Forum

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm

Economically speaking, in order for an empire to initiate and conduct a war, its benefits must outweigh its military and social costs. Benefits from Iraqi oil fields are hardly worth the long-term, multi-year military cost. Instead, Bush must have gone into Iraq to defend his Empire. Indeed, this is the case: two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was terminated, the Iraqi Euro accounts were switched back to dollars, and oil was sold once again only for U.S. dollars. No longer could the world buy oil from Iraq with Euro. Global dollar supremacy was once again restored. Bush descended victoriously from a fighter jet and declared the mission accomplished-he had successfully defended the U.S. dollar, and thus the American Empire.

The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse
Abstract: the proposed Iranian Oil Bourse will accelerate the fall of the American Empire.

By Krassimir Petrov, Ph.D.

January 15, 2006

I. Economics of Empires

A nation-state taxes its own citizens, while an empire taxes other nation-states. The history of empires, from Greek and Roman, to Ottoman and British, teaches that the economic foundation of every single empire is the taxation of other nations. The imperial ability to tax has always rested on a better and stronger economy, and as a consequence, a better and stronger military. One part of the subject taxes went to improve the living standards of the empire; the other part went to strengthen the military dominance necessary to enforce the collection of those taxes.

Historically, taxing the subject state has been in various forms-usually gold and silver, where those were considered money, but also slaves, soldiers, crops, cattle, or other agricultural and natural resources, whatever economic goods the empire demanded and the subject-state could deliver. Historically, imperial taxation has always been direct: the subject state handed over the economic goods directly to the empire.

For the first time in history, in the twentieth century, America was able to tax the world indirectly, through inflation. It did not enforce the direct payment of taxes like all of its predecessor empires did, but distributed instead its own fiat currency, the U.S. Dollar, to other nations in exchange for goods with the intended consequence of inflating and devaluing those dollars and paying back later each dollar with less economic goods-the difference capturing the U.S. imperial tax. Here is how this happened.

Early in the 20th century, the U.S. economy began to dominate the world economy. The U.S. dollar was tied to gold, so that the value of the dollar neither increased, nor decreased, but remained the same amount of gold. The Great Depression, with its preceding inflation from 1921 to 1929 and its subsequent ballooning government deficits, had substantially increased the amount of currency in circulation, and thus rendered the backing of U.S. dollars by gold impossible. This led Roosevelt to decouple the dollar from gold in 1932. Up to this point, the U.S. may have well dominated the world economy, but from an economic point of view, it was not an empire. The fixed value of the dollar did not allow the Americans to extract economic benefits from other countries by supplying them with dollars convertible to gold.

Economically, the American Empire was born with Bretton Woods in 1945. The U.S. dollar was not fully convertible to gold, but was made convertible to gold only to foreign governments. This established the dollar as the reserve currency of the world. It was possible, because during WWII, the United States had supplied its allies with provisions, demanding gold as payment, thus accumulating significant portion of the world’s gold. An Empire would not have been possible if, following the Bretton Woods arrangement, the dollar supply was kept limited and within the availability of gold, so as to fully exchange back dollars for gold. However, the guns-and-butter policy of the 1960’s was an imperial one: the dollar supply was relentlessly increased to finance Vietnam and LBJ’s Great Society. Most of those dollars were handed over to foreigners in exchange for economic goods, without the prospect of buying them back at the same value. The increase in dollar holdings of foreigners via persistent U.S. trade deficits was tantamount to a tax-the classical inflation tax that a country imposes on its own citizens, this time around an inflation tax that U.S. imposed on rest of the world.

When in 1970-1971 foreigners demanded payment for their dollars in gold, The U.S. Government defaulted on its payment on August 15, 1971. While the popular spin told the story of “severing the link between the dollar and gold”, in reality the denial to pay back in gold was an act of bankruptcy by the U.S. Government. Essentially, the U.S. declared itself an Empire. It had extracted an enormous amount of economic goods from the rest of the world, with no intention or ability to return those goods, and the world was powerless to respond- the world was taxed and it could not do anything about it.

From that point on, to sustain the American Empire and to continue to tax the rest of the world, the United States had to force the world to continue to accept ever-depreciating dollars in exchange for economic goods and to have the world hold more and more of those depreciating dollars. It had to give the world an economic reason to hold them, and that reason was oil.

In 1971, as it became clearer and clearer that the U.S Government would not be able to buy back its dollars in gold, it made in 1972-73 an iron-clad arrangement with Saudi Arabia to support the power of the House of Saud in exchange for accepting only U.S. dollars for its oil. The rest of OPEC was to follow suit and also accept only dollars. Because the world had to buy oil from the Arab oil countries, it had the reason to hold dollars as payment for oil. Because the world needed ever increasing quantities of oil at ever increasing oil prices, the world’s demand for dollars could only increase. Even though dollars could no longer be exchanged for gold, they were now exchangeable for oil.

The economic essence of this arrangement was that the dollar was now backed by oil. As long as that was the case, the world had to accumulate increasing amounts of dollars, because they needed those dollars to buy oil. As long as the dollar was the only acceptable payment for oil, its dominance in the world was assured, and the American Empire could continue to tax the rest of the world. If, for any reason, the dollar lost its oil backing, the American Empire would cease to exist. Thus, Imperial survival dictated that oil be sold only for dollars. It also dictated that oil reserves were spread around various sovereign states that weren’t strong enough, politically or militarily, to demand payment for oil in something else. If someone demanded a different payment, he had to be convinced, either by political pressure or military means, to change his mind.

The man that actually did demand Euro for his oil was Saddam Hussein in 2000. At first, his demand was met with ridicule, later with neglect, but as it became clearer that he meant business, political pressure was exerted to change his mind. When other countries, like Iran, wanted payment in other currencies, most notably Euro and Yen, the danger to the dollar was clear and present, and a punitive action was in order. Bush’s Shock-and-Awe in Iraq was not about Saddam’s nuclear capabilities, about defending human rights, about spreading democracy, or even about seizing oil fields; it was about defending the dollar, ergo the American Empire. It was about setting an example that anyone who demanded payment in currencies other than U.S. Dollars would be likewise punished.

Many have criticized Bush for staging the war in Iraq in order to seize Iraqi oil fields. However, those critics can’t explain why Bush would want to seize those fields-he could simply print dollars for nothing and use them to get all the oil in the world that he needs. He must have had some other reason to invade Iraq.

History teaches that an empire should go to war for one of two reasons: (1) to defend itself or (2) benefit from war; if not, as Paul Kennedy illustrates in his magisterial The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, a military overstretch will drain its economic resources and precipitate its collapse. Economically speaking, in order for an empire to initiate and conduct a war, its benefits must outweigh its military and social costs. Benefits from Iraqi oil fields are hardly worth the long-term, multi-year military cost. Instead, Bush must have gone into Iraq to defend his Empire. Indeed, this is the case: two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was terminated, the Iraqi Euro accounts were switched back to dollars, and oil was sold once again only for U.S. dollars. No longer could the world buy oil from Iraq with Euro. Global dollar supremacy was once again restored. Bush descended victoriously from a fighter jet and declared the mission accomplished-he had successfully defended the U.S. dollar, and thus the American Empire.

II. Iranian Oil Bourse

The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate “nuclear” weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire. That weapon is the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006. It will be based on a euro-oil-trading mechanism that naturally implies payment for oil in Euro. In economic terms, this represents a much greater threat to the hegemony of the dollar than Saddam’s, because it will allow anyone willing either to buy or to sell oil for Euro to transact on the exchange, thus circumventing the U.S. dollar altogether. If so, then it is likely that almost everyone will eagerly adopt this euro oil system:

The Europeans will not have to buy and hold dollars in order to secure their payment for oil, but would instead pay with their own currencies. The adoption of the euro for oil transactions will provide the European currency with a reserve status that will benefit the European at the expense of the Americans.
The Chinese and the Japanese will be especially eager to adopt the new exchange, because it will allow them to drastically lower their enormous dollar reserves and diversify with Euros, thus protecting themselves against the depreciation of the dollar. One portion of their dollars they will still want to hold onto; a second portion of their dollar holdings they may decide to dump outright; a third portion of their dollars they will decide to use up for future payments without replenishing those dollar holdings, but building up instead their euro reserves.
The Russians have inherent economic interest in adopting the Euro - the bulk of their trade is with European countries, with oil-exporting countries, with China, and with Japan. Adoption of the Euro will immediately take care of the first two blocs, and will over time facilitate trade with China and Japan. Also, the Russians seemingly detest holding depreciating dollars, for they have recently found a new religion with gold. Russians have also revived their nationalism, and if embracing the Euro will stab the Americans, they will gladly do it and smugly watch the Americans bleed.
The Arab oil-exporting countries will eagerly adopt the Euro as a means of diversifying against rising mountains of depreciating dollars. Just like the Russians, their trade is mostly with European countries, and therefore will prefer the European currency both for its stability and for avoiding currency risk, not to mention their jihad against the Infidel Enemy.
Only the British will find themselves between a rock and a hard place. They have had a strategic partnership with the U.S. forever, but have also had their natural pull from Europe. So far, they have had many reasons to stick with the winner. However, when they see their century-old partner falling, will they firmly stand behind him or will they deliver the coup de grace? Still, we should not forget that currently the two leading oil exchanges are the New York’s NYMEX and the London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), even though both of them are effectively owned by the Americans. It seems more likely that the British will have to go down with the sinking ship, for otherwise they will be shooting themselves in the foot by hurting their own London IPE interests. It is here noteworthy that for all the rhetoric about the reasons for the surviving British Pound, the British most likely did not adopt the Euro namely because the Americans must have pressured them not to: otherwise the London IPE would have had to switch to Euros, thus mortally wounding the dollar and their strategic partner.

At any rate, no matter what the British decide, should the Iranian Oil Bourse accelerate, the interests that matter-those of Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, and Arabs-will eagerly adopt the Euro, thus sealing the fate of the dollar. Americans cannot allow this to happen, and if necessary, will use a vast array of strategies to halt or hobble the operation’s exchange:

Sabotaging the Exchange-this could be a computer virus, network, communications, or server attack, various server security breaches, or a 9-11-type attack on main and backup facilities.
Coup d’état-this is by far the best long-term strategy available to the Americans.
Negotiating Acceptable Terms & Limitations-this is another excellent solution to the Americans. Of course, a government coup is clearly the preferred strategy, for it will ensure that the exchange does not operate at all and does not threaten American interests. However, if an attempted sabotage or coup d’etat fails, then negotiation is clearly the second-best available option.
Joint U.N. War Resolution-this will be, no doubt, hard to secure given the interests of all other member-states of the Security Council. Feverish rhetoric about Iranians developing nuclear weapons undoubtedly serves to prepare this course of action.
Unilateral Nuclear Strike-this is a terrible strategic choice for all the reasons associated with the next strategy, the Unilateral Total War. The Americans will likely use Israel to do their dirty nuclear job.
Unilateral Total War-this is obviously the worst strategic choice. First, the U.S. military resources have been already depleted with two wars. Secondly, the Americans will further alienate other powerful nations. Third, major dollar-holding countries may decide to quietly retaliate by dumping their own mountains of dollars, thus preventing the U.S. from further financing its militant ambitions. Finally, Iran has strategic alliances with other powerful nations that may trigger their involvement in war; Iran reputedly has such alliance with China, India, and Russia, known as the Shanghai Cooperative Group, a.k.a. Shanghai Coop and a separate pact with Syria.

Whatever the strategic choice, from a purely economic point of view, should the Iranian Oil Bourse gain momentum, it will be eagerly embraced by major economic powers and will precipitate the demise of the dollar. The collapsing dollar will dramatically accelerate U.S. inflation and will pressure upward U.S. long-term interest rates. At this point, the Fed will find itself between Scylla and Charybdis-between deflation and hyperinflation-it will be forced fast either to take its “classical medicine” by deflating, whereby it raises interest rates, thus inducing a major economic depression, a collapse in real estate, and an implosion in bond, stock, and derivative markets, with a total financial collapse, or alternatively, to take the Weimar way out by inflating, whereby it pegs the long-bond yield, raises the Helicopters and drowns the financial system in liquidity, bailing out numerous LTCMs and hyperinflating the economy.

The Austrian theory of money, credit, and business cycles teaches us that there is no in-between Scylla and Charybdis. Sooner or later, the monetary system must swing one way or the other, forcing the Fed to make its choice. No doubt, Commander-in-Chief Ben Bernanke, a renowned scholar of the Great Depression and an adept Black Hawk pilot, will choose inflation. Helicopter Ben, oblivious to Rothbard’s America’s Great Depression, has nonetheless mastered the lessons of the Great Depression and the annihilating power of deflations. The Maestro has taught him the panacea of every single financial problem-to inflate, come hell or high water. He has even taught the Japanese his own ingenious unconventional ways to battle the deflationary liquidity trap. Like his mentor, he has dreamed of battling a Kondratieff Winter. To avoid deflation, he will resort to the printing presses; he will recall all helicopters from the 800 overseas U.S. military bases; and, if necessary, he will monetize everything in sight. His ultimate accomplishment will be the hyperinflationary destruction of the American currency and from its ashes will rise the next reserve currency of the world-that barbarous relic called gold.

About the Author: Krassimir Petrov (

) has received his Ph. D. in economics from the Ohio State University and currently teaches Macroeconomics, International Finance, and Econometrics at the American University in Bulgaria. He is looking for a career in Dubai or the U. A. E.

Bonjour,

Une piste de réflexion… est-ce que l’affaiblissement perpétuel des Etats suite à l’offensive néo-libérale/capitaliste des 30 dernières années n’est pas à l’origine de l’impossibilité de créer des Etats forts et à même de ramener le “calme” dans les contrées où “nous” faisons intervenir nos militaires ?

Est-ce que finalement, il n’y aurait pas contradiction entre les voeux pieux de nos gouvernants de ramener un pouvoir “démocratique” et “en conformité avec nos valeurs communes” et le dogme libéral d’un Etat se limitant aux fonctions régaliennes.

Je fourbis ma piste de réflexion de l’exemple de l’intervention du FMI en Irak que vous nous rapportiez il y a quelques jours…

Finalement, et pour avancer à pas de géants dans mes suggestions, est-ce que l’action des multi-nationales n’est pas plus déstructurante que l’action d’un Etat-Providence ?

Le régime de Cheney est un régime fasciste
qui a fabriqué un prétexte pour justifier
des guerres du pétrole au Moyen-Orient.

J’attends de voir le dénis de nos éditorialistes
lorsque la vérité se verra comme le nez au
milieu du visage.

je voudrais savoir

Bonjour,

Oui, je me posais la question. Tous les articles dans la presse semblent expliquer sans aucun doute possible que finalement, les Iraniens veulent construire une bombe.

Les affirmations des intéressés semblaient pourtant dire le contraire. Même s’il n’est pas stupide de croire que les Iraniens peuvent vouloir cette bombe, en secret, est-ce qu’il n’est pas un peu fort de présager que cette volonté “secrete” est attestée, et qu’en plus, c’est pour forcément s’en servir ? Est-ce que la dissuasion à la française est une chose stupide et innapplicable ailleurs ?

L’cOnu est un échec.  Tandis que les Etats-Unis payent la plus grande partie de l’étiquette, l’cOnu fait des affaires de backroom avec nos ennemis.  Dans les 2005 ONU les diplomates lounged autour sur quels ressembler à un ensemble de Merv Griffin des années 70 par jour et double ont garé leurs voitures par nuit.  “Peacekeepers” de l’cOnu a violé ceux qu’elles ont été envoyées à l’aide, y compris des enfants, à travers le monde.  Au cours des 10 ans depuis que le hawk noir vers le bas, 9 millions d’Africains supplémentaires ont été tués du conflit. 

La dernière fois que beaucoup de gens sont morte, nous avons jugé des personnes responsables.  Pour quoi est-ce que, si pas ce, est l’cOnu?  Où les éditoriaux condamnent l’état actuel de l’cOnu?  Les médias étaient trop occupés en 2005 essayant de courir précipitamment la nomination de John Bolton parce qu’il pourrait être dur sur l’cOnu a fait dépenser les médias le temps d’émission et pouces de colonne sur l’cOnu reforment qu’ils ont dépensé chasser des scandales de moonbat, ils pourrait avoir fait une différence en vies.

La guerre nucléaire est annoncée. Les médias relaient les avertissements. Nous pouvons tirer des missiles sur l’Iran et sur la Chine. Voilà ce que je lis dans cet article, qui est repris dans des termes proches dans la plupart des organes d’informations francophones.

L’article :

http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=352473

En visite à la base de sous-marins nucléaires de l’Ile Longue (Finistère), le président de la République a lancé ce jeudi matin une sévère mise en garde contre « les dirigeants d’Etats qui auraient recours à des moyens terroristes contre nous (…) et à ceux qui envisageraient d’utiliser des armes de destruction massive ». Ils s’exposeraient, a-t-il affirmé, « à une réponse ferme et adaptée qui peut être conventionnelle », mais qui « peut aussi être d’une autre nature ». C’est-à-dire nucléaire.

Le discours de l’Ile Longue ne marque pas une rupture dans la doctrine stratégique française de dissuasion nucléaire. C’est un développement des annonces faites en juin 2001, lorsque Jacques Chirac avait reformulé la dissuasion, face aux menaces de « puissances régionales ». S’ils ne visent personne explicitement, les propos d’aujourd’hui concerne évidemment au premier chef l’Iran, qui tente de se doter d’armes nucléaires et de missiles susceptibles d’atteindre l’Europe.

« La dissuasion n’est pas destinée à dissuader des terroristes fanatiques », a précisé le président de la République. Elle s’adresse à des Etats. « Contre une puissance régionale, notre choix n’est pas entre l’inaction et l’anéantissement. La flexibilité de nos forces stratégiques nous permettraient d’exercer notre réponse directement sur ses centres de pouvoir, sur sa capacité à agir », a-t-il ajouté. Depuis moins de dix ans, les forces nucléaires françaises ont évoluées vers plus « de souplesse, de flexibilité et de précision », explique-t-on dans l’entourage du chef de l’Etat. De nouveaux équipements sont attendus, comme le missile M51, tiré depuis les sous-marins dont la portée sera suffisante pour atteindre la Chine. Un autre missile, l’ASMPA (air sol moyenne portée amélioré), tiré depuis les avions de combat permettra des frappes de précision.

La France ne s’engage pas pour autant dans la voie d’une banalisation du nucléaire. « Il ne saurait, en aucun cas, être question d’utiliser des moyens nucléaires à des fins militaires lors d’un conflit » a réaffirmé Jacques Chirac. Le nucléaire n’est pas appelé à devenir une arme tactique, utilisée sur le champ de bataille. Elle reste consacrée à la défense des « intérêts vitaux » du pays. Pour la première fois, « la défense de pays alliés » est définie comme pouvant faire partie des intérêts vitaux de la France, au delà de « l’intégrité de notre territoire, la protection de notre population, le libre exercice de notre souveraineté ou la garantie de nos approvisionnements stratégiques ». Cette ouverture à nos « alliés » s’inscrit dans la volonté, réaffirmée à l’Ile-Longue, de construire une défense européenne.

Il y avait un fabriquant de bombes haut responsable d’Al Quaeda dans les décombres.

Les 18 morts collatéraux autour, c’est pas bien grave, visiblement.

-

Un chef d’Al-Qaïda tué au Pakistan
19 janvier 2006

Midhat Mursi, 52 ans, un haut responsable d’Al-Qaïda qui fabriquait des bombes, a été tué lors du bombardement par la CIA d’un village au Pakistan la semaine dernière. Une récompense de cinq millions de dollars était offerte par les Etats-Unis.

Il était l’un des trois responsables d’Al-Qaïda présents à la réunion au village de Damadola,qui a été la cible d’une attaque de missile jeudi ou vendredi la semaine dernière. Au moins dix-huit civils ont été tués lors du bombardement, qui, selon des sources proches des services de renseignement américains, visait Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Le “double-standard” est-il en train de définitivement détruire les attributs positifs du multilatéralisme des institutions nées après la seconde guerre mondiale ?

Ce n’est pas la première fois que j’en parle, mais ça me travaille vraiment.

J’ai posé ma première question, et je m’apprête à en poser une seconde, en guise d’aide à la réflexion. Mais auparavant, je veux juste revenir sur les faits qui me font poser la question.

Ces faits sont :

le désordre continu en Haiti, plusieurs casques bleus morts, on ne sait pas combien de “méchants” refusant la paix,
le désordre qui “reprend” en Côte d’Ivoire (a-t-il jamais cessé ?) où des camps de l’ONU semblent être attaqués, où des “méchants” refusant la paix sont tués là aussi, et où visiblement, le gouvernement en place souffle le chaud et le froid,
l’Irak qui ne cesse de se déstabiliser, et où tout le monde semble d’accord avec la nécessité que la coalition des “gentils” se retire pour que la paix revienne,
l’Iran qui respecte le TNP mais qu’on voudrait empêcher d’utiliser le nucléaire sur la base d’informations de même crédibilité que celles qui ont justifié la guerre en Irak,
l’Afghanistan où finalement, rien ne semble se stabiliser,
la Colombie qui avoue avoir aidé à préparer un coup d’état contre le Vénézuela, mais où personne ne réagit non plus, alors même que plusieurs centaines de personnes sont otages de la guerre interne que le gvt ne semble pas compter régler,
le Pakistan qui subit des attaques américaines sans que personne ne s’en offusque,
le Rwanda… c’est déjà un peu vieux, mais les informations qui ressortent maintenant montrent que déjà, l’ONU n’était pas vraiment synonyme de “source de paix à respecter et à craindre”,
la Palestine où les élections sont soumises à des tensions qu’on pourrait parfois (dans un monde normal) qualifier d’insupportables… les palestiniens de Jerusalem non autorisés à voter, d’autres qui n’ont pas le droit de se présenter, Javier Solana qui explique que l’aide européenne à l’autorité palestienne sera peut-être réduire si le Hamas a des élus.
la torture qui est illégale sur le territoire américain mais qui ne l’est plus quand elle est pratiquée ailleurs, ce que tout le monde semble approuver, même quand ça se passe sur son territoire.
Je devrais pouvoir en trouver d’autres… mais déjà là, ça me semble éloquent.

Ces exemples font partie, de mon point de vue, du faisceau de preuves que l’ONU est complètement décrédibilisée et que ne subsiste dans le règlement des relations internationales et nationales que la loi du plus fort, et donc que finalement, le droit international n’est plus qu’un instrument au service du plus fort, de celui qui en a besoin… ou pas.

Ma seconde question : comment nos 10 dernières années seront racontées dans les livres d’histoire dans 50 ans ?
(avec la supposition audacieuse que l’histoire sera encore une discipline scientifique et non un supplément du Journal Officiel)

Est-ce que l’embargo de l’ONU à l’Irak pendant les années 90 sera raconté ? L’embargo américain sur Cuba, comment sera-t-il raconté ? Comment le déclenchement de la seconde guerre d’Irak sera raconté ? Et le mur de Cisjordanie, est-ce qu’il sera lui aussi raconté, et en quels termes ? “c’était un mur pour empêcher les terroristes de passer” ou “c’est un mur qui a permis d’annexer une portion non négligeable du territoire palestinien” ?

Et du point de vue économique aussi, comment cette période sera-t-elle racontée ? Parlera-t-on de la concentration capitalistique mondiale qui a en particulier permis des médias internationaux concentrés aux mains de 3 ou 4 groupes aux intérêts pas si différents ? Parlera-t-on de la libéralisation à un seul sens des échanges internationaux où les mains d’oeuvre du monde entier se sont retrouvées mises en concurrence… et avec un retour de la rente comme élément économique “positif”, celle-ci qui était pourtant qualifiée de “parasitisme” par certains économistes classiques.

J’ai appris à l’école que la seconde guerre mondiale a été déclenchée à la suite de la totale décrédibilisation de la Société des Nations. Je crois que l’ONU est en bonne voie elle aussi (a-t-elle finalement un jour été crédible d’ailleurs ?). Faut-il y voir les prémisces d’une autre guerre ?

Je pose ces questions et je me demande à nouveau si ces questions sont le fait de ma jeunesse ou bien si elles sont le signe que quelque chose bouge effectivement.

tiré de http://www.isn.ch

—

Transatlantic turbulence over strike fighter deal:

Debate over a billion-dollar agreement between the US and the UK over fighter aircraft threatens to strain relations between the two countries.

By Hannah Strange in London for ISN Security Watch (18/01/06)

When the US offered its closest ally a slice of its multi-billion dollar Joint Strike Fighter program four years ago, the opportunity seemed too good to decline. For a contribution of just US$2 billion, Britain could become the top international partner in a project to create a new generation of fighter jets, and receive a raft of profitable defense contracts into the bargain.

Since then, however, the relationship between the two transatlantic allies has run into turbulence over the US$240 billion program, with the US threatening drastic cuts and Britain accusing its partner of reneging on the original deal.

US officials are planning to scrap a second engine for the fighter, which under the original contract was to be built by Rolls-Royce of Britain in co-operation with General Electric of the US. The cut is part of a wider economy drive caused by the financial strain of the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and elsewhere.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has written personally to US President George W. Bush to try to reverse the decision, which defense experts say will not only hit the industry hard but could have severe military implications.

Sir Digby Jones, director-general of the Confederation of British Industry and the Conservative Party have both joined the frantic lobbying; with Jones making an unscheduled visit to Washington D.C. to meet with officials from the White House and Pentagon last week.

Speaking to press on Saturday, the industry chief said: “It’s as simple as this: the president of the US has got in his gift to show by action rather than by fine words that he acknowledges the support the UK government has given the US on many occasions.

“To ditch the UK as a partner on this is no way to treat a friend.”

Conservative Shadow Defense Secretary Liam Cox has also taken the unusual step of intervening personally in the dispute. He met with Pentagon officials in London Tuesday and raised various aspects of the JSF program, including the second engine contract, his spokesperson told ISN Security Watch.

But even before the Pentagon took the decision to tear up the $2.4 billion Rolls-Royce contract – which must still be approved by the White House and Congress as part of the 2007 budget next month - British ministers acknowledged they were looking at contingency plans should they be forced to pull out of the program completely.

“I am not getting into details about a plan B, but I am saying there has to be a plan B,” Paul Drayson, the defense procurement minister, told a group of reporters in November. “I have no sense we need an alternative plan today, and I am not saying we need to pull any levers on plan B today, absolutely not. But we need to make sure we have done the work needed to ensure we have an option.”

Before the engine dispute, British industry had done well out of the JSF program, gaining back around five times its initial investment through defense contracts. BAE Systems builds part of the aircraft near Preston, Lancashire, while Rolls Royce, aside from the engine contract, is developing a revolutionary lift fan for the Harrier-like jump jet or STOVAL version of the JSF.

But the loss of the engine contract - which, in addition to the initial development program, could have led to hundreds of engine orders - would deeply damage Rolls-Royce’s defense business. At the time of the initial award of the contract in August, company executives heralded it as central to their future. “It would be hard to overstate the importance of this deal,” Colin Green, head of Rolls’defense business, told reporters. “It is our biggest single defense program.”

A question mark has now emerged over even the lift fan contract. During the quadrennial defense review, an assessment of the entire U.S. military posture, US defense officials discussed killing off one of the three versions of the JSF being built in order to cut costs. The most likely candidate was the jump jet version as it was the most costly and difficult to develop; its scrapping would not only be a further blow for Rolls Royce, but cause severe problems for a concurrent British project to develop a new generation of aircraft super-carriers from which the JSF would be launched.

Britain is planning to buy 150 jump jet vertical landing versions of the JSF to replace its Royal Navy and RAF Harrier squadrons in a $17.7 billion deal.

Recent accounts of Pentagon budgetary decisions indicate that the jump jet version should now survive the review; however a former British assistant chief of defense staff told ISN that the decision to scrap the second engine suggested otherwise.

Lord Timothy Garden, now an adviser to the Ministry of Defense and a defense spokesperson for the British Liberal Democrat Party, said that if the jump jet version of the aircraft was scrapped, Britain would have to change the design of the aircraft carriers it has been building; they would have to be bigger and more expensive.

The aircraft carriers were a “flagship project” for Britain so “everybody’s playing for quite high stakes,” he said.

However “the most serious issue at the moment” was that of technology transfers, Garden continued.

It is this area in which much of the disagreement between Britain and the US has taken place.

British officials are deeply unhappy about the failure of the US to guarantee access to all military technologies on the aircraft - particularly software codes - before Britain must decide whether to buy up to 150.

Garden said that if the US did not grant Britain the access to those technologies, it would mean that having put over $2 billion into the project, British defense would lose the ability to upgrade the aircraft over time.

Both this issue and the possible loss of the second engine and jump jet version had serious military implications, he told ISN Security Watch.

British representatives should make it clear to the United States that London had put over $2 billion into the project on the understanding that both the engine and the jump jet would be built, Garden said. Britain was also the largest international shareholder in the project and was “America’s best ally”.

If the United States was not going to provide Britain with the technology transfers or the model it needed, then “we’re going to have to look elsewhere”.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defense told ISN Security Watch that the government was still waiting to hear from the U.S. Department of Defense on the issue of the engine contract and the jump jet version.

“We’re working on the assumption of receiving 150 STOVAL JSF and we’ve no reason to believe that’s not on the way,” he said.

Technology transfers was a serious issue and could threaten Britain’s participation in the program, the spokesman continued.

At present, Britain was satisfied with what it had received up to this point, although ideally it would like to receive the transfers faster and perhaps all at once, rather than incrementally as the Americans were giving them.

“It’s something we continue to discuss with them,” he said.

If Britain did not receive the technology it needed, the program would not really be viable and the Ministry of Defense would be forced to look at other options, he concluded.

(By Hannah Strange in London)

Un blog intéressant qui donne une explication sur les gesticulations autour des bombes atomiques virtuelles ou pas de l’Iran.

Et si tout cela n’était pas causé par la volonté de l’Iran de créer un marché du pétrole en EURO le 26 mars 2006, ce qui pourrait ramener le Dollar à sa juste valeur. Avec des effets assez destructeurs pour les USA.

Lire : http://www.carnetsdimages.org/index.php?p=7&pb=607&debut=0

bonjour messieurs,

il faudrait mettre à jour le forum plus souvent, j’estime

Amicalement,

Alex

Oui voila un article intéressant , comme beaucoup d’autres
certes , intéressant au délà du problème du déficit et du cout de cette expédition en Irak . Cet article nous parle de
la capacité du sens critique , de la perte du sens critique .
Il est curieux que certains articles de presse parlent du déficit français et d’autres déficits en Europe mais pas de la meme manière .
Déraison en Europe et raison outre-atlantique .
Dans la Repubblica du 12 décembre 2005 , Affari & Finanza , il y a l’interview de Robert Mundell , prix Nobel d’économie 1999 et manchette : C’est l’instabilité des changes le vrai problème global et pas le déficit américain”... Plus loin il répond que “plus que le pétrole ce sont l’instabilité et les mouvements erratiques sur le marché des changes qui sont là pour menacer la reprise mondiale ”
Tiens donc .
Il écrit aussi que l’Euro a fluctué de manière excessive
par rapport au dollar , qu’en l’espace de deux ans le dollar est passé de 0,85 a celui de 1,30 contre l’Euro , variation trop ample , silence du professeur sur les motifs et peut-etre de la problématique sous-jacente du déficit américain .
Donc pour le professeur Mundell le problème n’est pas dans le déficit .
Allez aussi sur le site de l’Expansion ( ce n’est pas la Pravda “09 07 2002”  Six mois de scandales à répétition
Retournez à Stiglitz lorsqu’il écrit que le problème d’Enron
est le gros problème . Retournez sur l’historique de cette
faillite et regardez-y la liste des acteurs .
Tout démontre qu’il y a quelque chose de pourri dans le système .
N’oubliez pas l’adage qui dit que lorsque cela va mal à l’intérieur on porte la guerre a l’extérieur .

Ce qui est stupéfiant c’est que cela continue que malgré
l’appel du pied pour une procédure d’impeachment pour l’un ou de destitution pour l’autre le navire continue à voguer .
Et silence quasi obséqieux de l’Europe , allégeance quasi
totale à tous les agissements meme les plus délictueux .

Bonjour,

je crois que cette nouvelle de la revue d’intélligence stratégique Jane’s (http://www.janes.com),
mérite d’etre approfondie et discutée:

—
“France may block foreign takeover of defence firms”

The French government has published a decree listing several sectors in which it could block foreign hostile takeover bids of strategically sensitive businesses.
[Jane’s Defence Weekly - first posted to http://jdw.janes.com – 6 January 2006]

—

Pourriez-Vous la devélopper? Malheureusement, le commentaire de Jane’s est payant….

Merci et congratulations pour Votre excellent travail

...mais “on” (lire GW. BUSH, D. RUMSFELD, le Dr C. RICE, etc) ne m’ a pas
cout,
cf article rcent du Guardian :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5371501-103550,00.html

Hlas, trois fois hlas,  “We’ve become the worst of all things: an
ineffective occupier,” he says he told Condoleezza Rice, then national security
adviser.

Aprs C. POWELL demi-mots, son adjoint au Dpartement d’ tat, haut et
fort, certains gnraux de l’ US Army, et j’ en oublie, c’ est fou le nombre
de hauts responsables qui cherchent se distancer de la politique
Msopotamienne de l’ Administration U.S. Comme je l’ avais pressenti dans un de
mes posts rcents, la panique se gnralisant, l’ tape suivante est
inluctable et a pour nom dbandade.

Tout se passe comme si la fine quipe de la Maison-Blanche et du Pentagone tait
devenue tellement radioactive, tellement infrquentable, tellement proche du
Gotterdmmerung qu’ il devient urgentissime et vital de faire oublier qu’ on
a appliqu cette politique. Pas comme un obscur gratte-papier, non, mais comme
fonctionnaire d’ autorit, disposant de larges pouvoirs.

C’ est l qu’ on mesure la dgradation morale des lites dirigeantes des USA :
derrire la faade puritano-vertueuse qui consiste avouer ses “faiblesse”,
c’ est le cynisme comme outil du sauve-qui-peut gnralis, des intrts de
carrire bien compris, sans parler de bouclier juridique prventif dans
l ‘ventualit de poursuites, de moins en moins hypothtiques, soit dit en
passant.

Qu’ on ne nous fasse donc pas passer MMrs POWELL, BREMER et consorts pour des
agneaux vtus de lin blanc et de probit candide transforms en boucs
missaires par une administration faustienne. Les tats d’ me, si on en
avait alors qu’ on tait encore en poste, il fallait dmissionner si on n’ tait
pas d’ accord avec la politique que votre gouvernement vous avait charg d’
appliquer.

Le couplet, oh combien attendrissant, de C. POWELL qui, tortur par le doute et
les balivernes virtualistes qu ‘on lui faisait endosser la face du monde
(cf POWELL et sa fiole d’ anthrax la tribune des Nations Unies, je tiens la
photo disposition sur demande par e-mail) ; mais qui rejette la dcision de
dmissionner pour ne pas dmoraliser ses p’tits gars Fallujah, on nous l’ a
dj fait.

C’ tait aussi l’ argumentation d’ un autre gnral, franais celui-l. Il s’
appelait NAVARRE, tait chef d’ tat-major vers 1954, lorsqu’ un
dysfonctionnement purement tactique s’ est malencontreusement produit
Dien-Bien-Phu.

Je pourrais continuer d’ ironiser ad nauseam sur le thme “responsable mais pas
coupable”, “dop l’ insu de mon plein gr”, etc… , mais l’ essentiel n’
est pas l.

Ce qui se passe sous nos yeux, et sans que nous soyons capable d’ en
apprhender la radicalit, faute de grille de lecture adapte, et cause de
l’ immdiatet des sources d’ information ; est la deuxime conflagration
gopolitique aprs l’ implosion de l’ URSS, c’ est l’ implosion de
l’ autre empire, celui des USA.

Je reviendrais peut-tre sur la symtrie de ces effondrements, leur synchronisme
10 ans prs (le laps de temps du moment unipolaire clintonien), et l’
ventuelle causalit commune de ces deux catastrophes, au sens que Ren THOM
donne du concept de catastrophe dans sa thorie mathmatique ponyme.

Pourtant, J-B. DUROSELLE, dans “Tout empire prira”, malheureusement puis,
avait tent une intelligibilit du concept d’ empire.  Mais plus personne n’
coute les historiens vieux jeu, surtout quand la thse centrale de l’ op. cit.
est que la dignit humaine est la bombe retardement des empires.

Ceci pour apporter une bouffe finale d’ air frais,  dfaut de pouvoir conclure
premptoirement sur une note optimiste.
________________________________________________________________________________

Bibliographie :

J-B. DUROSELLE “Tout empire prira”, Armand COLIN Janvier 1992,
ISBN 2-200-37270-1.

R. THOM “Paraboles et catastrophes” coll. Champs, FLAMMARION, 1983,
ISBN 2-08-081186-X