The
Emerging
Euro-denominated
International Oil
Marker
Published on 27 Oct
2004 by . Archived on 27 Oct 2004.
by William Clark
Global Research
The Iranians are about to
commit an "offense" far greater than Saddam
Hussein's conversion to the euro of Iraqs oil
exports in the fall of 2000. Numerous articles have
revealed Pentagon planning for operations against Iran as
early as 2005. While the publicly stated reasons will be
over Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are unspoken
macroeconomic drivers explaining the Real Reasons
regarding the 2nd stage of petrodollar warfare - Iran's
upcoming euro-based oil Bourse.
In 2005-2006, The Tehran government has a developed a
plan to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and
London's IPE with respect to international oil trades -
using a euro-denominated international oil-trading
mechanism. This means that without some form of US
intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm
foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt
levels and the stated neoconservative project for U.S.
global domination, Tehran's objective constitutes an
obvious encroachment on U.S. dollar supremacy in the
international oil market
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is,
perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and
develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of
armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known
instruments for bringing the many under the domination of
the few. . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the
midst of continual warfare."
- James Madison, Political Observations, 1795
Madisons words of
wisdom should be carefully considered by the American
people and world community. The rapidly deteriorating
situation on the ground in Iraq portends an even direr
situation for American soldiers and the People of the
world community - should the Bush administration pursue
their strategy regarding Iran. Current geopolitical
tensions between the United States and Iran extend beyond
the publicly stated concerns regarding Irans
nuclear intentions, and likely include a proposed Iranian
"petroeuro system" for oil trade. Similar to
the Iraq war, upcoming operations against Iran relate to
the macroeconomics of the `petrodollar recycling
and the unpublicized but real challenge to U.S. dollar
supremacy from the euro as an alternative oil transaction
currency.
It is now obvious the invasion of Iraq had less to do
with any threat from Saddams long-gone WMD program
and certainly less to do to do with fighting
International terrorism than it has to do with gaining
control over Iraqs hydrocarbon reserves and in
doing so maintaining the U.S. dollar as the monopoly
currency for the critical international oil market.
Throughout 2004 statements by former administration
insiders revealed that the Bush/Cheney administration
entered into office with the intention of toppling Saddam
Hussein. Indeed, the neoconservative strategy of
installing a pro-U.S. government in Baghdad along with
multiple U.S. military bases was partly designed to
thwart further momentum within OPEC towards a
"petroeuro." However, subsequent events show
this strategy to be fundamentally flawed, with Iran
moving forward towards a petroeuro system for
international oil trades, while Russia discusses this
option.
Candidly stated, Operation Iraqi Freedom was
a war designed to install a pro-U.S. puppet in Iraq,
establish multiple U.S military bases before the onset of
Peak Oil, and to reconvert Iraq back to petrodollars
while hoping to thwart further OPEC momentum towards the
euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. [1] In
2003 the global community witnessed a combination of
petrodollar warfare and oil depletion warfare. The
majority of the worlds governments
especially the E.U., Russia and China - were not amused
and neither are the U.S. soldiers who are
currently stationed in Iraq.
Indeed, the authors original pre-war hypothesis was
validated shortly after the war in a Financial Times
article dated June 5th, 2003, which confirmed
Iraqi oil sales returning to the international markets
were once again denominated in US dollars, not euros. Not
surprisingly, this detail was never mentioned in the five
US major media conglomerates who appear to censor this
type of information, but confirmation of this vital fact
provides insight into one of the crucial - yet overlooked
- rationales for 2003 the Iraq war.
"The tender, for which bids are due by June 10,
switches the transaction back to dollars -- the
international currency of oil sales - despite the
greenback's recent fall in value. Saddam Hussein in 2000
insisted Iraq's oil be sold for euros, a political move,
but one that improved Iraq's recent earnings thanks to
the rise in the value of the euro against the dollar." [2]
Unfortunately, it has
become clear that yet another manufactured war, or some
type of ill-advised covert operation is inevitable under
President George W. Bush, should he win the 2004
Presidential Election. Numerous news reports over the
past several months have revealed that the
neoconservatives are quietly - but actively - planning
for the second petrodollar war, this time against Iran.
Deep in the Pentagon, admirals and generals are
updating plans for possible U.S. military action in Syria
and Iran. The Defense Department unit responsible for
military planning for the two troublesome countries is
"busier than ever," an administration official
says. Some Bush advisers characterize the work as merely
an effort to revise routine plans the Pentagon maintains
for all contingencies in light of the Iraq war. More
skittish bureaucrats say the updates are accompanied by a
revived campaign by administration conservatives and
neocons for more hard-line U.S. policies toward the
countries"
"Even hard-liners acknowledge
that given the U.S. military commitment in Iraq, a U.S.
attack on either country would be an unlikely last
resort; covert action of some kind is the favored route
for Washington hard-liners who want regime change in
Damascus and Tehran."
"
administration hawks are pinning their hopes
on regime change in Tehran - by covert means, preferably,
but by force of arms if necessary. Papers on the idea
have circulated inside the administration, mostly labeled
"draft" or "working draft" to evade
congressional subpoena powers and the Freedom of
Information Act. Informed sources say the memos echo the
administration's abortive Iraq strategy: oust the
existing regime, swiftly install a pro-U.S. government in
its place (extracting the new regime's promise to
renounce any nuclear ambitions) and get out. This
daredevil scheme horrifies U.S. military leaders, and
there's no evidence that it has won any backers at the
cabinet level.[3]
To date, one of the more
difficult technical obstacles concerning a euro-based oil
transaction trading system is the lack of a
euro-denominated oil pricing standard, or oil marker
as it is referred to in the industry. The three current
oil markers are U.S. dollar denominated, which include
the West Texas Intermediate crude (WTI), Norway Brent
crude, and the UAE Dubai crude. However, since the spring
of 2003, Iran has required payments in the euro currency
for its European and Asian/ACU exports - although the oil
pricing for trades are still denominated in the dollar.
[4]
Therefore, a potentially significant news development was
reported in June 2004 announcing Irans intentions
to create of an Iranian oil Bourse. (The word "bourse"
refers to a stock exchange for securities trading, and is
derived from the French stock exchange in Paris, the
Federation Internationale des Bourses de Valeurs.) This
announcement portended competition would arise between
the Iranian oil bourse and Londons International
Petroleum Exchange (IPE), as well as the New York
Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). It should be noted that both
the IPE and NYMEX are owned by U.S. corporations.
The macroeconomic implications of a successful Iranian
Bourse are noteworthy. Considering that Iran has switched
to the euro for its oil payments from E.U. and ACU
customers, it would be logical to assume the proposed
Iranian Bourse will usher in a fourth crude oil marker
denominated in the euro currency. Such a
development would remove the main technical obstacle for
a broad-based petroeuro system for international oil
trades. From a purely economic and monetary perspective,
a petroeuro system is a logical development given that
the European Union imports more oil from OPEC producers
than does the U.S., and the E.U. accounts for 45% of
imports into the Middle East (2002 data).
Acknowledging that many of the oil contracts for Iran and
Saudi Arabia are linked to the United Kingdoms
Brent crude marker, the Iranian bourse could create a
significant shift in the flow of international commerce
into the Middle East. If Irans bourse becomes a
successful alternative for oil trades, it would challenge
the hegemony currently enjoyed by the financial centers
in both London (IPE) and New York (NYMEX), a
factor not overlooked in the following article:
"Iran is to launch an oil trading market for Middle
East and OPEC producers that could threaten the supremacy
of London's International Petroleum Exchange."
"
He [Mr. Asemipour] played down the dangers
that the new exchange could eventually pose for the IPE
or Nymex, saying he hoped they might be able to cooperate
in some way."
"
Some industry experts have warned the
Iranians and other OPEC producers that western exchanges
are controlled by big financial and oil corporations,
which have a vested interest in market volatility.
The IPE, bought in 2001 by a consortium that includes BP,
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, was unwilling to
discuss the Iranian move yesterday. "We would not
have any comment to make on it at this stage," said
an IPE spokeswoman. "[5]
It is unclear at the time
of writing, if this project will be successful, or could
it prompt overt or covert U.S. interventions - thereby
signaling the second phase of petrodollar warfare in the
Middle East. News articles in June 2004 revealed the
discredited neoconservative sycophant Ahmed Chalabi may
have revealed his knowledge to Iran regarding U.S.
military planning for operations against that nation.
"The reason for the US breakup with
Ahmed Chalabi, the Shiite Iraqi politician, could
be his leak of Pentagon plans to invade Iran
before Christmas 2005, but the American
government has not changed its objective, and the
attack could happen earlier if president George
W. Bush is re-elected, or later if John Kerry is
sworn in."
"
.Diplomats said Chalabi was alerted
to the Pentagon plans and in the process of
trying to learn more to tell the Iranians, he
invited suspicions of US officials, who
subsequently got the Iraqi police to raid the
compound of his Iraqi National Congress on 20 May
2004, leading to a final break up of
relations."
"While the US is uncertain how much of the
attack plans were leaked to Iran, it could change
some of the invasion tactics, but the broad
parameters would be kept intact." [6]
Regardless of the
potential U.S. response to an Iranian petroeuro system,
the emergence of an oil exchange market in the Middle
East is not entirely surprising given the domestic
peaking and decline of oil exports in the U.S. and U.K,
in comparison to the remaining oil reserves in Iran, Iraq
and Saudi Arabia. According to Mohammad Javad Asemipour,
an advisor to Irans oil ministry and the individual
responsible for this project, this new oil exchange is
scheduled to begin oil trading in March 2005.
"Asemipour said the platform should be
trading crude, natural gas and petrochemicals by
the start of the new Iranian year, which falls on
March 21, 2005.
He said other members of the Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries - Iran is the
producer group's second-largest producer behind
Saudi Arabia - as well as oil producers from the
Caspian region would eventually participate in
the exchange." [7]
(Note: the most recent
Iranian news report from October 5, 2004 stated:
"Iran's oil bourse will start trading by early
2006" which suggests a delay from the original March
21, 2005 target date). [8] Additionally, according to the
following report, Saudi investors may be interested in
participating in the Iranian oil exchange market, further
illustrating why petrodollar hegemony is becoming
unsustainable.
"Chris Cook, who previously worked for
the IPE and now offers consultancy services to
markets through Partnerships Consulting LLP in
London, commented: "Post-9/11, there has
also been an interest in the project from the
Saudis, who weren't interested in participating
before."
"Others familiar with Iran's economy said
since 9/11, Saudi Arabian investors are opting to
invest in Iran rather than traditional western
markets as the kingdom's relations with the U.S.
have weakened Iran's oil ministry has made no
secret of its eagerness to attract much needed
foreign investment in its energy sector and
broaden its choice of oil buyers."
"
Along with several other members of
OPEC, Iranian oil officials believe crude trading
on the New York Mercantile Exchange and the IPE
is controlled by the oil majors and big financial
companies, who benefit from market
volatility."[9]
One of the Federal Reserves
nightmares may begin to unfold in 2005 or 2006, when it
appears international buyers will have a choice of buying
a barrel of oil for $50 dollars on the NYMEX and IPE - or
purchase a barrel of oil for 37 - 40 euros
via the Iranian Bourse. This assumes the euro maintains
its current 20-25% appreciated value relative to the
dollar - and assumes that some sort of
"intervention" is not undertaken against Iran.
The upcoming bourse will introduce petrodollar versus
petroeuro currency hedging, and fundamentally new
dynamics to the biggest market in the world - global oil
and gas trades
During an important speech in April 2002, Mr. Javad
Yarjani, an OPEC executive, described three pivotal
events that would facilitate an OPEC transition to euros.
[10] He stated this would be based on (1) if and when
Norway's Brent crude is re-dominated in euros, (2) if and
when the U.K. adopts the euro, and (3) whether or not the
euro gains parity valuation relative to the dollar, and
the EUs proposed expansion plans were successful.
(Note: Both of the later two criteria have transpired:
the euros valuation has been above the dollar since
late 2002, and the euro-based E.U. enlarged in May 2004
from 12 to 22 countries). In the meantime, the United
Kingdom remains uncomfortably juxtaposed between the
financial interests of the U.S. banking nexus (New
York/Washington) and the E.U. financial centers
(Paris/Frankfurt).
The implementation of the proposed Iranian oil Bourse
(exchange) in 2005/2006 if successful in utilizing
the euro as its oil transaction currency standard
essentially negates the necessity of the previous two
criteria as described by Mr. Yarjani regarding the
solidification of a "petroeuro" system for
international oil trades. [10] It should also be noted
that during 2003-2004 Russia and China have both
increased their central bank holdings of the euro
currency, which appears to be a coordinated move to
facilitate the anticipated ascendance of the euro as a
second World Reserve currency. [11] [12] In the meantime,
the United Kingdom is uncomfortable juxtaposed between
the financial interests of the U.S. (New York/Washington)
banking nexus and that of the E.U. financial center
(Paris/Frankfurt).
The immediate question for Americans? Will the
neoconservatives attempt to intervene covertly and/or
overtly in Iran during 2005 in an effort to prevent the
formation of a euro-denominated crude oil pricing
mechanism? Commentators in India are quite correct in
their assessment that a U.S. intervention in Iran is
likely to prove disastrous for the United States, making
matters much worse regarding international terrorism, not
to the mention potential effects on the U.S. economy.
"The giving up on the terror war while Iran
invasion plans are drawn up makes no sense,
especially since the previous invasion and
current occupation of Iraq has further fuelled
Al-Qaeda terrorism after 9/11."
"
It is obvious that sucked into Iraq,
the US has limited military manpower left to
combat the Al-Qaeda elsewhere in the Middle East
and South Central Asia,"
"and NATO
is so seriously cross with America that it
hesitates to provides troops in Iraq, and no
other country is willing to bail out America
outside its immediate allies like Britain, Italy,
Australia and Japan."
"
.If it [U.S.] intervenes again, it is
absolutely certain it will not be able to improve
the situation Iraq shows America has not
the depth or patience to create a new civil
society and will only make matters
worse."
"There is a better way, as the constructive
engagement of Libyas Colonel Muammar
Gaddafi has shown
."Iran is obviously a
more complex case than Libya, because power
resides in the clergy, and Iran has not been
entirely transparent about its nuclear programme,
but the sensible way is to take it gently, and
nudge it to moderation. Regime change will only
worsen global Islamist terror, and in any case,
Saudi Arabia is a fitter case for democratic
intervention, if at all." [13]
It is abundantly clear
that a 2nd Bush term will bring a
confrontation and possible war with Iran during 2005.
Colin Powell as the Secretary of the State, has moderated
neoconservative military designs regarding Iran, but
Powell has stated that he will be leaving at the end of
Bushs first term. Of course if John Kerry wins in
November, he might pursue a similar military strategy.
However, it is my opinion that Kerry is more likely to
pursue multilateral negotiations regarding the Iranian
issues.
Clearly, there are numerous risks regarding
neoconservative strategy towards Iran. First, unlike
Iraq, Iran has a robust military capability. Secondly, a
repeat of any "Shock and Awe" tactics is not
advisable given that Iran has installed sophisticated
anti-ship missiles on the Island of Abu Musa, and
therefore controls the critical Strait of Hormuz. [14] In
the case of a U.S. attack, a shut down of the Strait of
Hormuz where all of the Persian Gulf bound oil
tankers must pass could easily trigger a market
panic with oil prices skyrocketing to $100 per barrel or
more. World oil production is now flat out, and a major
interruption would escalate oil prices to a level that
would set off a global Depression. Why are the
neoconservatives willing to takes such risks? Simply
stated - their goal is U.S. global domination.
A successful Iranian bourse would solidify the petroeuro
as an alternative oil transaction currency, and thereby
end the petrodollar's hegemonic status as the monopoly
oil currency. Therefore, a graduated approach is needed
to avoid precipitous U.S. economic dislocations.
Multilateral compromise with the EU and OPEC regarding
oil currency is certainly preferable to an Operation
Iranian Freedom, or perhaps an attempted
CIA-sponsored repeat of the 1953 Iranian coup
operation "Ajax" part II. [15] Indeed, there
are very good reasons for U.S. military leaders to be
"horrified" at the thought of a second
Bush term in which Cheney and the neoconservatives would
be unrestrained in their tragic pursuit of U.S. global
domination.
"NEWSWEEK has learned that the CIA and DIA
have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S.
pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.
No one liked the outcome. As an Air Force source
tells it, "The war games were unsuccessful
at preventing the conflict from escalating."
[16]
Despite the impressive
power of the U.S. military and the ability of our
intelligence agencies to facilitate
"interventions," it would be perilous and
possibly ruinous for the U.S to intervene in Iran given
the dire situation in Iraq. The Monterey Institute of
International Studies provided an extensive analysis of
the possible consequences of a preemptive attack on Irans
nuclear facilities and warned of the following:
"Considering the extensive financial and
national policy investment Iran has committed to
its nuclear projects, it is almost certain that
an attack by Israel or the United States would
result in immediate retaliation. A likely
scenario includes an immediate Iranian missile
counterattack on Israel and U.S. bases in the
Gulf, followed by a very serious effort to
destabilize Iraq and foment all-out confrontation
between the United States and Iraq's Shi'i
majority. Iran could also opt to destabilize
Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states with a
significant Shi'i population, and induce Lebanese
Hizbullah to launch a series of rocket attacks on
Northern Israel."
"
An attack on Iranian nuclear
facilities
could have various adverse
effects on U.S. interests in the Middle East and
the world. Most important, in the absence of
evidence of an Iranian illegal nuclear program,
an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities by the
U.S. or Israel would be likely to strengthen
Iran's international stature and reduce the
threat of international sanctions against Iran.
Such an event is more likely to embolden and
expand Iran's nuclear aspirations and
capabilities in the long term"
"one
thing is for certain, it would not be just
another Osirak. " [17]
Synopsis
Regardless of whatever choice the U.S. electorate makes
in the upcoming Presidential Election a military
expedition may still go ahead.
This essay was written out of my own patriotic duty in an
effort to inform Americans of the challenges that lie
ahead. On November 25, 2004, the issues involving Iran's
nuclear program will be addressed by the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and possibly referred to the
U.N. Security Council if the results are unsatisfactory.
Regardless of the IAEA findings, it appears increasingly
likely the U.S. will use the specter of nuclear weapon
proliferation as a pretext for an intervention, similar
to the fears invoked in the previous WMD campaign
regarding Iraq.
Pentagon sources confirm the Bush administration could
undertake a desperate military strategy to thwart Irans
nuclear ambitions while simultaneously attempting to
prevent the Iranian oil Bourse from initiating a
euro-based system for oil trades. The later would require
forced "regime change" and the U.S. occupation
of Iran. Obviously this would require a military draft.
Objectively speaking, the post-war debacle in Iraq has
clearly shown that such Imperial policies will be a
catastrophic failure. Alternatively, perhaps a more
enlightened U.S. administration could undertake
multilateral negotiations with the EU and OPEC regarding
a dual oil-currency system, in conjunction with global
monetary reform. Either way, U.S. policy makers will soon
face two difficult choices: monetary compromise or
continued petrodollar warfare.
"I am a firm believer in the people. If given the
truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national
crisis. The great point is to bring them the real
facts."
- Abraham Lincoln
"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be
trusted with their own government. Whenever things get so
far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied
on to set them to rights."
- Thomas Jefferson
References:
[1] "Revisited - The Real Reasons for the Upcoming
War with Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis
of the Unspoken Truth," January 2003 (updated
January 2004) http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html
[2] Hoyos, Carol & Morrison, Kevin, "Iraq
returns to the international oil market," Financial
Times, June 5, 2003 http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/...
[3] "War-Gaming the Mullahs: The U.S. weighs the
price of a pre-emptive strike," Newsweek,
September 27 issue, 2004. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6039135/site/newsweek/
[4] Shivkumar, C., "Iran offers oil to Asian union
on easier terms," The Hindu Business Line
(June 16, 2003). http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/bline/2003/06/17/stories/2003061702380500.htm
[5] Macalister, Terry, "Iran takes on west's control
of oil trading," The [UK] Guardian,
June 16, 2004 http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1239644,00.html
[6] "US to invade Iran before 2005 Christmas," News
Insight: Public Affairs Magazine, June 9, 2004 http://www.newsinsight.net/nati2.asp?recno=2789
[7] "Iran Eyes Deal on Oil Bourse; IPE Chairman
Visits Tehran," Rigzone.com (July 8, 2004) http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=14588
[8] "Iran's oil bourse expects to start by early
2006," Reuters, October 5, 2004 http://www.iranoilgas.com
[9] "Iran Eyes Deal on Oil Bourse, IPE Chairman
Visits Tehran," ibid.
[10] "The Choice of Currency for the Denomination of
the Oil Bill," Speech given by Javad Yarjani, Head
of OPEC's Petroleum Market Analysis Dept, on The
International Role of the Euro (Invited by the Spanish
Minister of Economic Affairs during Spain's Presidency of
the EU) (April 14, 2002, Oviedo, Spain)
http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/Speeches/sp2002/spAraqueSpainApr14.htm
[11] Russia shifts to euro as foreign currency reserves
soar," AFP, June 9, 2003
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7214-3.cfm
[12] "China to diversify foreign exchange
reserves," China Business Weekly, May 8, 2004 http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-05/08/content_328744.htm
[13] "Terror & regime change: Any US invasion of
Iran will have terrible consequences," News
Insight: Public Affairs Magazine, June 11, 2004 http://www.indiareacts.com/archivedebates/nat2.asp?recno=908&ctg=World
[14] Analysis of Abu Musa Island, www.globalsecurity.org http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/abu-musa.htm
[15] J.W. Smith, "Destabilizing a Newly-Free
Iran," The Institute for Economic Democracy, 2003 http://www.ied.info/books/why/control.html
[16] "War-Gaming the Mullahs: The U.S. weighs the
price of a pre-emptive strike," ibid.
[17] Salama, Sammy and Ruster, Karen,"A
Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible
Consequences," Monterry Institute of
International Studies, August 12, 2004 (updated September
9, 2004) http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm
[18] Philips, Peter, "Censored 2004,"
Project Censored, Seven Stories Press, (2003) http://www.projectcensored.org/
Story #19: U.S. Dollar vs. the Euro: Another Reason for
the Invasion of Iraq http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/19.html
William Clark is the author of an award-winning
essay published online in early 2003 entitled: 'The
Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq: A
Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken
Truth.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html , This pre-war essay
hypothesized that Saddam sealed his fate when he
announced in September 2000 that Iraq was no longer going
to accept dollars for oil being sold under the UNs
oil-for-food program, and switch to the euro as Iraqs
oil export transaction currency.
Note: Below is a description of this authors
upcoming book: (Available spring 2005.)
Petrodollar Warfare
Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar
William Clark
The invasion of Iraq may well be remembered as the
first oil currency war. Far from being a response to 9-11
terrorism or Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, Petrodollar
Warfare argues that the invasion was
precipitated by two converging phenomena: the imminent
peak in global oil production, and the ascendance of the
euro currency.
Energy analysts agree that world oil supplies are about
to peak, after which there will be a steady decline in
supplies of oil. Iraq, possessing the world's second
largest oil reserves, was therefore already a target of
U.S. geostrategic interests. Together with the fact that
Iraq had switched its oil transaction currency to euros
-- rather than U.S. dollars -- the Bush administration's
unreported aim was to prevent further OPEC momentum in
favor of the euro as an alternative oil transaction
currency standard.
Meticulously researched, Petrodollar Warfare
examines U.S. dollar hegemony and the unsustainable
macroeconomics of 'petrodollar recycling,' pointing out
that the issues underlying the Iraq war also apply to
geopolitical tensions between the U.S. and other
countries including the European Union (E.U.), Iran,
Venezuela, and Russia. The author warns that without
changing course, the American Experiment will end the way
all empires end - with military over-extension and
subsequent economic decline. He recommends the
multilateral pursuit of both energy and monetary reforms
within a United Nations framework to create a more
balanced global energy and monetary system thereby
reducing the possibility of future oil-depletion and oil
currency-related warfare.
A sober call for an end to aggressive U.S. unilateralism,
Petrodollar Warfare is a unique
contribution to the debate about the future global
political economy.
© Copyright WILLIAM
CLARK, CRG 2004.
|