Video: The Battle for Oil, Deadly “Macroeconomic Medicine,” The Dangers of Nuclear War, “The War on Terrorism”

[This article was originally published on Global Research. You can read it here.]

Presentation to the Kuala Lumpur Conference, Perdana Global Peace Forum, December 2006

See full transcript below.

Video: The Battle for Oil, Deadly Macroeconomic Medicine, The Danger of Nuclear War, “The War on Terrorism”

Transcript

I herewith introduce to you the first speaker Mr Michel Chossudovsky.

Our first Speaker wears many hats. He is an economist from the University of Ottawa who has published several books relating to poverty, globalization and the role of international monetary institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF. He is an esteemed scholar, whose writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

His other hats include that of an advisor to numerous governments and also consultant to International organizations such as the UNDP.

Ladies and gentlemen, here is Professor Michel Chossudovsky.

[Applause]

Dear friends, ladies and gentlemen it’s a great privilege for me to be here today as an economist in a country which is committed to national sovereignty in the economic sense of the word and at a very critical moment in the history of this country, namely in 1997 under the Helm of Prime Minister Dr Tun Mahathir, precise and specific financial mechanisms were put in place which allowed or at least prevented the slide of the Ringgit, thereby foreclosing the possibility of massive bankruptcies and impoverishment as occurred in Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea. [Applause]

And this is not a rhetorical question because war and macroeconomics are intimately related. These so-called free market reforms have been essentially an instrument of dramatic impoverishment of millions of people around the world and the fact that Malaysia was able under very difficult conditions to foreclose this catastrophe.

It will be a landmark certainly in the nation’s history for years to come.

Today, the world is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history.

The United States has launched together with its indefectible British ally a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. it is also coupled as I mentioned by these deadly macroeconomic reforms.

The war has an economic rationale to it. It is certainly does not have the objective of weeding out terrorism.

It has underlying economic objectives, the most important of which as far as the Middle East war is concerned is securing control over oil reserves.

It is characterized by advanced weapons systems.

This morning Helen Caldicott focused on the issue of nuclear weapons, there’s the whole doctrine of preemptive nuclear war which is of course crucial but one thing which I think is very important to understand is how the concepts have been turned upside down as far as nuclear weapons are concerned.

The United States has developed a new generation of what we call tactical nuclear weapons the mini-nukes namely small nuclear weapons but in fact they’re not so small [in terms of yield and explosive capacity] they are between 1/3 and six times a Hiroshima bomb and what has happened is that these nuclear weapons now after a period of review are considered “safe for civilians” because the explosion is underground.

Bear in mind, it’s a bit like the advisory on a packet of cigarettes which says smoking is dangerous for your health.

Now what has happened which is very important is that the Pentagon has gone through and has enlisted scientists and research labs and they essentially say that these explosions are underground and they are safe for civilians.

And in 2003, a December decision of the Senate ultimately approved the use of tactical nuclear weapons in conventional War theaters.

This decision has not been reported extensively or even in in a minimal way in the international press but what this means today in addition to the debate that we had this morning on nuclear weapons that this new generation of nuclear weapons now has been reclassified as a conventional weapon which can be used in conventional War theaters that is precisely the nature of that Senate decision and it is also slated to be used in the next phase of this of this war coupled with the military agenda uh which is a war Without Borders we see the emergence within the Western European countries, particularly the United States Canada, Britain, Australia we see the emergence of a police state apparatus, we see the criminalization of what I would describe as the criminalization of Justice because ultimately those who decide on the judicial system are the war criminals and we have a whole pattern and structure of arbitrary arrests of individuals who are tagged or targeted as alleged terrorists.

Dear ladies and gentlemen, the war on terrorism which is the main justification for waging a war of conquest which is clearly acknowledged in Military and National Security documents that the war on terrorism is fabricated. It fabricates an enemy.

The enemy is presented: it is the image of the enemy Bin Laden in fact the whole issue becomes so absurd if you read some of the speeches and the national security documents.

Osama Bin Laden is presented as a nuclear power.

Okay. Al-Qaeda is presented as capable of setting off nuclear explosions so that it is an upcoming nuclear power [according to President Obama] and therefore this justifies the development of preemptive nuclear weapons for defensive purposes and so on and the use of these tactical nuclear weapons deployed in conventional war theaters.