Or as the well-known conservative writer, the Atlantic Monthly correspondent Robert Kaplan, was to put the issue somewhat more bluntly: “Our prize for winning the Cold War is not merely the opportunity to expand NATO, or to hold democratic elections in places that never had them, but something much broader: We and nobody else will write the terms for international society” (Warrior Politics, New York 2002, pp. 144-145, emphasis in original).
The doctrines set out in the 2002 NSS articulated what was a clear policy shift on the part of the US administration. Of course, the United States, as the world’s dominant imperialist power, had previously pursued its interests and objectives ruthlessly and employed military force where it considered that necessary. The long history of wars, military interventions, assassinations and coups in the post-World War II period are adequate testimony to that.
But it had always adhered, at least in theory, to the doctrine that military force should not be employed pre-emptively in pursuit of policy objectives. That had been the basis of the charges brought against the representatives of the Nazi regime at the Nuremberg war crimes trials—that they had pursued aggressive war as an instrument of policy.
In his summing up, the chief US prosecutor at those trials, Robert Jackson, declared: “We charge unlawful aggression but we are not trying the motives, hopes, or frustrations which may have led Germany to resort to aggressive war as an instrument of policy. The law, unlike politics, does not concern itself with the good or evil in the status quo, nor with the merits of the grievances against it. It merely requires that the status quo be not attacked by violent means and that policies be not advanced by war. We may admit that overlapping ethnological and cultural groups, economic barriers, and conflicting national ambitions created in the 1930s, as they will continue to create, grave problems for Germany as well as for the other peoples of Europe. We may admit too that the world had failed to provide political or legal remedies which would be honorable and acceptable alternatives to war. We do not underwrite either the ethics or the wisdom of any country, including my own, in the face of these problems. But we do say that it is now, as it was for sometime prior to 1939, illegal and criminal for Germany or any other nation to redress grievances or seek expansion by resort to aggressive war.”
Pursuing aggressive war—it was from this that all the other crimes of the Hitler regime flowed.
In a famous speech delivered in October 1937, President Roosevelt had noted that the hopes of international peace had given way to a “haunting fear of calamity” as a result of “the present reign of terror and international lawlessness.” This new era had begun, he continued, “through unjustified interference in the internal affairs of other nations or the invasion of alien territory in violation of treaties. It has now reached the stage where the very foundations of civilisation are seriously threatened. The landmarks, the traditions which have marked the progress of civilisation toward a condition of law and order and justice are being wiped away.” There was, he concluded, a “spreading epidemic of world lawlessness.”
Those remarks were directed above all against Nazi Germany. Today, they apply with no less force to the United States itself, which is at the centre of international lawlessness.
This eruption of militarism is being justified on the grounds that September 11, 2001 “changed everything” and that the United States, with its allies, is now engaged in a global war against terrorism, for the values of civilisation itself, according to Bush’s chief propagandist, Tony Blair.
But what exactly changed? Here, the NSS document of 2002 is quite explicit. “The events of September 11, 2001, fundamentally changed the context for relations between the United States and the other main centres of global power, and opened vast, new opportunities.” What were those opportunities? The document went on to explain. “It is time,” it continued, “to reaffirm the essential role of American military strength.”
The terror attacks of September 11, 2001 have played a transformative role, but not in the way claimed by Bush, Blair and the other imperialist politicians. The war on terror has provided the pretext for the assertion by the United States of the right to deploy military force to realise its national objectives throughout the world—that is, to pursue the very same course for which the Nazi leaders were charged as war criminals.
Consider the recent remarks by US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice on the justification for the invasion of Iraq. In the lead-up to the war, Rice issued dire warnings about weapons of mass destruction. America could not wait for proof of their existence, she said, in case the “smoking gun” came in the form of a “mushroom cloud”.
With the exposure of the WMD lies, a new set of justifications is now advanced. On March 31, speaking to a group of foreign policy experts during her recent visit to Britain, Rice explained: “You were not going to have a different Middle East with Saddam Hussein at the centre of it.”
This followed remarks made in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on March 26. “If you really believe that the only thing that happened on 9/11 was people flew airplanes into buildings, I think you have a very narrow view of what we faced on 9/11,” Rice said. “We faced the outcome of an ideology of hatred throughout the Middle East that had to be dealt with. Saddam Hussein was a part of that old Middle East. The new Iraq will be a part of the new Middle East, and we will all be safer.”
In other words, the US was not satisfied with the existing political order and set out to change it by military force. But this is precisely the crime for which the Nazis were found guilty. In the words of the American prosecutor: “Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have, however objectionable it finds the status quo, aggressive warfare is an illegal means for settling those grievances or altering those conditions.”
National Security Strategy 2005
Lest anyone is under the mistaken belief that the 2002 NSS document was drawn up simply in preparation for the invasion of Iraq and did not reflect Washington’s long-term strategic objectives, allow me to refer to the 2005 NSS document released just a few weeks ago.
Bush’s introductory remarks to the new document underscore the yawning and ever-widening gap that exists between the utterances of imperialist politicians and reality.
He explained that a “new democratic government” has arisen in Afghanistan. Last month, however, the United Nations said the situation was so bad in that country that it urged refugees not to return. The regime is so democratic that a covert from Islam to Christianity was threatened with the death penalty.
In the wake of signing a nuclear deal with India, which has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and which has tested nuclear weapons, Bush declared: “We have focused the attention of the world on the proliferation of dangerous weapons.”
“We have stood for the spread of democracy in the broader Middle East,” Bush proclaimed, except that this does not extend to recognising the democratic election of Hamas to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority.
And in conclusion, Bush said: “We are fighting alongside Iraqis to secure a united, stable, and democratic Iraq—a new ally in the war on terror in the heart of the Middle East”. The falsity of that claim is established in the daily carnage that is Iraq.
As for the updated NSS document itself, it not only reaffirms the doctrine of pre-emption, but makes clear that it has far wider application than just Iraq. The document declares that the US does not “rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack.” In other words, no hard evidence is needed. There must simply be the belief in the administration that an attack is being prepared somewhere and at some time.
At the time of the last NSS, Iraq was the target. Now military action is being prepared against Iran. The document states that the US “may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran” and goes on to repeat its assertion that Iran is concealing the development of nuclear weapons. It then goes on to state, however, that as important as the nuclear issues are, the US has “broader concerns”.
Then follow the usual objections. Iran sponsors terror, threatens Israel, disrupts democracy in Iraq and denies the aspirations of its people for freedom. “The nuclear issue and our other concerns can ultimately be resolved only if the Iranian regime makes the strategic decision to change these policies, open up its political system, and afford freedom to its people. This is the ultimate goal of US policy,” it states.
In other words, the nuclear issue is a pretext. The real goal of US policy toward Iran is regime change—the installation of a puppet regime, which will follow US dictates and restore the situation that existed up to 1979 when the Shah was overthrown.
The NSS document makes clear that the strategic goal of the United States is the rearrangement of the world in accordance with its interests. In Latin America, the people must reject the “deceptive anti-free market populism” most closely associated with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Russia has “great influence not only in Europe and its own immediate neighborhood, but also in many other regions of vital interest: the broader Middle East, South and Central Asia, and East Asia.” It must be encouraged to “respect the values of freedom and democracy at home and not to impede the cause of freedom and democracy in those regions”. That is, Russia must toe the line dictated by the United States.
One of the most significant features of the document is the way that it links economic and military issues, especially with regard to China. The United States, the NSS asserts, will encourage China down the “road of reform and openness”. But it then adds the following warning: “Chinese leaders must realise, however, that they cannot stay on this peaceful path while holding on to old ways of thinking and acting that exacerbate concerns throughout the region and the world.”
What are these “old ways”? They include, as could be expected, expanding China’s military “in a non-transparent way”—presumably the Chinese are supposed to lay before the United States the details of the military activities. But there are also some new concerns, including:
“Expanding trade, but acting as if they can somehow ‘lock up’ energy supplies around the world or seek to direct markets rather than opening them up—as if they can follow a mercantilism borrowed from a discredited era; and
“Supporting resource-rich countries without regard to their misrule at home or misbehaviour abroad of those regimes.”
In other words, Chinese energy companies must not buy up other firms or undertake mergers where such activities might conflict with the activities of US multinationals. And Beijing must not seek to develop alliances with resource rich countries, such as Iran, where this would conflict with the geo-political interests of the United States.
The positions outlined in the NSS on China have a deep historical resonance. At the end of the nineteenth century, the balance of power in Europe, which had obtained since the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, was disrupted by the rise of a new economic power, the newly-unified state of Germany. The once backward region of Germany had become the economic powerhouse of the continent. But as history was to demonstrate, at the cost of millions of lives and the unleashing of unspeakable barbarism in the form of World War I, the older capitalist powers were not able to accommodate their new rival.
In the recent period, the question has been raised with ever greater frequency: will the existing great powers, and the United States in particular, be able to accommodate the rise of China or will its economic expansion lead to military conflict?
The NSS document makes clear that as far as the US is concerned the economic and military questions are bound together. The economic growth of China and the expansion of its influence can only be tolerated provided it does not conflict with the interests of the United States.
And how are those interests to be enforced? Under the heading “The Need for Action”, the NSS document makes this clear.
“The new strategic environment requires new approaches to deterrence and defence. ... Both offenses and defences are necessary to deter state and non-state actors, through denial of the objectives of their attacks and, if necessary, responding with overwhelming force. Safe, credible, and reliable nuclear forces continue to play a critical role. We are strengthening deterrence by developing a New Triad composed of offensive strike systems, both nuclear and improved conventional capabilities; active and passive defences, including missile defences; and a responsive infrastructure, all bound together by enhanced command and control, planning and intelligence systems.”
It would be a big mistake to believe that the danger of the deployment of nuclear weapons has passed with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War confrontation. On the contrary, the risk is increasing.
The implications of the references in the Bush administration’s 2005 National Security Strategy document to “overwhelming force” and the development of “offensive strike systems” involving “safe, credible and reliable nuclear forces” were spelled out in an article in the March-April edition of the journal Foreign Affairs.
The authors of the article conclude that since the end of the Cold War, the Russian strategic nuclear arsenal has sharply deteriorated, while the US nuclear arsenal has “significantly improved” and that the world will “live in the shadow of US nuclear primacy for many years to come.”
In the Cold War, the relations between the nuclear powers were regulated by the doctrine of MAD—mutually assured destruction. No power could launch a first strike because, even if it were successful, the other power would still have enough weapons left to destroy its opponent. That doctrine no longer applies, such is the superiority enjoyed by the US.
At the conclusion of their investigation, the authors summed up as follows:
“Some may wonder whether US nuclear modernisation efforts are actually designed with terrorists or rogue states in mind. Given the United States’ ongoing war on terror, and the continuing US interest in destroying deeply buried bunkers (reflected in the Bush administration’s efforts to develop new nuclear weapons to destroy underground targets), one might assume that the W-76 [nuclear warhead] upgrades are designed to be used against targets such as rogue states’ arsenals of weapons of mass destruction or terrorists holed up in caves. But this explanation does not add up. The United States already has more than a thousand nuclear warheads capable of attacking bunkers or caves. If the United States’ nuclear modernisation were really aimed at rogue states or terrorists, the country’s nuclear force would not need the additional thousand ground-burst warheads it will gain from the W-76 modernisation program. The current and future US nuclear force, in other words, seems designed to carry out a preemptive disarming strike against Russia or China.
“The intentional pursuit of nuclear primacy is, moreover, entirely consistent with the United States’ declared policy of expanding its global dominance. The Bush administration’s 2002 National Security Strategy explicitly states that the United States aims to establish military primacy: ‘Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States.’ To this end, the United States is openly seeking primacy in every dimension of modern military technology, both in its conventional arsenal and in its nuclear forces.”
In other words, this article, in the leading publication of the American foreign policy establishment, concludes, on the basis of a sober examination of the facts, that the US is pursuing an aggressive foreign policy and is quite prepared to use nuclear weapons in an offensive capacity to achieve its objectives.
These warnings have been underscored by this week’s article by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker magazine. According to Hersh, there is a detailed discussion taking place within the Bush administration for an air attack on Iran, possibly using nuclear weapons in order to destroy Iranian underground facilities.
Hersh cited a former intelligence officer who made clear that the elimination of Iranian nuclear facilities would require the use of nuclear weapons. “Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap. ‘Decisive’ is the key word of the Air Force’s planning. It’s a tough decision. But we made it in Japan,” he said.
In other words, 15 years after the end of the Cold War, the danger of the deployment of nuclear weapons is now as great as at any time in the 61 years since the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Two burning questions
How have we arrived at this situation and what is to be done about it? These are the two burning questions of the day.
To address the first question. The present situation cannot even be understood if it is seen as simply the outcome of policies of the Bush administration—as if a change of administration would bring about a change of course. Nor can it be seen as the result of the undue influence of the so-called neo-conservatives. If that were the case, then why is it that the Democrats offer no opposition to the Bush administration and only criticise it from the right.
Moreover, how is one to account for the fact that, in the international arena, the leading ideological proponent for the aggressive role of US imperialism is the leader of the British Labour Party, Tony Blair. And if it is just a matter of the Bush regime then why, when Blair addressed the Australian parliament last week, was this liar and war criminal hailed by the entire political and media establishment.
A profound turn in world politics such as we are now passing through cannot be ascribed merely to personal or accidental factors but must have deep historical roots. Let us try to examine them.
Some 80 years ago, as he was analysing the significance of the rise of American imperialism over its European rivals in the aftermath of World War I, Leon Trotsky explained that it would be a grave mistake to believe that American dominance would somehow weaken in the face of economic problems. Quite the contrary would take place.
“In the period of crisis the hegemony of the United States will operate more completely, more openly, and more ruthlessly than in the period of boom. The United States will seek to overcome and extricate herself from her difficulties primarily at the expense of Europe, regardless of whether this occurs in Asia, Canada, South America, Australia, or Europe itself, or whether this takes place peacefully or through war” (Trotsky, The Third International After Lenin, p. 8).
The present period, as we have noted, bears many similarities to that which preceded World War I. With the rise of Germany, the old balance of power in Europe broke down and the conflicting interests of the capitalist great powers could not be peacefully reconciled. Moreover, these conflicting interests extended well beyond Europe.
The stupendous economic growth at the end of the nineteenth century coupled with the development of global economic integration meant that the world economy was coming into conflict with the old nation-state system. The capitalist great powers, each of them concerned with the struggle for their own profits, resources and spheres of influence, were organically incapable of resolving that contradiction in a harmonious manner. War was the inevitable outcome.
The outcome of the war was the passing of economic hegemony to the United States. But the US could not refashion the world to meet its needs. It was confronted on the one hand by the continued economic and military power of its rivals in Europe and on the other by a still more dangerous foe, the socialist revolution, which had erupted in the form of the Russian Revolution of 1917.
No new equilibrium could be established, and barely two decades after the end of the First World War, the Second World War began. The US emerged from that war as the unchallenged hegemon of world capitalism. Resting on the betrayals of the Stalinist and social democratic leaderships of the working class, which insisted that capitalist democracy not socialism had to be established in Europe, the US was able, on the basis of its vast economic power, to establish a new capitalist equilibrium.
However, the very economic expansion that the post-war settlement engendered undermined one of the central pillars on which it rested—the absolute economic dominance of the US over its rivals.
Furthermore, the vast processes of economic globalisation over the past 20 years have raised the contradiction between the world economy and the capitalist nation-state system to a new peak of intensity. Once again this contradiction is expressed in the intense rivalry between the major capitalist powers for markets, resources and spheres of influence.
In the Middle East, the US aggression towards Iraq and now Iran—respectively number three and number two in the world for untapped oil reserves—is motivated by the drive to ensure that these reserves and resources are developed by American, rather than French, Japanese, Chinese, Russian or Indian companies. It is not just a matter of securing oil resources per se, but the vast profits that flow from their development. So far, the other major powers have tried to accommodate themselves to US demands. But, at a certain point, these demands, which increasingly freeze out US rivals, will become intolerable and we will begin to see the emergence of new blocs and alliances.
The US is still the dominant military power—its expenditure on arms is equivalent to the spending of all the other capitalist powers combined. But its economic supremacy has been severely undermined. With a balance of payments deficit of around $800 billion, and rapidly heading towards $1 trillion per year, it is dependent on an inflow of capital of $3 billion a day from the rest of the world, much of it coming from the central banks of China and East Asia. At the same time General Motors, at one time the largest industrial corporation in the world, is being superseded by Toyota.
At the end of the Second World War, the US was responsible for about 50 percent of the world’s industrial output. Now it finds itself increasingly eclipsed in the struggle for world markets. Herein lies one of the driving forces for militarism. US imperialism is seeking to overcome the decline of its economic position through the use of its military power. Such a strategy, by its very nature, cannot lead to a new equilibrium for world capitalism but must, sooner or later, create the conditions for imperialist war. This is the meaning of the invasion of Iraq, the threats against Iran and the open declaration that world domination is the central strategy of US imperialism.
A scientific perspective
This brings us to the second of the two questions posed earlier: how are these dangers to be confronted?
The answer to that question must be based on a sober, thought-out, that is scientific, evaluation of what is taking place.
The world is being plunged into new forms of barbarism by the eruption of deep-going and irresolvable contradictions within the very structure of world capitalism. The politics of imperialism—the subjugation of the resources and the peoples of the earth to the profit needs and interests of vast privately owned corporations—is quite literally incompatible with the objective needs and requirements of humanity.
In opposition to the program of imperialism and all its complexities, the international working class must advance its own independent perspective. There is no way out of the impasse other than the remaking of the world on the basis of the program of international socialism—that is, the overturn of the private profit and nation-state system and the utilisation of the resources of the earth and the vast wealth created by the labour of millions for the benefit of humanity as a whole. This is the perspective that must be consciously revived, developed and fought for.
To the extent that this perspective is taken up and begins to guide the struggles against war and the free market agenda of social inequality, the existing balance of forces will begin to shift, and shift quite dramatically.
The present situation is marked by a profound contradiction. There is mass opposition to war and the programs being implemented in all the major capitalist countries, yet they continue without hindrance.
Consider the experience of the invasion of Iraq. Millions opposed the war at the outset and held the largest demonstrations seen in history to voice their opposition. That opposition has not dissipated. But to the extent that it remains within the confines of protest, of seeking to pressure the imperialist powers, it remains impotent.
Facts must be squarely faced: the problem is one of perspective. No amount of pressure can divert American imperialism from the path of military aggression because its entire future is at stake. It is not going to fade from the scene and shuffle off into the good night.
Likewise, none of the major capitalist powers, whatever the political colouration of their governments, can abandon their own colonial ambitions. Nor can they back down on the free market agenda that requires the destruction of social services and working conditions as they compete for global markets and investment funds.
This is the issue now being fought out by the movement in France. Under conditions where the Chirac-Villepin government’s new labour laws against the youth are the part of an ongoing and intensifying war against the entire working class to make French capital competitive, no amount of protest can force a retreat. Either the movement goes forward by consciously fighting to force the government out, opening the way for a struggle for political power not only in France but throughout Europe where the same issues arise, or it is subordinated to the dictates of French capital.
This perspective, which arises from the objective conditions of the conflict itself, poses directly the necessity for the construction of a new revolutionary leadership of the working class. This is because all the existing organisations and parties—from the Socialist Party, the Communist Party and the trade unions right through to the so-called “extreme left” parties—are opposed to a direct political struggle against the government. Their perspective is that the government must end the crisis. Our perspective is that the crisis must result in the end of the government.
Likewise, in this country, the issues are no less sharply posed. The opposition to imperialist war and the deepening social inequality resulting from the depredations of the “free market” can find no outlet within the framework of official politics. It is necessary to construct a new revolutionary leadership of the working class based on the program of socialist internationalism and the historical struggle waged by the Trotskyist movement, the International Committee of the Fourth International. This is the task to which the SEP and the WSWS are dedicated. We urge that you give it urgent consideration and join our party.