It will not come as news to anyone that the US dominates the world economically and militarily. But the exact mechanisms by which American hegemony has been established and maintained are perhaps less well understood than they might be. One tool used to great effect has been the dollar, but its efficacy has recently been under threat since Europe introduced the euro.
The dollar is the de facto world reserve currency: the US currency accounts for approximately two thirds of all official exchange reserves. More than four-fifths of all foreign exchange transactions and half of all world exports are denominated in dollars. In addition, all IMF loans are denominated in dollars.
But the more dollars there are circulating outside the US, or invested by foreign owners in American assets, the more the rest of the world has had to provide the US with goods and services in exchange for these dollars. The dollars cost the US next to nothing to produce, so the fact that the world uses the currency in this way means that the US is importing vast quantities of goods and services virtually for free.
Since so many foreign-owned dollars are not spent on American goods and services, the US is able to run a huge trade deficit year after year without apparently any major economic consequences. The most recently published figures, for example, show that in November of last year US imports were worth 48% more than US exports1. No other country can run such a large trade deficit with impunity. The financial media tell us the US is acting as the 'consumer of last resort' and the implication is that we should be thankful, but a more enlightening description of this state of affairs would be to say that it is getting a massive interest-free loan from the rest of the world.
<snipped / please read>
All of this is bad news for the US economy and the dollar. The fear for Washington will be that not only will the future price of oil not be right, but the currency might not be right either. Which perhaps helps explain why the US is increasingly turning to its second major tool for dominating world affairs: military force.
REFERENCES
- Anon., 'Trade Deficit Surges to a Record High', Reuters, (January 17, 2003), http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/4970891.htm.
- Recknagel, Charles, 'Iraq: Baghdad Moves to Euro', Radio Free Europe (November 1, 2000), http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2000/11/01112000160846.asp.
- Anon., 'A Look At The World's Economy', CBS Worldwide Inc., (December 22, 2000), http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/12/22/2000/main259203.shtml.
- Anon., 'Iran may switch to euro for crude sale payments', Alexander Oil and Gas, (September 5, 2002), http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntm23638.htm.
- Hazel Henderson, 'Globocop v. Venezuela's Chavez: Oil, Globalization and Competing Visions of Development', InterPress Service, (April 2002), http://www.hazelhenderson.com/Globocop%20v.%20Chavez.htm.
- Javad Yarjani, 'The Choice of Currency for the Denomination of the Oil Bill', (April 14, 2002), http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/Speeches/sp2002/spAraqueSpainApr14.htm.
- The Association for the Study of Peak Oil, Newsletter 26, (February 2003), http://www.asponews.org.
FURTHER READING
William Clark, 'The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth', (January 2003),
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html. ====
There a lot more to it than Halliburton's greed and Bush. There is nothing new going on here. Why oh why do people think Clinton went to war against Yugoslavia? Oil. Pipelines. The emincence of the dollar. Our entire way of life- the same one
Bush and the neo-cons are fighting FOR.
---
June 10, 2000 International Tribunal for U.S./NATO War Crimes in Yugoslavia
Caspian Sea's Oil Reserves
By Michel Collon
Michel Collon of Belgium is the author of two books on the Balkans, Liar’s Poker, and Monopoly. He is a regular contributor to, Solidaire, the weekly newspaper of the Workers’ Party of Belgium, on the geo-political aims of NATO’s war. He spoke of the attempt to gain control of the Caspian Sea’s oil reserves and the pipelines used to distribute this oil. Why Don’t They Ever Talk abaout the "8th and 10th Corridors"?Three weeks after the beginning of the war, General Michael Jackson, commander of KFOR in Macedonia and soon in Kosovo, confided to the Italian daily, Sole 24 Ore:
"Today, the circumstances which we have created here have changed. Today, it is absolutely necessary to guarantee the stability of Macedonia and its entry into NATO. But we will certainly remain here a long time so that we can also guarantee the security of the energy corridors which traverse this country."The Italian daily went on to say, "It is clear that Jackson is referring to the 8th Corridor, the East-West axis which ought to be combined to the pipeline bringing energy resources from Central Asia to terminals in the Black Sea and in the Adriatic, connecting Europe to Central Asia. That explains why the great and medium-sized powers, and first of all Russia, don’t want to be excluded from the settling of scores that will take place over the next few months in the Balkans."
Why have they buried the economic importance of this conflict? Why present the undertaking, which began in the summer of 1999 in Albania, as "reconstruction" and "support for good and faithful service," since it’s all about the beginning of the 8th Corridor, which has been financed and in development for a long time already? Why conceal the projected pan-European energy transport system, which forms the crux of the strategy of all the great powers?
<reluctant snip>
The United States does not conceal its desire to control the strategic knot of corridors situated in the Balkans. They vetoed a project for Corridor 10, which passes through Serbia. They offered $100 million to Romania in order to route pipelines father north (across Hungary).
<reluctant snip>
The wars of the future will still carry a strong odor of petroleum.http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/mcollon.htm===
These reserves are a long way from the Balkans, but the routes by which this oil must come west aren't. In April, a new pipeline was opened carrying Caspian Sea oil through Azerbaijan and Georgia. The oil will continue its journey by tanker through the Black Sea, the Bosphorus, and on past the Turkish and Greek coasts. Other possible western pipeline routes lie through Turkey to the coast near Cyprus or through the Ukraine, Bulgaria, and Greece -- which are, respectively, a GUUAM member, an aspiring member of NATO, and an existing NATO member. The Economist reports that NATO "says it may advise the GUUAM club on security --especially for the pipelines."
All these routes give the necessity of security in the Balkans an additional direct economic importance, adding to the primary strategic concerns that stand behind NATO's war. The Financial Times reports that an oil find by the OKIOCA "could support the construction of a big export pipeline, such as the trans-Caspian link to Baku in Azerbaijan and then on to Ceyhan, on Turkey's Mediterranean coast.
Such a pipeline is a US foreign policy priority, as it would help wean the former Soviet republics along the Caspian away from Russia while undermining growing commercial interests in using Iran as an oil export route." US energy secretary Bill Richardson explained last November,
"This is about America's energy security ... . It's also about preventing strategic inroads by those who don't share our values. We are trying to move these newly independent countries toward the west. We would li
ke to see them reliant on western commercial and political interests. We've made a substantial political investment in the Caspian and it's important that both the pipeline map and the politics come out right."
It is the "pipeline map" that connects the Caspian Sea oil reserves to the security of the area between Turkey, Greece, and the other Balkan states. As the International Herald Tribune points out, "Profound economic and geopolitical consequences" stem from the decisions about the routes by which the oil will come west. "Rivalries played out here will have a decisive impact in shaping the post-Communist world, and in determining how much influence the United States will have over its development."
<snip>
Logic of Empire
The New World Order promised 10 years ago will not be delivered. The imbalance between US military power and that of every other state, once touted as the guarantee of a more peaceful world, now stands exposed as a source of greater instability. US military spending is greater than all the military spending of the next 13 countries ranked beneath it. Yet the US share of world trade and world manufacturing is substantially less than it was during the Cold War. This is one central reason why military might is so often the choice of the US ruling class.
<snip>
http://www.towardfreedom.com/1999/jul99/whykosovo.htm==
A discreet deal in the pipeline
Nato mocked those who claimed there was a plan for Caspian oil
Special report: the petrol warGeorge Monbiot
Guardian
Thursday February 15, 2001
Gordon Brown knows precisely what he should do about BP. The company's £10bn profits are crying out for a windfall tax. Royalties and petroleum revenue tax, both lifted when the oil price was low, are in urgent need of reinstatement. These measures would be popular and fair. But, as all political leaders are aware, you don't mess with Big Oil.
During the 1999 Balkans war, some of the critics of Nato's intervention alleged that the western powers were seeking to secure a passage for oil from the Caspian sea. This claim was widely mocked. The foreign secretary Robin Cook observed that "there is no oil in Kosovo". This was, of course, true but irrelevant. An eminent commentator for this paper clinched his argument by recording that the Caspian sea is "half a continent away, lodged between Iran and Turkmenistan".
For the past few weeks, a freelance researcher called Keith Fisher has been doggedly documenting a project which has, as far as I can discover, has been little-reported in any British, European or American newspaper. It is called the Trans-Balkan pipeline, and it's due for approval at the end of next month. Its purpose is to secure a passage for oil from the Caspian sea.
The line will run from the Black sea port of Burgas to the Adriatic at Vlore, passing through Bulgaria, Macedonia and Albania. It is likely to become the main route to the west for the oil and gas now being extracted in central Asia. It will carry 750,000 barrels a day: a throughput, at current prices, of some $600m a month.
The project is necessary, according to a paper published by the
US Trade and Development Agency last May, because the
oil coming from the Caspian sea "will quickly surpass the safe capacity of the Bosphorus as a shipping lane". The scheme, the agency notes,
will "provide a consistent source of crude oil to American refineries", "provide American companies with a key role in developing the vital east-west corridor", "advance the privatisation aspirations of the US government in the region" and "facilitate rapid integration" of the Balkans "with western Europe". <snip>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4136440,00.html====
And now- if you really want to feel sick. Check out Freeper comments from 1999. I just found them while googling "yugoslavia kosovo pipeline map". Their comments break my heart. On that day they were DUers.
==
Foreign Affairs Opinion (Published) Keywords: KOSOV NATO CASPIAN
Source: Toward Freedom On-Line Magazine
Published: July 1999 Author: JOHN REES
Posted on 07/16/1999 12:38:14 PDT by dirtboy
Over 20 wars are raging around the globe. Why then was NATO so concerned with the Balkans? The plight of the refugees is the stock pro-war answer. Yet, 15.3 million refugees were made homeless by war in 1995 alone. So, again, why did the war in Kosovo, where US military might was 99 times greater than that of the state it opposed, command the attention of the world's great powers?
<snip>
The other reason is the economic enfeeblement of Russia. But the policy of using this weakness to carry Russia reluctantly along with NATO objectives has its limits, as the course of the Balkan War shows. Moreover, as NATO encroachment comes ever closer to Russia's borders, the still enormous military machine of the Russian state may once again begin to look to the country's leaders like its one real asset in a threatening situation. When we see the Balkan War in context, it's no surprise to find that the 1990s have been one of the bloodiest decades since the Second World War. Most of those killed have been civilians. Fifty years ago, half of war deaths were civilian. In the 1960s, civilians accounted for 63 percent of war deaths, and in the 1980s that figure rose to 74 percent. In the 1990s, the figure is higher still. Only the destruction of the imperialist system will stop this carnage. -- John Rees is the editor of and a contributor to the book Marxism and the New Imperialism (London, 1994), and the editor of the London-based quarterly journal International Socialism.
--
And I LOVE the first comment in that thread:
Notice that only the far-left and far-right bother with details any more? 1 Posted on 07/16/1999 12:38:14 PDT by dirtboy
Here's the link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a378f8a2668bf.htm On that day, those freepers were DUers.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a378f8a2668bf.htmWHY KOSOVO? - NATO and the new imperialism