I'm tired ... and I got some harsh financial news (ten years at less than US$6K a year, things get tight) ... but it's been a day of marvels.
Here's the full text of something from Richard K. Moore:
I received an email from a Russian web-zine, "The Polar Star" - http://zvezda.ru. They sent me a list of questions and explained that they are "gathering views and opinions among a wide range of non-conformist European thinkers". Here is the Q&A:
1. How deep has the contradiction between the positions of US and Europe become? Does it now have a systemic nature, or is it only temporary friction bound to disappear simultaneously with the beginning of military operations in Iraq?I don't see any significant contradiction or conflict between the US and European governments over Iraq. They agree on the major fictions: that Saddam is a threat, that he must be "disarmed", and that Iraq's national sovereignty can be ignored. If there were a contradiction, then Europe would be threatening sanctions against the US in case of an invasion. Instead they are merely debating whether or not to ally the UN and NATO with the aggression. When the genocide is over, or at least the part CNN wants to show us, then Europe will be happy to participate in whatever new oil regime is established. And the "victors" will write the story of what happened in Iraq. They will, perhaps, be able to find five or six surviving Iraqis willing to smile for the camera, and that will "prove" that the Iraqis are thrilled to be rescued by Uncle Sam and his cruise missiles.
The apparent opposition shown publicly by France and Germany probably reflects two factors. First is indignation at Washington's eagerness to pursue unilateral action. However this response is limited to indignation; it does not extend to any intention to challenge Washington's self-assumed prerogatives. The second factor is the desire to cater to public opinion. Since public opposition to war is overwhelming in France and Germany, it would be political suicide for those leaders to support the war. Washington has no need of French or German assistance, so the French and German "opposition" costs the overall program nothing.
The real question is, "Why is the US bothering with seeking UN approval? Why not just go ahead on its own as it has countless other times since 1945?". I think we see a deeper game here, having to do with discrediting the UN and redefining international "law" to suit Washington.
2. Do you think that the deepening of such conflict might damage some of the existing relations between Europe and the US, and if so, to what extent? In particular, to what extent will this be reflected in the already difficult economic relationship between Europe and the US?I think that the economic relationship between Europe and the US, in the sense you probably intend, is of only secondary importance. The primary economic shift under globalization is the de-nationalization of economics - the corporatization of economics. European and US "leaders" publicly haggle with one another, and blame one another, so as to detract attention from what is really destroying economies and driving down quality of life in the West. These "leaders" are all stooges for corporate elites, and their job is to preside over the dismantlement of their national economies. They are fully aligned in this treasonous activity, not in conflict.
3. What kind of position should Russia assume in the developing opposition between Europe and the US? What should be the best tactical behaviour for Russia to gain the highest political dividends?That depends entirely on Russia's goals and objectives. If you want greater access to the global oil markets, you might consider making a secret deal with Washington and supporting the imperialist invasion. If you want to encourage a split between the US and Europe, then you might use this opportunity to introduce new proposals for international cooperation that explicitly do not include the USA, due to its status as a rogue nation which makes first use of weapons of mass destruction on helpless populations.
But if I were Russia, I'd be thinking in terms of self defense. The massacre in Iraq will have nothing to do with any Iraq-related objectives. It will be primarily a field test of weapons designed for use against Russia and China. Iraq is to Bush & Blair what Spain was to Mussolini & Hitler. (In fact the US and Britain both supported Hitler and Mussolini in that earlier episode.) The US has indicated it may use nuclear weapons in Iraq, and in populated areas. This is drastic overkill in the Iraqi theater, but might make military sense against a more formidable adversary with large ports and military facilities. The US acceleration of its Space Command program and its missile defense systems are clearly not about North Korea. Those systems become cost-effective only in full-scale warfare against major powers.
Indeed, it may be that one reason the US wants to occupy and control the Middle East at this time is to ensure that adequate fuel is available for a planned future major war. They don't want another boycott declared in the midst of hostilities. Best to control the flow tightly all the way from the well to the wing tank.
The positions of Russia and China are strategically parallel vis a vis US plans for global domination on behalf of global capitalism. You might want to look at my article, "China vs. Globalization - the Final War and the Dark Millennium". You can find it at http://cyberjournal.org/cj/rkm/ND/jul97NWOChina.shtml
Good luck with your work,