AI
Tuesday, April 20, 2004 4:34:13 PM
The United States, NATO and the European army
Dr. Pol De Vos (Belgium)
18th of April of 2004
1. Globalisation of the economic crisis
Over the last twenty years, we have witnessed gigantic waves of capital concentration on a world scale. Currently, a dozen of multinationals control the various sectors of the world economy. The world's two hundred major multinationals represent 25% of the world's manufacturing value. A few thousands of multinationals (on a total of 65,000) own the major part of the means of production and set them in motion for the single purpose of realising a maximum of profits for the shareholders.
Everywhere exploitation is intensifying. The number of workers is being reduced, while productivity is drastically increased. The workers are overexploited and underpaid. The vast majority of the world population is kept outside of modern industrial production. Developing countries are groaning under the burden of 2,500 billion dollar in debts, while privatisation has allowed American and European multinationals to take over most of their wealth and enterprises.
Overproduction and crisis have become a generalised phenomenon. In twenty years of neoliberal globalisation, short-term cures to the crisis have run out. In spite of all “gains” achieved, the United States has been confronted with the most serious crisis of its entire history. The US superpower now places its bets mainly on the “military globalisation”, on its overwhelming military superiority, in order to save its multinationals, at the expense of the rest of the world. They try to boost the economy through massive arms production, while ensuring a worldwide hegemonic position and grabbing sources of raw materials and markets…
Also the European Union (EU) has become an imperialist bloc that is able to compete with the United States in the economic and financial fields. The Euro is challenging the position of the US dollar as the only international reserve currency. A transfer to the Euro of a significant part of the current world reserves held in dollars would provoke an economic earthquake. The same holds true if a major part of the oil trade, now in US currency, would shift to the Euro.
2. Concentration of arms production in the USA and Europe
The worldwide concentration of capital also took place in the military industry. From 1990 to 1998, a series of mergers and acquisitions in the USA led to the establishment of four large producers in the aerospace sector: Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and Boeing. From 1998 to 2002, the rate of concentration among large companies slowed down, but the process continued at the level of subcontractors. Concentration reduced the number of 'prime contractors' - the end producers of major weapons systems - dramatically throughout the 1990s. In the USA for instance, in 1990 13 suppliers of tactical missiles were operating. By 2000 they had merged into 3 major companies.
While the process of concentration and consolidation in the US arms industry has been predominantly national, the arms industries in the Western European countries have continued the process of concentration beyond the national level, as a consequence of their domestic ‘markets' and their national procurement budgets being smaller. Since the late 1990s there have been a number of major mergers and acquisitions, and the formation of joint ventures in Europe . One result of this is the evolution of three major Western European arms producing companies: BAe Systems, EADS and Thales. While they were integrating most major arms producing capacities in the market segments of their respective home countries under one roof, they were also acquiring arms production assets abroad.
Governments supported the concentration through the establishment of a wide array of joint armaments programmes, the signing of letters of intent and framework agreement s, and support for the creation of joint ventures.
The transatlantic dimension of this internationalisation is more limited because of a range of issues related to technology transfer and – mainly – preferences for domestic procurement in the context of Euro-American competition.
The concentration in military production in Europe is – like in the US – part of a more global militarisation of the economy, as an essential element of the construction of military Europe . Different organs have been put in place. In 1993, the COARM was founded, which is the group of “conventional arms exports”, depending directly on the European Council. Its objective is to coordinate the exports to third countries. In 1995 follows the POLARM, the “European arms policy” group, also linked to the European Council. Its experts are tasked to develop a common strategy. On November 12, 1996 , the Common Organisation for Cooperation in the field of Armament (OCCAR) is created, on the initiative of the four largest countries of the Union : France , Germany , United Kingdom and Italy . It has the objective to coordinate their military industrial policies. After Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas in 1997, the European leaders feared to see their military industry overwhelmed by their American competitors. Airbus was in danger. In December 1997, the heads of state of Germany , France and the UK signed a joint declaration. They confirmed that “ France , Germany and the UK have a same essential political and economic interest in ensuring that Europe has an efficient and competitive industry in the field of aerospace and defence electronics. This will make possible for Europe to improve its commercial position in the world, to reinforce its security and to ensure that it plays its full role in its own defence. We agreed on the urgent necessity to reorganise the industry in the field of aerospace and defence electronics. This process should include, in the aerospace sector, civil and military activities, and lead to a European integration based on an equilibrated partnership.” 1 On March 27, 1998 , the presidents of the societies participating in the Airbus project (DASA, British Aerospace and Aérospatiale) proposed to develop an integrated company, the European Aerospace and Defence Company (EADC). The agreement was signed in December 1999. EADC controls 80% of Airbus, which represents 50% of its sales turnover, 100% of Eurocopter, 62.5% of Eurofighter, 25.9% of Arianespace, 75% of Astrium, 46% of Dassault, etc. The (French) group Lagardère and the (German) group Daimler (this means the Deutsche Bank) dominate EADC.
The European concentration leads to the constitution of some very powerful groups. Besides EADC there is BAe Systems, the new name for British Aerospace, which became the first defence industry in the world, after taking over the activities of systems control of Lockheed Martin. Its president defined his society as “ the first American society in Europe and the first European society in the US ” 2. Its weight is more important in the US than in Europe . Which is – together with coinciding oil interests – an important element to explain the British eagerness to participate in the US war against Iraq . EADS became the ‘real' European pole, but it is strongly linked to BAe Systems.
These industrial developments – in the US and in Europe – induce a worldwide arms race. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, about 80% of the world's total military equipment is produced by NATO members (figures of 1996). The following NATO members are among the world's top ten military producers: the US , the UK , France , Germany , Italy and Canada . The US , the UK and France alone accounted for about 70% of the world's total arms production for that year.
3. NATO's changing strategy
Yugoslavia 1999: “the new strategic concept”
After the disappearance of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, NATO became increasingly irrelevant as a defensive alliance. With the purpose of using the Alliance for its worldwide ambitions, the United States pushed towards a redefinition of the NATO doctrine. NATO should not only serve for the defence of the territorial integrity of its members but also for “humanitarian interventions” outside its territory.
This new strategy was put into practice in the war against Yugoslavia . There, for the first time, NATO intervened outside the territory of the Treaty. This “new strategic concept” was ratified afterwards at a summit in Washington at the end of April 1999. NATO's so-called "humanitarian war" in Yugoslavia was sold to the public as a means of settling conflicts between ethnic groups, while its real purpose was to expand the spheres of influence of its member states and their corporate allies.
Recent escalation of ethnic contradictions in Kosovo (March 2004) shows the complete failure of NATO's “humanitarian” occupation. Kosovo's remaining minorities have no freedom of movement, live in ghettos and face continuous terrorist attacks and the destruction of their property.
“NATO Response Force” and NATO's involvement in the “war on terrorism”
The Prague summit of November 2002 reinserted NATO in the United States ' evolving strategy of world domination, now called ‘war on terrorism' . NATO is now being transformed from a “defence” organisation (1949) over a “defence and security” organisation (1999) towards an “anti-terrorism” organisation.
NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson described the Prague decisions as “ a new capacity plan with strong national commitments to ensure the most urgent needs; concrete proposals to improve NATO's defence capabilities against biological and chemical weapons; a package of anti-terror measures that obliges the Alliance to intervene where and when needed; internal reforms which ensure that the enlarged NATO will remain an effective and flexible organisation. ” In this context the “ NATO Response Force” (NRF) is created, with the objective of ensuring mobile and flexible interventions outside NATO territory. This army for rapid worldwide combat interventions will dispose of 21,000 soldiers by 2006. 3
The concrete content of this new strategy was officially accepted during a NATO meeting in Brussels , in June 2003. Through this fundamental reform of NATO, the alliance is clearly preparing itself to wage wars all over the world to ensure the neo-colonial order. Secretary General Robertson explained: “ This is a new NATO. A NATO able to meet its commitments when times get tough, from the Straits of Gibraltar through the Balkans to southern Turkey . A NATO now preparing to take on a demanding stabilisation mission in the Afghan capital. In short, a NATO transforming its membership, its relationships, its capabilities and its missions. ” 4 He was very clear on NATO's objectives: it wants to play a central role in the strategy to counter all attempts of resistance and opposition against worldwide dominance and hegemony under US leadership. Robertson gave some examples for 2003: “We have recently ended the deployment of surveillance aircraft, missile defence systems and nuclear, biological and chemical protection units to Turkey . We continue to conduct extensive anti-terrorism maritime operations in the Mediterranean . We remain decisively engaged in the Balkans. From August, NATO will take the leading role in the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul , Afghanistan . And last week, NATO agreed to Poland 's request for Alliance support in the role that it is taking on this summer in the stabilisation of Iraq .”
More money for weapons, less money for social security and health…
The ‘peace and stability' that NATO pretends to defend is nothing but ensuring world hegemony by all means necessary. The reform of 2003 contains four central points, as Robertson explained. First of all, a more flexible command structure will take the lead of the alliance: “ All operational commands will be under the control of the new Allied Command Operations, based at SHAPE in Mons , Belgium ”. Second, all member countries made a series of concrete commitments to enhance their military capacities, mainly their air and marine forces. This will necessarily lead to an important increase of the defence budgets of all NATO member states. Third, there is an agreement on “ the creation of a key new tool, the NATO Response Force. This will be a robust rapid reaction fighting force that can be quickly deployed anywhere in the world. It could have an early operational capability by autumn this year” . And finally, as Robertson explained, there is an “ important progress on missile defence, and our terrorism and nuclear, biological and chemical defence packages ”.
These reforms will be implemented rapidly, and Robertson is optimistic: “ The world has changed fundamentally, to become more complex and even more dangerous than before. But NATO has kept pace. It has proved its resilience, strength and determination. It is a decisive factor in our security and in wider stability. A force for the future, already working for peace today .”
As part of the “NATO Defence Capabilities Initiative”, NATO member states have committed themselves to increase their military abilities for “power projection, mobility and increased interoperability”. This will require significant additional military expenditures. European NATO countries have already increased their expenditures for military equipment by 11% in real terms since 1995.
Through NATO, the US is pushing Europe towards higher military expenditure, while ensuring their dependence on the US . The US military budget reached almost 400 billion dollar in 2003, while the military expenses of its NATO allies totalled 165 billion dollar.
During the NATO summit of December 2001, Secretary General Robertson insisted on an increase of these budgets. Italy announced an increase from 1.5% to 2% of its GDP and France would increase its budget for the acquisition of new equipment (+1.7%). In January 2003, the French Parliament decided on an investment of 14.6 billion Euro over 5 years.
Belgium and Germany were criticised by NATO for using only 1.5% of their GDP for military expenses. Germany decided to spend 7.8 billion Euro per year for its defence by 2010, compared to 4.4 billion today. (+ 78%).
Meanwhile, military budgets in the US and Canada have also increased continuously over the past years. The military budgets of NATO countries amounted to about 60% of the world's total military spending (US$798 billion) for the year 2000.
4. NATO's future involvement in Iraq has already been decided
Step by step, NATO is taking up a position as an occupying force in countries colonised by a US aggression. In Afghanistan , NATO has taken over the final responsibility of the occupation. This was a new qualitative step in NATO development. In December 2003, US Secretary of State Colin Powell confirmed that all NATO allies had unanimously agreed on a higher degree of involvement in Iraq . “ Not one NATO-member was against it or gave reasons not to participate” , Powell said, “ not even France and Germany ” . 5 Today, 18 of the 26 NATO members have some kind of military presence in Iraq .
In February 2004, US ambassador to NATO Nicholas Burns spoke about “ a strong political will in the Alliance to do more in Iraq ”. Washington suggested that NATO should take over the command of the divisions in South-Central Iraq that are currently under the command of Poland . But Burns added that the increase of NATO's military presence in Afghanistan would be central in the discussions in the coming months. “ I think it is too early to discuss formally within NATO on a formal role in Iraq . That discussion will come later, maybe in spring or early summer… ”. 6
Following the pledge of Germany , France and Belgium , NATO will only be involved after the formal take over of political power by the Iraqi's at the end of June this year. Even if the new Iraqi government will be a puppet regime completely dependent on the United States, such a façade government would open the way for a UN resolution giving a mandate to NATO for a so-called “peace mission”. By the end of 2004 or early 2005, NATO could be on the ground. Europe really wants to participate in a (peaceful) occupation. Not because of its desire to restore peace and sovereignty for the Iraqi people, but to ensure its part of the profits for ‘our' multinationals…
Of course, the actual developments in Iraq will surely and decisively influence when and how NATO is to participate in the occupation. But the decision has been taken. Only a growing strength of the Iraqi resistance, and (also) the mobilisation capacity of the peace movement all over the world and especially in Europe , could still prevent this from happening.
5. United States versus Europe : growing contradictions
Beyond any doubt, the US is today's only superpower with the strategy, the means and the policy for ensuring and maintaining world hegemony. For the United States , NATO remains an instrument to ensure this global hegemonic order. The US uses NATO to ensure its control over Europe and to prevent all attempts of insubordination to its plans. In 1995 the Pentagon stated that “ NATO is the most important instrument for long lasting American leadership over the European security situation” 7. Steven Metz, an expert of the US Army, alerted that “ (t)he US objective has to be that the European defence capacity develops as a complement, while the leading role of the NATO remains intact”. 8
Through NATO, the United States continues to involve its allies in wars of aggression, like in Yugoslavia , Afghanistan and Iraq . Even if the Secretary General of NATO is always a European, the US only accepts to work with people who ensure that this policy be put into practice. Former NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson, for example, confirmed at the Defence Industry Conference in London , on October 14, 2002 , that “ even in 2015, and despite – indeed, in part because of – a more powerful Europe , the US will provide the indispensable core around which most military coalitions will be built ”. 9
Current NATO Secretary General, the Dutch former Foreign Minister Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, will need all his persuasion power to rebuild transatlantic relations damaged by a row between the United States and France and Germany over the US-led war in Iraq . But the US is confident: de Hoop Scheffer has always been a very strong transatlantic. “If anyone from the transatlantic camp would be good at building bridges with France , he would ”, a diplomatic source told Reuters. 10
De Hoop Scheffer was welcomed with open arms in the White House early 2003 for having lend Dutch political support to the US-led war in Iraq . He is a very suitable candidate for the Americans, but he is still acceptable to the Germans, the French and the Belgians, as the Netherlands did not support the decision to go to war in a military sense but only politically (even if afterwards they sent troops to support the occupation). He is mainly an expression of the existing power balance in NATO: Europe has no option but accepting US rule.
The recent (and ongoing) war on Iraq shows serious contradictions between the United States and the European Union. They are a clear expression of the growing rivalry between the two Western economic powers. This rivalry has been growing since 1989, when the fall of the Soviet Union ended the sacred union against the communist enemy. Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt explained in February of 2003: “ As long as the divisions of the Red Army could reach the Rhine in 48 hours, it was evident to maintain a blood band with our American cousins. But today the Cold War is over, and the contradicting viewpoints can be expressed more openly. From an economic point of view, Europe became a world power. At the international level, Europe takes an own profile, develops its own projects and shows its own ambitions. That's also what explains the tensions that appeared within in Atlantic Alliance .” 11
The differences of strategy between both economic blocs arise from the necessity for Europe to win a more important place in the domination of the world, which can only be achieved at the expense of the United States . The United States is a declining economic power, caught up and even overtaken by the global economic power of the European Union. But US military power remains incomparably superior. In the end it is on this unequalled destructive force that US imperialism is betting in order to maintain and reinforce its domination and exploitation to the utmost. Europe , which is progressing only very timidly in the construction of its Euro Army, is trying to prevent the United States from playing its military cards. Not because of Europe 's dislike of weapons, but because of its lack of weapons.
The militarist objectives of the European oligarchy was already made clear in September 1991, three months before the Maastricht summit, when the European Round Table made its evaluation of the 1991 Gulf War: “The Middle East crisis of 1990 has shown the difficulty to transpose our technical and economic developments on the political scene: there you have the European paradox, an economic giant but a political dwarf. (…) Europe had interests to defend in the Gulf, and ideas on what was to be done. But when force was to be used, Europe had no decision mechanisms nor the means that would have made it possible to intervene. It is today an anachronism to pretend that the Union can manage its economic questions in a satisfactory way while leaving the questions of foreign policy to others” . 12
Pro-free market New York Times journalist Thomas Friedman showed clearly how the global economy is linked to the war, when in March 1999, during the war against Yugoslavia , he wrote: “ The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist - McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the builder of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force and Marine Corps .” 13 It is not superfluous to recall that the European Union has seen itself as an institution at the service of its own multinationals, and that “ if McDonald's needs McDonnell, Danone also needs Dassault ”. 14
Being a military dwarf, Europe has to bet on the economic card to enter the Middle East . For instance, Germany 's exports to Iran went up from 1.6 billion in 1999 to 2.33 billions in 2001. During the first five months of 2002, they increased by 17% over the previous year. Germany has become the biggest importer in the world of Iranian products, oil excluded. Europe would also like to get rid of regimes that are too independent, too attached to their sovereignty, too jealous of their own development. It would like to set up pro-European regimes in Iraq , Iran , Syria and elsewhere by political means, in other words by strengthening the pro-European opposition groups, the so-called “civil society”. At the same time, however, the majority of European countries are aware they cannot yet do without US military power. Through the experience of Yugoslavia and – more sharply – the actual contradictions in Iraq , the European Union is more and more convinced of the necessity of having its own army. Nevertheless, NATO remains the only framework in which Europe can intervene militarily on a large scale in the world today.
Therefore most European states, even if they oppose the aggression against Iraq , gave support to the US war efforts in Iraq in various ways. The US army was allowed to use all the ports, airports and other infrastructures of the NATO countries.
6. NATO's expansion to the East
After NATO's annexation of the Czech Republic , Hungary and Poland some years ago, the membership of Bulgaria , Estonia , Latvia , Lithuania , Romania , Slovakia and Slovenia recently accelerated NATO's expansion to the East.
NATO's expansion into Central and Eastern Europe is a means of integrating the military forces of those countries under NATO (and largely US) control. As military units within NATO, the armed forces of the new NATO member states must submit to the demands for standardisation of military training, weapons and other military equipment. Requirements that new members standardise their military equipment to NATO's exacting specifications is a tremendous boon to US and European military industries, that will benefit greatly from these expanded export markets.
New NATO member states also loose sovereignty over other important aspects of their armed forces, such as the command, control, communications and intelligence functions, which also risk being subsumed under the auspices of NATO standardisation.
The reasons for NATO's eastward expansion are largely economic. For instance, NATO's military access and control over Eastern Europe helps Western European corporations to secure strategic energy resources, such as oil from the Caspian Sea and Central Asia . The US and Western European corporations will greatly benefit from NATO's control of the oil corridor through the Caucasus Mountains . NATO wants its troops to patrol this pipeline and to dominate the Armenian/Russian route to the Caspian Sea . The Caucasus also links the Adriatic-Ceyhan-Baku pipeline with oil-rich countries even farther east, in the former Soviet Central Asia republics of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan . Billions of dollars in oil may someday flow through these corridors to Western Europe for the benefit of Western-based oil companies.
This NATO enlargement has an important influence on the internal contradictions within NATO. From Estonia to Bulgaria , the United States now has 10 new -- or newish -- states within NATO that Washington can count on for support when contradictions US-European contradictions intensify in the future. These countries' membership in NATO strengthens the US relative to Germany and France, US imperialism's “Old Europe” rivals. It puts US forces near Russia 's border, with air bases only five minutes away from St. Petersburg . And young workers in these countries are an additional source of cannon fodder for US military occupations. They are already stationed in Iraq , Afghanistan and Yugoslavia . 15
But Washington had other reasons for this enlargement. Before 1989, the people living in seven new member states were part of the socialist camp. Bulgaria and Romania were independent countries. Estonia , Latvia and Lithuania were republics in the Soviet Union . Slovakia was part of Czechoslovakia . Slovenia was the richest republic of Yugoslavia . The people in all those countries had access to free education, medical care and nearly full employment. Pay differences were relatively small. Now education, medical care and everything else is subject to the “free” market, dominated by the Western monopolies. The few very rich people are rich because of their connections with those monopolies. There are many unemployed and otherwise very poor workers. Living conditions, especially for women workers, have deteriorated sharply. The governments, who accepted all the requirements for entering NATO, want the alliance membership for future protection should the working class in their countries revolt.
7. A growing pressure for a European Army
The European army is at the order of the day, because the European superpower wants to play a role in the struggle for the redivision of the world that was started when the USSR disappeared.
The “war on terrorism” is the pretext of a common struggle where “Americans and Europeans are partners in common values that are beyond discussion” 16. No European government doubts the necessity of NATO. Even those who are most “European” know that, for the defence of their common interests, they still need - for many years – NATO and its infrastructure. Verhofstadt explains his concept of the European army as a “European pillar within NATO”. He adds: “ The solidarity within the Alliance risks to disappear because of its lack of equilibrium: one superpower and 18 states, mainly European, without a common line on defence matters, and of which some still think of being a superpower, while compared to the US, they do not weigh much.”
But for France and Germany (and Belgium ), the European pillar of NATO is only a phase towards the construction of an independent European army comparable to that of the United States . Thus, in certain regions, those who are considered “terrorists” for some, are not necessarily the ‘terrorists' for others. The states that ensure the oil and gas for the European continent are, in many occasions, in conflict with Washington . These “rogue states”, in the definition of the White House, ensure 27% of European oil. And this is without counting the 14% of Russia , the 3% of Algeria and the 2% of Venezuela , all of them countries that do not have very good relations with US imperialism.
This is an essential point on which European and US interests risk to increasingly diverge in the future. The Middle East and Central Asia are more important for the oil provision of Europe than for the US . In this way, this part of the world is strategic for Europe (and for Japan , and for China , the rest of Asia and Russia ). Therefore, the fact that the US is interested to control this region is an affirmation of its desire of hegemony. While at the same time, it is ‘the' place where this supremacy could be challenged.
The confrontation on Iraq during 2002-2003 shows the growing contradictions between US and European imperialism. Clearly, this has less to do with ‘weapons of mass destruction' than with the organisation of a new order in the Arab world.
Thus the demand to accelerate the setting up of a European military force, capable of defending the interests of the European monopolies whenever these diverge from those of the US or another rival or enemy. Ten years ago, France and Germany already developed the Euro corps in which Belgium , Luxemburg and Spain are likewise participating. It was seen as the start of the future European army. Since then, the pillar of common foreign and security policy (CFSP) has been introduced in the Maastricht Treaty (1993). 17 During the Koln summit of June 1999, one month after the war against Yugoslavia , it was decided that a European ‘rapid intervention force' of 60,000 soldiers had to be created.
But contradictions remain and are growing since the Iraq war. While the UK clearly seas the European army as ‘a pillar of NATO', France and Germany (and Belgium) support the constitution op a ‘European vanguard' composed of the countries that want to accelerate the development of a “European Security and Defence Policy”.
8. Conclusion
The French-German-Belgian axis affirms that the constitution of a European army is a necessity to develop a counterweight to the hegemonic policy of the US . They present Europe as a humane, social, ecological and multilateral alternative to the US . Verhofstadt: “The European Union has a more moderate profile in the world than the United States , without being inferior to it. Europe is presented as an example of multilateral cooperation. Europe is seen as a continent sensible to social and ecological problems, as a continent that understands that its own wealth is vulnerable if most of the people of the world are suffering from hunger.” 18
We do not agree with this statement. The European Army is not a solution for the US war policy. It is also an imperialist army, in the service of economic interests of the European monopolies. Its creation increases the danger of war, leads to the militarisation of the economy, the explosion of the military budgets and the breakdown of democratic rights.
If the ‘ Europe of the monopolies' speaks about diplomacy, dialogue and multilateralism, it is mainly because it has not yet the means to impose its views against US military power. The European past in Africa , Latin America , Algeria or Asia shows the ferocity of European imperialism when and where it was dominant. The European army will only accelerate the rivalry and the danger for a major world war. The more this army will be able to develop its capacity for foreign interventions, the more it will reinforce the political capacity of the EU, the more it will make possible an independent European policy in favour of the European multinationals, the more it will offer the possibility to the EU to defend its zones of influence against eventual competitors, e.g. the US. This can lead to important conflicts, as has been seen in the two previous world wars.
One final comment. Undoubtedly, the crisis over Iraq has severely divided NATO. But towards the Middle East , the common interests of Europe and United States are – in the current situation on the ground in Iraq – overwhelmingly more important than what opposes US and EU. Both want to ensure a ‘stable' Middle East region. The US is being forced by reality to let its partners get into the business. And Europe is eager to do so. Notwithstanding all the rancour that might still exist within the alliance, NATO is undergoing a profound transformation into an organisation “ whose main missions are collective security and crisis management and whose main centre of activity is increasingly located in the Muslim world. NATO now provides security in Afghanistan . And beyond that, NATO is now preparing to move into the Middle East .” 19 If and how NATO will enter Iraq will depend on the resistance the Iraqi people develop towards their occupiers. “ Although NATO's current priority is Afghanistan and it is reluctant to enter Iraq unless the members united behind the idea, the principle of engaging the Middle East is not the subject of an argument. Rather the question is how to do so, i.e. the modalities of this engagement. In fact, NATO is clearly moving to create a stronger basis for its relations with the Middle East . NATO's new plan, a so called ‘Greater Middle East Initiative', will be unveiled at its forthcoming Istanbul summit in June .” 20
To block the US war preparations and to preserve world peace, the peoples of the world are right to demand the withdrawal of the US occupation troops from the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq , the dissolution of NATO and the dismantling of all US military bases abroad. The worldwide antiwar movement is growing, while enhanced US aggressivity and NATO's complicity will help us to reinforce its anti-imperialist character.
We oppose any increase of military budgets, any development or production of new weapons. Not one cent, not one man for the imperialist army. No money for imperialist war, but for education, health and employment. We support the right of oppressed nations to defend themselves. We struggle for non-aggression pacts, with the purpose of preserving the sovereignty and the collective security of the nations.
Notes
1 http://www.archives.premier-ministre.gouv.fr/jospin_version2/PM/091297.htm
2 Burkard Schmitt. “From Cooperation to Integration: Defence and Aerospace Industries in Europe ,” Chaillot Paper 40, Paris: Western European Union Institute for Security Studies, June 2000. p.53.
3Robert van de Roer, NAVO gaat ingrijpend reorganiseren, NRC-Handelsblad, 7 juni 2002
4 http://www.NATO.int/docu/update/2003/06-june/e0612a.htm
5www.cnn.com – 4 th of December 2003
6www.yahoo.com – Reuters, 5 th of February 2004
7US Department of Defense , United States security strategy for Europe and NATO, June 1995.
8Steven Metz, The American army in the Balkan, strategic alternatives and implications, Strategic Studies Institute (SSI), januari 2001
9 www.NATO.int/docu/speech/2002/s21014a.html
10http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=376518§ion=news
11Discours prononcé par le premier ministre Guy Verhofstadt à La Haye, le 19 février 2002. (http://www.diplomatie.be/fr/press/speechdetails.asp?TEXTID=4661)
12 ERT, Remodeler l'Europe, Bruxelles, septembre 1991, p.58.
13 Friedman Thomas. New York Times Magazine . 28 th of March of 1999.
14 Geoffry Geuens. The B Russell s Tribunal, Questioning the New Imperial World Order.p.51. Brussels, April 2004. ( www.brusselstribunal.org )
15Stratfor Weekly - 02.04.04
16 Lydia Pnevmaticou, « Aspects juridiques de la politique européenne de sécurité et de défense », Institut d'études de sécurité - Union de l'Europe occidentale, Publications occasionnelles, n°31, novembre 2001, p.1.
17 http://ue.eu.int/Pesc/default.asp?lang=en
18 Discours prononcé par le premier ministre Guy Verhofstadt à La Haye, le 19 février 2002. (http://www.diplomatie.be/fr/press/speechdetails.asp?TEXTID=4661)
19 Stephen Blank, NATO's Drive to the East ( February 11, 2004 ). Stephen Blank is a Professor in the Strategic Studies Institute at the U.S. Army War College . http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Articles/Vol3Issue6/Vol3Issue6BlankPFV.html
20 ibidem
http://www.anti-imperialism.net/lai/texte.php?section=CMBC&language_id=3&object_id=22573
Dr. Pol De Vos (Belgium)
18th of April of 2004
1. Globalisation of the economic crisis
Over the last twenty years, we have witnessed gigantic waves of capital concentration on a world scale. Currently, a dozen of multinationals control the various sectors of the world economy. The world's two hundred major multinationals represent 25% of the world's manufacturing value. A few thousands of multinationals (on a total of 65,000) own the major part of the means of production and set them in motion for the single purpose of realising a maximum of profits for the shareholders.
Everywhere exploitation is intensifying. The number of workers is being reduced, while productivity is drastically increased. The workers are overexploited and underpaid. The vast majority of the world population is kept outside of modern industrial production. Developing countries are groaning under the burden of 2,500 billion dollar in debts, while privatisation has allowed American and European multinationals to take over most of their wealth and enterprises.
Overproduction and crisis have become a generalised phenomenon. In twenty years of neoliberal globalisation, short-term cures to the crisis have run out. In spite of all “gains” achieved, the United States has been confronted with the most serious crisis of its entire history. The US superpower now places its bets mainly on the “military globalisation”, on its overwhelming military superiority, in order to save its multinationals, at the expense of the rest of the world. They try to boost the economy through massive arms production, while ensuring a worldwide hegemonic position and grabbing sources of raw materials and markets…
Also the European Union (EU) has become an imperialist bloc that is able to compete with the United States in the economic and financial fields. The Euro is challenging the position of the US dollar as the only international reserve currency. A transfer to the Euro of a significant part of the current world reserves held in dollars would provoke an economic earthquake. The same holds true if a major part of the oil trade, now in US currency, would shift to the Euro.
2. Concentration of arms production in the USA and Europe
The worldwide concentration of capital also took place in the military industry. From 1990 to 1998, a series of mergers and acquisitions in the USA led to the establishment of four large producers in the aerospace sector: Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and Boeing. From 1998 to 2002, the rate of concentration among large companies slowed down, but the process continued at the level of subcontractors. Concentration reduced the number of 'prime contractors' - the end producers of major weapons systems - dramatically throughout the 1990s. In the USA for instance, in 1990 13 suppliers of tactical missiles were operating. By 2000 they had merged into 3 major companies.
While the process of concentration and consolidation in the US arms industry has been predominantly national, the arms industries in the Western European countries have continued the process of concentration beyond the national level, as a consequence of their domestic ‘markets' and their national procurement budgets being smaller. Since the late 1990s there have been a number of major mergers and acquisitions, and the formation of joint ventures in Europe . One result of this is the evolution of three major Western European arms producing companies: BAe Systems, EADS and Thales. While they were integrating most major arms producing capacities in the market segments of their respective home countries under one roof, they were also acquiring arms production assets abroad.
Governments supported the concentration through the establishment of a wide array of joint armaments programmes, the signing of letters of intent and framework agreement s, and support for the creation of joint ventures.
The transatlantic dimension of this internationalisation is more limited because of a range of issues related to technology transfer and – mainly – preferences for domestic procurement in the context of Euro-American competition.
The concentration in military production in Europe is – like in the US – part of a more global militarisation of the economy, as an essential element of the construction of military Europe . Different organs have been put in place. In 1993, the COARM was founded, which is the group of “conventional arms exports”, depending directly on the European Council. Its objective is to coordinate the exports to third countries. In 1995 follows the POLARM, the “European arms policy” group, also linked to the European Council. Its experts are tasked to develop a common strategy. On November 12, 1996 , the Common Organisation for Cooperation in the field of Armament (OCCAR) is created, on the initiative of the four largest countries of the Union : France , Germany , United Kingdom and Italy . It has the objective to coordinate their military industrial policies. After Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas in 1997, the European leaders feared to see their military industry overwhelmed by their American competitors. Airbus was in danger. In December 1997, the heads of state of Germany , France and the UK signed a joint declaration. They confirmed that “ France , Germany and the UK have a same essential political and economic interest in ensuring that Europe has an efficient and competitive industry in the field of aerospace and defence electronics. This will make possible for Europe to improve its commercial position in the world, to reinforce its security and to ensure that it plays its full role in its own defence. We agreed on the urgent necessity to reorganise the industry in the field of aerospace and defence electronics. This process should include, in the aerospace sector, civil and military activities, and lead to a European integration based on an equilibrated partnership.” 1 On March 27, 1998 , the presidents of the societies participating in the Airbus project (DASA, British Aerospace and Aérospatiale) proposed to develop an integrated company, the European Aerospace and Defence Company (EADC). The agreement was signed in December 1999. EADC controls 80% of Airbus, which represents 50% of its sales turnover, 100% of Eurocopter, 62.5% of Eurofighter, 25.9% of Arianespace, 75% of Astrium, 46% of Dassault, etc. The (French) group Lagardère and the (German) group Daimler (this means the Deutsche Bank) dominate EADC.
The European concentration leads to the constitution of some very powerful groups. Besides EADC there is BAe Systems, the new name for British Aerospace, which became the first defence industry in the world, after taking over the activities of systems control of Lockheed Martin. Its president defined his society as “ the first American society in Europe and the first European society in the US ” 2. Its weight is more important in the US than in Europe . Which is – together with coinciding oil interests – an important element to explain the British eagerness to participate in the US war against Iraq . EADS became the ‘real' European pole, but it is strongly linked to BAe Systems.
These industrial developments – in the US and in Europe – induce a worldwide arms race. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, about 80% of the world's total military equipment is produced by NATO members (figures of 1996). The following NATO members are among the world's top ten military producers: the US , the UK , France , Germany , Italy and Canada . The US , the UK and France alone accounted for about 70% of the world's total arms production for that year.
3. NATO's changing strategy
Yugoslavia 1999: “the new strategic concept”
After the disappearance of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, NATO became increasingly irrelevant as a defensive alliance. With the purpose of using the Alliance for its worldwide ambitions, the United States pushed towards a redefinition of the NATO doctrine. NATO should not only serve for the defence of the territorial integrity of its members but also for “humanitarian interventions” outside its territory.
This new strategy was put into practice in the war against Yugoslavia . There, for the first time, NATO intervened outside the territory of the Treaty. This “new strategic concept” was ratified afterwards at a summit in Washington at the end of April 1999. NATO's so-called "humanitarian war" in Yugoslavia was sold to the public as a means of settling conflicts between ethnic groups, while its real purpose was to expand the spheres of influence of its member states and their corporate allies.
Recent escalation of ethnic contradictions in Kosovo (March 2004) shows the complete failure of NATO's “humanitarian” occupation. Kosovo's remaining minorities have no freedom of movement, live in ghettos and face continuous terrorist attacks and the destruction of their property.
“NATO Response Force” and NATO's involvement in the “war on terrorism”
The Prague summit of November 2002 reinserted NATO in the United States ' evolving strategy of world domination, now called ‘war on terrorism' . NATO is now being transformed from a “defence” organisation (1949) over a “defence and security” organisation (1999) towards an “anti-terrorism” organisation.
NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson described the Prague decisions as “ a new capacity plan with strong national commitments to ensure the most urgent needs; concrete proposals to improve NATO's defence capabilities against biological and chemical weapons; a package of anti-terror measures that obliges the Alliance to intervene where and when needed; internal reforms which ensure that the enlarged NATO will remain an effective and flexible organisation. ” In this context the “ NATO Response Force” (NRF) is created, with the objective of ensuring mobile and flexible interventions outside NATO territory. This army for rapid worldwide combat interventions will dispose of 21,000 soldiers by 2006. 3
The concrete content of this new strategy was officially accepted during a NATO meeting in Brussels , in June 2003. Through this fundamental reform of NATO, the alliance is clearly preparing itself to wage wars all over the world to ensure the neo-colonial order. Secretary General Robertson explained: “ This is a new NATO. A NATO able to meet its commitments when times get tough, from the Straits of Gibraltar through the Balkans to southern Turkey . A NATO now preparing to take on a demanding stabilisation mission in the Afghan capital. In short, a NATO transforming its membership, its relationships, its capabilities and its missions. ” 4 He was very clear on NATO's objectives: it wants to play a central role in the strategy to counter all attempts of resistance and opposition against worldwide dominance and hegemony under US leadership. Robertson gave some examples for 2003: “We have recently ended the deployment of surveillance aircraft, missile defence systems and nuclear, biological and chemical protection units to Turkey . We continue to conduct extensive anti-terrorism maritime operations in the Mediterranean . We remain decisively engaged in the Balkans. From August, NATO will take the leading role in the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul , Afghanistan . And last week, NATO agreed to Poland 's request for Alliance support in the role that it is taking on this summer in the stabilisation of Iraq .”
More money for weapons, less money for social security and health…
The ‘peace and stability' that NATO pretends to defend is nothing but ensuring world hegemony by all means necessary. The reform of 2003 contains four central points, as Robertson explained. First of all, a more flexible command structure will take the lead of the alliance: “ All operational commands will be under the control of the new Allied Command Operations, based at SHAPE in Mons , Belgium ”. Second, all member countries made a series of concrete commitments to enhance their military capacities, mainly their air and marine forces. This will necessarily lead to an important increase of the defence budgets of all NATO member states. Third, there is an agreement on “ the creation of a key new tool, the NATO Response Force. This will be a robust rapid reaction fighting force that can be quickly deployed anywhere in the world. It could have an early operational capability by autumn this year” . And finally, as Robertson explained, there is an “ important progress on missile defence, and our terrorism and nuclear, biological and chemical defence packages ”.
These reforms will be implemented rapidly, and Robertson is optimistic: “ The world has changed fundamentally, to become more complex and even more dangerous than before. But NATO has kept pace. It has proved its resilience, strength and determination. It is a decisive factor in our security and in wider stability. A force for the future, already working for peace today .”
As part of the “NATO Defence Capabilities Initiative”, NATO member states have committed themselves to increase their military abilities for “power projection, mobility and increased interoperability”. This will require significant additional military expenditures. European NATO countries have already increased their expenditures for military equipment by 11% in real terms since 1995.
Through NATO, the US is pushing Europe towards higher military expenditure, while ensuring their dependence on the US . The US military budget reached almost 400 billion dollar in 2003, while the military expenses of its NATO allies totalled 165 billion dollar.
During the NATO summit of December 2001, Secretary General Robertson insisted on an increase of these budgets. Italy announced an increase from 1.5% to 2% of its GDP and France would increase its budget for the acquisition of new equipment (+1.7%). In January 2003, the French Parliament decided on an investment of 14.6 billion Euro over 5 years.
Belgium and Germany were criticised by NATO for using only 1.5% of their GDP for military expenses. Germany decided to spend 7.8 billion Euro per year for its defence by 2010, compared to 4.4 billion today. (+ 78%).
Meanwhile, military budgets in the US and Canada have also increased continuously over the past years. The military budgets of NATO countries amounted to about 60% of the world's total military spending (US$798 billion) for the year 2000.
4. NATO's future involvement in Iraq has already been decided
Step by step, NATO is taking up a position as an occupying force in countries colonised by a US aggression. In Afghanistan , NATO has taken over the final responsibility of the occupation. This was a new qualitative step in NATO development. In December 2003, US Secretary of State Colin Powell confirmed that all NATO allies had unanimously agreed on a higher degree of involvement in Iraq . “ Not one NATO-member was against it or gave reasons not to participate” , Powell said, “ not even France and Germany ” . 5 Today, 18 of the 26 NATO members have some kind of military presence in Iraq .
In February 2004, US ambassador to NATO Nicholas Burns spoke about “ a strong political will in the Alliance to do more in Iraq ”. Washington suggested that NATO should take over the command of the divisions in South-Central Iraq that are currently under the command of Poland . But Burns added that the increase of NATO's military presence in Afghanistan would be central in the discussions in the coming months. “ I think it is too early to discuss formally within NATO on a formal role in Iraq . That discussion will come later, maybe in spring or early summer… ”. 6
Following the pledge of Germany , France and Belgium , NATO will only be involved after the formal take over of political power by the Iraqi's at the end of June this year. Even if the new Iraqi government will be a puppet regime completely dependent on the United States, such a façade government would open the way for a UN resolution giving a mandate to NATO for a so-called “peace mission”. By the end of 2004 or early 2005, NATO could be on the ground. Europe really wants to participate in a (peaceful) occupation. Not because of its desire to restore peace and sovereignty for the Iraqi people, but to ensure its part of the profits for ‘our' multinationals…
Of course, the actual developments in Iraq will surely and decisively influence when and how NATO is to participate in the occupation. But the decision has been taken. Only a growing strength of the Iraqi resistance, and (also) the mobilisation capacity of the peace movement all over the world and especially in Europe , could still prevent this from happening.
5. United States versus Europe : growing contradictions
Beyond any doubt, the US is today's only superpower with the strategy, the means and the policy for ensuring and maintaining world hegemony. For the United States , NATO remains an instrument to ensure this global hegemonic order. The US uses NATO to ensure its control over Europe and to prevent all attempts of insubordination to its plans. In 1995 the Pentagon stated that “ NATO is the most important instrument for long lasting American leadership over the European security situation” 7. Steven Metz, an expert of the US Army, alerted that “ (t)he US objective has to be that the European defence capacity develops as a complement, while the leading role of the NATO remains intact”. 8
Through NATO, the United States continues to involve its allies in wars of aggression, like in Yugoslavia , Afghanistan and Iraq . Even if the Secretary General of NATO is always a European, the US only accepts to work with people who ensure that this policy be put into practice. Former NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson, for example, confirmed at the Defence Industry Conference in London , on October 14, 2002 , that “ even in 2015, and despite – indeed, in part because of – a more powerful Europe , the US will provide the indispensable core around which most military coalitions will be built ”. 9
Current NATO Secretary General, the Dutch former Foreign Minister Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, will need all his persuasion power to rebuild transatlantic relations damaged by a row between the United States and France and Germany over the US-led war in Iraq . But the US is confident: de Hoop Scheffer has always been a very strong transatlantic. “If anyone from the transatlantic camp would be good at building bridges with France , he would ”, a diplomatic source told Reuters. 10
De Hoop Scheffer was welcomed with open arms in the White House early 2003 for having lend Dutch political support to the US-led war in Iraq . He is a very suitable candidate for the Americans, but he is still acceptable to the Germans, the French and the Belgians, as the Netherlands did not support the decision to go to war in a military sense but only politically (even if afterwards they sent troops to support the occupation). He is mainly an expression of the existing power balance in NATO: Europe has no option but accepting US rule.
The recent (and ongoing) war on Iraq shows serious contradictions between the United States and the European Union. They are a clear expression of the growing rivalry between the two Western economic powers. This rivalry has been growing since 1989, when the fall of the Soviet Union ended the sacred union against the communist enemy. Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt explained in February of 2003: “ As long as the divisions of the Red Army could reach the Rhine in 48 hours, it was evident to maintain a blood band with our American cousins. But today the Cold War is over, and the contradicting viewpoints can be expressed more openly. From an economic point of view, Europe became a world power. At the international level, Europe takes an own profile, develops its own projects and shows its own ambitions. That's also what explains the tensions that appeared within in Atlantic Alliance .” 11
The differences of strategy between both economic blocs arise from the necessity for Europe to win a more important place in the domination of the world, which can only be achieved at the expense of the United States . The United States is a declining economic power, caught up and even overtaken by the global economic power of the European Union. But US military power remains incomparably superior. In the end it is on this unequalled destructive force that US imperialism is betting in order to maintain and reinforce its domination and exploitation to the utmost. Europe , which is progressing only very timidly in the construction of its Euro Army, is trying to prevent the United States from playing its military cards. Not because of Europe 's dislike of weapons, but because of its lack of weapons.
The militarist objectives of the European oligarchy was already made clear in September 1991, three months before the Maastricht summit, when the European Round Table made its evaluation of the 1991 Gulf War: “The Middle East crisis of 1990 has shown the difficulty to transpose our technical and economic developments on the political scene: there you have the European paradox, an economic giant but a political dwarf. (…) Europe had interests to defend in the Gulf, and ideas on what was to be done. But when force was to be used, Europe had no decision mechanisms nor the means that would have made it possible to intervene. It is today an anachronism to pretend that the Union can manage its economic questions in a satisfactory way while leaving the questions of foreign policy to others” . 12
Pro-free market New York Times journalist Thomas Friedman showed clearly how the global economy is linked to the war, when in March 1999, during the war against Yugoslavia , he wrote: “ The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist - McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the builder of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force and Marine Corps .” 13 It is not superfluous to recall that the European Union has seen itself as an institution at the service of its own multinationals, and that “ if McDonald's needs McDonnell, Danone also needs Dassault ”. 14
Being a military dwarf, Europe has to bet on the economic card to enter the Middle East . For instance, Germany 's exports to Iran went up from 1.6 billion in 1999 to 2.33 billions in 2001. During the first five months of 2002, they increased by 17% over the previous year. Germany has become the biggest importer in the world of Iranian products, oil excluded. Europe would also like to get rid of regimes that are too independent, too attached to their sovereignty, too jealous of their own development. It would like to set up pro-European regimes in Iraq , Iran , Syria and elsewhere by political means, in other words by strengthening the pro-European opposition groups, the so-called “civil society”. At the same time, however, the majority of European countries are aware they cannot yet do without US military power. Through the experience of Yugoslavia and – more sharply – the actual contradictions in Iraq , the European Union is more and more convinced of the necessity of having its own army. Nevertheless, NATO remains the only framework in which Europe can intervene militarily on a large scale in the world today.
Therefore most European states, even if they oppose the aggression against Iraq , gave support to the US war efforts in Iraq in various ways. The US army was allowed to use all the ports, airports and other infrastructures of the NATO countries.
6. NATO's expansion to the East
After NATO's annexation of the Czech Republic , Hungary and Poland some years ago, the membership of Bulgaria , Estonia , Latvia , Lithuania , Romania , Slovakia and Slovenia recently accelerated NATO's expansion to the East.
NATO's expansion into Central and Eastern Europe is a means of integrating the military forces of those countries under NATO (and largely US) control. As military units within NATO, the armed forces of the new NATO member states must submit to the demands for standardisation of military training, weapons and other military equipment. Requirements that new members standardise their military equipment to NATO's exacting specifications is a tremendous boon to US and European military industries, that will benefit greatly from these expanded export markets.
New NATO member states also loose sovereignty over other important aspects of their armed forces, such as the command, control, communications and intelligence functions, which also risk being subsumed under the auspices of NATO standardisation.
The reasons for NATO's eastward expansion are largely economic. For instance, NATO's military access and control over Eastern Europe helps Western European corporations to secure strategic energy resources, such as oil from the Caspian Sea and Central Asia . The US and Western European corporations will greatly benefit from NATO's control of the oil corridor through the Caucasus Mountains . NATO wants its troops to patrol this pipeline and to dominate the Armenian/Russian route to the Caspian Sea . The Caucasus also links the Adriatic-Ceyhan-Baku pipeline with oil-rich countries even farther east, in the former Soviet Central Asia republics of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan . Billions of dollars in oil may someday flow through these corridors to Western Europe for the benefit of Western-based oil companies.
This NATO enlargement has an important influence on the internal contradictions within NATO. From Estonia to Bulgaria , the United States now has 10 new -- or newish -- states within NATO that Washington can count on for support when contradictions US-European contradictions intensify in the future. These countries' membership in NATO strengthens the US relative to Germany and France, US imperialism's “Old Europe” rivals. It puts US forces near Russia 's border, with air bases only five minutes away from St. Petersburg . And young workers in these countries are an additional source of cannon fodder for US military occupations. They are already stationed in Iraq , Afghanistan and Yugoslavia . 15
But Washington had other reasons for this enlargement. Before 1989, the people living in seven new member states were part of the socialist camp. Bulgaria and Romania were independent countries. Estonia , Latvia and Lithuania were republics in the Soviet Union . Slovakia was part of Czechoslovakia . Slovenia was the richest republic of Yugoslavia . The people in all those countries had access to free education, medical care and nearly full employment. Pay differences were relatively small. Now education, medical care and everything else is subject to the “free” market, dominated by the Western monopolies. The few very rich people are rich because of their connections with those monopolies. There are many unemployed and otherwise very poor workers. Living conditions, especially for women workers, have deteriorated sharply. The governments, who accepted all the requirements for entering NATO, want the alliance membership for future protection should the working class in their countries revolt.
7. A growing pressure for a European Army
The European army is at the order of the day, because the European superpower wants to play a role in the struggle for the redivision of the world that was started when the USSR disappeared.
The “war on terrorism” is the pretext of a common struggle where “Americans and Europeans are partners in common values that are beyond discussion” 16. No European government doubts the necessity of NATO. Even those who are most “European” know that, for the defence of their common interests, they still need - for many years – NATO and its infrastructure. Verhofstadt explains his concept of the European army as a “European pillar within NATO”. He adds: “ The solidarity within the Alliance risks to disappear because of its lack of equilibrium: one superpower and 18 states, mainly European, without a common line on defence matters, and of which some still think of being a superpower, while compared to the US, they do not weigh much.”
But for France and Germany (and Belgium ), the European pillar of NATO is only a phase towards the construction of an independent European army comparable to that of the United States . Thus, in certain regions, those who are considered “terrorists” for some, are not necessarily the ‘terrorists' for others. The states that ensure the oil and gas for the European continent are, in many occasions, in conflict with Washington . These “rogue states”, in the definition of the White House, ensure 27% of European oil. And this is without counting the 14% of Russia , the 3% of Algeria and the 2% of Venezuela , all of them countries that do not have very good relations with US imperialism.
This is an essential point on which European and US interests risk to increasingly diverge in the future. The Middle East and Central Asia are more important for the oil provision of Europe than for the US . In this way, this part of the world is strategic for Europe (and for Japan , and for China , the rest of Asia and Russia ). Therefore, the fact that the US is interested to control this region is an affirmation of its desire of hegemony. While at the same time, it is ‘the' place where this supremacy could be challenged.
The confrontation on Iraq during 2002-2003 shows the growing contradictions between US and European imperialism. Clearly, this has less to do with ‘weapons of mass destruction' than with the organisation of a new order in the Arab world.
Thus the demand to accelerate the setting up of a European military force, capable of defending the interests of the European monopolies whenever these diverge from those of the US or another rival or enemy. Ten years ago, France and Germany already developed the Euro corps in which Belgium , Luxemburg and Spain are likewise participating. It was seen as the start of the future European army. Since then, the pillar of common foreign and security policy (CFSP) has been introduced in the Maastricht Treaty (1993). 17 During the Koln summit of June 1999, one month after the war against Yugoslavia , it was decided that a European ‘rapid intervention force' of 60,000 soldiers had to be created.
But contradictions remain and are growing since the Iraq war. While the UK clearly seas the European army as ‘a pillar of NATO', France and Germany (and Belgium) support the constitution op a ‘European vanguard' composed of the countries that want to accelerate the development of a “European Security and Defence Policy”.
8. Conclusion
The French-German-Belgian axis affirms that the constitution of a European army is a necessity to develop a counterweight to the hegemonic policy of the US . They present Europe as a humane, social, ecological and multilateral alternative to the US . Verhofstadt: “The European Union has a more moderate profile in the world than the United States , without being inferior to it. Europe is presented as an example of multilateral cooperation. Europe is seen as a continent sensible to social and ecological problems, as a continent that understands that its own wealth is vulnerable if most of the people of the world are suffering from hunger.” 18
We do not agree with this statement. The European Army is not a solution for the US war policy. It is also an imperialist army, in the service of economic interests of the European monopolies. Its creation increases the danger of war, leads to the militarisation of the economy, the explosion of the military budgets and the breakdown of democratic rights.
If the ‘ Europe of the monopolies' speaks about diplomacy, dialogue and multilateralism, it is mainly because it has not yet the means to impose its views against US military power. The European past in Africa , Latin America , Algeria or Asia shows the ferocity of European imperialism when and where it was dominant. The European army will only accelerate the rivalry and the danger for a major world war. The more this army will be able to develop its capacity for foreign interventions, the more it will reinforce the political capacity of the EU, the more it will make possible an independent European policy in favour of the European multinationals, the more it will offer the possibility to the EU to defend its zones of influence against eventual competitors, e.g. the US. This can lead to important conflicts, as has been seen in the two previous world wars.
One final comment. Undoubtedly, the crisis over Iraq has severely divided NATO. But towards the Middle East , the common interests of Europe and United States are – in the current situation on the ground in Iraq – overwhelmingly more important than what opposes US and EU. Both want to ensure a ‘stable' Middle East region. The US is being forced by reality to let its partners get into the business. And Europe is eager to do so. Notwithstanding all the rancour that might still exist within the alliance, NATO is undergoing a profound transformation into an organisation “ whose main missions are collective security and crisis management and whose main centre of activity is increasingly located in the Muslim world. NATO now provides security in Afghanistan . And beyond that, NATO is now preparing to move into the Middle East .” 19 If and how NATO will enter Iraq will depend on the resistance the Iraqi people develop towards their occupiers. “ Although NATO's current priority is Afghanistan and it is reluctant to enter Iraq unless the members united behind the idea, the principle of engaging the Middle East is not the subject of an argument. Rather the question is how to do so, i.e. the modalities of this engagement. In fact, NATO is clearly moving to create a stronger basis for its relations with the Middle East . NATO's new plan, a so called ‘Greater Middle East Initiative', will be unveiled at its forthcoming Istanbul summit in June .” 20
To block the US war preparations and to preserve world peace, the peoples of the world are right to demand the withdrawal of the US occupation troops from the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq , the dissolution of NATO and the dismantling of all US military bases abroad. The worldwide antiwar movement is growing, while enhanced US aggressivity and NATO's complicity will help us to reinforce its anti-imperialist character.
We oppose any increase of military budgets, any development or production of new weapons. Not one cent, not one man for the imperialist army. No money for imperialist war, but for education, health and employment. We support the right of oppressed nations to defend themselves. We struggle for non-aggression pacts, with the purpose of preserving the sovereignty and the collective security of the nations.
Notes
1 http://www.archives.premier-ministre.gouv.fr/jospin_version2/PM/091297.htm
2 Burkard Schmitt. “From Cooperation to Integration: Defence and Aerospace Industries in Europe ,” Chaillot Paper 40, Paris: Western European Union Institute for Security Studies, June 2000. p.53.
3Robert van de Roer, NAVO gaat ingrijpend reorganiseren, NRC-Handelsblad, 7 juni 2002
4 http://www.NATO.int/docu/update/2003/06-june/e0612a.htm
5www.cnn.com – 4 th of December 2003
6www.yahoo.com – Reuters, 5 th of February 2004
7US Department of Defense , United States security strategy for Europe and NATO, June 1995.
8Steven Metz, The American army in the Balkan, strategic alternatives and implications, Strategic Studies Institute (SSI), januari 2001
9 www.NATO.int/docu/speech/2002/s21014a.html
10http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=376518§ion=news
11Discours prononcé par le premier ministre Guy Verhofstadt à La Haye, le 19 février 2002. (http://www.diplomatie.be/fr/press/speechdetails.asp?TEXTID=4661)
12 ERT, Remodeler l'Europe, Bruxelles, septembre 1991, p.58.
13 Friedman Thomas. New York Times Magazine . 28 th of March of 1999.
14 Geoffry Geuens. The B Russell s Tribunal, Questioning the New Imperial World Order.p.51. Brussels, April 2004. ( www.brusselstribunal.org )
15Stratfor Weekly - 02.04.04
16 Lydia Pnevmaticou, « Aspects juridiques de la politique européenne de sécurité et de défense », Institut d'études de sécurité - Union de l'Europe occidentale, Publications occasionnelles, n°31, novembre 2001, p.1.
17 http://ue.eu.int/Pesc/default.asp?lang=en
18 Discours prononcé par le premier ministre Guy Verhofstadt à La Haye, le 19 février 2002. (http://www.diplomatie.be/fr/press/speechdetails.asp?TEXTID=4661)
19 Stephen Blank, NATO's Drive to the East ( February 11, 2004 ). Stephen Blank is a Professor in the Strategic Studies Institute at the U.S. Army War College . http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Articles/Vol3Issue6/Vol3Issue6BlankPFV.html
20 ibidem
http://www.anti-imperialism.net/lai/texte.php?section=CMBC&language_id=3&object_id=22573
Discover What Traders Are Watching
Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.
