<html>
<body>
<font size=3><br><br>
</font><font face="georgia" size=6 color="#A80000">BREAKING
NEWS<br><br>
</font><font face="georgia" size=5 color="#A80000">Why should the United
States care who is the President of Venezuela?<br><br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=4 color="#A80000"><a href="http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=21779">http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=21779</a><br><br>
</font><font face="georgia" size=2><b>VHeadline.com commentarist Karl B.
Koth writes: </b>The recent verbal threats from the imperialist titan
made by US sub-secretary of State Robert Noriega and reiterated by Otto
Reich [i] recently raise the question of not what the USA is trying to
accomplish with its hostility towards Venezuela, but the more important
question why. <br><br>
We know, for example, that the US wishes to get rid of
constitutionally-elected President Hugo Chavez Frias, but what precisely
is behind this goal is less clear. <br><br>
<b>Let us first eliminate some of the more obvious perceived reasons
behind the US attitude:</b> <br><br>
</font>
<dl>
<dd>1) We know that the claim that Venezuela is undemocratic does not
hold water. Venezuela just happens to be one of the models in the
Americas for an unsurpassed adherence to democratic constitutional
principles and practices. Besides, the US, at least considering their
incumbent rascal’s own election four years ago, is no shining example of
democracy in action. <br><br>
<dd>2) We know also that charges that President Chavez is “a communist”
are as ridiculous as calling George W. Bush an enlightened ruler.
<br><br>
<dd>3) We know that the reasons have nothing to do with the allegations
that President Chavez is a dictator, since first, the charge is idiotic,
and second, the US has never had a problem cozying up to the vilest of
tyrants. <br><br>
<dd>4) We also know that the hostility has little to do with controlling
the supply of oil to the US, because Venezuela has never considered
cutting off that supply. It would not be in its own interest to do so!!
One might argue here that the US wants to ensure the supply of oil
because of the latent threat from a very successful Chinese economy.
However, even were it to control Venezuelan oil production, the pressures
on the oil patch are going to increase so drastically in the near future,
that controlling one country’s output would not help either. Still, that
is not a good argument since maintaining good relations with Venezuela
would be the far cheaper and easier way of ensuring that supply.
<br><br>
</dl><font face="georgia" size=2><b>So, what then is the
reason?</b></font><font face="georgia" size=3> What is behind the
constant manipulation, the virulent hostility, the verbal abuse, and the
probable <i>(I admit, not yet proven)</i> support to Colombian
paramilitaries who recently invaded the country? I believe that the
answer, albeit complicated, is to be found in the interesting thesis
constructed by a Californian lawyer by the name of William Clarke, and
which, obviously, has not been given wide coverage in the news media
[ii]. I say interesting, because this plausible and well-constructed
analysis allows us <i>inter alia</i> to understand primarily the real
reasons behind the attack on Iraq, as well the hostility towards Iran and
North Korea, the so-called Axis of Evil. What we are dealing with, in
fact, is geo-politics in its most serious strategic implications!
<br><br>
</font><font face="georgia" size=4>The Clark
Thesis</font><font face="georgia" size=3> : Clark’s thesis was first made
public via the Internet about a year ago. He deftly argues that the
economic problem plaguing the US at the moment is the financing of a huge
external trade deficit (almost $500 billion per annum), not to speak of
the total debt, which has reached more than US $7 trillion [iii]. His
thesis is made more plausible when one considers that other countries,
especially China, now hold an economic club over the head of the US
because of their holdings of US treasury bills [iv].<br><br>
But how has the US managed to live so “high off the hog” and run up such
a massive debt? Primarily, it has been made possible by the use of the US
dollar as the favored petro-currency. In other words, all oil bought and
sold on the world market is done through the exchange of the commodity
for US dollars, allowing the US to run this huge deficit. Basically a
long-term strategy, it began with a deal struck with Saudi Arabia in the
1970s. Writes Clark: <br><br>
“According to research by Dr. David Spiro, in 1974 the Nixon
administration negotiated assurances from Saudi Arabia to price oil in
dollars only, and invest their surplus oil proceeds in U.S. Treasury
Bills. In return the U.S. would protect the Saudi regime. According to
his book, <i>The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony: Petrodollar Recycling
and International Markets</i>, these purchases were done in relative
secrecy. These agreements created the phenomenon known as
"petrodollar recycling." In effect, global oil consumption via
OPEC provides a healthy subsidy to the U.S. economy. Hence, the Europeans
created the euro to compete with the dollar as an alternative
international reserve currency. Obviously the E.U. would also like oil
priced in euros as well, as this would reduce or eliminate their currency
risk for oil purchases.” [v]<br><br>
In January 2003, before the invasion of Iraq, Clark outlined his thesis.
Basically, he argued that the attack was due to fears in the US
administration that 1) future oil supplies had to be ensured since the
arrival of Peak Oil (after which production will begin to decline) was
approaching, and 2) it had to keep OPEC from following Iraq’s lead and
converting to the Euro as favored petro-currency. <br><br>
</font>
<dl>
<dd><font face="georgia" size=2>Let’s omit the discussion of Peak Oil,
which has been explained fully by
<a href="http://www.hubbertpeak.com/campbell/">Colin J. Campbell</a>.
<br><br>
</b></font>
</dl><font face="georgia" size=3>The petro-currency argument, however,
has never, to my own knowledge, been given much exposure by the media.
“The Real Reasons,” Clark explains,” for this upcoming war is this
administration's [Bush’s] goal of preventing further OPEC momentum
towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard, and to secure
control of Iraq's oil before the onset of Peak Oil (predicted to occur
around 2010) [vi].” Were oil-producing nations to start converting to
sales in Euros, the oil-consuming countries would have to sell their US
dollar holdings and buy Euros instead. This would have the dramatic
effect of causing a crash in the value of the US dollar on world markets
(estimated at between 20-40%)</i> and produce massive inflation. The
consequence of that would be a run on the markets and a flight of bond
and security holders out of the US dollar and into other currencies
[vii].<br><br>
It is interesting to note that the conversion to Euros was precisely what
Iraq did in 2002, followed by Iran, where half the central banks assets
were converted to Euros in the same year. Effective December 2002, North
Korea, although not an oil-producing country, did the same. Just
coincidentally these three are part of what the US president called the
Axis of Evil. Does it start to make sense? Hell yes! <br><br>
</font><font face="georgia" size=2>So what does this have to do with the
interference and hostility towards Venezuela? <br><br>
Why should the US care who is the President there?<br><br>
</b></font><font face="georgia" size=3>The answer is that a president
favorable to Washington would be one who did not implement a nationalist
Venezuela policy, which is to say doing what it deems right and honorable
with its oil production and sales. In other words, a pro-US president
would not be making the deals that President Chavez has done, namely
swapping oil for commodities and supporting OPEC’s move to the Euro as
these actions impinge on the exclusivity of the Petrodollar as
intermediary currency in oil transactions. Yes, Venezuela is supporting
an OPEC move to switch from the US dollar to the Euro, and that in the
foreseeable future [viii]. This makes President Chavez anathema in the
eyes of the US. But that is not all. He is guilty of even a worse “crime”
in the eyes of the US: Venezuela accepts oil-for-service swaps with poor
countries, such as Cuba, that don’t have sufficient US dollar reserves
with which to buy the oil it desperately needs, effectively avoiding the
use of the Petrodollar [ix]. <br><br>
</font><font face="georgia" size=2>So what does the US plan for
Venezuela?</b></font><font face="georgia" size=3> <br><br>
Obviously the answer is the installation of a President favorable to
Washington. As in the case of Iraq, the idea is to replace Chavez with a
pro-US President; in other words, one who would not implement a
nationalist Venezuela policy; and by whatever means. <br><br>
</font><font face="georgia" size=2>The coming months leading up to the
referendum are going to be the test. If one believes that instigating
Colombian paramilitaries to invade Venezuela was the ultimate, then just
wait and see. <br><br>
</b></font><font face="georgia" size=3>There is nothing as dangerous as a
wounded animal. By invading Iraq, the US embarked on an insane gamble.
The entire world is watching the plan backfire, which is why Bush must
now travel to “Old Europe,” hat in hand, begging for a bailout. But the
lash of the tail of a downed creature can be lethal to smaller beings who
get in the way. <br><br>
</font><font face="georgia" size=4>Venezuelans: be on your guard. The
worst desperate efforts are yet to come. <br><br>
</font><font face="georgia" size=5>Karl B. Koth<br>
<a href="mailto:kkoth@hotmail.com">kkoth@hotmail.com</a><br><br>
</font><font face="georgia" size=2>Dr. Karl B. Koth is former professor
of Latin American History at Okanagan University College in Kelowna,
British Columbia, Canada. He is the author of Waking the Dictator:
Veracruz, the Struggle for Federalism, and the Mexican Revolution,
1870-1927, Calgary, Alberta: University of Calgary Press, 2002. He
divides his time between Canada and Brazil. <br><br>
</b></font><font face="georgia" size=3>[i]
<a href="http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=21723">Otto Reich:
Mastermind of the April 2002 coup d'etat against President Hugo
Chavez</a> VHeadline.com, June 24, 2004 <br><br>
[ii] William Clark,
“<a href="http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html">Revisited-The
Real Reasons for the Upcoming War in Iraq: A Macroeconomic and
Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth</a>.” See also “Oil, the
Dollar, and US Prosperity,” Richard Benson, SFGroup, August 8, 2003
<br><br>
[iii] “<a href="http://www.cincypost.com/2004/06/25/edita062504.html">Our
$8 trillion headache</a>,” Cincinnati Post (On-Line Edition), 25 Jun
2004<br><br>
[iv] Martin Walker,
“<a href="http://www.upi.com/print.cfm?StoryID=20031218-064204-4007r">U.S
distracted - and the world changed</a>,” UPI, December 26 2003<br><br>
[v] Ibid. See Spiro, David E., The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony:
Petrodollar Recycling and International Markets, Cornell University Press
(1999)<br><br>
[vi] Clark,
“<a href="http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html">Revisited</a>”
<br><br>
[vii] This is not idle speculation. Writes David R. Francis, “Foreigners
own far more of their direct investments (plants, equipment, office
buildings) and financial assets than Americans own in other nations.”
David R. Francis, “US financial power: a bang and a whimper,” The
Christian Science Monitor, 1 Jan. 2004. <br><br>
[viii] Patrick Brethour, “OPEC mulls move toward euro for its pricing of
crude oil,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2004, p. B1.
<br><br>
[ix] Hazel Henderson, "Beyond Bush's Unilateralism: Another Bi-Polar
World or A New Era of Win-Win?" InterPress Service, June 2002,
quoted in Clark. <br>
</font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">The Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br>
(415) 863-9977<br>
</font><font size=3><a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">www.freedomarchives.org</a></font></body>
</html>