Subject: AUT: RE: Washington's anxieties
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 11:33:58 +0100


Surely the point about Iran and Libya, from a point of view that pays
attention to property relations regarding the means of production, that
they, like Cuba and Soviet Russia before them, committed the cardinal
sin of confiscating US oil interests. I'm not suggesting this be read in
a simplistic conspiracy theory way, rather that US foreign policy
planners have long believed (justifiably) that US "National Interests"
coincide with the interests of US business abroad. From a capitalist
perspective this is not so much cynical as realistic. This is especially
true of a militarily strategic resource such as oil, without which
mechanised warfare cannot be sustained.

So the Chechens wish to seize control of the pipeline routes from the
Caspian oil fields? Imagine our surprise when the West remains silent
while Russia bombs Chechen civilians, despite the obvious Kosovan
parallels. So the Timorese independance movement is willing to guarantee
oil rights from the Timor shelf to Oz and the west? Guess who's suddenly
flavour of the month? So Algierian islamists aim to default on
international lending on the grounds that usury is anti-islamic and
refuse to give guarantees to western oil interests? Winning elections
won't help them and France will cheerfully supply the guns and military
aid to prosecute civil war against all opponents of the government, a
category that becomes more and more indistinguishable from the general
population. The list goes on. The capitalist media does enough to
obfuscate battles over material resources with bogus idealism, surely it
is our job to draw attention to the underlying material interests
(without dismissing strategic and ideological issues, obviously).

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	George Pennefather [SMTP:poseidon-AT-tinet.ie]
> Sent:	07 October 1999 17:59
> To:	Marxism Unmoderated
> Subject:	AUT: Washington's anxieties
> 
> The antagonism shown by Washington to both Iran and Iraq is further
> evidence that Washington does not  mount opposition to a power simply
> because it is state socialist,  or revolutionary socialist. Neither
> Iran nor Iraq  fit into any of these categories in any comprehensive
> sense. Washington has been antagonistic to both regimes because of the
> relative independence of these regimes. These are regimes that would
> seek to be establish themselves as regional powers. Consequently and
> such independence, no matter how moderate, is viewed as a challenge to
> Washington's imperialist interests. In a sense Washington, although a
> global power, is still weak in the sense that it cannot brook even
> relative national independence in the Middle East, Near East, Africa
> and South America. Washington feel threatened by any characteristics
> of independence shown by any powers in these parts of the world. This
> is why it has been so antagonistic to Libya too. The existence of a
> relatively independent political power in Africa or South America is a
> cause of anxiety in Washington. It fears that such powers can then
> proceed to establish a regional system of power independent of
> Washington --a pan African or South American unity that could then
> challenge Washington foreign policy.
>  


     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---