[CTRL] The New World Disorder

[Tatman, Robert]

 -Caveat Lector-

http://www.marxist.com/Theory/worldrelations.html
The New World Disorder
World Relations at the dawn of the 21st Century
"Just as the 19th century came to a close with the outbreak of the first
world war in 1914, the war that has started in Kosovo, Europe's first since
1945, marks our true entrance into the 21st century. That we should be
entering a new era in the same tragic way we did the previous one, and more
or less in the same place, is highly symbolic... The events taking place
there reflect the changing clout of the various international actors..."

"The United States is clearly the sole 'hyper power', an imbalance that
could prove damaging."

Dominique Moisi, deputy director of the Paris-based Institut Francais des
Relations Internationales writing in the Financial Times (29/3/99)

Exactly one hundred years ago Kropotkin wrote that war is the normal
condition of Europe. Yet for a long period--half a century--this dismal
prediction appeared to be contradicted by reality. In the period after the
Second World War, world capitalism experienced a strong period of growth.
This was the objective basis for the relative stability of relations between
the classes, and also between the national states in the post-war period. It
was this long period of economic upswing--together with the division of the
world between US imperialism and the USSR--which gave rise to this relative
stability in world relations. But now everything has changed.

The reason why they could get this so-called peace was because of the
balance of terror between mighty Stalinist Russia on the one hand and mighty
American imperialism on the other. The struggle between two mutually
contradictory social systems with the so-called 'cold war'.

The changing face of war

For a period of 50 years after the Second World War, there was relative
stability in world relations, based on the balance of terror between
Stalinist Russia on the one hand and American Imperialism on the other. They
divided the whole world up into what seemed to be immutable blocs and
spheres of influence. At that time there would have been no question
whatever of the Americans attacking Yugoslavia or bombing Iraq. It would
have led to war between the USA and the Soviet Union, and such a war was
ruled out for 50 years. It was impossible for the reasons that Engels
anticipated over a hundred years ago. At that time it was wrong--as the
great slaughter of 1914-18 subsequently showed. But it was right for the
last 50 years. The Cold War was the manifestation of a struggle between two
mutually contradictory social systems on a world scale. In this so-called
period of peace, the fundamental contradictions were not removed. On the
contrary. Tremendous contradictions were building up. This was revealed by
the monstrous arms race, which devoured a large part of the wealth of
society. The question is: why these contradictions did not lead to war
between America and Russia at that time?

Towards the end of his life, old Engels wrote of the development of
imperialism and militarism, which were then new phenomena. Up until the
French revolution there were never standing armies. The monarchical states
of the 18th century maintained small professional armies. The French
Revolution changed all that. Before the French Revolution, it was fairly
common for the generals of two contending armies to arrive at a gentleman's
agreement to avoid a costly battle by deciding which side had "won". War was
an expensive business! This kind of warfare was undermined, first by the
American revolutionary War of Independence, when the colonial irregulars, in
Engels' words, refused to dance the military minuet with the forces of the
English crown. But it was completely destroyed by the French revolution
which, for the first time, confronted reactionary-feudal Europe with the
spectacle of an armed revolutionary people.

Brilliant revolutionary generals like Lazare Carnot evolved entirely new
military tactics and methods, especially the leveé en masse, in effect a
mobilisation of the whole people, which carried all before it. Bismarck
learnt that from the French Revolution. As early as 1807 Hardenberg wrote to
the king of Prussia: "We must do from above what the French have done from
below." The Prussians based themselves on Carnot's idea of an armed people,
but did so in the reactionary spirit of militarism. Nevertheless, the
Prussian military machine was perfected and won a series of spectacular
victories. This enabled the conservative Junker Bismarck to carry out the
historically progressive task of German unification, but in a reactionary
way--under the domination of feudal-bureaucratic Prussia.

By the 1890s the Prussian state, always bureaucratic and militaristic in
spirit, had evolved into a vast monster, spending unprecedented sums on
armaments. The French and others naturally followed the trend. The whole of
Europe was becoming transformed into a huge armed camp. When Engels saw the
vast accumulation of military might of Germany and other powers and new
weapons of destruction he concluded that this could lead to the collapse of
the state. He also thought that it might mean that a European war might now
be impossible. Later history proved that Engels was mistaken. The
antagonisms between Germany, France, Britain, Russia and Austro-Hungary led
to the First World War, the fuse for which was lit in the Balkans. That war
led to at least ten million dead and reduced Europe to rubble. The Second
World War led to 55 million dead, and came very close to destroying
civilisation. Although Engels was wrong at the time he predicted that war
had become too expensive, his arguments are correct today. What Engels wrote
at that time about military expenditure and militarism is nothing compared
to the present situation. In the last period world arms expenditure has
amounted to over a trillion dollars. Since 1945, there have been no more
world wars.

This was a period of "peace", at any rate as far as the great powers were
concerned. As a matter of fact, for most of the world peace remained an
unattainable dream even in this period. For the last 50 years on a world
scale there were just 17 days of peace. There was always a war going on in
some part of the world--mainly the colonial world. There were the long wars
of liberation in Kenya, Algeria, Angola, Mozambique and others. There were
important wars involving the great powers using proxies, like the Korean War
and the Vietnam War. Later on we had the wars in Nicaragua and Afghanistan,
the Gulf War and finally the war in Kosovo. This was the first war in Europe
for 50 years. It represents a decisive turning point which will have all
manner of repercussions far beyond the immediate issues on the Balkans.

The question of war is a very concrete question. Why has there not been a
war between the great powers in the last 50 years? Why, despite all the
crying contradictions, was there no war between America and Russia? The
answer is quite clear. With the development of nuclear weapons, there has
been a change in the nature of war. The bourgeoisie does not wage war for
fun, or patriotism, or to save the poor Kosovars, or to save little Belgium,
or anything of that character. They wage war for profits, for markets, for
raw materials and for spheres of influence. They do not wage wars to
exterminate people. That is not the point of imperialist wars. That wasn't
even the purpose of the Mongols under Gengis Khan although they did
exterminate a lot of people. But although he used mass terror as a weapon of
war, Gengis Khan's aim was not to exterminate the whole population, but to
conquer and enslave them and to extract loot from them in the form of
tribute.

The purpose of capitalist wars is to capture markets, not to exterminate
whole populations. But a nuclear war would have signified the complete
destruction of both Russia and America--at the very least. This makes
absolutely no sense from a capitalist standpoint. Although there were some
crazy American generals who did arithmetic calculations to try to prove
that, even if a nuclear war killed a few tens of million people in the USA,
that would be all right, because America would have won--such a view was not
taken seriously by the US Establishment, but merely confirmed them in the
truth of President Truman's assessment of the mental abilities of American
generals when he said that war is too serious a business to be left to the
generals.

The amounts currently spent on arms especially by the main imperialist
powers make the arms spending of Bismarck and even Hitler look like child's
play. After the fall of the Berlin Wall there was a lot of talk in the West
of a "Peace Dividend". The perspective was put forward of a new world order
in which the whole world would enter a long period of peace and prosperity
under the aegis of the USA, the sole world super-power. But things worked
out differently. The ink was not dry on George Bush's speech when the Gulf
War broke out. Now, over the issue of Kosovo, we have just experienced the
first war on European soil since 1945. Far from giving a lead in disarming,
the USA continues to arm to the teeth. In the United States every year for
every American citizen $804 is spent on arms. France is next in line, with
an annual expenditure of $642 per head on arms.

Britain, which despite its total loss of economic and industrial power,
likes to pretend that it is still mighty, spends $484--an absurd figure for
a country which, having lost its industrial superiority, was long ago
reduced to a second-rate world power. In the Kosovo war, Tony Blair
pretended to act as the representative of a big power. But his attempted
imitation of Winston Churchill fooled nobody. Given the doubts and
hesitations of his other European allies, it suited Clinton to humour his
over-zealous "friend" in London and, at least for a time, to play along with
his delusions of grandeur. Other people in America were not amused. They
grumbled that the British, with their shrill demands for a "war to the
finish" were prepared to fight to the last drop of American blood. Because,
in the event of a ground war, it would have been the Americans, not the
British or French, who would have had to do most of the fighting--and take
most of the casualties.

The question must be asked: what is the purpose of this insane arms race?
During the Cold War it was explained in terms of the alleged danger from the
USSR. But this excuse no longer applies. The "official" reason is the need
to uphold world peace and democracy. This will fool no thinking person. The
actions of the imperialists are determined solely by what the Germans called
Realpolitik--that is, the most cynical and calculating self-interest. Of
course, for the sake of public opinion, diplomacy must always present this
in the most favourable light ("humanitarian missions", "peacekeeping
forces", "ethical foreign policy" and so on). There is nothing new in this.
Cynicism and self-interest have always been the guiding principles of
bourgeois diplomacy. When it suited their interests to appease Hitler, in
the hope that he would turn his attentions to the East and attack the Soviet
Union, the "democratic" British ruling class did not hesitate to hand over
Czechoslovakia to the tender mercies of the Nazis, just as a man would throw
a bone to a hungry dog. Speaking about Czechoslovakia in 1938 the British
Conservative prime minister Neville Chamberlain referred to it as: "a
far-off country, about which we know little."

The war between Iran and Iraq caused the deaths of one million people. Yet
this passed virtually unnoticed because it did not affect the West's vital
interests. In fact, it suited the West to have Iraqis and Iranians slaughter
one another, since this would exhaust both of them. In fact, Saddam Hussein
was given every encouragement and supplied with arms and equipment by
Britain and America--until he trod on their toes with the invasion of
Kuwait. The same cynical indifference characterised the attitude of the West
to the horrific genocide in Rwanda. This merely serves to underline the
hypocrisy of the so-called humanitarian interventions of imperialism in
Bosnia, Kosovo and East Timor. It is necessary in each case to cut through
the fog of diplomacy and lay bare the class interests that lie behind the
diplomatic manoeuvring and propaganda.

Behind all the talk of humanitarian motives and peacekeeping missions there
lies the most sordid self interest. The USA's war against Iraq was no more
motivated for concern about poor little Kuwait than the First World War
motivated by the fate of poor little Belgium. The main worry was the threat
to America's oil supplies posed by the huge increase in the power of Iraq in
this strategically important region. The savage bombing of Iraq was intended
as a warning to the peoples of the Middle East and the Gulf. "You step out
of line, and see what you will get!" Almost a decade later the bombing of
Iraq continues, although it is clear to everyone that Iraq has been beaten
into the ground and cannot pose a serious military threat to the USA. The
bombing and military harassment is backed up by the no less monstrous
economic blockade, which includes, among other things, a ban on the trade in
pencils--clearly very dangerous weapons in the hands of Iraqi
schoolchildren!

The colonial revolution

The emergence of US imperialism as the sole major world power is an
unprecedented world situation. The USA is now the most counter-revolutionary
force ever seen in history. It is prepared to use any means to undermine
governments not to its liking. In Africa, Asia and Latin America it has been
prepared to give aid to gangsters and thieves to fight those forces it
perceives as being against its strategic interests.

For the whole of the last 50 years cheap raw materials have paid a vital
role in the development of Western capitalism. This is not a secondary
consideration. The control of the outlets of oil and other raw materials is
a major factor in the global policies of America and all the other
imperialist powers. Therefore they have been prepared to use the most brutal
methods against the colonial peoples. One of the most impressive facts of
this long period of so-called peace has been the Colonial Revolution. This
was the biggest movement of the peoples since the fall of the Roman Empire:
a magnificent movement of the oppressed people in China, India, Indochina
and Africa, involving hundreds of millions of slaves, and pack animals. As a
movement of oppressed people fighting for their national and social
emancipation, history knows no comparable movement. If we look for a
parallel, there are only two things which suggest themselves: the movement
of the early Christians, which began as a revolutionary movement and the
awakening of the Arab nation in the early days of Islam. But the colonial
revolution was a far bigger movement than either of them.

In this titanic struggle imperialism was defeated. This colossally
progressive development had been predicted by Trotsky before the Second
World War. He said that there would come a point in which it would not be
worth while to try to hold down the colonial masses by direct means. This
became a colossal drain on resources and manpower. The British imperialists
were the first ones to understand this. They saw that it was impossible to
hold down the colonial masses in Africa and in India by military means. The
handing over of India was not the result of a humanitarian gesture. The
British were forced out of India by the movement of the masses. It is not
generally known that British imperialism conquered India and held onto it
with Indian troops. That is the only reason that they could maintain
control. There was not a national consciousness. India was split up into
small states. Paradoxically it was British imperialism that created a
national consciousness in India. In 1947, General Auchinleck was asked by
the British government how long he could hold India. He answered: three
days. The British were faced with mutinies in the army, riots, strikes and
demonstrations. Once the Indian people became conscious of themselves as a
nation and stood up against their oppressors, that was the end of the story.

In one country after another the imperialists were forced to abandon direct
military bureaucratic control of the colonies. De Gaulle in France had
learned that lesson by 1958. Having come to power on the slogan of Algerie
Française! (Algeria is French!) he took one look at what it was costing them
to wage war against the Algerian people, and decided to get out. This caused
a revolutionary crisis which could have been a revolution, if the French
Communist Party had had a revolutionary policy. This shows precisely the way
in which the colonial revolution can have profound effects in the
metropolitan countries. The same thing was shown in Portugal in 1974-5, when
the attempt to hang onto Angola, Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau led to
revolution in Portugal itself. In 1960 Belgium was forced out of the Congo.
But before they left the Congo they deliberately caused the chaos which
exists at the present time.

Although the colonial revolution was a big step forward, on a capitalist
basis it could not provide a solution to any of the fundamental problems of
these countries. After half a century of so-called independence, the
bourgeoisie has solved none of the problems of either India or Pakistan. The
agrarian problem has not been solved, nor the task of modernising society.
In India (and also to some extent Pakistan) the caste system, that relic of
barbarism, remains in place. Neither India nor Pakistan have solved the
national question, which has festered and acquired explosive consequences,
especially in Kashmir. And neither country, despite the trappings of formal
independence, are really free. In fact, they are more dominated by
imperialism than they were half a century ago.

Recent developments in the Indian Subcontinent reveal the existence of
unbearable contradictions. These two nuclear powers came within an inch of a
war. In an attempt to divert attention away from the mess inside Pakistan,
Nawaz Sharif made a desperate gambler's throw in Kashmir. Perhaps he wanted
to take advantage of the governmental crisis in India, but in the event the
Pakistanis not only failed but the failure set in motion the events that led
to a coup d'état. They tried to occupy territory in the mountains of
Kashmir. In order to retake it, the Indian army suffered hundreds of deaths.
Given the difficulties of a frontal assault on these heights, the Indian
army was actively considering launching a flanking manoeuvre, which would
have entailed violating the frontier with Pakistan. Such a step would
inevitably have led to all-out war between the two countries with
incalculable consequences. Only the pressure of Washington on Nawaz Sharif
prevented it. But in trying to excuse himself before Pakistan public
opinion, he committed the unpardonable sin of trying to blame the army for
the defeat. This sealed his fate, leading directly to a new military coup in
Pakistan. This itself is a reflection of the total impasse of capitalism in
that country. Needless to say, the Kashmir question is not resolved and
carries within itself the seeds of new wars.

Everywhere the ex-colonial countries are racked by wars and instability.
This is an expression of the impossibility of resolving their problems under
capitalism, which, as Lenin once said, is "horror without end". In Africa at
this moment in time there are at least four or five terrible wars,
characterised by ethnic slaughter, barbarism and even outbreaks of
cannibalism. Some of these wars are taking place in countries which should
be rich, such as Angola and the Congo. With characteristic hypocrisy, the
imperialists shake their heads and publish articles of a racist character
presenting the Africans as sub-humans savages. The wars in Africa are
presented as tribal wars, when in practice many of these wars are proxy wars
caused by the interference of capitalist powers who are struggling for
markets and raw materials in Africa. Countries, like the Congo or Angola
possess enormous mineral wealth which is of great interest to the
imperialists. The case of the Congo is particularly striking. A potentially
rich country has been reduced to rubble. Vast swathes of it are under the
control of rebels and foreign troops. Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia are
propping up the government of Kabila, whose writ does not cover more than
half the country. Uganda and Rwanda control the rebels and Burundi is also
present. All are eager to get their hands on the Congo's diamond mines and
other mineral wealth. Despite all the attempts at cease-fire, the conflict
in the Congo remains unsolved. This is a reactionary war on both sides.
America and France are conducting a struggle in Africa using proxy armies.
They are very largely responsible for all this mess.

Never in human history has the world seen such a colossus of economic and
military power as US imperialism. Never has the planet been so totally
dominated by a single country. In its relations with other countries the USA
displays the most amazing arrogance. It is prepared to use any means to
undermine governments not to its liking. In Africa, Asia and Latin America
it has been prepared to give aid to gangsters and thieves to fight those
forces it perceives as being against its strategic interests. In the case of
Yugoslavia, Washington's line from the beginning was "Do as we say or we
will bomb you." Yet, upon closer examination, we see that this colossus has
feet of clay. Its power is limited even in the field where it appears to be
most invincible. Trotsky also made another prediction. He said that America
would emerge victorious from the Second World War and would dominate the
world. But he added that it would have dynamite built into its foundations.
That is precisely the present situation. 100 years ago British imperialism
made a very handsome living out of the colonies. They bled the colonies.
British imperialism made a handsome profit out of dominating the world. Now
America has inherited the role of Britain as the world policeman but in an
entirely different historical context. In the period of the decline of
capitalism, instead of benefiting from that it will be an enormous drain an
enormous cost to the Americans and ultimately will have profound social
effects within the United States itself. The recent demonstration outside
the WTO Conference in Seattle is a graphic illustration of this fact.

The Vietnam war was the turning-point. This was the first war in American
history where America had lost. And that fact had a fundamental effect in
shaping the whole consciousness of the American ruling class. It was a
trauma. Let us not forget the fact that American imperialism was not
defeated in Vietnam. It was defeated in America. There was a mass upsurge, a
mass movement against the war which had revolutionary connotations. The
American Army in Vietnam was so demoralised that one American general said
that the mood of the US troops could only be compared to the situation in
Petrograd in 1917. The mightiest imperialist power that has ever existed in
history was defeated by a barefoot army of guerrillas in the jungles of
Vietnam. That had a fundamental affect in American military thinking as we
explained at the time.

After the Vietnam war we pointed out that American imperialism could not
intervene with ground troops in any country in the world--with one important
exception: Saudi Arabia. Because of its extreme importance to the American
economy, the USA would be compelled to intervene, probably seizing the
coastal areas where the oil is and leaving the desert to the Saudis. Even
now this observation remains true. Saudi Arabia is extremely unstable. The
public debt now stands at 10 percent of GDP. The ruling clique based on the
royal family can no longer afford the kind of lavish concessions to the
population as in the past. The splits at the top, reflected in feuding
within the royal family, are the reflection of the growing tensions in Saudi
society. The spectre of revolution is hovering over the Arabian Peninsula.
And not only in Saudi Arabia. As a result of the violent fluctuations in the
price of oil, there is not one single stable bourgeois regime in the whole
of the Middle East.

The history of revolutions shows that they do not begin at the bottom but at
the top, with splits in the ruling class. The famous French sociologist and
historian Alexis de Tocqueville dealt with the process in some detail and
shows what happens when the old regime enters into crisis. One section of
the ruling class says, if we do not reform there will be a revolution and
another section says if we do reform there will be a revolution--and both
are correct. These words precisely express the situation faced by the
monarchical Arab regimes at the present time. These regimes appear at first
sight to be very prosperous, very rich and apparently stable. Saudi Arabia,
Bahrain and Kuwait are all run by Royal families. The same is true of Jordan
and Morocco, although the latter do not enjoy the blessings of oil wealth.
Yet every single one of these royal families are split. That is an
indication of developments of revolutionary tensions in those societies.

Everywhere the spectre of revolution is beginning to reappear. In Iran,
after twenty years of barbarous reaction under the mullahs, the masses are
stirring. As always, the movement begins with the students and
intelligentsia, that most sensitive barometer of the hidden tensions within
society. The mass demonstrations last Summer served notice on the regime
that the patience of the masses was exhausted. The explosion of the students
is the beginning of a new Iranian Revolution. The movement has since died
down in the face of ferocious repression. But it will inevitably re-surface
with redoubled vigour. The strategists of Capital, with a slight delay, have
come to the same conclusion as the Marxists. A recent issue of Business News
writes: "Many observers view last July's rioting, which pitted university
students against the police and vigilante thugs from the extreme religious
right, as a warning of things to come if the Establishment doesn't bend.
'Khatami is the last chance for peaceful reform. If he is defeated, then the
system will be threatened with overthrow,' says Ali Rezar- Alavi Tabar, an
editor of the Sobh-e-Emrooz newspaper in Teheran and a key Khatami
supporter."

The revolutionary events in Iran are an anticipation of the process that
will unfold throughout the Gulf and the Middle East in the next period. This
is a momentous development and it is of a fundamental importance not just
for Iran, but for the World Revolution. The events in Iran must have had the
American imperialists trembling in their shoes. Iran is not just any
country, it is a strategic country. But here we see precisely the limits of
the power of US imperialism. Iran was also a strategic country in 1979. Yet
there could be no question of an intervention of America to save their ally
the Shah. They watched in impotent rage while the old regime was overthrown
and their embassy in Teheran ransacked. If they could not intervene in 1979,
how much less could they do so now against a revolution of the Iranian
masses which will inevitably have a completely different character:
anti-mullah, anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist.

Such a development would have revolutionary implications throughout the
Middle East. US imperialism would be forced onto the defensive everywhere.
If, as is highly likely, they decided to intervene in Saudi Arabia to
protect their oil interests, that would provoke uprisings in every country
in the Middle East. Not a single American embassy would be left standing.
And the repercussions would be felt throughout Asia, Africa and Latin
America. That is why the American, British and French imperialists are
arming to the teeth in preparation for the storm that impends. However, the
limits of the power of imperialism is shown by the extreme reluctance of the
Pentagon since Vietnam to agree to the deployment of troops on the ground in
any country. On the few occasions where this has occurred over the past 20
years, with the partial exception of Iraq, it has been against small and
weak countries. In most cases it has ended either not very well, or
extremely badly. America was forced to stage humiliating withdrawals in the
cases of the Lebanon and Somalia. As Stratfor points out:

"The intervention in Iraq was the first of a series of interventions that
included Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and now Kosovo. Not all of these ended
well. Somalia was, by any measure, a failure. The Haitian invasion displaced
the former government but no one would argue that Haiti has been lifted out
of its misery. Bosnia was intended to be a short-term intervention but has
become a permanent presence. But none of these interventions have forced the
United States to face the core question: what are the limits of American
power?"(STRATFOR's Global Intelligence Update: The World After Kosovo May 3,
1999)

This explains the extreme reluctance of the Pentagon to send ground troops
into Kosovo, preferring to rely upon air power alone. The Americans were
under no illusions that they would have suffered very heavy casualties in a
war on the ground in Kosovo. This would have had profound effects in all the
NATO countries, but especially in America itself. The demonstrations in
Seattle would have paled into insignificance compared to the explosions that
would have ensued. Fortunately for Clinton, a deal was stitched up with the
help of Russia which relieved them of this necessity. If it had come to a
ground war in Kosovo, the outcome of the war would have been very different.
Thus, despite all the noise, the Kosovo war has really not changed the
position faced by the Pentagon. True, the US airforce will be lobbying
furiously for extra funds to perfect their arsenal of weapons of
destruction. But ultimately, US imperialism will be faced with the need to
employ ground troops in one country or another, and face the consequences.

The role of Germany

One of the most significant development in recent times is the tendency of
the world to splinter into regional blocs. After World War Two, the USA
dominated Western Europe totally. Europe was cut in two, with the East
dominated by Russia. Now all that has changed. Even before the fall of
Stalinism, the world was already beginning to split up into rival trading
blocs. NAFTA is a bloc dominated by US imperialism and including Canada to
the North and Mexico to the South. In practice, the USA regards the entire
Continent of America as its private concern. Japan is striving to create its
own economic sphere of influence in Asia. And the European capitalists have
formed the European Union.

The launching of the Euro has been widely interpreted to mean that the
movement in the direction of a European super-state or at any rate a
Federation, has acquired an irresistible impetus. This is a complete
misunderstanding of what is taking place. It is true that the process of
integration of the EU has gone further than the Marxists had anticipated.
But this process still has its limits, and in any case has far from
abolished the contradictions between the different national states that make
up the EU. The central point is that there is only one state economically
strong enough to lead Europe, and that is Germany. This fact, which should
have been obvious from the start, has become glaringly evident ever since
the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. This was a turning-point in the history
of Europe and the world.

The Irish writer and politician Conor Cruise O' Brien has argued that French
and German enthusiasm for European integration has always been a
hypocritical cover for national ambitions on both sides:

"The language of federalism, on the lips of political traders," he writes,
"has become a coded way of appealing to rival bodies of nationalists in the
two countries. French nationalists, listening to their president
recommending federalism, are expected to think: 'We will outsmart them
because we are so much cleverer, and we will run Europe as well as our own
country.' The German nationalists, listening to virtually identical language
from their own chancellor, are expected to think: 'We must necessarily
dominate a federal Europe because of our size, our number, our strength of
character and our national habits of thrift and hard work."

In historical retrospect, it is likely that the introduction of the Euro
will be seen as the high water mark of European integration on a capitalist
basis. At every level, conflicts of interest abound. Germany's strength lies
in industry, while France still has a considerable agricultural interest,
which it is determined to defend, also for social and political reasons.
Germany looks to the East, to its former colonies in the Czech Republic,
Poland and the Balkans. France looks to the South, to its former colonies in
North Africa and its Mediterranean neighbours, Spain and Italy, which it
sees as potential allies. Britain is a somewhat special case. After decades
of industrial decline, Britain has lost most of its power and influence in
the world, but not its dreams, illusions and delusions of grandeur. In
reality, it has become a parasitic rentier economy, as France was before the
War, and a semi-satellite of US imperialism. The lesser European powers, as
always, gravitate around the big three, now to one now to another, according
to the interests of the moment. All are guided by their own narrow national
self-interest. Greece has its own policy in relation to Serbia and Turkey,
for example. But the decisive power remains Germany.

The original intention behind the European Union was to bind Germany to
France as a means of preventing a new war between the two countries. But the
aim of France was always to be the dominant partner. At the beginning this
appeared to be the case. Germany was still struggling to emerge from the
catastrophic defeat of 1945. But as time passed, Germany's powerful
industrial base enabled her to leave France far behind. Paris comforted
itself with the thought that, while Germany was the economic power-house of
Europe, France would remain politically and militarily supreme. but now all
these calculations have turned to ashes. With unification, Germany is
rapidly re-emerging as a super-power in its own right. It was always utopian
to think that her economic might would not find a political and military
expression, and that the German ruling class would be content forever to
play second fiddle to the French on the world stage.

With unification we see a revival of all the old dreams of German greatness.
Germany currently spends somewhat less than Britain and France on arms, $355
per head, but Germany has got a very powerful army, a mighty industrial
base, and a big population of 80 million in the heart of Europe. It has
already achieved by economic means what it failed to do in two world
wars--to unite Europe under German domination. But Germany's huge economic
power is not at all reflected in its political and military clout. This was
starkly revealed during the Kosovo crisis when for the first time since 1945
German troops participated in a military action on the soil of another
European country. The scale of this participation was modest. But its
symbolic meaning was tremendous.

There are clear signs that Germany is becoming impatient with the artificial
restrictions placed on its European role by the suspicious attitudes of its
neighbours. In August 1999, Chancellor Schröder declared that "Germany has
every interest in considering itself a great power in Europe." And he added:
"Germany is no better and no worse than any other country." In effect, the
German chancellor was saying: "I don't know what people have got against
Germany. It is a country like any other country." To which The Economist
replied: "Yes Mr. Schröder, Germany is no better and no worse than any other
country. Just very big and in the centre of Europe." These lines express
with admirable clarity the real attitude of Britain and France towards
Germany. But nothing can prevent Germany from translating its economic and
industrial muscle into military and political power.

Bismarck described "hegemony" as follows: "an unequal relationship
established between a great power and one or more small powers which is
nevertheless based on the juridical or formal equality of all the states
concerned. It is not based on 'ruler' and 'ruled' but on 'leadership' and
'followers'." That is not a bad description of the state of affairs to which
Germany now aspires in Europe. It will inevitably lead to collisions with
France and Britain, who do not see themselves in the role of "followers" of
Germany. German foreign policy remains much the same as it was over 100
years ago. Its history, geographical position and economic interests makes
it turn to the East, where it hopes to bring its client states into the EU.
This brings it into conflict with France, since the inclusion of countries
like Poland and Hungary in the EU would automatically spell the death of the
Common Agricultural Policy, which benefits French farmers. On the other
hand, Britain, while not opposed in principle to the entry of countries
which may provide new markets for its goods, is violently opposed to any
suggestion of a change in the EU's voting system that would entail the
abolition of the right to veto. But how could an enlarged EU permit small
and poor Eastern European states to block its decisions? And in any case,
Britain as a net contributor to the EU budget, would not be keen about
increasing the costs by subsidising these countries for Germany's benefit.

The question of EU enlargement, therefore, provides plenty of fuel to throw
on the flames of national discord. The naming of Berlin as the capital is a
political statement pregnant with historical symbolism. The German
capitalists have lost no time in establishing themselves in Poland and other
East European countries. They are proceeding to reconstruct their old
colonies and spheres of influence, in accordance with the old German policy
of the Drang nach Osten. The same policy led to the criminal break-up of
Czechoslovakia. These actions clearly correspond to the interests of German
imperialism, which, having gained economic domination of Europe, is now
flexing its muscles as a political and military power.

The temporary alliances and conflicts can cause all kinds of shifting
agreements and blocs, which form and re-form themselves like the eddies on a
quickly-flowing river, but the main thing is that the old axis between
France and Germany is rapidly breaking down. The Economist notes that:
"France, at any rate, seems to worry now and again that Germany is leaning
Britain's way. A sense of incipient betrayal on France's part has inflamed a
series of relatively minor squabbles with Germany since Mr. Schröder came to
power." What is important is not the squabbles but the growing realisation
in Paris that they can no longer count on automatic support from across the
Rhine, and that Germany is now determined to follow its own destiny, whether
it suits France or not.

As in the period before 1914, there is a constant jockeying for position
between France, Britain and Germany. At first it was not clear whether
Germany would not unite with Britain against France. But the growing power
of Germany which threatened to alter the balance of power in Europe, pushed
Britain into the arms of her old enemy France. The question was settled by
the entente cordiale, when Britain and France formed, in effect, a bloc
against Germany. Now we face a similar situation. Someone in the British
Foreign Office once said: "Nations have no permanent friends; they only have
permanent interests". Despite the present frictions between Britain and
France over the beef issue, it is inevitable sooner or later that the two
counties will be forced to come together. Britain's permanent interests in
Europe will compel her to unite with France to counter the weight of
Germany.

Germany and the Balkans

As always, the causes of instability on the Balkans must be sought outside
the Balkans. In this case, the starting point of the crisis in the Balkans
was the collapse of the USSR and German unification. Exactly ten years ago
the new reunification of Germany represented a fundamental change which is
disturbing the balance of power inside Europe. In the same way, the rise of
Germany as a result of German unification in the second half of the
nineteenth century also changed the whole balance of forces in Europe and
prepared the way for three wars. In both cases, the Balkans were affected in
a decisive way, and in turn affected the general world situation. It is an
irony of history that the 21st century is beginning just as the 20th century
began.

For Europeans, war was supposed to be for other people in other continents.
The European working class had forgotten what war was like, just as they had
forgotten what revolution and counterrevolution were like. The nightmares of
the past, the bombing of civilians, the ethnic cleansing, the racial madness
and the concentration camps, were all supposed to be things of the past. Now
Europe has received a rude awakening. The war in Kosovo represents a major
turning point in European and world history. Prior to this the two super
powers, the USA and the USSR, balanced each other out and this provided a
relative stability to the world situation. There could have been no question
of the USA daring to attack Iraq or bomb Yugoslavia. The disappearance of
the Soviet Union as a super power has allowed the United States to emerge as
the sole world power and given it the confidence to develop a more
aggressive foreign policy.

In relation to the Balkans, all the material we have written over the last
eight years entitles us to say that only this tendency has kept its head,
and maintained a class position an internationalist position on this
question. What was the meaning of this conflict? Firstly, it represented a
decisive turning-point in the world situation. It signifies a fundamental
change in the balance of forces that has been developing over the past
decade, since the collapse of Stalinism, and of the Soviet Union. Prior to
the collapse of the Soviet Union the two super powers, the USA and the USSR,
balanced each other out and this provided a relative stability to the world
situation. The disappearance of the Soviet Union as a super power has
allowed the United States to emerge as the sole world power and given it the
confidence to develop a more aggressive foreign policy.

There is a tendency to attribute to Washington's foreign policy a
far-sightedness and intelligence to correspond with the degree of its
military might. However, when we come to consider the actions of US
imperialism, it is hard to detect a coherent long-term strategy in the
Balkans, other than the simple principle of utilising its overwhelming
advantage in firepower to bully the rest of the world and impose its will on
every government. The principal (perhaps the only) objection to the present
government of Yugoslavia was that it was not prepared to accept Washington's
dictates.

The only ones who seem to have known what they wanted in the Balkans from
the beginning, who set themselves a series of well-defined aims according to
a well-known plan of action, were the Germans. The most serious result of
this was the catastrophe in Yugoslavia. Of course, there were internal
problems. The abolition of the autonomy of Kosovo--itself an expression of
the contradictions of the old system-- played a fatal role in encouraging
chauvinist tendencies which Tito had always tried to keep under control.
But, as always, the flames were fanned from outside. By interfering in the
internal affairs of Yugoslavia, encouraging the break-away of Slovenia and
Croatia, Germany unleashed forces which neither it nor anyone else could
control. Doubtless they did not anticipate the consequences of their
actions. The resignation of the German foreign minister Genscher was
virtually an admission that they had miscalculated. Be that as it may, they
left it to others--particularly Britain and France--to pick up the bill.

Imperialist bullying

The insolence of US imperialism which seeks to impose its will on the rest
of the world was shown first by the attack on Iraq and then by the bombing
of Kosovo. NATO is just a cover for the world-wide ambitions of the USA. At
the summit held by NATO early in 1999, a new strategic concept document was
presented which widened the scope of NATO intervention. This represents a
fundamental revision of world relations which have remained basically
unchanged for over 300 years, since the treaty of Westphalia in 1648. From
that time till now, it was accepted that the basic principle of
international conduct between states was non-interference in each other's
internal affairs. The Kosovo war represented an unprecedented departure from
all the accepted norms of international conduct. For whatever one's opinions
of the problem of Kosovo, it was no concern of the USA. Yugoslavia was still
a sovereign state, far from the North Atlantic and posing no direct threat
to America.

As far as Kosovo is concerned, it is not quite clear whether America was
working to a plan worked out in advance. That is one possibility, but it
does not seem to be probable. More likely, the whole war was the result of a
miscalculation. Clinton was led to believe, by the State Department that the
Belgrade government would surrender immediately if they dropped a few bombs.
But things did not work out so simply. President Truman once remarked that
American generals were not capable of marching and chewing gum at the same
time. However, in the Kosovo affair, for once, the Pentagon showed itself to
be more intelligent than the present occupant of the White House. According
to reliable reports, there was a struggle between the Pentagon and the State
Department, as to what line of action to take. The Pentagon was worried
about this adventure in Yugoslavia, and particularly about the possibility
of a ground war. In order to reassure the generals, Clinton specifically
ruled out a ground war from the outset--a decision much criticised by
military experts both in America and elsewhere.

It seems clear that America did not want to be drawn into a war on the
Balkans. What Washington wanted was stability in the Balkans. But it wanted
a stable Balkans under its own control. The problem with Yugoslavia was that
it would not act in accordance with America's wishes. The issue of prestige
was therefore at stake. A successful military operation in Kosovo was
essential to prove the seriousness of NATO in backing up its declared aims.
Madelaine Albright--probably the most obtuse foreign secretary the USA has
ever had--did everything in her power to provoke the Yugoslavs. The
arrogance of Washington was shown by the notorious Rambouillet agreement
which was written in such a way that no sovereign government in the world
could have accepted it. It was similar to the infamous ultimatum of
Austria-Hungary to Serbia in 1914. Predictably, Belgrade refused to accept
it, and the bombing commenced. But then things began to go badly wrong for
NATO. Belgrade did not surrender and the Yugoslav Army could not be
destroyed, so NATO deliberately bombed civilian targets: factories, houses,
bridges, hospitals, schools. This was an attempt to terrify the people of
Yugoslavia, to compel them to bend the knee before American imperialism,
just as in Iraq. But after eight years of bombing and economic blockade,
Washington is no nearer to attaining its strategic objectives in Iraq than
before. And it is unlikely to be any more successful in the Balkans in the
long run.

American imperialism is a mighty military power and possesses extraordinary
and terrifying means of destruction. But US propaganda systematically
exaggerates the independent significance of America's military technology.
For example, they made great play of the so-called smart bombs. These were
so accurate, they said, that from a great height they were able to bomb even
the smallest target. The purpose of this propaganda was to convince American
public opinion that they could win a painless war, just by bombing. However,
if these claims are true, it is hard to understand why they bombed such
targets as the Chinese Embassy, or columns of Kosovar refugees, or the
territory of friendly states like Albania and Bulgaria. Such incidents show
that the claims for infallibility of the so-called smart bombs were just so
much nonsense.

It is often said that the first casualty in war is truth itself. In 1914 the
British and French launched a massive propaganda campaign to demonise the
Germans accusing them of all kinds of atrocities in occupied Belgium. Some
of the stories of atrocities were true, many were false or exaggerated. But
the main thing was that propaganda was used as a military weapon, to soften
up public opinion in preparation for the slaughter of the First World War.
In the same way they attributed all kinds of dreadful crimes to the Serbs.
Undoubtedly some atrocities were perpetrated against the Kosovo Albanians,
but not on the scale they have presented. Most of these atrocities were
carried out after NATO began bombing. These were carried out , not by the
Yugoslav army but by the so-called Chetniks, paramilitary gangs little
better than Serb Fascists. Similar phenomena have been seen in every war on
the Balkans. And it is not true that these things are the exclusive monopoly
of Serbs. Croatia expelled 300,000 Serbs from land which they had occupied
for hundreds of years. They also launched a dirty campaign of ethnic
cleansing against the Bosnian Moslems in Mostar in 1993. Yet all this was
totally accepted by the West, on the principle that "the enemy of my enemy
is my friend". The West accepted all this in silent complicity, just as they
are now silent about the ethnic cleansing and killings of Serb civilians by
the KLA in Kosovo. This was deliberate imperialist propaganda to demonise
the Serbs.

In any war the general staff uses the weapon of propaganda as an auxiliary
to tanks, planes and guided missiles. But the avalanche of propaganda which
accompanied this conflict from the first day to the last must surely be
without precedent. During the bombing campaign Nato leaders built up a
barrage of propaganda aimed at convincing the people back home that this was
a "just war". It was impossible for the mass of people to obtain a balanced
version of events, let alone the truth. Although there was no enthusiasm
whatsoever for the war in Britain (or America), most people grudgingly
accepted it as inevitable. However, in Italy and Greece there was mass
opposition to the war, and in Germany a similar mood was developing, causing
serious internal problems for the SPD and the Greens. The German people,
unlike the British, have had no experience of war since 1945, and have no
wish to acquire such experience. To any informed observer it was clear that
all this propaganda was a pack of lies. That atrocities were carried out is
clear, although the extent of them was exaggerated for propaganda purposes.
The NATO strategists were not at all motivated by humanitarian concerns.
That was shown by their refusal to let the refugees into their countries.
They needed the killings to justify their bombing. It was never made clear
that most of the killings were the result of the NATO bombing. And the more
they could exaggerate the killings the more they could justify the bombing.

The picture which NATO likes to project of itself is one of a big happy
family of democratic states united in the defence of peace and civilisation.
After the fall of the USSR it has been busy expanding its membership, a
process that is taking it right up to the border of Russia. But this picture
is very far from the truth. NATO is not one homogeneous bloc, as the events
in Kosovo have revealed. For example, at the end of April, NATO came up with
the idea of imposing an oil embargo on Serbia, but it could not achieve
unity over this question. To impose an embargo would have meant a possible
conflict with Russia, because this would have implied the blocking of
Russian oil tankers. These would most likely have been accompanied by a
Russian naval escort, and therefore an armed conflict was implicit in the
situation. For this kind of operation to have been "legal" NATO would have
had to get UN approval, but Russia and China, in the Security Council, would
have blocked any resolution empowering NATO forces to stop and search ships
on the high seas. This pushed NATO members, France, Greece and Italy to put
a brake on the whole idea. In the end the idea had to be dropped, proving
once more that NATO did not have a unified policy and was close to an open
split in its ranks throughout the duration of the bombing.

During the whole bombing campaign the United States government had to
struggle to hold the NATO alliance together. US military strategy was
limited due to opposition from within NATO itself. As far back as March, the
Italian government was in difficulty. The Italian parliament voted for the
re-opening of negotiations and the suspension of the bombing. Thus Italy,
together with Greece, two of the closest NATO members to the war zone, were
constantly regarded as weak links in the alliance.

Germany, too, was not too keen on the war. One week into the bombing
campaign opinion polls showed that only one in four Germans were in favour
of sending in ground troops. Even within the government their was dithering
on the issue. The Greens were under pressure from their ranks to come out in
opposition to the war, and there was also opposition inside the SPD. If they
had gone ahead with the plans for a ground war it is most likely that NATO
would have split. That is why NATO and the Americans were forced to
manoeuvre with the Russians to bring about a solution to the conflict which
would avoid a war on the ground.

Did NATO achieve its war aims?

It was inevitable that at the end of the war they would shout 'We won, we
won, we won!' What else were they supposed to say? The bombing had to be
portrayed as being successful in destroying the Yugoslav war machine. NATO
claimed that as much as one third of Serbian tanks had been destroyed. That
would have meant hundreds of tanks. But so far only 13 have been accounted
for! As The Guardian, 4.7.99, revealed, "The damage inflicted on the Serb
ground forces turns out to have been minute compared to that claimed by
Jamie Shea and his colleagues in effusive daily Nato press conferences."

The Yugoslav army was intact. It had dug in waiting for a ground war. It is
clear that the Yugoslav Army was prepared for a fight. If it had come to a
ground war, it is not even certain that the Americans would have won.
Certainly it would have been a very bloody affair, with huge losses on both
sides. Under such circumstances the very fragile unity of NATO would have
been subjected to enormous strain. There would have been tremendous
opposition to the war in every country, not excluding Britain and the USA.

This was clearly very difficult terrain for the American army--not at all
like the terrain on which the Gulf War was fought. It would have been a
nightmare. That is why the Pentagon was against it. The reason why they
succeeded in forcing the Yugoslavs to withdraw was not because of the
bombing. It was because the Russians particularly Yeltsin and Chernomyrdin
were also terrified of the possibility of a war in Yugoslavia, fearing the
effects inside Russia. At the end of the war, western correspondents
scratched their heads in puzzlement when they saw the Yugoslav troops
leaving Kosovo waving flags and making victory signs. "This doesn't look
like a defeated army Don't they know that they have been defeated?" they
asked. The Yugoslav Army was not defeated in war. The Yugoslav Army was
betrayed, which is a different matter. And that will have a profound affect
in Yugoslavia and in Russia.

According to an article by Richard Norton-Taylor that appeared in The
Guardian, (30/6/99), "Nato, of course, has no choice but to hail victory. A
well tried way of claiming success when things haven't gone according to
plan is to change the stated objective of the exercise." Back in March, on
the second day of the bombing, the British Defence Secretary stated that the
aim was "to avert an impending humanitarian catastrophe by disrupting the
violent attacks currently being carried out by Yugoslav security forces
against Kosovar Albanians and to limit their ability to conduct such
repression in future."

The facts are that most of the "ethnic cleansing" actually took place after
the bombing started, and the Yugoslav army lost very little in Kosovo.

Thus Yugoslavia's military capability remains intact. The fact that the
Yugoslav army was not defeated was even admitted by some KLA volunteers. The
Guardian, (30/6/99) reported that according to Lirak Qelaj, a 26 year-old
fighter in the KLA "the Serbs were not defeated. Nor was NATO's bombing as
effective in Kosovo as he and his comrades had hopedÉ The KLA, he confirmed,
had great difficulty standing up to Serb attacks and was able to do little
to protect the thousands of people displaced since late MarchÉ He also
disclosed that it was KLA advice, rather than Serbian deportations, which
led some of the hundreds of thousands of Albanians to leave Kosovo."

At the beginning of the bombing campaign NATO diplomats were saying that
"...the alliance should go after the military goal of damaging or destroying
his military machine. Once this is achieved, NATO can declare success..."
(Financial Times, 27.3.99) Their aim was clearly to destroy Serbia's
military capability. This was for strategic reasons as the domination of
Serbia is a key to the domination of all the Balkans. But by the end of
April it was clear that, "The failure of the campaign to achieve its initial
objective [had] caused growing unrest among politicians on both sides of the
Atlantic." (The Financial Times, 23/4/99)

Once the bombing was over, a more realistic appraisal of the campaign began
to emerge. As the Wall Street Journal, (8/6/99) pointed out "Éthere will be
one thing lacking in this war's endgame: the sense that this was a victoryÉ
the bottom line is that Milosevic has not been defeated. After 76 days of
pounding by a vastly superior force using the most accurate and powerful
conventional weapons known to man, the head of a small state of only 11
million people was able to negotiate a compromise."

General Sir Michael Rose, the former commander of the UN Protection Force,
Bosnia in 1994 wrote in a letter to The Times (of London ) dated July 14
1999:

"I am surprised to see you supporting the current propaganda campaign by
Nato and British politicians who are repeatedly stating that NATO's air
campaign over Kosovo met its campaign objectives. It manifestly did notÉ
After 11 weeks of one of the most intensive air campaigns in the history of
warfare, it is clear that Nato had tragically failed to accomplish these
initial objectives. For thousands of people were brutally murdered and more
than a million people were driven from their homes by the Serbs. The
Alliance was thus compelled to redefine the purpose of the war as being that
of allowing the safe return of the Kosovo Albanian people to their homes.
Its success in achieving this lesser task should not be allowed to obscure
the fundamental message that it is not possible to safeguard a people by
bombing from 15,000 feet (5000 metres). Rather than engage in cynical
propaganda exercises, Nato should examine how it is going to be able more
effectively to fight humanitarian wars in the future. This will require the
Alliance to develop better leadership and to demonstrate a greater
preparedness to deploy troops on the ground. Sadly, both these critical
elements seem to be missing at present."

Destabilising effects on whole of the Balkans

Although the war was fought under the hypocritical slogan of the right of
self-determination of the Kosovar Albanians, it is clear that the further
break-up of Yugoslavia was not one of NATO'S aims. As the Financial Times,
(27/3/99) pointed out, "The complete disintegration of Yugoslavia cannot be
a NATO war aimÉ NATO resists the idea of an independent Kosovo as
destabilising to the region." Initially NATO decided to start the bombing
campaign to avert a wider conflict, to attempt to stabilise the situation in
the Balkans. But rather than stabilising it, they have made it worse. Now
the whole of the Balkans are more unstable than before.

The original intention of the Rambouillet agreement was to occupy the whole
of Yugoslavia. That is now out of the question. Nevertheless, at the present
time, America finds itself in control of quite a big slice of territory in
the Balkans. Not only Bosnia--which, like Kosovo, is another US
protectorate--but it also controls the destinies of Macedonia and Albania as
well. Having ended up with this position, America must decide what to do
with it. The Americans aimed to establish stability on the Balkans under
American control, and to establish an American protectorate. But if we ask
the following question: Did the invasion of Kosovo establish a more stable
position on the Balkans? the answer must be no. Not content with reducing
Serbia to rubble, the imperialists are maintaining a brutal economic
blockade which will further disorganise its economy, creating terrible
hardships for the population. However, there can be no question of an
economic revival in the Balkans without the reconstruction of Serbia. The
present blockade will have serious consequences for all the neighbouring
states, causing new hardships and instability.

There is also the danger of a new war in Montenegro, where the West is
intriguing for its own ends. Although NATO probably would not welcome the
complete collapse of Yugoslavia because of the repercussions it would have
in the rest of the Balkans, nevertheless, it is looking for points of
support in order to weaken and destabilise the government in Belgrade. The
presence of Western troops, both in Bosnia and Kosovo is encouraging the
government of Montenegro in its attempts to break away from the Yugoslav
federation. The Montenegrin government is clearly looking for investment
from the West. It is interesting to note that the government plans to
introduce its own mass privatisation programme. Significantly, it also wants
to introduce its own currency, pegged to the German mark. However, secession
on the part of Montenegro would certainly lead to a new war and further
destabilise the area.

Macedonia is also under extreme pressure. About 750,000 ethnic Albanians,
about 23% of the population, live in the western region of Macedonia. And as
the Financial Times, (27/3/99) pointed out "Éit is equally hard to imagine
the Albanians of Macedonia remaining unaffected. In short, if ethnic
Albanian aspirations are given rein in Kosovo, the whole process of shifting
borders, and of shifting peoples, could begin againÉ setting off a new round
of the Balkan wars." Unemployment at around 40% only serves to exacerbate
the problem further. The presence of 12,000 NATO troops is the only thing
keeping the lid on.

In Kosovo itself the KLA is continuously beating the drum for Kosovo
independence. They are trying to install themselves in power, but they are
not likely to succeed because American imperialism does not want an
independent Kosovo. This would mean the creation of Greater Albania and this
would have disastrous consequences for the rest of the region. Already the
KLA is talking of including within Greater Albania not only part of
Macedonia, but a part of Greece as well. This is dangerous stuff! It can
only be the starting point of new wars and catastrophes for all the peoples
of the Balkans. The conclusion is inescapable. The situation in the Balkans
is more destabilised now than what it was before. Above all, the potential
break-up of Macedonia poses the danger of new wars involving not just the
immediate area, but would threaten to drag Greece, Albania, Bulgaria, even
Romania and Hungary into an armed conflict. This could even lead to a
general war in the Balkans in which Turkey would be brought face to face
with its old enemy Greece. The consequences of this would be incalculable
for the USA, NATO and the EU. Thus, the Americans are now trapped in Kosovo
as they are trapped in Bosnia They cannot withdraw without provoking a
general upheaval on the Balkans which would involve their allies and might
lead to the break-up of NATO itself.

Croatia has been very quiet of late. But after the death of Tudjman, the
country faces further upheavals. Franjo Tudjman was yet another former
Stalinist turned reactionary bourgeois nationalist. This former "Communist"
adopted the symbols and language of the Croat fascist Ustasha regime of the
past--a regime so bloody that even the German Nazis complained of its
brutality. As long as it suited their interests, the US imperialists went
along with his brutal policy of ethnic cleansing of Serbs and Bosnian
Moslems. But after the Kosovo affair the Americans had already begun to
distance themselves from Tudjman, a change of heart that was partly due to
the fact that he was not going to live much longer, but also because, in
following his own Balkan agenda, Tudjman was not always prepared to toe the
American line. For example, he wanted the Bosnian Croats to have their own
separate political identity. This was a move designed to prepare the way for
eventual absorption into a Greater Croatia--Tudjman's long-term goal. This
was in open defiance of the Dayton agreement. On the other hand, he warned
that there were limits to his co-operation with the UN war crimes tribunal.

The Americans would now prefer Croatia to be ruled by more pliant stooges
and will be manoeuvring to install a puppet regime in Zagreb. But slowly the
realisation is dawning on the people that the movement towards capitalism
has brought them nothing but wars, suffering and misery. The workers of
Croatia are becoming restive. All history shows that there is a relation
between war and revolution. When the fumes of chauvinism wear off, the
masses take stock of their real situation and begin to draw their own
conclusions. Their anger is directed towards the ruling clique that led them
into the path of death, destruction and impoverishment. While the war lasts,
the working class has its head down. But that cannot last forever. Sooner or
later the working class will enter the arena of struggle. In Croatia there
have been big strikes of the working class, largely unreported in the West.
This shows the process that will take place in one Balkan country after
another in the next period. At a certain stage the ground will be prepared
for a class and internationalist policy, based on the goal of a socialist
federation of Balkan peoples as the only way out of the present nightmare.

Reformism and imperialism

There is an organic connection between home and foreign policy. This was
conveyed by the marvellous dialectical expression of Clausewitz when he said
that 'War is the continuation of politics by other means'. This is
profoundly true. Marxists do not have one policy for peace and another
policy for war. War is just a continuation of politics by other means. In
one of his last articles, Trade Unions in the Epoch of imperialist Decay,
Trotsky explained that in the present period there was an organic tendency
of the tops of the trade unions to fuse with the capitalist state. This has
been shown to be true. The trade union and Labour leaders in one country
after another have become enmeshed in the capitalist state to an
unprecedented degree. They act as the agents of the big banks and
monopolies, and on the international stage they are the most enthusiastic
cheerleaders of imperialism, especially American imperialism. Thus, Tony
Blair was the most slavish supporter of Clinton in the Kosovo war, and
George Robertson, his foreign minister, has now been made general secretary
of NATO. This is no accident.

The crushing economic and military dominance of the USA also finds its
expression in the upper echelons of the labour movement. The reformist
Labour leaders are dazzled by it. Naturally! The petty bourgeois are always
impressed by power, whether at home or internationally. The Sri Lankan
Trotskyist Colvin Da Silva once put it quite wittily, when he said:
'Whatever is the current Bible of the petty bourgeois, its God is always
power.' That explains the attitude of Blair and Schroeder towards American
imperialism. It is a law which governs the conduct of the right reformists
as absolutely as the laws of Newton and Einstein govern the movements of
heavenly bodies. At home they are even more servile and dependent on the
banks and the monopolies than the bourgeois politicians. The reason is not
difficult to find.

The middle class, because of its intermediate position standing half-way
between the working class and the big capitalists, always looks up to the
ruling class with a mixture of fear, envy and awe. They feel inferior, and
their feelings of inferiority produce in them a powerful psychological need
to prove that they are reliable, that they can be trusted to keep the masses
in order, that they are the best defenders of the existing order, and so on.
This is what explains why the Labour leaders in power are always more
servile to Big Business than the ordinary Conservative politicians. They are
less capable of having an independent policy. Sometimes a Conservatives
administration, staffed by bankers, landowners and businessmen, may come up
with come up with a relatively independent policy in relation to the Banks
and monopolies, which sacrifices the short-term interests of one or other
section of big business, the better to defend the long-term interests of the
capitalist class as a whole. But the reformists are organically incapable of
such behaviour. Like the foreman in a factory who bullies the workers from
whose ranks he has risen and licks the boots of the manager, the right wing
reformists lose no opportunity to kick the weakest and most downtrodden
sections of society, while slavishly carrying out the dictates of the
bankers and monopolists to the very letter. And on the world stage, the
middle class labour leaders vie with one another to show their loyalty to
NATO--that is to the Big Brother on the other side of the Atlantic. True,
from time to time this gives rise to a kind of political schizophrenia when
the interests of their own bankers and monopolists clash with those of
Washington. But the basic tendency of right reformism is always
consistent--the defence of the rule of Big Business, nationally and
internationally.

However, this process has another side. At a certain stage it will provoke
convulsions and crises inside the mass organisations of Labour, paving the
way for the formation of mass left wing currents which will be open to the
ideas of Marxism. The left reformists will come to the fore again. But the
left reformists are hopelessly confused and offer no serious alternative.
Whereas the right wing Labour leaders stand openly for the interests of Big
Business and imperialism, the Lefts try to take up a middle position,
reflecting the petit bourgeois nature of left reformism. Nowhere is their
confusion more clearly revealed than on the issue of war. At home they
accept the existence of capitalism, but would like it to be a bit kinder to
the masses. In the arena of world politics, they accept the rule of
imperialism and the giant monopolies but stand for "peace". On both counts
they resemble a well-meaning vegetarian who attempts to persuade a
man-eating tiger to eat lettuce instead of meat. Their bankruptcy and
superficial utopianism is shown by their constant appeals to the United
Nations, which they foolishly imagine to be a kind of arbiter or referee
which can keep the peace between the great powers, like a kindly British
"Bobby" helping old ladies to cross the road.

The 'United Nations' and war

In addition to writing about the class struggle, Karl Marx spent a lot of
time analysing diplomacy and the relationships between the powers. Trotsky
also strongly recommended that every conscious worker should study
diplomacy, learn how it works, understand the reality behind the diplomatic
lies. It is our duty also today to expose the falsehoods of imperialist
propaganda, and to lay bare the naked self-interest and cynical
manipulations that lie behind the phrasemongering. The Marxists did their
duty during the Kosovo war, exposing the lies and hypocrisy of American
imperialism and its hangers-on in London, Paris and Bonn. An important part
of our work is to expose the lie about the (dis) United Nations as an
alleged force for peace.

It is necessary to approach politics, whether national or international,
from a consistent class point of view. There are many parallels between the
class war or wars between nations. The same basic principles apply. A
treaty--whether it is a contract between the workers and bosses in a factory
or a diplomatic settlement between nations--is only a reflection of the
balance of forces between the contending groups at a given moment. That is
all. And woe betide the person who imagines that the signing of a piece of
paper resolves any serious issue! The moment the balance of forces has
changed, the treaty is torn up. In a factory, the contract is torn
up--either by the workers, or, more normally, by the bosses. The matter is
settled by a strike, which establishes the issue of which of the two sides
is strong enough to impose a settlement favourable to itself. The same is
true of treaties and agreements between nation states.

Hegel--that marvellously profound philosopher--is very unpopular with the
bourgeois and the petit bourgeois because they cannot understand him. Among
all the other stupid criticisms of Hegel, they try to say that he was a war
monger, a precursor of militarism and even Hitler. What Hegel actually said
was that in history all serious problems are solved by war. It is difficult
to see how one can argue with such an elementary proposition. All history
shows that, when the ruling class is faced with fundamental problems of its
basic interests it does not rely on paper treaties, negotiations and the
rest of it. It goes to war. One may lament this, but it is nonetheless a
fact.

The idea that the conflicts between nations can be resolved by peaceful
arbitration is a complete illusion, as the experience of the League of
Nations before the Second World War graphically shows. The question of the
United Nations is continually being raised by all kinds of utopian pacifists
and left reformists. But the history of the whole post-war period--and
especially the last ten years--shows that nobody pays the slightest
attention to the United Nations--except the so-called left reformists, who,
in every international crisis, bleat like sheep. "United Nations, please!"
They try to present it to the public as the solution to all wars and
problems. These people do not understand the ABCs of world relations. They
have learnt nothing from the whole history of the last 50 years.

Solon of Athens once wrote: "The Law is like a spider's web. The small are
caught and the great tear it up." How profound a knowledge the author of the
Athenian Constitution had of the true nature of the Law--both national and
international! The United Nations can solve nothing. To be more precise, the
United Nations is a forum of the different imperialist powers which can
sometimes solve secondary matters where fundamental interests are not at
stake. The American imperialists pay lip service to the United Nations, but
whenever they have a problem in which the United Nations might get in the
way, they simply ignore it. We saw this in the Kosovo crisis. The left
reformists raised a hue and cry about the so-called legitimacy of the
bombing of Yugoslavia: "The Security Council must vote on it, the United
Nations must decide!" But the war over Kosovo is further proof--if any was
needed--that when the basic interests of America are at stake, the
principles of international law are a matter of complete indifference. They
just tear them up.

There is nothing new in this. When Trotsky went to Brest-Litovsk to conduct
negotiations with the German imperialists and the Austrian imperialists in
1918, he was playing for time trying to spin out the negotiations. At the
same time he was using the negotiating table in a revolutionary and
internationalist spirit, making revolutionary speeches, which were aimed
over the heads of the Prussian and Hapsburg generals and diplomats, to the
workers of Germany and Austria. Trotsky's tactics were very effective. His
speeches were published in the German and Austrian newspapers and were
instrumental in provoking big strikes and demonstrations. However, this
revolutionary diplomacy had its limits. At a certain point, in the middle of
one of Trotsky's speeches, one of the generals, Hoffmann, put his boots on
the table. Trotsky had no doubt whatever that the only real thing in that
room were those boots on the table. Ultimately, all diplomacy must be backed
up by the threat of force.

In the Kosovo conflict, the vital interests of US imperialism were involved.
Therefore there was no question of allowing the matter to be referred to the
Security Council, where it would have been subject to the veto of Russia and
China. Therefore the Americans simply ignored the Security Council.
Following the example of general Hoffmann, they put their boots on the
table. They went to war against Yugoslavia using NATO, which is supposed to
be a Western alliance but in practice is an American-dominated military
bloc. Although the US wishes to maintain the United Nations, which can
sometimes serve as a useful cover for its operations (as in Korea), whenever
it wishes to act, the UN is merely pushed contemptuously to one side. In any
case, the UN depends heavily on America for its funds. The US frequently
reminds the UN of this by forgetting to pay its dues. And it would no more
dream of allowing the UN to dictate its international policies than to hand
over control of its military budget to Greenpeace.

The effects on Russia

The Kosovo conflict had a big effect in Russia and the repercussions of it
are still being felt, especially in the Russian army. The Russian generals
were badly shaken by this war against their traditional ally. The Russian
military watched with horror as the Yugoslav air defences were being smashed
by advanced technological weapons. Ten years of privatisation and "market
economics" have not only bankrupted Russia. They have led to a serious
deterioration of the army's fighting capacity. The military have not
received proper investment for ten years. This means they are probably ten
years behind America now. And it is clear that they are seething with
discontent.

That restlessness of the army was shown by the incident of Russian troops
entering Pristina. As it turned out it was only an episode. But it was a
very dangerous episode and it was clearly not planned by the government in
Moscow. Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov knew nothing about it. It seems
likely that some Russian generals have decided that enough is enough, that
NATO has been permitted to get away with too much and that the time had come
to stand up to NATO and the Americans. Ivanov was telling the truth when he
protested ignorance. Nor is it likely that Yeltsin knew. This is hardly
surprising since nowadays the President of Russia hardly knows anything. He
is the mouthpiece of the Kremlin clique. They call him the Pen because his
daughter hands him a decree and he just signs it. Verging on alcoholic
senility, Yeltsin is normally incapable of reacting to anything, let alone
evolving clever plans to fool NATO. Only from time to time does he
experience a violent seizure (usually associated with a fit of jealous rage
against the current prime minister) and appears on television to dismiss the
government.

One of the most outspoken critics of the government is General Ivashin. It
is clear that Ivashin and other generals have decided that enough is enough,
that NATO has been permitted to get away with murder, and that the time had
come to stand up to NATO and the Americans. Whoever gave the order to the
Russian forces in Bosnia to enter Pristina, it was certainly no joke. They
were stopped in time with some horse trading and some discussions and some
conferences, but at the time the risk of conflict was serious enough.
Certainly the West took it very seriously, as shown by their panic reaction
to the news that the Russian troops had seized Pristina airport. It
indicated that the Russian generals have had enough.

Why did Yeltsin abandon Yugoslavia to its fate? He did it, like Judas, for
thirty pieces of silver. Except that the quantities involved here were
rather more considerable--4.4 billion dollars, to be exact. Years of
so-called market reform in Russia have bankrupted the country, to the point
where Moscow needed money from the West to stave off a complete collapse. A
year before the West would not give them any money, but now they are afraid
of a collapse in Russia. They are afraid that the whole of the reform
program will go into reverse; that the military can take over with the
Communists and Nationalists, recentralising the economy and renationalising
the lot. The situation in Russia is very very unstable. Although Russia has
achieved a partial stabilisation after the collapse of August 1998, it is
clear that the situation in Russia cannot be maintained. The August economic
collapse was a mortal blow against the market reformers, and the war in
Kosovo was a further nail in their coffin. Moscow is in the grip of a
constant crisis. This is now affecting the most sensitive centres of power,
including the army, which is rapidly becoming alienated from the pro-western
clique that has bankrupted and humiliated Russia.

At a certain point there will be a further economic collapse, which will
have the most profound effects. Already there is a massive reaction against
the market, against "reform", against capitalism, against the West and
against America. The Kosovo crisis acted as a catalyst. That is why the
Kosovo crisis was not just any crisis, but a decisive turning point for
Russia and for the whole of the world situation. Given the degree of
collapse, it is astonishing how they have managed to hold the line for so
long. The only thing that is propping them up is the policy of Zyuganov and
the leaders of the Communist Party which permitted them to achieve a
temporary and very fragile stabilisation. The war in Chechnya was clearly
provoked by the Kremlin as a diversion. This can have a temporary effect but
will eventually turn into its opposite. At a certain point there will be a
further collapse even without the slump in the West, which will have the
most profound effects. The Russian working class will inevitably enter onto
the road of struggle with the ideas and traditions of 1917 and 1905 to guide
them.

No matter what happens, a new conflict between America and Russia is
inevitable. Both sides are preparing. In Moscow, the general staff, has
drawn the conclusion: "Yesterday it was Yugoslavia, tomorrow it will be us!
Therefore we must prepare, we must rearm." And they will rearm. That has
serious implications for the future of market economics in Russia, because
on the present basis a serious programme of rearmament and national recovery
is impossible. The situation in Russia is very unstable. Serious
commentators in the West are under no illusions about the perspectives. They
are afraid that the whole of the reform programme will go into reverse. In
fact the only way to begin to solve the crisis would be through the
restitution of a nationalised planned economy.

Chechnya and the Caucasus

The new war in Chechnya is a further evidence of a shift of power in Russia
in the direction of the military. The generals are now clearly in the
saddle. Not only are they deciding the war agenda in Chechnya, but they are
doing so without regard to the opinions of the Kremlin clique. Boris Yeltsin
is now an irrelevance. But the army caste will not pay any attention to the
rest of the so-called government of Russia which they regard as the source
of all their troubles. Once having got a taste of political power, they will
be all the more inclined to go one step further.

The offensive in Chechnya was preceded by a series of bomb explosions in
Moscow and other Russian cities. This caused widespread panic in the
population and was immediately blamed on Chechen terrorists. However, to
this day no clear evidence has been produced to confirm these accusations.
No Chechen group has ever claimed responsibility. The nature of the targets
is also peculiar. In the past, Islamic terrorism has been directed against
targets such as American embassies. But this time the targets were
residential flats, mostly in poor areas. The bombings produced results that
were useful to the Russian government and the general staff, but not to
Chechnya. The mood of anti-Chechen hysteria whipped up by the mass media
served to prepare the masses psychologically for the new offensive. In all
likelihood it was a provocation organised by a section of the ruling clique.
The deaths of ordinary working class Russians would be a matter of small
consequence to these gangsters. As a result, the war has been generally
popular in Russia and Putin's support in the opinion polls has increased to
the point that he is being spoken of as a possible candidate for the
presidency.

The West looks on in pretended horror as the Russian army proceeds to reduce
the towns and villages of Chechnya to rubble--conveniently forgetting that
they did exactly the same in Yugoslavia. But whereas the Americans lost no
time in issuing threats and ultimatums to Belgrade, this time they are
extremely reticent. The reason is obvious. They dare not issue a direct
military challenge to Russia. This, indeed, was one of the main motives of
the Russian army--to show the world that they are still "masters in their
own house", and no longer prepared to be humiliated before the entire world.
The Chechen war is intended as a display of Russian military power, to show
the world--not just the Caucuses--that Russia is not to be trifled with.

They have done this with the traditional unconcern for human life that has
always characterised the Russian general staff. They have never treated the
peoples of the Caucasus very gently, as the bloody history of the tsarist
conquest of the region shows. But the anti-Russian propaganda reeks of
hypocrisy. They are no more concerned with the fate of the Chechens than
they were with the Kurds or the Kosovar Albanians. To the degree that the
present conflict is part of a wider struggle for control of the Caucasus,
the West is also an interested party and largely responsible for the wars
that plague the region. It goes without saying that Marxists condemn the
bullying of small nations in the Caucasus and defend the right of self
determination of the Chechens and all the other peoples of the region. But
this does not exhaust the matter. The Chechen secessionists seriously
miscalculated when they tried to play the Islamic card and intervened in the
neighbouring states of Dagestan and Ingushetia. This was too much for Moscow
to swallow. Thus, the Chechens now stand to lose the de facto independence
they had won. Russia cannot accept the total loss of the Caucasus, which
would mean the entry of American imperialism into its strategically
important Southern flank. There is also the little matter of the enormous
oil and mineral reserves to consider. It is clear that the Russian army is
prepared to carry matters to the end in order to "pacify" Chechnya--even if
that means laying waste the whole country.

In Central Asia already there is a ferocious struggle for the possession of
the region's rich supplies of oil, natural gas and raw materials. Russia is
continually coming into conflict with America and Turkey. That is why in
Central Asia and the Caucasus war has been raging for the last ten years
without respite. There has been a series of wars, and more are in
preparation. There is the war between Azerbaijan and Armenia in which
Armenia is supported by Russia, Iran and Greece, while Turkey, quietly
encouraged by America, supports Azerbaijan. It has already been pointed out
that Turkey is linked up with America and Israel. The Americans are afraid
to get directly involved in this conflict, but they are very interested,
particularly in the oil of Azerbaijan and of Turkmenistan. At the centre of
this conflict is a struggle over an oil pipeline. The Americans are
encouraging Turkey, which has ambitions over a wide area, since many of
these peoples both in Central Asia and the Caucasus speak a language similar
to Turkish. Azeri, the official language of Azerbaijan, is really a dialect
of Turkish, Uzbek is also close, as is the language spoken in Turkmenistan.
Turkey is a medium sized imperialist power, which is trying to expand in
this area and is coming into conflict with Russia as a result. This is a
very serious matter.

The war in Chechnya is part of a broader picture, as Russia starts to
reverse its national retreat in the Caucasus, in Dagestan and Chechnya. But
Russia cannot impose its will on the northern Caucasus without also securing
control of the southern Caucasus, where it has come into collision with
Georgia and Azerbaijan. In the Caucasus, Georgia is involved in a very
pivotal way. Moscow has accused both countries of helping the Chechen
rebels. This is certainly true. Apart from providing routes for the movement
of people and supplies, Georgia is the only country that accepts the
presence (albeit discretely) of a Chechen foreign mission.

Georgia and Azerbaijan have made clear that they want to join NATO. The
Americans are trying to attract these countries away form Russia, that is a
direct threat to the interests of Moscow, the Russians will not tolerate it.
The resulting conflict is the underlying cause for the present bloody chaos
in the Caucasus. Georgia and Azerbaijan are already members--along with
Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Moldova--of the decidedly pro-Western GUUAM group,
which has grown from an economic alliance to include security co-operation.
They have even formed a joint force to defend the new Baku-Supsa pipeline.
The declared aim of the Baku-Supsa pipeline and the planned Baku-Ceyhan
pipeline through Georgia to Turkey is to create a route for oil from Central
Asian countries outside the control of Russia. This poses both an economic
and strategic threat to Moscow, which has responded to the provocation by
reasserting its influence in the region.

Georgia's leader Shevardnadze, the former minister of foreign affairs of the
USSR and crony of Gorbachov, is an enthusiastic admirer of the West who
makes no secret of his desire to join NATO. In an Oct. 25 interview with the
Financial Times, Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze stated his intention
to "knock loudly on NATO's door" within five years. Since this is a direct
threat to Moscow, this was not a particularly intelligent thing to do.
Russia was certain to react violently, and has a few cards of its own to
play in the region. Moscow is exerting ever increasing pressure on Tbilisi.
In addition to supporting the Georgian opposition, it is also backing the
separatist movements in South Ossetia and Abkhazia which threaten to tear
Georgia apart. Until recently Moscow had troops in Georgia. Recently they
withdrew, but this is only a temporary step. Moscow is preparing to serve up
a very peppery dish for Georgia. Shevardnadze has already escaped several
attempts on his life. His luck may not hold for long.

In its usual caustic way, Stratfor commented: "Russian border guards,
withdrawing from offices in the Georgian capital Tbilisi, left behind a
little present - an anti-personnel mine. The Russian gesture is a small
example of a much broader concerted campaign by Russia to reassert its
influence over Georgia and the rest of the Caucasus region. Russia must
reassert control over the southern Caucasus in order to ensure its continued
control over the northern Caucasus and continued influence over Central
Asian resources. The current Georgian government is an obstacle to Russia's
goals - an obstacle Moscow is now committed to removing." (Stratfor.Com
Global Intelligence Update October 29, 1999) This appraisal is not far from
the truth.

The new offensive against Chechnya, with its brutal display of force, is
part of this strategy. At the same time as its campaign in Chechnya, Russia
has stepped up its pressure on Georgia. Moscow still has several cards up
its sleeve. It is threatening military intervention on Georgia's border with
Chechnya. it is backing the major Georgian opposition party. And it is
giving aid to the three separatist regions: Abkhazia, South Ossetia and
Ajaria. Shevardnadze has alleged--doubtless correctly--that Russia is
financing the opposition Union of Georgia's Democratic Revival, which is
headed by the pro-Russian Ajarian leader Aslan Abashidze.

Abkhazian leader Vladislav Ardzinba stated his intention to ally with Russia
against Georgia and its NATO aspirations. In late September, Russia
abrogated a bilateral agreement and opened its border with the breakaway
region of Abkhazia, providing economic and military opportunities. After
temporarily resealing the border in October, Russia reopened it Oct. 26.
Furthermore, withdrawing Russian frontier guards allowed their
material--which should have gone to the Georgian frontier guards--to fall
into the hands of the Abkhazian rebels. For its part, South Ossetia has also
come down on Russia's side. Its President, Lyudvig Chibirov, told Georgia's
Prime-News on Oct. 25 that his government fully supported the Russian
campaign against "terrorists" in Chechnya. Another secessionist region,
Ajaria, has been withholding taxes from the Georgian government and refusing
to allow representatives of the ruling party into the region. Russian border
guards also reportedly left behind artillery in the region that has since
been taken over by that region's government.

Russia has already warned Georgia to cease its support for the separatist
Chechen government and its armed forces. Moscow has accused Georgia of
providing safe haven and free transit for Chechens in the past. It also
alleges that Chechen guerrillas have joined the refugees fleeing into
Georgia and are now regrouping in Georgian territory. In an October 26
interview with Moskovsky Komsomolets, Lt. Gen. Gennady Troshev, leader of
the Russian army in Chechnya, warned that, if Georgia does not seal off its
80-km border with Chechnya, Russia would "slam shut" the border. Russian
aircraft have already "accidentally" bombed a Georgian village en-route to
targets in Dagestan ("the Omalo incident").

Meanwhile, Russia is using every means at its disposal to tighten its grip
on the Caucasus. Armenia is Russia's main ally in the southern Caucasus. On
October 27 a group of gunmen entered the parliament in Yerevan and murdered
the prime minister and several other members of parliament. Faced with
political destabilisation, Armenia immediately appealed to Russia for help.
This was predictable, as was Russia's response. Only one day after the
killings, the Russian Federal Security Service's elite Alpha commando unit
was sent to Yerevan. The pro-Russian Armenian military has issued a public
warning to the government that it will not stand idly by while the country's
security is threatened.

Russia flexes its muscles

It is not clear who was behind the assassinations. But it is very clear who
has gained from them. The net result is that Armenia is more firmly bound to
Moscow than ever by the assassinations crisis, which has further intensified
the pressure on Georgia. In response to events in Chechnya and Armenia,
Georgia's State Border Guard Department announced October 28 that it had
doubled the number of troops and mobilised all officers along the Armenian
border. But closing off the Armenian border will not keep Russian influence
out of Georgia. And after Georgia comes oil-rich Azerbaijan. In short,
Russia has launched a full-blown campaign to reassert control over the
southern Caucasus, and NATO cannot lift a finger to stop it.

All this has implications that go far beyond the question of Chechnya and
the Caucasus. At the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, we predicted
that Russia would inevitably move to re-take all its lost territories and
spheres of influence. Events have shown this to be correct. We predicted
that Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine would link up. That process is already
under way. There is a big movement in the Ukraine to link up with Russia. In
Belarus, one cannot maintain that capitalism was ever established, and there
has never been much of a change in the last ten years. There is a movement
to link up with Russia again. The situation in the Ukraine is catastrophic.
The flirtation with capitalism there has been even more disastrous than in
Russia. The Economist recently had this to say about it: "Corruption is
rampant, investment is nearly non-existent, public services are abysmal. The
Ukraine is more of a shambles than any other country which the EU has so far
recognised as a candidate." Large sections of the population would like to
link up with Russia. This is particularly true of the eastern part of the
Ukraine, though less in the Western Ukraine that used to be part of Poland.
Most Russians do not see the Ukraine as a separate country. A foreign policy
adviser to Yeltsin once referred to the Ukraine as "a temporary entity".
That adequately expresses the attitude of Moscow to the Ukraine.

A union between the "Slavic core" of the USSR--the Russian Federation, the
Ukraine and Belarus--would provide a big market and act as a powerful magnet
on the other ex-republics. In the event of a world slump the movement
towards a reconstitution of something like the USSR would receive a powerful
impetus. The Central Asian republics would almost certainly join willingly.
They benefitted most from belonging to the Soviet Union in the past, despite
the terrible abuses that were committed. The fate of the Baltic states would
then depend exclusively on the will of Moscow. They could be occupied in a
matter of days. The treatment of the Russian minorities would provide the
excuse for intervening. Who could prevent it? NATO and the EU would grumble,
but would not dare lift a finger. Under these conditions, it is not at all
certain that the Russian army would stop on the other side of the Polish
border. At any rate, in the event of a deep slump. there would be widespread
unrest all over Eastern Europe and the Balkans. Countries like Rumania,
Bulgaria and Serbia, where the movement towards capitalism has ended in
disaster, would probably vote to go back to the fold. The attitude of the
Poles, Hungarians and Czechs remains to be seen. But everywhere the
pro-western, pro-capitalist parties would be in deep trouble.

For the majority of the population in Eastern Europe and Russia, the
movement in the direction of capitalism has been a disaster. The
Economist--an enthusiastic supporter of market economics--admits that "Even
now the list of losers is long. Everywhere the chorus goes up: the people
who bossed us about before, the communist 'nomenklatura', are still on top.
It was the clever apparatchik, the tough factory manager. who best made the
switch to capitalism, benefiting from insiderish privatisation deals.
Corruption is rife throughout the old communist world. Organised crime, with
little opposition from the policemen, judges and politicians, has swept
across the region.

"The plight of the middle-aged professionals as well as ill-educated people
in one-industry towns that have gone bust is wretched. Almost everywhere,
the over-60s are miserable, their savings and pensions pathetic. Life for
the duller sort of intellectual {!} who once served the old order is pretty
grim too: in the old days even poets and painters {!} got their monthly
stipend and virtually free flat. Unemployment has gone from virtually nil
{.....} to a good 10 percent across the board. An irony of the immediate
post-communist era was that the very workers--shipbuilders and miners, for
instance--who had done so much to bring down communism were often the first
to lose their jobs in the brave new world {sic!}

"Although most of the countries in the old Warsaw Pact are growing again,
the gap between haves and haves-not is widening. Other gaps have opened up
between metropolis and small towns, between town and country. The further
east you go, the worse the farming. Reviving village life has been hard
everywhere. And in Poland, where a fifth of the people are farm-connected,
getting into the EU will probably mean squeezing that fraction to about 5
percent.

"In almost every ex-communist country, standards of health care have
plunged. In some, lives have suddenly grown shorter. In Russia, the average
male dies at 58, as early as in many parts of Africa; the total population
(now about 147 million) has been declining by nearly 1 m a year." (The
Economist, 6/ 11/ 99)

There is the beginning of a general reaction against the market throughout
Eastern Europe. The argument that market economics would solve the problems
of Russia and Eastern Europe has been shown to be false. Even in East
Germany, there is a widespread reaction against the market, indicated by a
big increase in the vote for the PDS. The mass of people do not want the
bureaucratic totalitarian regime of Stalinism. But neither do they want to
live under the dictatorship of the big banks and private monopolies. The
advent of a deep slump will plunge all the economies of Eastern Europe into
crisis. Belatedly, the West is waking up to the real situation in countries
like Poland, where the working class has a very revolutionary tradition.
Strobe Talbott, now Clinton's strategist for East Europe and Russia, glumly
observes that the Poles have been given "too much shock, too little
therapy." The coming period will see revolutionary developments,
particularly in Poland, where an embittered working class has seen all its
efforts and sacrifices thwarted and brought to nothing by the greedy
bourgeois upstarts who rule the roost. The idea will rapidly gain ground
that what is required is a nationalised planed economy, but under the
democratic control of the workers themselves.

A 'new isolationism'?

"The United States bestrides the world like a colossus. It dominates
business, commerce and communications; its economy is the world's most
successful, its military might is second to none. Yet, for all that, the
colossus is uncertain. Having so much power, it does not know how to
behave." (The Economist, 23/10/99.)

America's role as world policeman will cost her dear. All the contradictions
are coming together on a world scale. And, as the leading capitalist nation,
the USA must ultimately pay the bill. The merciless squeezing of the
colonial world (not least in Latin America) over a period of decades is
producing an explosive situation in one country after another. This must
affect America in a very direct way. The USA has attempted to construct an
economic bloc which extends from the North Pole to the Panama canal and
beyond. NAFTA already includes Canada and Mexico, and the intention was to
expand its sphere of operations to cover the whole of the Western
Hemisphere. This would provide the USA with a colossal market, which could
be turned into a private fiefdom for the products of US industry and
agriculture in the event of a world slump. But the dream of empire is
already turning into a nightmare. Latin America is in the throes of a deep
recession. One country after another is gripped by social and political
crisis. In at least two countries--Venezuela and Colombia--a large question
mark is being placed on the future survival of capitalism. And this is the
position even before the arrival of a world-wide slump.

In voting against the test ban treaty, just when Clinton was attempting to
persuade India and Pakistan to accept it, the right wing Republican majority
in Congress is behaving in the same crass isolationist way as in 1919, when
it humiliated President Wilson by voting against the Versailles Peace treaty
and rejected American membership of the League of Nations. Nowadays, it is
true, the USA is not only a member of the United Nations, but holds its
purse-strings firmly in its hands. But whenever it feels that the Security
Council might impede its actions, it treats the UN with well-merited
contempt. "America," moans The Economist, "from time to time bullies them,
ignores them, refuses to pay its dues." Naturally. Why should American
imperialism continue to pay its dues to a club in which the service is not
entirely to its satisfaction? The philosophy of Congress is what one would
expect of the average American businessman--a mixture of short-sighted
self-interest, avarice and provincialism. But then the outlook of the
present occupant of the White House is not much better. There is none of the
far-sighted vision or long-term perspectives that once characterised the
approach of the British and French ruling class to international politics.
Only the crudest calculations based on immediate self-interest and
expediency. Such are the qualities of the rulers of the most powerful
country in the world at the start of the new millennium. By the declining
mental faculties of the main leaders of the western world one can measure
the degree of senile decay of the system they represent.

The growing tendency towards isolationism in Congress is no accident. Even
the thickest of these backwoodsmen have begun to grasp that America's role
as world policeman is not only the source of potential profits, but also
carries the risk of real pain. The Kosovo affair, fortunately for them,
passed off without the loss of a drop of (American) blood. But when one
looks around the world, it appears an increasingly dangerous and unstable
place. This is not at all what the world was meant to look like after the
fall of the Berlin Wall! Yet, despite the attempts of the Senate to pull
America back into its shell, the idea of isolationism has no real future. No
more than Russia, China or Japan can the USA break free of the irresistible
pull of the world market. Despite all the misgivings and protests in
Congress, America will be forced to intervene in one conflict after another,
with unforeseeable consequences.

The attitude of US imperialism to the Western Hemisphere was already shown
by the invasions of Panama, Grenada and Haiti. By these actions, Washington
declared its right to intervene with military force anywhere in "its"
Hemisphere. But all these were tiny countries with insignificant armed
forces. (Even so, in the case of Haiti, they hesitated before going in for
fear of incurring casualties). But Colombia is an entirely different
proposition. The situation in Colombia is causing profound alarm in
Washington, especially as the USA is preparing to hand back the Panama Canal
which is virtually next door. The guerrilla forces now probably control the
major part of the countryside. Prolonged negotiations have led nowhere. The
guerrillas have merely used the talks to strengthen their position--a fact
not lost on either the army or Washington. Although the Americans do not
want to intervene on the ground, it has been surreptitiously backing the
Colombian army with "advisers" under the pretext of the war against drugs.
They have trained and equipped a number of special units which are clearly
under US control. This is how the US involvement started in the early 1960s.

The situation that is unfolding in Venezuela is likewise giving rise to
serious concern in Washington. Newly elected President Hugo Chavez has just
ordered a new draft constitution which, among other things, would forbid the
privatisation of PDVSA, the state-owned oil company, and seeks to place
restrictions on foreign investment in the oil industry. This kind of policy
flies completely in the face of Washington's plans for privatisation and
taking over the industries and utilities of Third World countries at
bargain-basement prices. Chavez enjoys mass support for his "peaceful
revolution". His Patriotic Pole coalition dominates the national assembly
with 121 out of 131 seats. Leaning on the workers and urban and rural poor,
he could easily move to snuff out capitalism in Venezuela. Such a
development--entirely likely in the event of a deep slump--is what terrifies
Washington which is putting pressure on Chavez to ensure that his "peaceful
revolution" does not overstep the bounds of capitalism.

The view of the Republicans like George W. Bush is childishly simple. The
USA is the world's strongest military power. Nobody in their right mind
would dare to stand up to it in the military arena, or join in an arms race.
Therefore, America should not entangle itself in foreign "peacekeeping" or
"humanitarian" operations, but just wave a couple of six-guns wherever
necessary, as in the plot of any good John Wayne movie. There is an element
of common sense in this approach. At the end of the day, all diplomacy must
be backed up by force. But to dispense with diplomacy altogether would be
not at all simple but merely childish, since the aim of diplomacy is to
achieve one's chosen ends without the need to resort to arms (which are
expensive and potentially dangerous). As someone pointed out at the time of
the Kosovo crisis: these people have forgotten that, whereas talking is
cheap, war is hard.

America cannot separate itself from the world, with all its crises and
alarms, nor renounce diplomacy, alliances and foreign entanglements. On the
contrary. Its participation will tend to grow and become ever more
aggressive. Of course, the Americans will try to avoid direct military
involvement, to the degree that it is possible. For example, if the
situation in Colombia--as seems probable--spins out of control, they will
probably try to incite neighbouring countries to intervene on their behalf
to "keep order." However, to the degree that the social and economic crisis
affects not just one country but the whole of Latin America, this will only
lead to the extension of the struggle to the neighbouring countries. In the
same way, the involvement of US imperialism in Vietnam was one of the main
reasons why the war spread to Laos, Cambodia and the whole of South East
Asia. Sooner or later the USA will be dragged into the conflict, with
tremendous consequences for the USA itself.

There is another explanation for the isolationist feelings in Congress.
America's trading deficit with the rest of the world has climbed to record
levels (this remains true, despite the recent modest improvement). At the
present moment in time, the entire world economy is dependent upon America
to sell its goods. America imports a third more than it exports.
Consequently, above all since the slump in Asia, the US market has been
inundated with cheap foreign imports. In the first eight months of 1999
alone, imports were running at a level ten percent higher than in the same
period in 1998. In order to counteract this trend, America's exports to the
rest of the world would have to increase thirty percent faster than
imports--something that is clearly ruled out--just to keep the deficit at
its present levels. The instinctive reaction of Congress is to pull down the
shutters.

Already in 1997, Congress turned down the President's request for "fast
track" authority to negotiate trade agreements. Since then US policy makers
have grown increasingly reluctant to endorse further moves towards free
trade. The Republican Right in the US Congress did its best to block China's
entry into the World Trade Organisation. The reasons are not difficult to
see. China has a large trade surplus with the USA and Congress is dominated
by open or disguised protectionists. True, they eventually backed down. If
the vote had gone the other way it would have caused a disastrous rift
between the USA and China, and completely undermined the pro-capitalist wing
in Beijing. But the conflicts between China and the USA have not been
resolved.

There is growing tension not only between America and China and Japan, but
also between America and Europe. The USA is in conflict with Europe over the
issue of genetically modified food, hormones in meat and bananas. This is a
warning of the shape of things to come. In a recent opinion poll as many as
46 percent of Americans said that "the US should slow the trend towards
globalisation because it hurts American workers." That explains why Clinton
was forced to make conciliatory noises at the time of the anti-WTO
demonstrations in Seattle. This mood exists even though unemployment in the
USA is at a record low level. What will happen when the economy starts to go
down? As long as the present boom in America lasts, protectionism has a
largely disguised character--usually taking the form of dumping suits and
the like. But earlier this year Congress voted for steel quotas by a margin
of two to one. In the event of a depression, this protectionism will assume
a more open and aggressive character. This will threaten the very existence
of the delicate fabric of world trade painstakingly put together over the
last fifty years. Let us remember that it was precisely protectionism that
turned the 1929 Crash into a world depression. Under such conditions, the
underlying contradictions that are already visible in world politics will
intensify a thousand fold.

Europe and America

"NATO's war in Kosovo this year may prove to have been the shock needed to
bring about change. For the European governments, the spectacle of American
power unleashed in their corner of the map was frightening and chastening.
They found most of their weaponry humiliatingly obsolete when set against
the American arsenal of stealth bombers and precision-guided missiles. Once
begun, this became an American war run from the White House and the Pentagon
over which the Europeans had little political influence." (The Economist)

The Kosovo war was also a turning point for Europe. The fact that this was
an American war, in which NATO was merely used as a flag of convenience, has
given rise to a powerful impulse among Europeans to develop their own
fighting capacity, not dependent on the good will of the USA--something
which cannot be taken for granted in the future. The creation of the
European Common Market was an attempt on the part of the European states to
create a trading bloc capable of resisting the pressures of the giants of
the world economy, America and Japan. The Lilliputian states of Western
Europe were crushed between mighty US imperialism and mighty Stalinist
Russia. Now the threat from the East has receded. But they are still
compelled to hang together in the face of competition from America and
Japan, both of whom are busy carving out their own trading blocs in Latin
America and Asia.

Zbigniew Brzeznsky, former national security adviser to the US under Jimmy
Carter, describes Europe as "largely an American protectorate, with its
allied states reminiscent of ancient vassals and tributaries". And he
considers this arrangement unhealthy for both sides. In fact, the whole of
Europe finds itself cast in the role of "followers" of US imperialism, a
fact that cannot be hidden by the fact that it is called an "alliance". The
war in Kosovo revealed for all to see the humiliating dependence of Europe
on America. But that may well change in the next period. Now that the USSR
has ceased to exist, the European states, with the exception of Britain
which likes to hide its chronic weakness behind the fiction of a "special
relationship" with US imperialism-- are not so keen to accept Washington's
dictates.

The underlying causes of the growing antagonisms between Europe and America
are the clash of economic interests. Despite the appearance of friendly
relations, the extreme contradictions between Europe and the USA were
revealed in the Seattle WTO negotiations. The immediate issue was
agriculture. The USA regards the European Union's Common Agricultural
Policy, correctly, as protectionist. Europe is defending its farmers by
keeping out American agricultural products, hiding behind a variety of
excuses, such as the use of hormones and genetically modified food. This
touching concern for the welfare of consumers would be more convincing but
for the well-established fact that European farmers have also been involved
in all kinds of doubtful practices, such as mixing animal foodstuff with
excrement and dead carcasses. On both sides of the Atlantic what matters is
profit. The arguments over the health and well-being of the consumer and
animal welfare play approximately the same role in trade wars as did the
slogan of humanitarianism and "self-determination" in Kosovo.

The USA accuses the EU of heavily subsidising its farmers--which is
true--but omits to mention the subsidies which Washington pays to its own
farmers. $8.7 billion was paid out in "emergency help" in 1999 alone. As in
the 1920s, the slump is being preceded by a crisis of agriculture, hit by
low prices, overproduction and foreign competition. Europe and America are,
in effect, trying to export unemployment while jealously protecting their
own interests. The conflict of interests is particularly acute between the
USA and France, and not only in the field of agriculture. The two countries
have clashed repeatedly in the Third World, where France is not reconciled
to the loss of its former influence. The bitter trade row over bananas is a
reflection of this. The Americans argue, not without reason, that the
bananas from Central and South America are cheaper and better than the
products of the Caribbean imported by the EU. But the opening of the
European market to the Central American plantations (which are owned by big
American companies) would ruin those of the Caribbean producers (which are
owned by big European companies). And so on and so forth.

The Seattle talks broke down because of the failure of Europe to agree with
America. This has cast a dark shadow over the future of the WTO itself. It
is a very serious question. Very soon, almost all of America's farm exports
will contain genetically modified materials. What will happen then? Probably
they will manage to patch up some kind of compromise in order to avoid a
catastrophe for world trade, the principal engine of economic growth since
1945. But this crisis over agriculture shows just how fragile the whole
edifice of world trade really is. It is not generally realised that
agriculture nearly led to the breakdown of the earlier Uruguay round. It
could break the present one. The Economist commented in worried tones about
the possible consequences of a breakdown of the Seattle talks:

"If that happened, it would encourage anti-WTO groups to go onto the
offensive. America, the EU and Japan would increasingly be tempted by
managed trade. The EU and America would redouble their efforts to carve up
markets through regional preferential trade agreements that can only
undermine the multilateral approach to trade. Congress is due to review
America's membership of the WTO next March; some may press for a vote on
withdrawal." (The Economist, 27/ 11/ 99)

In the event of a slump, the cracks that presently exist between Europe and
America will widen into a chasm. In the past this would have led to war.
Under present conditions that is ruled out. But there can be a very bitter
trade war which can express itself in armed conflicts waged by proxy in
Africa and Asia for markets and raw materials. Given the depth of the
antagonisms between the European states, the project of a unified European
armed force seems unlikely to prosper. The question would immediately be
posed: Who commands? That is why all talk about a European super-state is so
much nonsense on a capitalist basis. Without a unified army, state and
police force, it is impossible to unite Europe even on a loose federal
basis. In the United States, for example, the different states have a
considerable degree of autonomy, but there is one army and a federal police
force and central state. It is clear that the only possibility of achieving
such an arrangement in Europe would be under German domination. That could
never be achieved by peaceful means, but only by the methods used by Hitler
who, after all, did succeed in uniting Europe--under the heel of his boot.

Washington looks at the EU with a certain amount of anxiety. On the one
hand, the rise of isolationist sentiment inclines them to grumble about
involvement in costly foreign wars across the Atlantic. On the other hand,
they fear the consequences of allowing Europe to escape from their control.
George Robertson, Blair's former minister of defence, now rewarded with the
top job in NATO, commented with unusual irony on the seemingly schizophrenic
attitude of the Americans to Europe, "on the one hand saying, 'You Europeans
must carry more of the burden.' And then, when the Europeans say, 'OK, we
will carry more of the burden, they say, 'Well, wait a minute, are you
telling us to go home?'"

Currently, Europe spends only 60 percent of the amount America spends on
arms. But that may change. A general process of rearmament is inevitable in
the next period. in fact, it has already begun. François Heisbourg, a French
defence expert, argues that each European government should spend at least
40 percent of its total defence budget on research and development, to cut
troop levels to no more than 0.3 percent of the population and on no account
reduce defence spending below its present level. This programme hardly
expresses confidence in a peaceful world! But why the insistence on the need
to spend more on research and development? Surely new and sophisticated
weaponry is not required to fight wars in Yugoslavia or the Middle East?

German suspicion of America has been heightened as a result of the Kosovo
war: "German policy is particularly likely to shift after Kosovo," writes
Stratfor. "Germany has a fundamental interest in maintaining good relations
with the Russians. From a geopolitical and a financial sense, a hostile
Russia is the last thing that Germany needs. The near- confrontation between
NATO and Russia over Kosovo was a sobering experience for the Germans. For a
few days, they looked into the abyss and the abyss stared back at them.
Members of the Red-Green coalition in Bonn are inherently suspicious of both
the United States and military adventures. They spent the last month trying
to demonstrate that they could be good citizens of NATO, putting aside their
ingrained, 1960s sensibilities. They emerged with a clear sense that they
were right to mistrust American leadership and to worry about military
adventures. One of the consequences of Kosovo is that the Europeans in
general, and the Germans and Italians in particular, are going to be
extremely cautious in agreeing to future creative uses of NATO." (Stratfor's
Global Intelligence Update: The World After Kosovo May 3, 1999)

Britain and France, both uneasy about German domination in Europe, are
moving towards an alliance. Paris is attempting to lure London away from its
attachment to Washington. Since the Second World War Britain has been
reduced to the role of a virtual client state of America. However, the
Kosovo war marked a turning-point in relations between the powers. The
overwhelming display of US military might has compelled them to move towards
setting up a European Defence Force. But Britain and France do not want
Germany to dominate this force. The discussions between Blair and Chirac in
London about future British and French co-operation were a reflection of
this. They mark the beginning of a process that can only end in the
formation of a new entente between Paris and London directed against
Germany. Tensions within the EU will grow. Under certain conditions they may
even lead to the break-up of the EU itself. But this is not the most likely
outcome. For all the conflicts between them, the European capitalists know
that they have to try to band together for protection against the USA and
Japan. It is a case of "Either we hang together, or we hang separately."

World-wide struggle

Ten years ago the apologists of capitalism talked about a new world order of
peace, of prosperity, of stability. Instead of this, we have entered into
the most disturbed period in human history. The present period is already
much more similar to the situation 100 years ago than the exceptional period
of stability after the Second World War. Lenin's Imperialism has a
strikingly modern ring nowadays. What did Lenin say about imperialism? On
the one hand, it is monopoly capitalism as characterised by the domination
of the world by huge monopolies. The process of monopolisation has been
carried to an extreme never before seen in history. At present the whole
trade of the world is dominated by not more than 200 companies. And in turn
that determines the policies of the governments.

The military build-up since the fall of the Soviet Union is not an accident.
They are not spending all this money for the fun of it. The imperialist
powers are all making serious preparations for the period that now opens up.
How do we explain such a colossal amount of military expenditure? At the
time of the Cold War one could answer the question 'Why do you need all
these weapons?' But what is the reason now? They cannot use Russia and China
as an argument. The answer to this question lies elsewhere. The squeezing of
the colonial peoples, the looting of the Third World will inevitably produce
a great movement of the masses--a new edition of the colonial revolution.
And they are preparing for that. That is the only explanation for the war
against Iraq and this monstrous bullying of American imperialism.

Underneath the thin veneer of "Christian civilisation", these polite,
democratic ladies and gentlemen of the American ruling class, will stop at
nothing to uphold their interests against the rest of the world. No act of
barbarism is too great, no torment too severe, to inflict upon the colonial
peoples. They did not publish it in the press, but the bombing of Iraq
continued throughout the Kosovo war. Every single day they continued to bomb
Iraq, killing ordinary people, despite the fact that Iraq was long ago
brought to its knees from a military point of view. What is the reason for
this? Iraq is defeated. Iraq is not a military threat. It is intended as a
warning to the peoples of the Middle East, because they know that these
regimes are unstable. If you challenge America, if you challenge us, just
see what you will get! We can bomb you back into the Stone Ages. That is the
intention.

In July 1999 we wrote:

"The attempts on the part of United States imperialism and Nato to expand
its sphere of influence eastwards has accelerated the formation of new power
blocs around the world. And the war against Yugoslavia has particularly
fuelled this process. In response to the Nato danger, Russia has been
building a series of new military alliances. This has involved China, the
Ukraine, Moldova, and even Yugoslavia itself. Russia is also building
alliances in the Caucasus where it has conflicting interests with Nato. This
aggressive expansionist stance of US and Nato foreign policy has had its
effects on Russia in particular, but also on other countries. The friction
between Russia and the NATO alliance that has emerged around the Kosovo
conflict is leading to a significant realignment of forces and relationships
among the imperialist powers." (New balance of forces emerges after the war
in Kosovo,  July, 1999)

The dominant theme in world relations at the start of the 21st century will
once again be the ferocious struggle between America and Russia on a world
scale. Since the fall of the Soviet Union a big power struggle has been
going on. It manifests itself in the Caucasus and Central Asia in the
struggle between American imperialism with its ally Turkey on the one side
and on the other, Russia and Iran, with China hovering in the background.
Here is the outline of a new cold war, a new struggle for global hegemony,
and new division of the world into blocs. Russia will inevitably tend to
link up with China, which is also in a very unstable situation. The growing
realisation of American hegemonism is pushing Russia and China together.
Probably India will also be drawn into this bloc.

The link-up between Russia, China and India against America corresponds to
the logic of the struggle between America and China in the Pacific. Not
content with having the Atlantic and the Mediterranean as American lakes,
Washington wishes to add the Pacific to its shopping list. This will
inevitably bring the USA into collision with China in the next period. There
is already a growing arms race. Japan, for example, has just bought air
missile defences from America which has alarmed the Chinese, because it
tends to undermine their own missile system. So they will have to produce
new missiles. There are many other examples of the arms race in the Pacific.
This is the shape of things to come.

There are growing tensions in Asia and the tensions between China and
America are increasing all the time. First, there is the question of Taiwan
which, if it is not resolved, could lead to war under certain circumstances.
The Chinese regard Taiwan as an unalienable part of China, and any move on
the part of Taiwan to declare unilateral independence would be seen as an
intolerable provocation because of the effects on other national minorities
within China (Tibet, Mongolia, Sinkiang, etc.) The enormous and growing
tensions between China and America are not only derived from the Taiwan
issue, but reflect a more fundamental clash of economic and strategic
interests. Ten years ago, America regarded China as a market, and just as a
market. We pointed out at the time that if the West started investing in
China, China would build factories, that those factories would produce
goods, that those goods would be exported onto the world market where they
would compete with American goods. That is precisely what has happened. The
huge and growing trade gap between the two countries (to America's
disadvantage) is provoking a strong backlash in the USA. This will lead to
bitter conflicts, despite China's admission to the WTO.

There is now a large question mark over the future of capitalism in China.
The Chinese economy--though not remotely as bad as the Russian--is in grave
difficulties. There is a serious danger of the collapse of the Chinese Stock
Market, which would ruin 40 million people. Entry into the WTO will solve
nothing and may make things worse. Unlike Russia, the Stalinist bureaucracy
in China has kept a tight grip on power. The experiment in market economics
(more successful than in Russia) has been kept to within certain
predetermined limits. It is mainly confined to the coastal areas like
Guandong and Shenzen. Even today, only one third of production is produced
in the private sector. The decisive sector is still the state sector and in
the event of a slump the private sector could be eliminated altogether. If
the working class does not take power, China can turn back to some kind of
Stalinist (Maoist) regime, accompanied with a movement towards a bloc with
Russia. It was precisely fear of such a development which persuaded the US
Congress, reluctantly and at the eleventh hour, to drop its objection to
China's membership of the WTO. Had they refused, the humiliation of Beijing
would have dealt a mortal blow to the pro-capitalist "reformers". Clinton
was compelled to put heavy pressure on Congress to back down.

However, China's entry into the WTO will solve nothing. It gave a temporary
respite to the reformers, led by Premier Zhu Rongji, but their victory will
not last long. The ink was not dry on the deal before China announced a
crackdown on foreign companies, including France Télécom, which had invested
$1.4 billion in an attempt to grab the important and rapidly expanding
Chinese telecommunications sector, much to the disgust of the said
companies. "Investment in China has always been a minefield," lamented
Business Week (29/ 11/ 99) "and the WTO agreement is unlikely to clear
it--certainly not at first, and perhaps not ever." The problem is quite
simple. The massive entry of foreign companies into China would ruin its
domestic state-owned industries, causing huge unemployment and social
unrest. This prospect alarms the bureaucracy, and makes it determined to
resist further penetration by the big multinational companies. The
"conservative" wing associated with men like the head of the National
Congress, Li Peng, have plenty of weapons left in their hands to sabotage
and delay deals with foreign companies. China's entry into the WTO gives the
latter the right to complain to Geneva instead of Beijing. The Chinese will
merely shrug their shoulders. "So what? Let them complain to their heart's
content. But the industries will remain in our hands."

The danger of upheavals in China are clear to the strategists of Capital.
Business Week commented on China's entry into the WTO in an editorial that
gave voice to these concerns: "No communist nation has successfully managed
an economic transformation of the magnitude China is now attempting without
triggering massive political upheaval. And no free trade system in history
has absorbed such a giant country without undergoing enormous strains." And
it adds: "With 100 million migrant workers roaming its cities, China is
gambling that it can attract enough foreign investment to generate jobs for
its people. But it must find the political strength to follow through. The
stakes are high. Flaunting WTO rules can wreak havoc on the world trade
system and undermine China's own efforts to become a modern country." (
Business Week, 29/ 11/ 99)

Yet another potential Asian flashpoint is in Korea, where there is a
revolutionary development in the South, while North Korea is facing
collapse. The Pentagon is talking about the danger of war, although it does
not appear likely that North Korea would invade the South. True, this is a
very unstable totalitarian regime and it would not be the first time that a
desperate regime engaged in some kind of an adventure. Although the North is
ruined, with actual cases of hunger, it is an incredible fact that Piongyang
has the fifth largest army in the world. However, since America would be
bound to intervene, such a venture would be doomed to fail. More probably
the situation in North Korea is more similar to that of Romania ten years
ago. The country is in a desperate position, the regime is collapsing.
However, a totalitarian regime can keep the lid on to such an extent that
nobody on the outside knows what is happening. It is like the lid of a
pressure cooker with a faulty valve. Under Ceaucescu, one minute it seemed
that everything was under control and the next it exploded. The same can
happen with North Korea.

Revolutionary optimism

At the beginning of the 21st century, the risk of a major war between the
developed industrial nations has receded, at least for the time being.
However, the world has not become a more peaceful place. At the present time
there are at least thirty armed conflicts going on. These are "small wars",
almost all of them taking place in the Third World. The fact that they are
small compared to the world wars that shaped the twentieth century does not
make them any less horrific for the people involved in them. At present
there at least 50 million refugees in the world. These wars are fought with
the utmost savagery and with modern weapons of destruction such as
anti-personnel mines that are designed to cripple people by driving the
shin-bone through the knee. Most of the victims are women and children. And
children often fight in these wars, armed with deadly but light weapons like
Kalashnikovs. Despite all the demagogic speeches aimed at the banning of
landmines, millions of these diabolical weapons are stockpiled and easily
find their way to Angola, the Congo and Afghanistan.

In the next period such "small" wars will become increasingly common. In
most cases they will be proxy wars, with one or another of the big powers
behind them. In Africa, US and French imperialism are engaged in a vicious
struggle for the control of rich mineral resources. Russia and America are
clashing in the Caucasus and central Asia. This leads to bloody and
protracted wars in which rival imperialist powers use tribal, ethnic and
national antagonisms for their own ends. In particular US imperialism,
despite all its hypocritical talk about humanitarianism and democracy, is
prepared to arm and finance the worst kind of lumpenproletarian scum and
turn them loose against any regime they do not like. The clearest case was
Afghanistan where they were behind the so-called Mudjahideen--bandits and
cut-throats in league with the feudal landlords and reactionary mullahs--in
order to bring down the pro-Russian regime in Kabul. Now, after 20 years of
horrific warfare, the country has been reduced to a bloody pulp. The
monstrous Taliban regime, which wants to go back to the seventh century, has
plunged Afghanistan into barbarism. The West does not blink an eyelid. In
fact, the proxy war continues. The USA, Russia, Pakistan, India, Iran and
Saudi Arabia, to one degree or another, continue to encourage the fighting
between rival factions for their own selfish ends. Washington's only
objection to the Taliban regime is that it is not under its control and
gives refuge to the likes of Osman Bin Ladin, a rabid Islamic reactionary
who was originally supported by the CIA but now has developed a taste for
blowing up American embassies.

The advanced capitalist countries are arming to the teeth. In a world
tormented by poverty, hunger and illiteracy in which seven million children
die every year from diseases like diarrhoea, caused by the lack of clean
drinking water, billions are spent on the development and production of
state-of-the-art weapons of destruction. This is no accident. The
imperialists are preparing to fight the wars of the 21st century--not wars
like the First and Second World Wars, but wars to crush the life out of
small backward nations and ensure the domination of imperialism. France is
arming to intervene in her spheres of influence in Africa and the Middle
East. Germany is arming to prepare for conflicts in Eastern Europe and the
Balkans, and for a possible future confrontation with Russia. Russia is
arming to defend her frontiers and, if possible, to win back her former
territories and spheres of influence to the East, South and West. China is
arming to prevent the break-away of rebel provinces as happened in the past,
and to pursue an aggressive policy in Asia which could easily lead to war in
the future. In all likelihood, the USA would be sucked into such a war in
Asia. All this, of course, is excellent news for the big capitalist arms
companies who are making fat profits out of their trade.

For the superficial observer, untrained in Marxism and dialectics, the
present world situation seems to present an unrelieved picture of the
blackest reaction. Capitalism and imperialism seem to be firmly in the
saddle. The civilised democracies of the West, while, preaching pacifism to
the rest of the world, are all busy experimenting with pleasant little
sidelines like chemical and bacteriological warfare, including anthrax and
bubonic plague which wiped out a third of the population of Europe in the
Middle Ages. This poses a deadly threat to the very survival of humankind in
the future. On all sides, wars, ethnic slaughter, barbarism and madness
rule. Yet these are only the surface manifestations of the agony of a system
that has outlived its historical usefulness and is rotten-ripe for
overthrow. The wars and convulsions that plague humanity inflict terrible
suffering, but are only a symptom of the deep contradictions that flow from
the unbearable contradictions of the capitalist system in its period of
senile decay. At bottom, they are the result of the fundamental
contradiction between the colossal potential of the productive forces and
the straitjacket of private property and the nation state. Upon the
resolution of this contradiction the whole fate of humanity depends.

History shows that there is a relation between wars and revolutions. The
French revolution ended in war. The Russian revolution was sparked off by a
war. War is the expression of unbearable tensions between nation states,
just as revolutions are the expression of unbearable tensions between the
classes. Not infrequently, wars are also an expression of internal
contradictions which seek an outlet in the international arena. But wars
also exacerbate internal tensions and raise them to the nth degree. The
effects of the Vietnam war in the USA and of the wars in Angola and
Mozambique in Portugal are two cases that clearly illustrate the point. The
epoch in which we have entered will see many such cases.

"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction". What is true in mechanics
is also true in politics. The period of semi-reaction associated with the
Reagan-Thatcher doctrines and the untrammelled domination of the market
("monetarism") has run its course. Everywhere we see the beginnings of a
rejection of capitalism, its greed, inequality and cruel injustice. The most
graphic expression of this fact was the demonstrations outside the
Conference of the World Trade Organisation in Seattle. This shows that a
further outbreak of the colonial revolution will immediately find its
expression within the United States and the other developed capitalist
countries which will dwarf the mass demonstrations of the Vietnam war. What
was particularly striking about the Seattle demonstrations was their clearly
anti-capitalist content. By contrast, the anti-Vietnam demonstrations were
mainly pacifist in character. This is a serious advance and reflects a
change in consciousness.

The reaction against capitalism and "market economics" takes many forms, but
the fact that millions of people world wide are beginning to question the
foundations of the present order is impossible to deny. The assertion that
capitalism ("the free market economy") is the only possible form of society,
and that men and women are forever doomed to live under the yoke of Capital,
has been exposed as false. The promises that were made ten years ago are
shown to be a hollow sham. Asia has collapsed. Latin America is in a deep
recession and Russia is in a complete mess.

We must be prepared for sudden and sharp changes in the situation in every
country, in Mexico, in Bolivia, in Greece even in Britain and Germany. Big
movements are being prepared and the question here is not 'Well, how long
will it take, will it be long,?' That's not the question. We cannot answer
that question, because it is not a scientific question. What we can say is
this: We must take advantage of the present lull. It is the lull between two
battles, and a serious army in the lull between two battles does not waste
precious time it cleans its weapons, it digs trenches it wins new recruits,
it trains them, it studies war and it prepares for the new offensive which
inevitably impends.

During the First World War Lenin was completely isolated. He was in exile,
with no resources, and only a tiny handful of people that he could contact.
This was a situation of black reaction, the triumph of militarism, the
triumph of war, the triumph of madness, of barbarism, the breakdown of
civilisation. Yet Lenin was capable of detecting the elements of revolution
maturing slowly beneath the surface. How joyfully he greeted the Irish
uprising of Easter 1916, describing it as the beginning of a period of
revolutionary and national upheaval. The Easter Rising was put down in blood
by British imperialism. And yet Lenin's general analysis was shown to be
correct within just one year. At the dawn of the new millennium the Marxists
are the only optimistic people on the planet. The perspectives from a
capitalist point of view are bleak indeed In reality, the serious
strategists of capital look with dread to the future. The coming period will
be rich in revolutionary possibilities. That was brilliantly shown by the
revolution in Indonesia which is not finished and also in Iran where the
revolution is in its early stages.

If we look back at the history of revolutions we see that they never
respected frontiers. The revolutions of 1848 swept over Europe from one end
to the other. The Russian revolution of 1917--the "ten days that shook the
world"--not only had an electrifying effect throughout Europe, but had
tremendous reverberations in Asia and the Middle East. But now the
conditions for world revolution have matured to an unprecedented degree. The
events in one part of the world have an immediate effect on all other areas.
The advent of globalisation means that conflicts will rapidly spread from
one country and continent to another. Revolutions are no respecters of
frontiers. In the modern epoch, once the revolution begins in any major
country, it will spread even more rapidly than in the past. All that is
needed is one victory on the lines of October 1917, especially in any key
country, and the movement will spread like wildfire, not just from one
country to another, but from one continent to another. This is the epoch of
world revolution. The 21st century will see a rebirth of the class struggle
which sooner or later must lead to the victory of the working class and the
establishment of a new world order in place of the present bloody chaos. The
name of that new world order is international socialism.

Alan Woods and Ted Grant
London, 15th December 1999

=======================
Robert F. Tatman
Computer Help Desk
Desktop & LAN Services
Systems Department
Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
215.854.2729
215.854.2788
The contents of this message represent the opinion only of the writer, and
may not be construed to indicate the endorsement of Knight-Ridder, Inc.;
Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.; The Philadelphia Inquirer; or the
Philadelphia Daily News.
"Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity."

DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing!  These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically  by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om