A.G. Frank thought that the list might want to read this.
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 14:17:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Andre Gunder Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Michael Yount <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Albert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jay Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Discussions on the Socialist Register and its articles
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Kashmir CORRECTERD
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ANDRE GUNDER FRANK
Senior Fellow Residence
World History Center One Longfellow Place
Northeastern University Apt. 3411
270 Holmes Hall Boston, MA 02114 USA
Boston, MA 02115 USA Tel: 617-948 2315
Tel: 617 - 373 4060 Fax: 617-948 2316
Web-page:csf.colorado.edu/agfrank/ e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 14:57:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Andre Gunder Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Kashmir (fwd)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ANDRE GUNDER FRANK
Senior Fellow Residence
World History Center One Longfellow Place
Northeastern University Apt. 3411
270 Holmes Hall Boston, MA 02114 USA
Boston, MA 02115 USA Tel: 617-948 2315
Tel: 617 - 373 4060 Fax: 617-948 2316
Web-page:csf.colorado.edu/agfrank/ e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 15:19:47 -0700
From: Chalmers Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Andre Gunder Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Kashmir
THE THREAT OF INDO-PAK NUCLEAR WAR BLOWBACK & FALLOUT:
IRRESPONSIBLE U.S. POLICY HAD AMPLE WARNING not TO PROVOKE IT
The present threat of nuclear war between Pakistan and India is
the direct
responsibility of irresponsible provocation by the Bush
Administration.
Whatever were the remote and immediate causes of previous
Indo-Pakistani
wars over Kashmir, the present nuclear threat must be laid at the
door of
Washington, which did everything it could to provoke it and
almost nothing
to prevent it. Plenty of warnings were available to abort the US
policies
that would inevitably lead to the present impasse. The most
visible of
these policies have been the overt political ones, but they also
include
the as ever US economic policies that fail to alleviate but
further deepen
the economic crisis in both Pakistan and India as part of the
present
world economic crisis.
It was US pressure on Pakistani President Musharraf to become a
puppet
instrument of US rhetorically ''anti-terrorist'' but real world
aggressively geo-political economic policy in Afghanistan and
Central Asia
that defined and limited Musharraf's present options. The
Pakistani
president was obliged by the Bush administration to turn against
and even
betray extreme and not so extreme Muslim elements in the American
CIA's
client ISI Pakistani secret service and military as well as in
the
socio-political [dis]order in general. That had to deepen the
divide and
heighten the tension within the Pakistani
socio-political/military
establishment and society in general.
As a result of that US policy, three possible but not mutually
exclusive
short-run scenarios and their derivatives now present themselves
in South
Asia:
1A. Musharraf's political options are now reduced and confined to
continuing his anti-Muslim clamp-down AND giving at least the
appearance
of NOT doing so excessively and especially NOT doing so at the
behest of
the US and even less so of India. That requires a now even more
pro-active stance and praxis regarding the ever present Kashmir
issue.
Moreover, many Taliban and al-Qaeda activists that were
previously
confined to Afghanistan have now been chased out by the US and
spread
through Pakistan and probably Kashmir. That is the direct result
of
irresponsible US policy.
1B. Reduced political room for maneuver in Pakistan in turn
increases the
political bargaining power and its use by the Government of
India. That
India is also a victim of economic crisis and has a Hindu
nationalist and
fundamentalist BJP government in Delhi and an even more so state
government in Gujarat, which has responded by deliberately
organizing the
recent anti-Muslim pogroms with over 1,000 victims, provides the
background. Moreover, recent electoral alliance and voter
setbacks at home
now make patriotic diversions abroad more attractive for the BJP
government. A more aggressive Kashmir and anti-Pakistan policy in
India
and a corresponding response by Pakistan is the immediate result
- with
200,000 troops facing each other on the border, 2 million troops
behind
them, and rattling the nuclear saber by both sides. That is the
direct
result of US policy.
2A. President Musharraf is assassinated; the US looses its ''man
in
Islamabad;'' Pakistan looses its present stabilizing force or
symbol; and
blame is or is shifted onto Muslim ''fundamentalists.'' All Hell
Breaks
Lose. Although always possible, that is now more likely as a
blowback
result of US policy.
2B. Supporters of Musharraf try to save the present STATE of
affairs by
wholesale crack-down on Muslim nationalist/fundamentalists at
home - with
even more aggressive anti-Indian policies abroad to buy off some
of the
Muslim opposition at home. The already sufficiently dangerous
situation
provoked by American irresponsibility becomes even more
dangerous.
2C leads to 3. The Pakistani state is split down the middle, with
the army
divided and most of ISI re-aligned against the pro-Musharraf
forces, and
general socio-political caos. US policy is not the only, but now
is a
primary cause of such developments.
3A. Via scenario # 2, or even without it, the present regime is
overthrown and replaced by a more militant Muslim/nationalist one
- with
nuclear arms at its disposal- that escalates the Indo-Pakistani
conflict
still more -- if that is then still possible. That would also
embolden a
Hindu nationalist BJP government and its supporters in India
still more to
go after its own Muslims who number more than those in all of
Pakistan and
could be cast as its 5th column in India itself. All that would
be a
direct blowback result of US policy.
3B. The United States implements already existing military
exercises to
try to '' take out'' the Pakistani nukes, by destroying them or
moving
them to China or Russia [or Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan]. That IS US
policy,
but it may not work; and the political consequences may be too
horrendous
to foresee. Moreover, the participation in this drama of Russia
and China
are as yet unclear, except as 3C.
3C. Instead of only TWO nuclear states mobilized against each
other in
South Asia, Eurasia then has FIVE of them actively involved in
Eurasia,
since Pakistani ally China and Indian ally Russia could also
mobilize, as
well as the US itself. Is that what US policy wants? Or is it an
only
''unintended'' but a certainly foreseeable blowback of
irresponsible US
policy in Asia.
4. Simultaneous sharpening of other political flash-points that
are also
the direct result of unconscionable US policy is proceeding
certainly in
Israel-Palestine, will probably result in the replacement of the
US puppet
regime in Saudi Arabia and maybe in Egypt, and the insanely
aggressive US
policy towards Iraq and other Arab states can only aggravate the
world
political situation. Instead of trying to reduce the sources of
political
desperation or even taking the wind out of the socio-political
support for
those who are already desperate, the US continues and aggravates
the
policies that have already generated and are now escalating
terrorism
against its interests and citizens. The possible repercussions
to any and
all of these are incalculable, but ALL ARE THE DIRECT RESULT OF
IRRESPONSIBLE US POLICY.
#5. Aggravation of the present world economic crisis, now already
visible
in all parts of the world, may still result in a fundamental
change in the
world economic position and policy of the United States. For the
time
being, and ever since the mid 1980s when it changed from being
the world's
biggest creditor to becoming its biggest debtor and especially
during the
'boom' of the 1990s, the United States is till running a global
PONZI
SCHEME, in which its liquidity and credit depends on the
continued giant
vacuum cleaner absorbtion of new credit capital to service the
ever
growing service, not to mention principal, of its accumulated
past debts,
which now amount to almost double its GDP. These debts are most
importantly to foreigners who have bought US treasury
certificates from
Washington and invested in stocks , or worse their derivatives,
in Wall
Street. However, US corporate, household and consumer debt have
also
continued to rise with so far no limit in sight except the always
existing
and ever greater threat new capital will one day cease to flow
into the
US, thus making it impossible to re-finance the old debt. And of
course,
they higher that Ponzi house of cards pyramid continues to be
built up,
the greater its crash if and when it comes. For then, the
cessation of
capital inflow must generate a rapid flight capital outflow from
the US,
as it did from other areas that had 'enjoyed' earlier speculative
capital
inflows.
The ONLY RESPONSE POSSIBLE will be to DEFAULT on much of the
debt owed across and within US borders - with disaterous
consequences all around. But that can and would be done in
a variety of ways or combinations thereof: simple wipe out of
stock
values, a sharp increase of printed or credit-created US dollars
both to
meet demand for the same and to devalue the debt by inflating out
of it.
Or the free-trade and open-market apostle that the US claims to
be will
impose controls on capital outflow abroad and limitations on
capital
transfers and the use of bank deposits at home- also following
other
countries whom US policy has already forced into situations that
gave them
no other choice, as now spectacularly so in Argentina. All would
result
in FALL IN THE US DOLLAR'S VALUE. That would also spell the end
of the US
role as the world's consumer of last resort.
Before a dollar confidence and supply crisis becomes that acute,
a number
of possible measures could pave the way and result already in a
decline of
the dollar, which then at any moment could turn into an abrupt
fall. All
of these eventualities should also be considered as potential
political
economic blowbacks to recent and still current irresponsible US
policy.
Among them are:
- Japan's banking crisis obliges Japanese to withdraw money
invested in
the US and bring it home to shore up their exposed positions
there
- China devalues, becomes still more competitive in the
world market, and forces other Asian producers into still more
precarious
financial positions and corresponding defensive policies
- Europeans transfer their international currency reserves from
the US
dollar into the Euro
- Others decide to do the same
- OPEC decides to re-price its oil exports in Euros instead of
dollars, or
even in a basket of currencies including both or maybe even the
Chinese yen,
and/or
- OPEC countries individually or collectively decide to place and
keep
[some of] their earnings in Euros, especially if they are priced
in
that currency, but even if they are not.But if the dollar
exchange
becomes costly, te rational thing to do will be to price out of
the
dollar to begin with.
- Somebody/anybody gets upset at yet another outrageous US
policy/praxis,
and out of fright or spite decides to try to put their money in a
safer
haven than the US. Depending on who does that when and how, it
could
trigger a run on the 'US BANK'.
To appreciate the seriousness of any and all of these very
possible
scenarios, it is important to realize that US economic 'strength'
really
is based on a world wide Ponzi Scheme House of Cards whose
essential
element is that the US can print US dollar world currency, and
nobody else
can. However, the opposite side of that dollar coin is that this
dollar
supply and demand is the ONLY ECONOMIC STRENGTH THE US NOW HAS.
The
importance of US TNIs, industrial and agricultural productivity,
high
tech, education and all pale in the shadow of the DOLLAR. The
other
pillar of US strength is the Pentagon, which claims already to be
encumbered by lack of dollars. However, the deployment of
Pentagon forces
abroad is dependent on having highly valued dollars abroad with
which to
buy national currencies to defray local costs of bases, supplies,
deployments and other military expenses. So the strength of the
Pentagon
is in part dependent on the strength of the dollar - and vice
versa [see
A.G. Frank we-page on 'US Economic Overstretch and Hegemonic
political
military blowback?]. Their hand in hand decline, in the face of
present
official [and popular?] hubris overconfidence, could spell
incalculable
political costs at home and abroad.
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS DOING ALL IT CAN TO PROMOTE
SUCH BLOWBACK DISASTER AT HOME AND ABROAD AND NOTHING TO PROTECT
THE SECURITY OF AMERICAN - LET ALONE OTHER COUNTRIES'- CITIZENS.
--
Japan Policy Research Institute
2138 Via Tiempo
Cardiff, CA 92007 USA
Tel (760) 944-3950
Fax (760) 944-9022
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: www.jpri.org
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
