Even the American Academy of Arts & Sciences (their version of our Royal Society of Canada), which doesn't usually get involved in current affairs, slammed the Bush government for their unilateralist ways. Here's the occasional paper they released(not sure what the difference is between an occasional paper & others is):
"A December 2002 report, published under the auspices of the Academy's Committee on International Security Studies (CISS), finds that the political, military, and economic consequences of war with Iraq could be extremely costly to the United States. William D. Nordhaus (Yale University) estimates the economic costs of war with Iraq in scenarios that are both favorable and unfavorable to the United States. Steven E. Miller (Harvard University) considers a number of potentially disastrous military and strategic outcomes of war for the United States that have received scant public attention. Carl Kaysen (MIT), John D. Steinbruner (University of Maryland),and Martin B. Malin (American Academy) examine the broader national security strategy behind the move toward a preventive war against Iraq."
& there is a bunch of related stuff here:
Barry Eichengreen, George C. Pardee and Helen N. Pardee Professor of Economics and Political Science @ U of California, Berkeley published an article comparing the level of international integration 100 years ago with what it is today. He says it's roughly the same. So much for Tom d'Aquino, Tom Courchene or Conrad Black's promises that foreign ownership is 'irreversible' & North-American integration is 'inevitable'. Here's the pdf online:
lol I think yet another excellent Chomsky quotation fits in well here: "Now, is there a possibility for a new international economic order? Well, sure, why not? These are not laws of nature, they're not laws of history. What the sort of line is there's no alternative, kind of like Marx's Iron Laws of History; it just has to happen, kind of like a tidal wave, you can't stop it. That's total nonsense, if you trace it back, it's human decisions, decisions of the powerful states made with particular interests in mind, there are alternative decisions that can be made all along the way. Nobody should be misled by the idea that there is this thing - globalisation - which somehow is inevitable. There are various kinds of international integration & they've taken different forms over the years, they can take different forms tomorrow, maybe good, maybe bad; you can measure that in terms of their outcomes. In principle there's no reason whatsoever why the population can't make those decisions."
Last is my favourite! A report commissioned by former US Secretary of State James Baker and the Council on Foreign Relations entitled "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century" is submitted to Vice President Cheney in April 2001. The report is linked to a veritable who's who of US hawks, oilmen and corporate bigwigs. (just scroll down to the bottom). The report says the "central dilemma" for the US administration is that "the American people continue to demand plentiful and cheap energy without sacrifice or inconvenience." It warns that the US is running out of oil, with a painful end to cheap fuel already in sight. It argues that "the United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma," and that one of the "consequences" of this is a "need for military intervention" to secure its oil supply. It argues that Iraq needs to be overthrown so the US can control its oil. Is it a coincidence that something happened just 5 months later that gave them a perfect excuse to dominate Central Asia (1st time in world history that a force not indiginous to that area has done that btw) & Iraq? I don't know.
Here's the report anyway:
Like the others, it's heavy-duty reading & you can go through it if you want, but there are summaries in the Sunday Herald (Scottish Indy media):
and the Sydney Morning Herald: