The war and the world
Frankly Speaking...
By A.A Fenty
Stabroek News
April 11, 2003
Quite frankly my friends, I've had it. Or, am getting very near there. I mean the depression, the vicariously shared stress we must be all sharing these days. The negatives might not be affecting you or us, directly, but unless you are in the deep hinterland, unless you isolate yourself from all the pervasive media you can't escape the images. And the realities.
I mean teachers' strikes and thousands of children at home, collapsing sea defences, rampant uncontrolled criminality based at Buxton, protests and vandalism around Linden, the sterility of the 2003 National Budget, SARS, country-wide blackouts - and war, war, war. Good for you if you're "too blessed to be stressed". Pity me. I'm not that fortunate.
So allow me to explore some views on the War. America, the War and the new alleged imperialism - "globalisation". That's because my many anti-war, occasionally - anti-American friends keep telling me of the consequences of an American victory; keep "convincing" me that the real reason for the invasion of Iraq is America's alleged craving for "world domination". Beginning this current quest with ultimate control of Iraqi's lucrative oil fields.
A feisty World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) favourite, Ms Karen Talbot writes, inter alia: "Bush, and the ruling Wall Street elite he represents, are desperately seeking to cope with a growing economic crisis attributable to fundamental contradictions in the very system over which they reign. As in the past, war is seen as the answer. Today, they want to go to war to grab the vast untapped oil riches of Iraq and the Persian Gulf. More importantly, they want to literally rule the world because they think it will rescue them from the deepening economic morass and bring a cornucopia of super profits.
They are also massively shifting the burden of the crisis to the workers, poor, and middle strata in the United States and in every corner of the world. In the process they intend to siphon off even more wealth to the minuscule top one percent of society. Such were the undercurrents beneath Bush's State of the Union rhetoric.
There is no question, Bush and the oil interests he and his cohorts represent, aim to seize the "black gold" reserves of Iraq, second only to those of Saudi Arabia - easily extractible, easily refined, high quality, and therefore highly profitable petroleum, the possession of which would allow US oil companies also to undermine OPEC and thus control prices. They are driven by the fact that Iraq is strategically located near other oil-rich nations of the Middle East, critical waterways, and key pipeline routes from Central Asia. They are also driven by the reality that the world's hydro-carbon reserves are being depleted rapidly, yet the oil wells of Iraq will continue to produce after most others run dry.
To take over these oil reserves, they need to occupy Iraq and stave off companies from rival powers like France, Russia, and China, all of which have been granted concessions by the Iraqi regime to develop a considerable portion of those riches."
Now, I'll skip the supportive contributions of GINA's Prem Misir who speaks of the 32 US "interventions" in Latin America and of old American Administration officials with interests in oil. Rather, I'll share with you Dr Ian McDonald's perspective against his background of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) role as "a mechanism for enforcing the wishes of multi-national corporations."
Writes McDonald, in part: "In preparing for battle the first requirement is to know your enemy. It is easy to identify your enemy by discovering who benefits from the war waged against you. And, remember, the beneficiary in the war against Caribbean bananas was quickly identified. It was not some great principle of over-riding public good; it was not some opposing group of workers and their families; it was not free trade which does not and will never exist.
The beneficiary of the decision in the banana battle was, quite simply, a multinational corporation operating through its agent, in this case the United States, and utilising an institution which increasingly has become the enforcer of the sacred interests of multinationals.
What we are up against is the new ideology of "globalisation and free trade" expressed through the great multinationals whose indifference to anything but their own profits and growth is self-evident. Let us school ourselves with the facts. There are about 35,000 multinational corporations in the world with 150,000 affiliates.
It is estimated that fifty corporations are among the world's 100 largest economies, the 10 largest firms exceed the aggregate GNP of the world's 100 smallest countries, and the world's 500 largest industrial corporations produce 25% of the world economic output but employ much less than one percent of the world's labour force.
Corporations account for perhaps as much as one third of total global production and the proportion is inexorably growing. But even such an impressive statistic seriously understates their influence. By the choice of where to locate to take advantage of the most advantageous tax and wage and environmental laws and conditions they are now much more in charge of redistributing wealth than states or international aid organizations. In labour-management affairs they are steadily displacing governments since wages and working conditions are increasingly settled inside multinational corporations which decide what trade-offs are available between one country and another depending on where the greater profit is.
Everywhere, indeed, national governments are in retreat in the face of this new global power. It is not government regulations, for instance, that determine how big re-insurance risks are managed - it is the global insurance multinationals. As for free trade, forget free trade. It is free trade when it suits the multinational corporation. It is price-fixing and non-tariff manipulation when that suits better. There are international price-fixing cartels in steel, shipping, most chemicals, aluminum, diamonds, electrical products and so on and on. There are no principles. They twist and turn amidst the rules to get what is most favourable to them."
So, between Talbot and McDonald, you have a perspective of the views that hold the American Administration and the international "mechanisms" it influences responsible for the prosecution of (eventual) "world domination". All I'll ask you to do, as I spare you my own views, is to consider the perspectives of those on the other side.
America has been a haven to the world! It stepped in or was lured in, to rescue a Europe on the brink of dominance by a tyrant. As international relations change according to succeeding eras, one-time friends have become enemies to the point of becoming international terrorists. America has a right and responsibility to defend its interests.
The world, as currently organized, needs that same America which influences and funds every significant major international institution. Economically, as the young Guyanese slanguage says "America got de world lock". As an exercise therefore, I ask all you historians and students of international relations to do the following assignment for me to mark next Friday. Fitting a brief, "the country the world loves to hate", list and discuss a dozen good things America has done since 1900. We can then later discuss the perils of the peace - will Iraq become a long nightmare of terrorist existence?
Miscellaneous musings
1) Last week Friday a Herman Gomes wrote, in the Stabroek, that "Guyana is a Beggar State", so ... Ambassadors therefore have the right to speak out, even if only to ensure that money their countries have spent in social, economic and political aid, is bearing fruit" What do you think?
2) And Ravi chides Sam about Guyana being "independent" enough to beg! You can tell that the Budget Debate is/was on.
3) "I'm a single parent" That's the new refrain that tells of the revolution in social mores, in the collapse of the old-time institutions - like family and marriage. It seems that nowadays, the girls make the children then ask questions, long after the father have deserted. "I'm a single-parent" is a dubious badge of honour.
4) The British BBC journalists seem to like criticising the efforts of their American allies. Our folks say the BBC is "more balanced".
5) The new "Consumer Advocate" screams "Turning over our utilities to these foreigners can't work. Dey doan care a damn 'bout Guyanese!". He knows that's not the whole story. But the government is seldom pre-emptive or aggressive in its explanations.
6) I pay tribute to the Channel Nine Herbalist and Expert in Alternative Medicines and Treatments. The best patented medicines evolved from our bush, barks, flowers and herbs.
7) What's that!? Philip Bynoe was organizing the Linden Protest! That's not fair to the other fellow if true.
8) Pity the Main Street Hotel which is not cashing in on the hundreds of visitors now in G.T. Guess why.
9) I agree the West Indian Selectors stabbed Carl in the back - and heart. But what about our Guyana representatives? Were they simply out-voted?
10) I saw Pace Ace, Brett Lee playing Bass in Roy Geddes' Silvertones last Tuesday Night at the Umana Yana. What if the heavy drum had dropped on his big toe?
'Til Good Friday!
