Tensions between Europe and the USA?


Richard 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

   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

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

Good luck with your work,
Richard Moore
Wexford, Ireland


cyberjournal home page: 

"Zen of Global Transformation" home page: 

QuayLargo discussion forum:

cj list archives:

newslog list archives:

subscribe addresses for cj list: