The following is an excerpt from a paper by Craig B Hulet titled:

Oil and Sovereignty

In Whose Interests?

KC & Associates Investigations research Associates

P.O. Box 710, Amanda Park, WA 98526 360-288-2652

Americans are even less interested in the truth of these findings than they were over a decade ago regarding the findings of this author about similar meetings and policy formulations already decided upon long before the past President Bush Senior’s Administration sought to bomb Iraq into the stone age. In fact it was planned to do just that had Saddam Hussein not gone along with the deal offered him at the time. Boring as it might seem to draw this analogy here I shall reprint the policy formulations below. It all began with the Palestinian peace process. To quote the White House April, 1990 meeting:

The Trilateral countries could assist a possible peace process, as well as helping to reduce the dangers to their own interests deriving from a renewal of inter-State conflict in the Middle East, by pursuing issues of non-proliferation of chemical, biological and atomic weapons and of conventional disarmament in the region, as well as of limitation of arms sales to the areas. The extent to which peace in the region is currently endangered by past sales, both legal and illegal, of armaments and of technology cannot be exaggerated. (Task Force Report: the Israeli-Palestinian Issue, The Washington, D.C., Plenary Meeting of the Trilateral Commission, April 1990, p.74. See also the Triangle Paper report itself number 38, p. 32, issued May 1990)

This meeting of the infamous Trilateral Commission (much argued among conspiracy theorists still) did take place; it was hosted by then President George Bush Senior at the White House. Admitting that “The arms producing countries in the industrial world as well as the Soviet Union, some of its former satellites, and China share responsibility for this,” they hypocritically failed mentioning the presence for decades of American arms sales to many countries in the region by the United States itself, especially to Iraq; this is explainable, as Iraq is singled out in the same text.

In particular, the development both of nuclear weapons and chemical weapons in the region would scarcely have been possible without access to Western materials and technology, and there has been a notable failure to face up to the fact of, and the implications of, these leakages both the Israel and to Arab States such as Iraq. Peace and stability in the Middle East will be difficult to ensure without a major international initiative designed to undo this damage--an initiative which may now be more readily achieved by agreement between East and West as a result of greatly improved climate of international relations. (Ibid.)0

This was the argument to intervene in the region and set up a permanent military presence to ensure stability in the Persian Gulf in the State of Saudi Arabia; the Soviet Union has collapsed and its presence was no longer a threat to the region. It was no longer a threat to Western and particularly American hegemony in the region then either. America under Mr. Bush Senior decided American hegemony was the future for the Middle East. Of course, it is common knowledge now that it was precisely this permanent military presence in the two Holy Lands of Saudi Arabia that set Ussamah bin Laden into motion after America had trained him and his followers along with the Taliban to stop Soviet expansion in the Central region of Afghanistan. The report goes on to say this:

Accordingly, urgent action should be taken to initiate linked nuclear, chemical and biological disarmament, control and verification measures in the Middle East. This is a matter which might appropriately be considered by the U.N. security Council in view of the serious threat to peace now posed by the proliferation of these weapons. (Ibid.)

Urgent action by the U.N. Security Council and the seemingly (at the time that is) ability of then President George Bush Sr. to simply pick up the phone and form an instantaneous coalition of western powers to attack Iraq after August, 2nd, 1990, is now easily explained, as I did during the period in question. Bush already had all the respective western powers lined up after Senator Robert Dole’s April 1990 mission to Iraq failed to get resolution on the question of Iraqi disarmament. Saddam Hussein simply said no, he would not disarm unless Israel did so as well. Of course Israel was not asked to disarm. The western powers that made up Bush’s immediate coalition are specifically those European nation-states which make up the Trilateral Commission itself: i.e., all of Western Europe, North America and Japan (Which is what the word “Trilateral” means in the organization’ name)

It is only in the context of those meetings during April and after Robert Dole’s failed mission to Iraq, that Ambassador to Iraq, Ms April Glaspie, and her remarks to Saddam Hussein during June and July of 1990 make sense. Saddam Hussien asked Ms Glaspie what America’s position was on the border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait? It was a long-standing dispute over who owned the strip of land between the two States and the separate very real dispute that Kuwait was “slant drilling” into Iraqi territory using newly developed technology of the wholey-owned Al Sabah family’s Kuwaiti firm of Santa Fe International. Glaspie’s response to Hussein was “that America would not get involved in Middle Eastern border disputes.” Saddam assumed wrongly that this left him free to resolve the situation with his own means. Many analysts saw these developments as Saddam Hussein having been clearly hoodwinked (“The Green Light” to it was called) into invading Kuwait and was duly shocked when President George Bush Sr. declared Hussein a “Hitler.”

I would be failing to do my job by not pointing out, as an aside, that the company Sante Fe International, owned 100 percent by the Al Sabah family of Kuwait had on its Board of Directors former President Gerald Ford (the President that appointed George Bush Senior to Director of the CIA), General Brent Scowcroft (at the time Bush Senior’s National Security Advisor) and Roderich Hills (husband of Carla Hills, Bush Senior’s Trade Representative).

One does not need to see conspiracy where policy formulations stated earlier in the same year, even just weeks or months before-hand laid out the political objectives. That the political objectives laid out earlier are fulfilled using war or conflict as the means is simply a von Clausewitzian understanding of the way the real world works, i.e., war is politics by other means.

Hulet Page

Jeff's Page