia and to allow Kuwait extract more oil in the oil fields nearer to the Iraqi border. The 1991 Gulf War I decimated Iraq's southern oil industry, with oil production capacity falling to 75,000 bbl/d in mid-1991. United States had systematically opposed the repair of the Iraqi oil wells to weaken the economic bas of Iraq. On March 2000, UN Security Council agreed to double the spending cap for oil sector spare parts and equipment under Resolution 1175 of June 20, 1998, allowed Iraq to spend up to $600 million every 6 months repairing oil facilities. United Nations had warned of a possible "major breakdown" in Iraq's oil industry if spare parts and equipment were not forthcoming. The delays by the United Nations in approving contracts to upgrade Iraq's oil sector threatened Iraqi oil production levels. The United States imposed its view that only $300 million should be used for short-term improvements to the Iraqi oil industry, and not to make long-term repairs. Iraq's oil sector distribution plan for the "oil-for-food" program's 12th phase reportedly included $350 million for upstream oil industry repairs contracts, including development work on the Hamrin, Suba, and West Qurna oil fields. The United States maintains unilateral economic sanctions against Iraq. The US Executive Order dated August 2, 1990 and 9/9/1990 imposed complete trade embargo on Iraq, which obliged that goods or services cannot be imported from or exported to Iraq, with the exception of the U.N. "oil-for-food" program. The largest producing oil field in this region is Rumaila. The Gulf War I resulted in destruction of gathering centers and compression/degassing stations at Rumaila, storage facilities, the 1.6-million bbl/d capacity Mina al-Bakr export terminal, and pumping stations along the 1.4-million bbl/d capacity Iraqi Strategic North-South Pipeline. Seven other sizable Iraqi fields remained damaged or partially mothballed, which included Zubair, Luhais, Suba, Buzurgan, Abu Ghirab, and Fauqi oil fields. Iraqi oilfield development plans have been on hold since 1990 Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, while Iraq focused on maintaining production at existing fields. The Kirkuk field, with over 10 billion barrels in remaining proven oil reserves, forms the basis for northern Iraqi oil production. Oil fields at Bai Hassan, Jambur, Khabbaz, Saddam, and Ain Zalah-Butmah-Safaia currently produced oil in northern Iraq. During 1990 Gulf War I around 60% of Northern Oil Company's (NOC) facilities in northern and central Iraq were damaged due to American bombings. The 2001 output of all northern fields at Kirkuk, Bai Hassan, Jambur, Khabbaz, Saddam, Safiya, and 'Ain Zalah/Butnah totaled 1 million bbl/d. Iraqi oil field came on line at 11-billion barrel East Baghdad field facility in April 1989. This centrally located field currently produces 50,000 bl/d of heavy, 23o API oil as well as 30 million cubic feet per day (Mmcf/d) of associated natural gas.

 

American Big Oil desperately wanted President Bush to invade Iraq in the start of 2003 as they realized that it became common knowledge that Iraq needed foreign capital desperately to modernize Iraqi oil industry and embark on oil exploration and drilling projects. By the end of 2002 it became clear that Iraq's oil sector infrastructure is in bad shape at the moment, being held together by "band-aids," and with a production decline rate of 100,000 bbl/d per year. The production decline rate of Iraq threatened energy supplies to United States, faced with the oil-industry strikes in Venezuela. American Big Oil realized that increasing Iraqi oil production would require "massive repairs and reconstruction costing several billions of dollars and taking months if not years. American oil companies would not risk investing in Iraq unless America established direct American oil colony over Iraq. American oil colonialism realized that the costs of repairing existing Iraqi oil export installations alone would be around $5 billion, while restoring Iraqi oil production to pre-1990 levels would cost an additional $5 billion, plus $3 billion per year in annual operating costs.

 

American oil companies feared that the reluctance of American oil companies to invest in Iraqi oil industry would give godsend opportunity to French, German, Belgium and Russian oil companies to win lucrative contracts and thus control the future Iraqi oil supplies. Since United States would not lift the trade embargo imposed on Iraq, only by establishing direct American rule over Iraq, could American companies feel confident in investing in Iraq, only then could the foreign capital, outside funds and large-scale investment by American oil companies be invested in Iraqi oil industry, without throwing the Iraqi oil reserves to French, German and Russian oil colonialism. American occupation of Iraq would nullify the lucrative oil contracts Saddam Hussein signed with Russian, French, Indian and German companies so that existing Iraqi oil contracts could be clarified and resolved in order to rebuild Iraq's oil industry, so that unforeseen prolonged legal conflicts over conflicting Iraqi oil contracts might not delay the development of important oil and gas fields in Iraq. American oil colonialism would be good for Iraq as any "sudden or prolonged shutdown" of Iraq's oil industry could result in long-term reservoir damage. American Big Oil wanted to American troops to move very fast before the Iraq's oil facilities damaged during any domestic unrest or American military operations in early February 2003. Given all this, a "bonanza" of oil is not expected in the near future, unless American colonial administration could overthrow the Saddam regime and established puppet regime in Iraq that accepted American control over Iraq’s economic, military and foreign policies.

 

American BigOil realized that unless President Bush invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein might succeed in new oil exploration in Iraq’s Greenfield oil exploration projects, and American oil companies would lose their political leverage in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was desperate to invite non-American companies to come to Iraq and invest in oil exploration and increase the Iraqi oil production. Problems at Iraqi oil fields include: years of poor oil reservoir management; corrosion problems at various oil facilities; deterioration of water injection facilities; lack of spare parts, materials, equipment, etc.; damage to oil storage and pumping facilities. Iraq could reach production capacity of 4.2 million bbl/d within three years at a cost of $3.5 billion, and 4.5-6.0 million bbl/d within seven years by 2010. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had signed several multi-billion dollar deals with foreign oil companies mainly from China, France, and Russia, as of October 2002, estimated at $38 billion worth oil contracts on exploration of new oil fields “Greenfield" development with potential production capacity of 4.7 million bbl/d if all the deals come to fruition. Iraq became increasingly frustrated at the failure of these companies to begin oil exploration work on their allotted exploration blocs, and Saddam Hussein had threatened to no longer sign oil deals unless foreign firms agreed to start the oil-exploration works without delay. Iraqi upstream oil contracts required that oil companies to start exploration work immediately, but UN sanctions dissuaded these foreign oil companies from starting the oil exploration.

 

(10) Scramble for Saddam’s Oil Contracts

Had UN sanctions against Iraq been lifted, France, Germany and Russia would have dominated Iraqi oil industry. President Chirac and President Putin opposed America’s unjustified invasions of Iraq, because France and Russian companies had signed a large number of new oil exploration and production contracts with Saddam Hussein. In 1992, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq announced plans to increase its oil production capacity to over 6.3 million bbl/d following the lifting of UN sanctions. This Saddam’s plan was to be accomplished in three phases over a five-year period, and it needed billions of dollars worth of foreign investment, which French, German, Belgium, Chinese and Russian oil companies wanted to invest in Iraq. Much of the production was to come from giant fields in the south including Halfaya, Majnoon, Bin Umar, West Qurna oil fields, plus the Mishrif reservoir of Luhais, North and South Rumaila, Zubair oil fields, and East Baghdad oil fields. United States had systematically opposed the development and repair of Iraqi oil fields and the exploration of new Iraqi Greenfield exploration fearing that French and Russians would gain deep foothold in Iraqi oil industry and American would lose its privileged position in Iraq.

 

(11) Russian Iraqi Oil Deals

Iraq owed Russia billions of dollars for past arms deliveries. Russian oil companies have strong interest in Iraqi oil development. Russian oil deals included a $3.7 billion, 23-year deal to rehabilitate Iraqi oilfields, particularly the 11-15 billion barrel West Qurna field, located west of Basra near the Rumaila field. West Qurna is believed to have production potential of 800,000-1 million bbl/d. The Iraqi Oil Ministry in mid-December 2002 announced that it was severing its contract with the Lukoil consortium on West Qurna due to "failure to comply" with contract stipulations, especially the Lukoil's failure to invest a required $200 million over three years. Iraq left intact the two other, smaller, stakes in West Qurna oil fields by Russian companies Zarubezhneft and Mashinoimport. Iraq and Russian companies Soyuzneftegaz, Stroytransgas-Oil, and Tatneft signed three oil exploration and production deals to develop the 100,000-bbl/d Rafidain field, the Western Desert's Block 4, and the Western Desert's Block 9, respectively. Russia's Foreign Ministry viewed the Iraqi decision on Lukoil and West Qurna "with regret." Following a month of talks between Iraq and Russia the two sides aimed at reversing Iraq's decision, the Iraqis announced in mid-February 2003 that its decision to cancel the Lukoil deal was finished. A joint Russian-Belarus oil company, Slavneft, in October 2001 signed a $52 million service contract with Iraq on the 2-billion-barrel, Suba-Luhais oil field in southern Iraq. Full development of Suba-Luhais could result in production of 100,000 bbl/d (35o API) at a cost of $300 million over three years. As of March 2002, Slavneft reportedly was awaiting approval from the United Nations to drill 25 wells at Luhais oil field. The Saddam field contains 3 billion barrels of oil and 5 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of associated gas. Iraq is seeking foreign assistance for a second-phase Saddam development, which would raise oil production capacity to 50,000 bbl/d, as well as 300 Mmcf/d of gas. Russia's Zarubezhneft received U.N. approval in early April 2001 to drill 45 wells in the Saddam field, plus Kirkuk and Bai Hassan oil fields, as part of an effort to reduce water incursion into the fields. Iraq angered by France's perceived support for the President Bush’s "smart sanctions" plan, Iraq announced in July 2001 that Iraq would no longer give French companies priority in awarding oil contracts, and would reconsider existing contracts as well. Saddam’s Iraq also announced that it was inclined to favor Russia, which had been supporting Iraq at the UN Security Council, on awarding rights to Majnoon and another large southern oil field, Bin Umar. As of February 2003, Russian company Zarubezhneft reportedly was negotiating a contract to develop Bin Umar. The status of TotalFinaElf, which had previously expressed interest in the field, was not clear. However Franc’s TotalFinaElf was confident regarding its Majnoon contract, regardless of the Iraqi government in power.

 

(12) French Iraqi Oil Deals

The largest of Iraq's oilfields slated for post-sanctions development is Majnoon, with reserves of 12-30 billion barrels of 28o-35o API oil, and located 30 miles north of Basra on the Iranian border. French company TotalFinaElf reportedly has signed a deal with Iraq on development rights for Majnoon. Majnoon was reportedly brought on stream (under a "national effort" program begun in 1999) in May 2002 at 50,000 bbl/d. Future development on Majnoon ultimately could lead to production of 450,000 bbl/d within two years or so at an estimated (according to Deutsche Bank) cost of $4 billion. Eventually, Majnoon could produce significantly more oil than that, possibly well above 1 million bbl/d.

 

(13) New European Oil Players

The 2.5-5 billion-barrel Halfaya project is the final large field development in southern Iraq. Several companies (BHP, CNPC, Agip) reportedly have shown interest in Halfaya, which ultimately could yield 200,000-300,000 bbl/d in output at a possible cost of $2 billion. Smaller fields with under 2 billion barrels in reserves also are receiving interest from foreign oil companies. These fields include Nasiriya (Eni, Repsol), Tuba (ONGC, Sonatrach, Pertamina), Ratawi (Shell, Petronas, CanOxy), Gharaf (Mashinoimport, Rosneftegasexport), Amara (PetroVietnam), Noor (Syria), and more. Italy's Eni and Spain's Repsol appear to be strong possibilities to develop Nassiriya.

 

(14) Iraqi Oil Pipelines

Iraq had Kirkuk-Ceyhan, Kirkuk-Banias, and North-South reversible Strategic Pipelines. Iraq has 40-inch and 46-inch Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline, Kirkus-Banias pipeline, and 1.4 a reversible, 1.4-million bbl/d "Strategic Pipeline" built in 1975. Iraq's oil export infrastructure, pipelines, ports, pumping stations were damaged in Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) and during as well as Gulf War I the Operation Desert Storm (1991). The 600-mile, 40-inch Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline is Iraq's largest operable crude export pipeline. Iraq-Turkey oil pipeline has a fully operational capacity of 1.1 million bbl/d, but reportedly can handle only around 900,000 bbl/d. A second, parallel 46-inch Kirkuk-Ceyhan oil pipeline has an optimal capacity of 500,000 bbl/d and was designed to carry Basra Regular exports, but was inoperable. Combined capacity of the 40-inch and 46-inch Kirkuk-Ceyhan oil pipelines, the two parallel lines is 1.5-1.6 million bbl/d. On August 20, 1998, Iraq and Syria, which reopened their border in June 1997 after a 17-year closure, for trade and official visits signed a memorandum of understanding for the possible reopening of the 50-year-old, rusting Banias oil pipeline from Iraq's northern Kirkuk oil fields to Syria's Mediterranean port of Banias and Tripoli, Lebanon. As of October 2002, the pipeline reportedly was being used, and there also was talk of building a new, parallel pipeline as a replacement. In order to optimize export capabilities i.e., to allow oil shipments to the north or south), Iraq constructed a reversible, 1.4-million bbl/d "Strategic Pipeline" in 1975. This pipeline consists of two parallel 700,000-bbl/d lines. The North-South system allows for export of northern Kirkuk crude from the Persian Gulf and for southern Rumaila crude to be shipped through Turkey. During the Gulf War, the Strategic Pipeline was disabled after the K-3 pumping station at Haditha as well as four additional southern pumping stations were destroyed. In the Persian Gulf, Iraq has three tanker terminals: at Mina al-Bakr, Khor al-Amaya, and Khor az-Zubair, which mainly handles dry goods and minimal oil volumes. Mina al-Bakr is Iraq's largest oil terminal, with four 400,000-bbl/d capacity berths capable of handling very large crude carriers (VLCCs). Gulf War damage to Mina al-Bakr had been repaired in large part and the terminal currently can handle up to 1.2-1.3 million bbl/d. A full return to Mina al-Bakr's nameplate capacity apparently required extensive infrastructure repairs. Mina al-Bakr was constrained by a shortage of storage and oil processing facilities, most of which were destroyed in the Gulf War. Iraq's Khor al-Amaya terminal was heavily damaged during the Iran-Iraq War and completely destroyed during Operation Desert Storm in 1991 and had been out of commission since then. As of March 2001 Iraq had largely completed repairing two berths at Khor al-Amaya. Upon full completion of repairs, Iraq projects Khor al-Amaya's capacity would rise to 1.2 million bbl/d, and help prevent delays at Mina al-Bakr while repairs are conducted there.

 

(15) Iraqi Oil Refineries

American had purposely destroyed the Iraqi oil refineries and created new hurdles in the repair works, fearing Iraq would become richer by selling the refined oil products. Iraq has 10 refineries and topping units. Iraq's refining capacity as of January 2003 was over 417,000 bbl/d, compared to a pre-Gulf War, nameplate capacity of 700,000 bbl/d. Iraq has 10 refineries and topping units, and the largest are the 150,000-bbl/d Baiji North, 140,000-bbl/d (or higher) Basra, and 100,000-bbl/d Daura plants. During the 1991 Gulf War I, Baiji North Refineries in northern Iraq as well as the oil refineries at Basra, Daura, and Nasiriyah were severely damaged. Saddam’s Iraqi oil refineries faced the problem of a lack of light-end products, low quality gasoline, and rising pollution levels because of a lack of water treatment facilities. Post-sanction plans included attracting foreign investment to perform refinery upgrades. Saddam’s Iraq had identified dozens of such projects and Iraq wanted to build a new $1-billion, 290,000-bbl/d "Central" Oil Refinery Plant near Babylon.

 

(16) Iraqi Associated Oil-Gas Fields

Iraq contains 110 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of proven natural gas reserves, along with roughly 150 Tcf in probable reserves. About 70% of Iraq's natural gas reserves are associated oil-gas projects i.e., natural gas produced in conjunction with oil. About 30% of Iraq’s natural gas reserves made up of non-associated gas (20%) and dome gas (10%). Until 1990, all of Iraq's natural gas production was from associated fields. In 2001, Iraq produced 97 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of natural gas, down drastically from peak output levels of 700 Bcf in 1979. Iraq plans to increase its natural gas output in order to reduce dependence on oil consumption. Within two years after the lifting of U.N. sanctions, Saddam’s Iraq hoped to produce 550 Bcf, and within a decade, Saddam’s Iraq’s aimed to be producing about 4.2 Tcf of natural gas annually. Since most of Iraq's natural gas is associated with oil, progress on increasing the country's oil output will directly affect the gas sector as well. Associated gas often is simply flared off. Significant volumes of gas also are used for power generation and re-injection for enhanced oil recovery efforts. Main sources of associated natural gas are the Kirkuk, Ain Zalah, Butma, and Bai Hassan oil fields in northern Iraq, as well as the North and South Rumaila and Zubair fields in the south. The Southern Area Gas Project was completed in 1985, but was not brought online until February 1990. It has nine gathering stations and a larger processing capacity of 1.5 billion cubic feet per day. Natural gas gathered from the North and South Rumaila and Zubair fields is carried via pipeline to a 575-Mmcf/d natural gas liquids (NGL) fractionation plant in Zubair and a 100-Mmcf/d processing plant in Basra. At Khor al-Zubair, a 17.5-million-cubic-foot LPG storage tank farm and loading terminals were added to the southern gas system in 1990. Natural gas also used to be pumped from Rumaila into northern Kuwait via a 40-inch, 105-mile pipeline. The gas was used to supply Kuwaiti power stations and LPG plants, but was halted following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990.

 

(17) Iraqi Non-Associated Gas Fields

Iraq's only non-associated natural gas production is from the al-Anfal field (200 Mmcf/d of output) in northern Iraq. Al-Anfal production, which began in May 1990, is piped to the Jambur gas processing station near the Kirkuk field, located 20 miles away. Al-Anfal's gas resources are estimated at 4.5 Tcf, of which 1.8 Tcf is proven. In December 2001, Russia's Gazprom negotiated possible development of al-Anfal. In November 2001, a large non-associated natural gas field was discovered in the Akas region of western Iraq, near the border with Syria, and containing an estimated 2.1 Tcf of natural gas reserves. It is not clear whether or not the field is associated or non-associated. Besides al-Anfal, Iraq has four large non-associated natural gas fields at Chemchamal, Jaria Pika, Khashm al Ahmar, and Mansuriya located in Kirkuk and Diyala provinces. In February 2000, Iraq's Oil Ministry named Agip and Gaz de France as leaders on a $2.3 billion PSA (production sharing agreement) project to develop these fields, which reportedly have total recoverable reserves of more than 10 Tcf. Currently, Iraq has a major natural gas pipeline with the capacity to supply around 240 MMcf/d to Baghdad from the West Qurna field. The 48-inch line was commissioned in November 1988, with phases II and III of the project never completed due to war and sanctions. The last two phases of the pipeline project were meant to supply Turkey. Iraq's Northern Gas System, which came online in 1983, was damaged during the Gulf War as well as by the Kurdish rebellion of March 1991. The system supplied LPG to Baghdad and other Iraqi cities, as well as dry gas and sulfur to power stations and industrial plants. Iraq also has a Southern Gas System, which came online in 1985.

 

(18) Iraqi Electric Power Plants

America had launched war on Iraqi economic infrastructure in 1991 Gulf War I and created impediments in the repairs of the electrical generation and power grids. Around 85%-90% of Iraq's national power grid (and 20 power stations) was damaged or destroyed in the Gulf War. Existing generating capacity of 9,000 megawatts (MW) in December 1990 was reduced to only 340 MW by March 1991. In early 1991, transmission and distribution infrastructure also was destroyed, including the 10 substations serving Baghdad and about 30% of the country's 400-kilovolt (kV) transmission network. In early 1992, Iraq stated that it had restarted 75% of the national grid, including the 1,320-MW Baiji and Mosul thermal plants as well as the Saddam Dam. In 1998, Iraq's maximum available electric generation capacity was estimated (by Iraq) at around 4,000 MW, while the U.N. Iraq Program estimated in November 2002 that generating capacity was 4,300-4,400 MW. The U.N. Iraq Program further stated that, by the summer of 2004, Iraq's electricity generating capacity could reach 5,900 MW, with several power stations at Al-Quds, Beji, Himreen,Yousfiya and Rumaila are all gas-fired electric power plants under construction. Several others electrical power plants at Dibs, Hart, Najaf, Nassriya were gas and thermal electrical power plants awaiting approval and/or funds.

 

Iraq's power deficit stood at 1,800 MW as of August 2000, with blackouts a common occurrence. Iraq signed contracts for renovating two power generation units at the Harithah power plant, and another to rebuild the Yusufiyah plant, which stopped operations in 1990. Iraq's Electricity Authority signed several other contracts with Chinese, Swiss, French, and Russian companies, to build 3,000 MW of additional power generating capacity. These contracts required UN approval and United States and Britain systematically blocked $1.5 billion worth of electrical equipment that Iraq had requested. In December 2000, Chinese company had completed work on the Abdullah power plant north of Baghdad. In October 2001, Russia's Mosenergomontazh was working to modernize Iraq's Southern Heat and Power Plant in Najibia, Basra province. The project aimed to add 200 MW of generating capacity to Iraq's grid. In August 2002, the Najaf region two new power plants with a combined capacity of 20 MW came online.

 

(19) America Weakened Iraq

America systematically destroyed Iraqi oil industry, electric power plants during 1991 Gulf War I and exploited the embargo to sabotage the repairs and reconditioning of Iraqi equipment, refineries, power plants and oil and gas fields to weaken Iraq, so that when American troops would attack Iraq, it would fall easily. America encouraged Iraq to wage war on Iran to weaken Iraq in the fratricidal war. American had decided early in 1980s after President Carter overthrew the Shah of Iran monarchy, to someday establish oil colony over Iraq. 

 

30(17) US Oil Colonialism

(1) NATURE OF YANKEE OIL EMPIRE: United States launched its Empire-building at the beginning of 20th Century, when it used brutal military force to wage war on Spain to create American colonies in Philippines, Puerto Rico and Cuba. America has also used brutal military force to make colonies in Panama, Haiti and Guam. However, the American innovation of Neo-Colonial Empire avoids direct political control over colonies, and it rather installs corrupt, non-democratic, ultra-conservative exploitative regimes and loots the American colonies by securing dominant position for American companies, which concern primarily in looting the oil and gas resources, and minerals. American colonial policy does not advocate export of American colonialists to settle down in foreign colonies, but content to tax the colonies, by economic exploitation, of the colonial economies by modern day version of East India Company, the American oil companies. America learnt by the experience of Jews-controlled DeBeers diamond and gold cartel, which allowed the Jews to control the economies of Black Africa, by focusing on economic exploitation of the mineral resources of Africa, and let the exploitative black regimes exploit the black subjects. After 1900, secret service agents of British Empire, Lawrence of Arabia, purposely backed Wahhabi ultra-conservative nomad tribes to challenge the civilized, modernistic rule of the enlightened Ottomans. Damascus Jews aligned with Semite Arab Bedouin nomads to finance Muslims wage on civilized Christian Egypt, Syria and Libya, during 7th Century. Christian religious right and Christian imperialists nurtured, financed and militarily supported Wahhabi terrorists from 1900 onwards to undermine the political control of civilized Ottoman Empire over Arabian Peninsula, just as President Reagan financed Afghan Mujahideens to wage wars on Soviet occupation forces in Afghanistan. American Big Oil, British Empire and Papacy realized the military role ultra-fundamentalist Wahhabi nomad Bedouin could play in undermining the rule of the Ottomans in Arabia. After the falloff Ottomans Christians continued to politically support fundamentalist nomad Bedouin Wahhabi sect, in its war of Islamic religious sects over more civilized moderate liberal Islamic sects. Christian neo-colonialists found common cause with Bedouin Wahhabi medievalism to weaken Islam and to isolate modernistic secular Muslim leadership, which was more likely to oppose Yankee oil colonialism than illiterate Muslim clergy.

 

(2) BIG OIL NURTURED ISLAMIC TERRORISM: Protestant Britain and WASPs United States and Roman Catholic Church, formalized ties with fundamentalist Wahhabi Sunni clergy to undermine the modern, secular, moderate Islamic societies, in exchange for American and British oil companies control over Islamic mineral and oil riches. British and American Christians gave legal authority to barbarian ultra-conservative fundamentalist militant Muslim clergy to whip Muslim women and replace modern European legal system by barbaric Shariah, so that modern, educated, liberal Muslim leadership removed from positions of power and influence in the Islamic world, and uneducated Muslim clergy and exploitative Muslim sheikhs and rulers, or pro-Western military coup leaders move in to capture political and social power. It is no accident that secular modern liberal Muslim generals, Pakistan’s Zia Ul Haq and Pervez Musharraf, after staging military coup, overnight became pro-Shariah and pro-militant Islamism. General Zia Ul Haq and General Pervez Musharraf found it convenient to hand over the authority to Muslim clergy to whip Muslim women brutally, in exchange to army’s monopoly over political and economic power and Heroin drug trade. United States realized in 1951, that educated, liberated, modern, pro-democracy Muslims would harm American interests as they would attempt to invest oil-incomes in economic development, while military coup leaders, corrupt Muslim Monarchs, Sheikhs and Kings would instead steal state’s oil-wealth and stash in personal bank accounts in American banks.

 

(3) TO BIG OIL TALIBAN IS HOUSE OF ALSAUD: American Big Oil finds anti-women Taliban, Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden and Mohammad Omar, as convenient as dealing with King Fahd, Saudi House of al Saud, or Kuwaiti al Sabah family. United States is not the enemy of Islamic terrorism, on the contrary the CIA created and legitimized Islamic terrorism and Militant fundamentalism, when it overthrew the benevolent monarchy of Shah of Iran and sidelined democratically elected Prime Minister Bani Sadr and neutralized powerful military generals who dreamt of taking over power, so that politically weak ultra-conservative Ayatollah Khomeini could become dictator of Iran. President Jimmy Carter became the father of Shiite Islamic fundamentalism. Subsequent Reagan Administration nurtured, financed and militarily supported Sunni fundamentalism and consolidated militant Islamism in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Nigeria, to secure the unholy alliance of democratic modern capitalist conservative Christian West and Christian America with the anti-democratic, ultra-conservative, anti-women Sunni and Shiite militant Islamism. President Eisenhower started the trend to identify Christian America’s national interests with ultra-conservative Wahhabi Islamism, to undermine modern Islamic societies as fundamentalists protect the American oil interests better. During Reagan Administration, American Christian religious right conservative conspiracy, aligned with Wahhabi ultra-fundamentalism to cement ties of Christian fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism, to uphold the interests of American oil and Muslim oil-rich oligarchy. Muslim oil-oligarchs and fanatic clergy accept monopoly of American oil companies in exchange for the American military support to further Islamic fundamentalist religious agenda.

 

(4) WAHHABI RULE FOR OIL COLONIALISM: In exchange for American Oil’s economic monopoly, the American Oil Colonialists supported, albeit imposed the dictatorial rule of the Wahhabi fundamentalist Muslim Clergy and coup leaders. British colonial policy imposed of British civil service, Judiciary and Law over colonies. American Neo-colonial policy imposes dictatorial rule of exploitative, ultra-fundamentalist anti-women Muslim leaders, so that Muslim society kept backward and non-democratic by empowered Muslim clergy, that allowed American Big-Oil loot the oil, gas and other mineral resources of the oil-producing nations. Osama Bin Laden, Taliban and Muslim League are the norm not the exception in American Neo-Colonialism. Muslim League led-by Jinnah partitioned Indian Empire in 1947 and placed Jinnah into power just as Taliban placed into power by the Christian neo-colonial interests in 1995. Muslim terrorists welcome American oil colonialism, in exchange for Christian military support for Muslim rebels and Muslim terrorist wars waged against non-Catholic and non-Protestant societies, namely Chechnya and Kashmir. Christian Western powers accepted Islamic terrorism and Jihad so long as Muslim militants waged terrorist wars outside the Western Christendom. America furthers its colonial interests and oil imperialism by giving political, diplomatic and military support to Islamic terrorism and militant Islamism, because Wahhabi terrorists more vulnerable to exploitation by American oil cartels.

 

(5) MAKE OIL COLONIES VIA TERRORISM: Muslim terrorists, though stooges of American oil interests, gain local respectability because of their propensity to beat Muslim women into submission. American oil companies have no desire to promote Christianity and can comfortably live with the accusation that their colonial stooges terrorized their womenfolk. By legitimizing Muslim Clergy’s right to whip Muslim women at will, Christian powers surrendered Christianity’s claim of superiority over Islam, and in return gained their acceptance of American oil colonial status for their Muslim oil-producing nations. United States would never dare to attack the Wahhabi doctrine, as it could threaten America’s hold over Muslim oil. Western Christianity surrendered every claim of superiority of Christianity over Islam, and promoted barbarian nomad pro-Shariah Wahhabi Islam as superior form of Islam, in exchange for total American domination over Arab Wahhabi oil and gas resources in the Middle East. American Big Oil and Christianity loved this bargain to accept Wahhabi fundamentalism in exchange for Christian domination over Arab lands and American Big-Oil’s domination over Islamic oil and gas. Christian powers handed over wooden sticks to Muslim clergy so that they could beat Muslim women, in exchange over total Christian control over Islamic oil and gas fields.

 

30(18) World War For Oil

(1) ASIAN ATTACKS ON US OIL COLONIES: Sea power and Air power Pentagon and NATO developed permanent military presence in Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan to secure strong foothold for American Big Oil in the Caspian oil and gas basin, to deny rival regional Eurasian land powers’, control over the exploration, production and transportation of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan oil and gas via pipelines. Eurasian land powers realize that American Muslim oil colonies are the Achilles’ heel of American military and economic power, which in times of world wars, could be militarily conquered or destabilized by the Eurasian land powers, namely, Russia, China and India. United States waged carpet-bombing of German cities and Japanese cities to destroy the economic and urban infrastructure of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan during Second World War. United States used Yellow Orange to destroy the forest cover in Vietnam War to cause permanent ecological damage to Vietnam. United States and NATO air war on Kosovo and Yugoslavia targeted electric utilities, economic targets to cause more than $35 billion in economic damages in Yugoslavia. Should Eurasian land powers, namely, Russia, China and India, wage land wars on American oil colonies in Arabian Gulf and Caspian basin to damage American Achilles’ heels in the Muslim oil-producing world?

 

If Eurasian land powers succeed in overtaking Muslim oil-rich American colonies in the Third World War by use of land forces and infantry, the Sea powers and air powers would receive a fatal blow to their economic and military power. Chinese conquest of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and Turkmenistan would cause more harm to American and NATO military might than the conquest of Australia. The major war between western and American Sea powers and Asian land powers would take place on the oilfields of OPEC and Caspian nations. Chinese and Russian military occupation of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would cause greater harm to the United States than the frontal assault on mainland America and mainland Western Europe. The future world war between United States and Russia or China would take place in the oil-producing Middle East and Caspian Central Asia. Any Chinese or Russian victories and subsequent occupation of the Muslim oil-producing world would decisively shift the world’s balance of power in favor of the winner. American oil colonies in Islamic world represent the Achilles heel of the American super power status.

 

(2) SECESSION OF BALUCHISTAN: The Baluch tribe predominates in the western coastal province of Pakistan and eastern coastal province of Iran. The Baluch people are racially distinct and separate from peoples of Pakistan and Iran, and constitute separate nation. Port of Bandar Behest is the Baluchistan port in Iran, and port of Gwadar is the Baluchistan port in Pakistan. The secession of Baluchistan province from Pakistan and its confederation with Afghanistan shall provide unfettered sea outlet to the Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan oil and gas pipelines, which would run southward from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistani Baluchistan port of Gwadar, or it could cross over to Iranian Baluchistan towards port of Bandar Behest. The secession of either Pakistan’s Baluchistan or Iran’s Baluchistan is the moral imperative to provide secured sea outlet for the pipelines going southward from landlocked Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, trough landlocked Afghanistan to the Baluchistan Arabian Sea ports of Gwadar in Pakistan or Bandar Behest in Iran. Baluchistan province of Iran is the least developed area of Iran similarly Baluchistan province of Pakistan is the least developed area of Pakistan. Baluch people in Pakistan as well as Iran have waged civil wars for independence. Pakistani port of Gwadar is less than 100 miles from Iranian border and Iranian port of Bandar Behest is very near to the Pakistani border. The economic development of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan oil and gas fields and oil/gas pipelines would expedite the demand for Baluchistan’s secession from Pakistan and Iran, which would make Baluchistan prosperous and strategically significant, and provide unfettered access to the Arabian Sea ports to the landlocked Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

 

(3) SECESSION OF KURDISTAN: Eurasian land powers should militarily support the secession of Kurdistan from oppressive occupation of Turkey. The secession of Kurds from Turkey and Iraq would provide direct land access from Kurd-majority areas on the Black sea to the Kurd areas at the mouth of Arabian Gulf. United States supports the subjugation of Turki Kurds because Iraqi Kurd areas rich in oil and gas reserves. Eurasian land powers by militarily supporting Kurdistan’s drive for secession from Turkey and Iraq could hope to control the oil and gas riches of Iraq. Kurdistan is the Achilles’ heel of Turkey and NATO. The establishment of sovereign independent oil-rich Kurdistan out of the Kurd-majority areas in Turkey, Iraq and Iran would blunt NATO’s offensive in Caspian Central Asia and Afghanistan. Kurds are Aryan people and speak language similar to Persian. Secession of Kurdistan would be in the national interest of Iran, Pakistan, India, Russia and China and greatly undermine expansionism of 26-member NATO in Central Asia. Russia and China can undermine the American and NATO military presence in Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan by enhancing their political and military support to Kurd rebels. Since United States, Turkey and Saudi Arabia support Chechnya rebels, could persuade Russia provide similar support to the Kurd rebellion.

 

(4) SECESSION OF SHIITE SAUDI AL HASA: Pro-Iran Saudi Shiite tribes are in majority in Al Hasa region of Arabian Gulf, and they vehemently resent the domination of Wahhabi Sunni Arabs. The oil-rich Shiite-majority Al Hasa region bordering Arabian Gulf coast would become very rich and gas and oil producing nation. The secession of Shiite–majority Al Hasa Arabian Gulf coastal province will undermine Islamic terrorism. Saudi Arabia should be portioned into four sovereign states: Western Saudi Arabia with Jeddah on the Read Sea as Capital; Central Saudi Arabia with Riyadh as Capital; Shiite Eastern Saudi Arabia including Al Hasa Arabian Gulf coastal province with Dammam as capital; and Holy Mecca & Medina with Medina as the capital. Four-way partition of Saudi Arabia would eliminate Saudi Arabia as the womb of Islamic terrorism and America would exercise greater control over four oil-colonies more than what it does on Saudi Arabia. The four-way partition of Saudi Arabia is in the national interests of Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan India, Russia and China. Iraq should also be partitioned into three independent states, namely, Shiite Arab Iraq, Sunni Iraqi Kurdistan and Sunni Arab Iraq. Shiite and Sunni are mutually hostile and incompatible religion and partition of Arab states on the religious lines of Sunni and Shiite, and on racial lines Semite Arabs and Aryan Iranians would promote regional peace and allow Western power exercise greater control over oil colonies. India, China and Russia should support secession of Shiite-majority Al Hasa oil-producing region from Saudi Arabia, and Shiite-majority oil-producing southern region from Iraq.

 

(5) PAKISTAN IS THE NEW CALIPH OF ISLAM: Pakistan not Turkey is the strongest military power in the Islamic world and deserves the rightful status as the ‘Caliph of Islam.’ Pakistan as a the Caliph of Islam has the right to take over the former territories of the Ottoman Caliphate, namely, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and United Arab Emirates. Should oil-rich OAPEC Arab nations give a portion of the gross oil-incomes to Caliph of Islam Pakistan and hand over the custody of Mecca and Medina to Pakistan? It is likely that during 21st century nuclear Pakistan would invade and occupy Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and inter-marry with 5 million Saudi, Kuwait and Iraqi women to lay the foundation of powerful Islamabad Caliphate. Pakistan’s conquest of Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia does not harm India’s national interests.

 

(6) WAHHABISM AS ZIONIST & VATICAN PLOT: Wahhabi doctrine and the Semite Wahhabi terrorism is the Christian weapon to loot the riches of the oil-rich Islamic world. Zionists and Catholics promoted the Bedouin culture as a form of purer form of Islam, to undermine the political control of Ottoman Caliphate over Arabian Desert lands. The Jews got Israel and family of Abdul Aziz Al Saud got the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Wahhabi clergy got control over Mecca and Medina. During first Islamic century, Jews supported the conquest of Egypt and Syria by Muslim raiders. British and America established British and American oil-colonies in the former territories of Ottoman Empire, by militarily and financially supporting the Wahhabi terrorists for waging Jihad on Ottoman officials based in Arabian Peninsula. King Abdul Aziz Al Saud organized terrorist acts on Ottoman targets, much similar to what Osama Bin Laden and other Mujahideen leaders did in Afghanistan, and Chechnya after receiving American dollars and guns. It is possible that the Hidden Hand of the World Ruler mentioned in the Protocols of the Secret Meetings of the Elders of Zion, conceptualized the Wahhabi fundamentalist doctrine to reinvent the Muslim-Jewish alliance that used Jewish support and finance to wage wars and loot the riches of Egypt and Syria. Just as after 640 AD Muslim raiders looted Egypt and Syria and sold the loot to Damascus Jews, similarly the Wahhabi militant Islamic Clergy aligned British imperialism and American imperialism and agreed to make oil-rich Arabian Peninsula British and American colony, in exchange for British and American recognition of Wahhabi monopoly over social, cultural and religious affairs. British spy, Lawrence of Arabia mobilized the military prowess of Wahhabi terrorists to weaken the hold of Ottomans over oil-rich Arabian Peninsula. Britain and America recognized the despotic rule of single individual Abdul Aziz and his descendants through multiple marriages, ownership over the oil-riches. Abdul Aziz and his forefathers never had any royal blood, as after the Mongol conquest of Baghdad Caliphate the entire Muslim royalty was destroyed and the Ottomans were Aryans not of Arab Semite race. The Saudi monarchy of House of al Saud, legitimized the rule of a single family, by agreeing to hand over total control over Mecca and Medina to Wahhabi Clergy and by agreeing to hand over economic control over oil and gas resources to American and British Big Oil companies.

 

Osama bin Laden is the 2001 version of Abdul Aziz al Saud of 1917, and both originated in Saudi Arabia and profess the fundamentalist doctrine of Wahhabism and are supported by British and American imperialism and oil companies and Christian Church. Wahhabism and Islamic terrorism is an outgrowth of the Zionist-Papal plot to subvert Islamic Civilization and to convert Islamic oil and gas producing nations into American Oil Colonies. Osama Bin Laden is not the nemesis of the Christian American Oil Neo-Colonialism rather Osama is the arch bearer and trumpeter of American Oil Imperialism. It is likely that Saudi Wahhabi Sunni Al Qaeda terrorists and Osama Bin Laden would overthrow the Saudi monarchy of House of al Saud, some time before 2012 AD, just like his predecessor Iranian Shiite Ayatollah Khomeini, who overthrew Pahlevi Monarchy of Shah Mohammed Riza Pahlevi, with the blessing of the President Jimmy Carter and the CIA in Jan 1979. Would some day the House of Bin Laden rule Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates, with America’s blessing?

 

The arch terrorist of today, Osama Bin Laden could be the future-king-in waiting for universal Arabian oil-rich Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE. Should India support or oppose the imperial royal dreams of terrorist Osama bin Laden in Saudi Arabia? Could Royal families of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and United Arab emirates, avoid looming slaughter at hands of Al Qaeda terrorists, by entering into defense pact with nuclear India?

 

(7) INDIA JOINS EURO OIL IMPERIALISM: Former European colonial powers, namely, Britain, France and Germany, would seek the military support of India to promote the oil-interests of Indo-Euro Oil Colonialism. United States employed covert operations and supported Islamic fundamentalists in Algeria, Syria and Iran to undermine French oil colonial interests in Algeria, Syria, and Iran. United States covert operations in Britain defeated assertive Tory leaders allowed submissive Labour Party Prime Minister Harold Wilson, who gave up British colonial control over Brunei, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar to expedite the establishment of American oil colonies in the former British colonial territories. After the Second World War, United States replaced Britain and consolidated its domination over oil and gas producing former colonies of British Empire, namely, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Iran, Nigeria, Qatar, Oman, Malaysia, Brunei and Bangladesh. British Oil Imperialism overshadowed American oil imperialism in control over Middle East oil before the Second World War.

 

Before 1945, the Indian Empire and British Empire controlled 100 per cent of Iranian oil and 47.5 percent of Iraqi oil; the U.S. interest was only 23.75 per cent in Iraq equal to France's interest in Iraq oil. After 1945, the control over Middle East oil has changed radically; in 1959 the U.S. share rose to 50 per cent of all Middle East oil, while that of Britain declined to 18 per cent, and France had 5 per cent, the Netherlands 3 per cent, other, including the local Arab governments, 24 percent. After the end of the Cold War the Western oil imperialism is really United States imperialism. Germany, France, Japan and Britain realized that American Oil Neo-colonialism harms the economic interests of German, French, Japanese and British oil companies.

 

To establish oil colonies in the Middle East and Caspian Central Asia, in competition with the American oil colonialism, European powers could find defense pact with India very promising and rewarding. India, Germany, France and Japan could establish joint control over new oil colonies in the Caspian Region and Arabian Gulf region. India and Britain could enter into defense pact to recreate oil-colonial empire in the former colonial possessions of British Empire, namely, Brunei, Malaysia, Nigeria, Kuwait, Iraq, UAE, Qatar, Muscat & Oman, Yemen, and Sudan. India is willing to cooperate with former colonial powers to recreate Oil Colonial Empires.

 

(8) COLONIALIZATION OF OIL PRODUCERS: In the 21st century, it is legitimate for great powers to compete for control and occupation of oil-producing nations. Just as Koran forces women into servitude to men, similarly the Raison D'etat doctrine forces militarily weak oil-rich nations into servitude of great powers. Just as Muslim women not supposed to walk alone without the male escorts, militarily weak oil-rich nations should venture in world arena only when escorted by great powers, otherwise they could be punished by other great powers. Just as golden bird cannot fly free in air, and must find protection of the cage, the militarily weak oil-producing nations must find the protection of great powers and find satisfaction of security as oil colony of great powers. American Big Oil companies have rights and authority to control and discipline militarily weak oil-producing nations, no less than Muslim males have over their womenfolk. American Big Oil shall play the important role in the affairs of the Muslim Oil colonies, similar to the power Muslim men exercise over their women. Occupation and exploitation of the economic resources of the militarily weak, oil-colonies is a legitimate Great Power Game in the 21st Century. Great Powers compete to exercise greater control and influence over oil-producing nations and all militarily weak oil and gas producing nations destined to become oil colonies of some great power.

 

OPEC nations have no right to become free from control of the Neo Colonial Powers, so long as foreign colonial rulers grant freedom in social, cultural and religious affairs. The Great Oil Rush has begun in the 21st Century, and every great Power scrambling for colonial control over militarily weaker oil-producing nations. Oil will be the foundation around which many new great colonial empires of 21st Century would be built. China, Japan, Germany and India nurture dreams to create colonial empires in the 21st Century, based on the colonial exploitation of the oil-producing nations. The religion of Raison d’etat and Realpolitik justifies the colonial conquest of militarily weaker, oil-producing nations, known as Female Nations, by more Great Powers, known as Male Nations. Just as Muslim females expected to be subservient to Muslim males, similarly oil-rich militarily weaker, oil producing Female Nations expected to be subservient to the Great Oil Colonial powers, in the 21st Century Neo-colonial age. Unless the oil-producing, militarily weaker female Oil nations, find security as the Oil Colony of great powers, they become fair game by every other Great Power. Unless protected by Christian Colonial great Powers, Muslim oil-producing nations of Middle East, Southeast Asia and Caspian Central Asia, they would become the fair game for upcoming new Eurasian colonial powers, namely, China, India, Russia and Pakistan. Only choice that the Female Muslim oil-producing nations of Middle East, Central Asia and Southeast Asia and Africa enjoy in the 21st Century, is to choose any one Male Colonial Great Power they should submit to, namely, United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, India or Pakistan. To protect Islam as a religion and Islam as a Civilization, the oil-producing OPEC nations, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Qatar, UAE should voluntarily join federation with either Pakistan or Turkey, so that Muslim Turkey or Muslim Pakistan should lead the Islamic Caliphate and provide protection to the weaker OPEC nations. To protect Islam and to fulfill their moral obligations to Muslim Ummah, either Turkey or Pakistan should occupy and takeover oil-producing OPEC nations to protect them, for exploitation by other Colonial Great Powers. In the new age of Neo-Colonial Empires of 21st Century, militarily weaker oil-producing nations cannot remain independent, and they must find security as an oil colony of the Colonial Great Powers, preferably as American Oil Colonies.

 

(9) LEGACY OF PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: President Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) opened the Pandora box when he used the power of United States to overthrow the regime of Shah Mohammed Riza Pahlevi of Iran and installed ultra-fundamentalist Ayatollah Khomeini in to power in Shah, after scuttling the political aspirations of Iranian Army generals and democratically elected Prime Minister Bani Sadr. That Ayatollah Khomeini is a CIA agent became exposed, when President Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) used Iranian ties to supply arms to Nicaragua’s rebel Contra illegally. President Ronald Reagan consolidated the political and military ties of the CIA and the Muslim Sunni fundamentalists and Shiite fundamentalists, to wage joint Islamic-Western Christian war on infidel Soviet occupation troops, to further American Oil interests in Caspian Central Asia. President Bill Clinton continued the alliance of the CIA and the Islamic Mujahideens, Wahhabi fundamentalists to establish American Oil Colonies throughout Muslim oil-producing world. By giving diplomatic and military support to Wahhabi fundamentalist militant Islamic Jihadis, White House succeeded in weakening the political hold of corrupt Wahhabi rulers of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Arab Sheikhdoms, which would fall like Pahlavi Monarchy of Iran, at the slight hint of the CIA. Just as coronation of arch-fundamentalist Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran protected rather than harmed American oil interests, the coronation of Osama bin Laden as the King of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates, would strengthen rather than weaken the domination of American Big Oil over OPEC oil. Just as the loot of the Shah of Iran’s assets enriched Mullahs and American Banks, the loot of royal family assets in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would also generate huge profits to American financial institutions. Everyone profits whenever big looting takes place. The looming takeover of the OPEC oil-producing nations by foreign-supported Wahhabi terrorists would spread the wealth around and strengthen America’s domination of global economy. Everyone profits whenever big looting takes place.

 

(10) Secession of Baluchistan from Pakistan

American Big Oil Colonialism would engineer the secession of Baluchistan and NWFP Frontier Province from Pakistan, so that Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Baluchistan Oil-Gas Pipeline could transport Gas and Oil to the oil terminals at Baluchistan port of Gwadar, without depending upon continued support of volatile Pakistan. American Big Oil colonialism had earlier brought about the secession of Bangladesh in 1971, to gain control over the Gas reserves of Bangladesh in Sundarban Basin. After the secession of Baluchistan from Pakistan the NATO troops in Afghanistan would guarantee that Turkmenistan Oil & Gas flows without interruption via Turkmenistan-Gwadar Oil-Gas Pipeline. President George Bush cultivated Pakistan for its geopolitical location on the southward route for Turkmenistan Oil Pipeline. The geopolitics of Baluchistan necessitates the American support for the secession of Baluchistan from Pakistan. American Oil Colonialism needs Baluchistan, not Pakistan to control the oil and gas riches of Turkmenistan. Former Soviet Central Asian republics, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Afghanistan and Baluchistan should form Confederation or Federation or Common Market and end the land-locked status and gain direct route to the Arabian Sea and outlet at Baluchistan port of Gwadar. Secession of Baluchistan from Pakistan and its confederation with Afghanistan and Central Asian Republics Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan would transform the geopolitics of Eurasia and eliminate the threat of Russian takeover of former Soviet Central Asian Republics.     

 

30(19) US Iraqi Oil Empire

Pentagon would directly rule Iraq, by placing a puppet military general into power in Iraq, so that loot of Iraqi oil could pay for future Pentagon’s military expeditions in future. America talks about democracy in a post-Saddam Iraq, but realizes that the interests of American Oil Colonialism best served by the military dictatorship under direct control of American occupation troops. The fate of Saddam Hussein and fate of Iraqi oil is also the fate of Arab world, Arab Oil and even Islam. If Iraq falls and becomes the colony of Christian American Big Oil then the entire oil-producing would become sooner than later, the colonies of American Colonial Empire, or the French Oil Colonial Empire, or German Colonial Empire, or Russian colonial Empire, or Indian or Chinese or Japanese Colonial Empire. If the Bush Oil Colonial Administration successful in its goal of change of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, to establish American Oil Colony in Iraq, and colonization of world’s second largest reserves of oil, then what would Iraq look like without Saddam? Would Iraq flourish or would Iraq fall apart and pave way for further colonization of other Oil-producing Arab nations?

 

America’s stated goal would be an Iraq that has territorial integrity, an Iraqi government that is democratic and pluralistic, an Iraqi nation where the human rights of every ethnic and religious group are recognized and respected. The George W. Bush Administration believes the stakes in Iraq have never been higher: A new government in Baghdad could unite the Iraqi nation and help stabilize the region, and pose no threats to the American colonies in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The right kind of government in Iraq, the Bush administration believes, would ease the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and eliminate the only know opponent to American oil colonialism in the Middle East, and pave the way for formal establishment of American Oil colonial administration throughout the Arab world, to end the independence and sovereignty of the oil-producing Islamic Arab world.

 

While the first Bush administration (1989-1993) saw nation building in Iraq as a quagmire, the second Bush administration (2001-) sees that it's a strategic opportunity. The first Bush administration was afraid America would be stuck in Iraq, if America moves in and establish colonial control over Iraq. American troops could be staying in forever in Iraq. It would be that chaotic Iraq might fall apart. The second Bush administration sees it as an opportunity to put in a pro-American regime in Iraq and to establish formal American Oil Colony in Iraq, to herald the new age of Oil Colonial empires in the 21st Century, to install democracy in Iraq and change the whole political dynamic in the Middle East, and to pave the way for formal annexation and colonization of the entire oil-producing Islamic world, to be ruled and exploited by American Big Oil. President George W. Bush realized that American economy is rotten from within and survives as the world’s top economy only because of America’s control of global oil and gas resources. President Bush wanted to become the historical person by changing history, to bring back the colonial empires as the principal actors in world politics. International diplomacy in 21st Century conducted by diplomats of Oil Colonial Empires and supranational entities and many newly independent states that emerged after the Second World War would lose its independence and sovereignty.

 

Arab world has a history of instability, because these countries never existed in the history and were created by British and American oil interests. But stability and democracy in Iraq could be wishful thinking, if history is an accurate guide. Iraq is a fragile nation, a made-up country created by the British and French in a secret deal to protect their colonial interests at the end of World War I. Treaty of Sevres promised independent statehood to the Kurds of the Ottoman Empire. Britain imposed the rule of Arab Sunni tribes, which are minority in Iraq, because Wahhabi King Faisal of Iraq had signed away all oil rights to Britain. Saddam Hussein represented Arab Sunnis and was a CIA spy, and has managed to provide some stability in Iraq.

 

In Iraq governments have been overthrown more than 20 times in the last 80 years, after 1920. Iraq is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-racial society. Modern Iraq I s a fragile mix of religion, ethnic groups and tribes. Sunni Muslims in Baghdad and the country's central areas have run the government since the days of the Ottoman Empire. Sunni Muslims, including Arab Sunnis and Kurd Sunnis, comprise roughly 35 percent of the country's population. Shi'a (or Shiite) Muslims - based mainly in the south - are the actual majority group in Iraq, comprising 60 percent of the population. And the Kurds in the mountainous north have achieved a degree of security, supported by British and American air power enforcing the northern no-fly zone. Kurds are roughly 15 percent to 20 percent of the Iraqi population. Iraq also has suffered from political instability that has been the hallmark of Iraq. The Iraqi government overthrown more than 20 times since 1920 and the Iraqi nation had no history of democratic rule. Islamic world is unfit for the democracy.

 

America realized that Iraq is no military power and can easily be conquered and colonized. British policy of divide and rule would allow British and American oil interests long term colonial rule over Iraq, till its oil resources are depleted. The real advantage with Iraq is you know what a foreign occupation troops would do to establish permanent colonial presence in Iraq. Colonial troops would exploit the ethic divisions in Iraq, and Iraqi people would fail to meet the challenge of keeping multi-ethnic Iraqi state together. Trying to get the Iraqis to commit to their country not just a political entity but really as a nation, in which everybody feels that they have an interest, would be a great problem, and America could exploit the ethnic divisions in Iraq to establish a permanent Oil Colony in Iraq. Any fighting will be over who would succeed Saddam and that whatever the fighting is likely to be is going to be less than what Saddam Hussein did to Iraq himself.

 

Direct American colonial occupation of Iraq and establishment of direct American colony in Iraq, in post-Saddam Iraq would promote stability and peace in Iraq and make America wealthy and prosperous. Why should America pay for foreign Oil when it can colonize and exploit Iraqi oil free? Whether the Middle East would be more stable with or without Saddam Hussein in power is only academic question after America won the Iraq war. The shock waves from an overthrow of Saddam could spread. Unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq could destabilize the Middle East oil-producing region, by giving the ordinary Arab the perception that the United States really is an imperial power, that America invaded Iraq not to bring justice and better government to the Iraqi people but as an imperialist power that is going to occupy the country and gain control of Iraq oil resources. And this is going to resonate very strongly in Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Jordan, so after the occupation of Iraq, America should militarily intervene and establish direct oil colony in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait also. A change of government in Iraq would lead to changes in governments in other Arab nations. But given the track record of Arab states and their ability to control their own society for the last 50 years, America shouldn’t worry about regimes toppling or things collapsing, so long American does not introduce freedom and democracy in Iraq. America’s colonial occupation of Iraq would promote stability in the Middle East and America would handover power to terrorist Wahhabi clergy in Iraq so that the policies that allowed Untied States to control Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE would also control Iraqi oil. Arab nations would not be upset by America’s war to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, so long as Wahhabi clergy in Iraq gets its fair share of the oil incomes. The Arab armies will not walk along with America to attack Iraq, but Arab nations will walk in the Iraqi funeral and Arabs will be very happy, that the bully of the Arab world died.

 

Kurds are Sunni Aryans and unlike Arab Sunnis are warriors. If Saddam Hussein is removed, America’s challenge will be creating stability in Iraq, especially in Kurd-majority northern areas. Kurdish people live in the northern no-fly zone of Iraq. Saddam has used chemical weapons against the Kurds before and brutally repressed a Kurdish uprising in the aftermath of the Gulf War, when Kurds thought America would support Kurd rebellion against Iraq. Kurds feel betrayed that United States allowed after the Gulf War to use helicopters to kill Kurds in northern region and allowed Turkish to periodically enter Kurd areas and kill Kurds. Kurds are annoyed that Untied States tricked five tope Kurd leaders to ride American military helicopter to meet tope American leadership and then shot the helicopter killing all the top five leaders of Kurds after the Gulf War. Since the establishment of the northern no-fly zone in Northern Iraq, the Kurds, who have been struggling to create a country of their own for decades, have essentially set up an autonomous governing region for themselves. But Iran, Turkey and Syria, with Kurdish minority populations of their own, would be opposed to true Kurdish autonomy. India supports the autonomy of Kurds. Russia and India may support Kurd rebels in Iraq and turkey, in case America does not give India and Russia a fair share of the incomes of the Oil loot in Iraq. What the CIA did to Soviet troops in Afghanistan by providing military supplies to Afghan Mujahideens, same could happen to American colonial troops in Iraq, if Russia, France, Germany, Iran and India agree to supply arms and ammunition to Kurds, if the incomes of Oil Loot not fairly distributed among great powers?

 

Turkey wants to establish Turkey’s colonial rule in Northern Iraq, the areas of Kurds. The neighbor states, Iran and Turkey and Syria are all very much opposed to any constitutionally recognized autonomy for the Kurds in northern Iraq, because of the implications for their own Kurdish minorities. Turkey thinks it might be a steppingstone to trouble in future, as the Kurds look beyond autonomy in northern Iraq to their age-old dream of a Kurdish state. Kurdish state or even a semi-autonomous Kurdish area in an Iraqi federation could be a cause for post-Saddam Iraq’s war with Turkey. Turkey would regard any autonomy to Kurds as an act that would need to be negated by Turkish military action. Saddam has never been perceived as a mortal threat to Turkish interests. United States will place emphasis on stability over democracy in a post-Saddam government. America has no d