Contribution to the 8th International Communist Seminar, Brussels, 2-4 May 1999
www.icsbrussels.org , ics[at]icsbrussels.org
The Military Strategy of British Imperialism
Harpal Brar, National Executive Committee member of the Socialist
Labour Party
and its Economics Committee Chair
This article is a somewhat expanded version of an a paper I presented, on behalf of the Socialist Labour Party, to the International Communist Seminar in Brussels organised by the Workers’ Party of Belgium (PTB). Although the paper was presented on 3 May this year, the present version makes reference to certain events and data which belong to the weeks following 3 May. The reader may find it irksome and have difficulty reconciling to the fact that, while speaking on 3 May to an international gathering, I give myself the indulgence of referring to events which took place subsequently, in the manner of Biblical prophecies. Keen as I am to give the reader of the present article the most up-to-date information, I have allowed myself this unusual licence. Footnotes would have been a way out, but some of the footnotes would have been so lengthy as to be clumsy in a newspaper article. It is to be hoped that the reader will, in view of this explanation, not judge me too harshly. All the same I offer my apologies for any confusion caused.
July 1999
The Military Strategy of British Imperialism
Comrades, I have been asked to make a presentation on the military strategy of the United Kingdom. In particular, it is required of me to comment on Britain’s military capacity, why Britain is such a ‘running dog’ of the USA, its special role in Nato, and the political and military contradictions between UK and Germany.
Britain’s economic position
In order that I may be able to make any meaningful observations on the above questions, it is necessary for me to refer, albeit briefly, to Britain’s economic position. And this for two reasons. First, the economic strength of a country cannot but have a determining effect on its military strength. Second, the armed might of a country, in the final analysis, serves it to safeguard its economic system and economic strength, for the military policy of a country, like its foreign policy, is only an extension of its economic policy.
Britain was the first country to industrialise. From 1848 to 1868, that is, from the defeat of the Chartist movement -- the first proletarian revolutionary party in the world – to the close of the seventh decade of the 19th century, when Britain possessed the largest colonial empire and enjoyed complete monopoly in the world market, Britain was rightly described as ‘the workshop of the world’. During these years Britain was not just the biggest act in town, it was the only act – it was the town.
From the 1870s, Britain’s monopoly position was under challenge, especially from Germany and the USA, and by the 1890s this monopoly was gone forever. Be it said in passing that the ending of the British monopoly by no means put an end to all monopoly; on the contrary, with the transformation of free-competition capitalism into monopoly capitalism, the British monopoly gave way to a monopoly exercised by a handful of monopoly capitalist – imperialist - countries, each of which ruled over an area only slightly smaller than that ruled by Britain in the 1850s. Since then, Britain’s relative decline, in comparison with other major capitalist countries, has proceeded unabated. The two world wars hastened this process further still.
During the past three decades, the manufacturing workforce has been halved (down from 8 million to 4 million), while the number of those employed in banking and insurance has nearly trebled. Between 1979 and 1989 alone, while investment in banking services went up by 125%, investment in manufacturing over the same period went up by a mere 13%. No wonder then that during those ten years employment in banking and financial services went up by over one million. In 1992, manufacturing output was 1% above that of 1979, while manufacturing investment was actually below that of 1979. Within manufacturing itself, one in ten manufacturing jobs are accounted for by the manufacture of armaments. Eleven of the top twenty British companies are involved in the manufacture of armaments. With such an erosion of its manufacturing base, and with such heavy reliance on the manufacture of the merchandise of death, how is British imperialism able to support the increasing proportion of the population involved in unproductive labour – the vast parasitic layers who produce no wealth, no surplus value? The answer, in the main, must be found in the export of capital and the earnings from it. For instance, in 1990, Britain’s overseas earnings from capital invested abroad were close to £26 billion, which represented 36% of all profit made in Britain that year. With such a high proportion of the profits of British imperialism dependent on the export of capital, one can see why banking (the City) and militarism have assumed such monstrously gigantic dimensions, and why Britain is the most gung-ho of all the European imperialist countries.
In these conditions, if British imperialism is to continue its parasitic existence (and it can have no other existence), if it is to continue to provide privileged conditions for the petty bourgeoisie and the labour aristocracy, every government policy must be subordinated to the interests of the robber barons of finance capital; every military adventure abroad must be fully and enthusiastically supported in order to make sure of the continued flow of tribute from abroad. The support given by all bourgeois parties, including Labour, to the genocidal war against Iraq is but one of the scores of examples one could cite in this connection. The sickening enthusiasm with which all the capitalist parties in Britain are supporting Nato’s war of aggression against Yugoslavia, and the consequent destruction of the civilian infrastructure, is the latest proof of the total subordination of government policy to the interests of finance capital.
If British imperialism emerged from the second world war much weakened economically, by contrast, the end of the war witnessed the rise of the United States as the most powerful imperialist country – both economically and militarily – assuming the mantle of leadership of the entire imperialist camp in the latter’s struggle against the Soviet Union and the socialist camp. The needs of reconstruction, and scarcity of resources, forced successive British governments, bit by bit, to shed illusions about Britain’s independent military role on a world scale and, instead, to accept the position of a junior partner of US imperialism, both within and outside of the war-mongering Nato alliance. This altered position found its reflection in Britain’s reduced military budget and military might.
The role of militarism
Consequent upon this recognition, Britain’s military budget has been declining for quite some years. Especially over the past two decades, in real terms the British defence budget has dropped markedly. This year the defence budget is £22 billion, of which £9.7 billion is for equipment and £8.2 billion for personnel. Defence expenditure as a proportion of the gross domestic product (GDP) has halved in the past 13 years from 5.1% to 2.8%. Correspondingly, the size Britain’s armed forces has very nearly halved over two decades, from being 347,700 in 1975 to 210,088 in 1997. In addition, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) employs nearly 125,000 civilians. The accompanying charts (1 and 2) show these comparative figures, concerning personnel, and the percentage of the GDP spent on defence, along with a breakdown of the present-day British armed forced into their three separate arms – the Navy, the Royal Air Force (RAF), and the Army. As is clear from these charts, half of Britain’s armed forces are stationed abroad, Northern Ireland included, fighting a never-ending war against oppressed peoples.
From the above figures one must not conclude that Britain is a peace-loving country engaged in the pursuit of peaceful development and co-operation. Nothing could be further from the truth. For, notwithstanding the decreased percentage of its GDP spent on defence, throughout the 1970s and 1980s, Britain, with the sole exception of the US, spent a greater proportion of its GDP on defence than any other major capitalist nation, though since 1997 this has changed. For now France, with defence expenditure at 3% of her GDP, spends marginally more than does Britain. The accompanying chart (3) gives details of the defence expenditure, and the strength of the armed forces, of the major imperialist countries.
Since the end of the second world war, Britain’s armed forces have been involved in 96 overseas military interventions, 28 of these in the Middle East alone. The last statistic is hardly surprising, considering that the Middle East is the repository of 60% of the world’s proven oil reserves, upon which depends the health and fabulous wealth of the giant imperialist oil companies, as well as the armaments manufacturers, with whom the oil companies are inextricably linked through investment and interlocking directorships. No wonder, then, that nearly half of the British forces are stationed in nearly 30 countries abroad – in Germany, Turkey, the Gulf, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Brunei, Philippines, Malaysia, Belize, the Caribbean, Colombia, Peru, Falklands, Gibraltar, Cyprus, and now Macedonia. From these strategic locations they are available for intervention at short notice.
Further, Britain is, after the USA, the second largest holder of overseas assets : half of Europe’s 50 largest multinationals are British. The City of London, which is one of the three main financial countries of the world, accounts for a quarter of Britain’s earnings – a contribution of the same size as that made by manufacturing, in which the manufacture of armaments plays a very significant part. If the British ruling class does not want to jeopardise its overseas investments and markets, military power, and its frequent use, and the stationing of British military forces abroad, are indispensable. The strategic review, of which more anon, with admirable candour declares : " Our economy is founded on international trade. Exports form a higher proportion of GDP than for the US, Japan, Germany or France. We invest more of our income abroad than any other major economy. Our closest economic partners are the European Union and the US, but our investment in the developing world amounts to the combined total of France, Germany and Italy. "
Britain, like all the other imperialist powers, needs to project her military power abroad, for ultimately it is the surest way of guaranteeing her ‘fair share’ of valuable markets and raw materials. Marx long ago explained the importance of cheap raw materials for increasing the rate of profit : " other conditions being equal the rate of profit… falls and rises inversely to the price of raw materials. This shows, among other things, how important the low price of raw materials is for industrial countries… It follows furthermore that foreign trade influences the rate of profit , regardless of its influence on wages… " (Capital, Vol. . III ).
The development of monopoly only serves to intensify the struggle for the seizure of raw materials. Developing Marx’s analysis, and applying it to the era of monopoly capitalism, Lenin comes to the conclusion : " The more capitalism is developed, the more strongly the shortage of raw materials is felt, the more intense the competition and the hunt for sources of raw materials throughout the whole world, the more desperate the struggle for the acquisition of colonies. "
British imperialism, in order to maintain its position, is left with little choice other than to be constantly involved in counter-revolutionary war against Third World countries, as well as in the struggle against its rival imperialists.
The arms industry and arms exports
Nor must one conclude that the British arms industry must have fallen on bad times consequent upon these developments. Despite budget cuts, the arms industry is in robust shape. British armament manufacturers have responded to budget cuts by a combination of rationalisation, consolidation, and increased exports. During the last 10 years, the export activity of the defence industry has increased beyond recognition. Britain’s ceaseless war against oppressed countries is supplied by her lucrative and powerful arms industry. British Aerospace (BAe), after its recent acquisition of Marconi from GEC, is the third largest armaments manufacturer in the world. Britain, with a 25% share of the legal global arms market, is the second biggest arms dealer after the USA. In 1990, overseas sales represented 65% of BAe’s turnover. Of the top 20 British manufacturing companies, no fewer than eleven are involved in the manufacture of armaments.
As the British defence budget has been cut by nearly a third in the decade following the fall of the Berlin wall, arms manufacturers have come to acquire an even greater dependence on the sale of arms abroad. In Britain’s case the need to export arms is crucial in view of the erosion of its manufacturing base and the trade deficit in manufactured goods. If Britain’s trade in manufactures has been in deficit for over a decade, significantly the trade in armament continues to be in surplus. British governments recognised long ago the importance, in fact the dire necessity, for British imperialism to get its ‘fair share’ of the lucrative international arms market. It was in appreciation of this dire necessity that Denis Healey, when he was Labour’s Defence Secretary, established the Defence Sales Organisation for the promotion of arms sales. At the time Healey explained his decision in the following terms : " While the government attaches the highest importance to making progress in the field of arms control and disarmament, we must also take what practical steps we can to ensure that this country does not fail to secure its rightful share of this valuable commercial market. "
In other words, the characteristic bourgeois lip service to arms control, disarmament and ethical foreign policy, hand in hand with the real business of exporting merchandise of death on a massive scale in the interest of the profits of monopoly capitalism.
Mrs Thatcher was only following in Healey’s footsteps when she struck the biggest, and mouth-wateringly lucrative, arms deal with Saudi-Arabia – the Al-yamamah arms deal, which even today accounts for 11.2% (£3.1 billion a year) of BAe’s £28.1 billion order book, and a gigantic 75% of its export sales.
George Robertson, Labour’s Defence Secretary, is neither blazing a trail nor exaggerating when he speaks of Britain’s defence industry as " one of the best in the world, worth £5 billion a year in exports, with 440,000 people employed in it. " He goes on to add, " we have to show a commitment to it. "
According to the 1997 figures, exports account for a huge 76% of the turnover of the UK aerospace and defence sector. The destination of the entire yearly turnover of the British arms industry is as follows : UK 24% ; US 23% ; Middle East 19% ; Europe 19% ; Asia Pacific 11% ; others 4% (see accompanying Chart 4).
British imperialism has gaily shared in the bonanza of arms sales abroad, especially to the Middle East in the aftermath of the Yom Kippur war in 1973. Accusing the US of arming Israel so as to deprive the Palestinians and other Arab peoples of their legitimate rights, the Arab oil producers, meeting in October 1973, reduced supplies, causing a ten-fold rise in oil prices – and an eight-fold increase in their own incomes, from $7.2 billion in 1972 to $57 billion in 1977. If by 1980 OPEC funds amounted to an unprecedented $350 billion, third world countries spent $60 billion on arms and defence, with half the weapons being sold to countries in the Middle East.
The importance of the Middle East to imperialism, not only as a repository of vast oil and gas deposits, but also as a huge market for arms, may be judged from the following few, but significant, statistics. In 1984 alone, Iraq spent $33 billion on arms imports. According to reliable estimates, between 1980 and 1990 Iraq spent $80-100 billion – at least $10 billion more than Britain spent ($69 billion) on arms during the same period. Iran, before the fall of the Shah, in some years, accounted for nearly half of the entire US export trade in arms. In the decade 1973-83, US arms exports to Saudi-Arabia amounted to $35 billion, to Iran $14 billion, and to Israel $11 billion. In 1996 alone, Saudi Arabia imported $9 billion (£5.6 billion) of arms – more than any other country in the Middle East and three times more than Egypt, the second largest importer of the region in that year. Today, the Middle East is the destination for 19% of the turnover of the British armament industry.
1987 was the cold war peak year in the sphere of arms exports, with sales reaching $88.5 billion. Since then arms sales have halved, and as a result, the competition for export orders has become more fierce and frenzied than ever before, fully reflected in the consolidation, already achieved, as well as in the pipeline, of the defence industries of Europe and the US. With the halving of the arms export market, not everyone has lost. In 1997, while the US increased its share of arms exports to 45 per cent, with sales of $20.9 billion (up from $17.7 billion in 1996), Britain remained the second largest arms exporter, increasing its sales to $8.5 billion from $8.2 billion in 1996. France, the third largest arms exporter, increased its sales to $7.4 billion from, $5.9 billion in 1996.
While over the decade the US share of the $46.3 billion arms export trade has grown from 7 per cent to 45 per cent, that of Britain has grown from 4 per cent to 15 per cent. The target of $8 billion a year arms sales abroad set by the Ministry of Defence has thus been over-fulfilled. In this frenzied and breakneck struggle over the most lucrative market in the merchandise of death and destruction, there is no room for considerations of morality, conscience, ethics and humanitarianism, all of which are but trifles as compared with the extraction of the maximum profit, which is the sole rationale for the existence of imperialism.
British imperialism’s continued decline
Although Britain is a powerful imperialist country, all the same British imperialism has been in decline – a decline which became all too evident after the Second World War. Other imperialist countries have overtaken it in terms of productivity and economic strength. In recognition of, and to compensate for, this declining strength, the British ruling class long ago opted for a ‘special relationship’ with US imperialism, on the one hand, and protection of its armaments industry at any cost on the other hand. Britain’s role in the Gulf War; the maintenance of sanctions against Iraq ; the recent air strikes against Iraq; and now the murderous war of aggression against tiny Yugoslavia – all furnish eloquent proof of these propositions. If one adds to this the fact (1) that the US constitutes Britain’s second biggest arms export market, (2) that Britain accounts for 40 per cent of US arms imports, selling more weapons to the US than any other European country, (3) that the British aerospace and defence industry relies for 23% of its turnover on the US market, which amounts to just 1% less than that accounted for by its home market, then one begins to see why Britain is prepared to go to any length to be part of any counter-revolutionary expedition organised by Uncle Sam, and why successive British governments, Tory and Labour, are ever willing to render flunkey service to the US in fields military and diplomatic. The following obsequious words of a servile lackey shed more light on the relationship in which Britain stands to the US than a hundred learned theses could ever do:
"We must never forget the historic and continuing US role in defending the political and economic freedoms that we take for granted. Leaving all sentiment aside, they are a force for good in the world. They can always be relied on when the chips are down. The same should always be true of Britain," (Tony Blair).
It only remains for us to add that, far from being ‘a force for good’, US and British imperialism are a counter-revolutionary evil force prepared to drown tens of millions of people in blood the world over for the sole purpose of defending the profits of giant imperialist corporations of their countries – for the maintenance of the system of exploitation of one human being by another, and of one nation by another – and blocking humanity’s onwards march to emancipation. Since the end of the Second World War alone, 22 million people have died in wars, mostly waged or inspired by US and British imperialism. Vietnam and Korea alone account for 6 million deaths in genocidal wars waged by US imperialism with the full backing (and in the case of Korea active participation) of British imperialism.
Strategic Review
A few words must now be said on Britain’s most recent Defence Strategic Review. Since the Second World War, there have been more than a dozen defence reviews, but "few", says the Financial Times, "can have involved such rigorous questioning of fundamental issues as that … conducted by George Robertson, the current defence minister". While recognising that "a strong defence capability is an essential part of Britain’s foreign policy" (Tony Blair), the review puts emphasis on ‘flexibility’ and ‘rapid deployability’ - moving further away from the static posture of the Cold War. Further, the review focuses on cost-effectiveness, a kind of greater military productivity, which can only mean more killing and destruction for every pound spent. A higher proportion of the armed forces are now actively engaged in operations than at any time since 1945. Time and again the review stresses the need for ‘expeditionary forces’ which Britain expects to be sending to ‘trouble spots’ in the future. According to the Financial Times of 2 February 1998, British forces are in demand because Britain is one of the few countries which can truly project power and engage in high-intensity warfare, adding that "this capability provides influence – especially in Washington – which Mr Blair is unlikely to throw away lightly."
As the government’s Strategic Defence Review seeks to make forces more flexible and cost-effective, high priority is given to making them more ‘purple’ - the word used to describe mixing the colours of the Navy, the RAF and the army. Officials and military chiefs see more ‘jointness’ as essential considering that Britain expects to deploy multi-role expeditionary forces which integrate easily with those of its imperialist allies, in particular the US. There is to be more common training, integration of logistics of the three services, more mobility and versatility. With this in mind, there is to be augmentation of resources available to the Joint Rapid Deployment Force (renamed the Joint Rapid Reaction Force), parts of which are ready to move to trouble spots at less than 24 hours’ notice. Since 1996, British forces have been got ready for rapid deployment in two operations against Iraq, two in Albania and two in Zaire.
The role of aircraft, with their proven ability to project global power even when use of local bases is denied, is to be upgraded. Two new carriers, costing £4 billion each, and double the size of the present ones carriers (the Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious),, are to be built and deployed on a global scale, ever ready for action. Labour’s review is based on the following underlying assumptions, the last of which is being increasingly undermined, as will be shown shortly, by the course of events in the European Union: first, that no power poses any threat to Britain or NATO over the next 10 or so years; second, that Britain must have the military preparedness to fight on two fronts at the same time if she is to maintain her global position; third, that Britain will buy the Eurofighter and Britain’s status as a nuclear power being sacrosanct, the four Trident nuclear missiles, each armed with 48 nuclear warheads, was excluded from the review, for they are a guarantee of British imperialism’s assertion, and retention, of a"historic role as a global player," (Tony Blair).
"Nothing is sacred," wrote the Financial Times of 2 February 1999 apropos the Strategic Defence Review, "except for two facts: Britain will maintain its nuclear deterrent, housed in Trident submarines, and will buy the Eurofighter."
There is yet another assumption, to which we shall come in a moment.
As was to be expected, the Review hypocritically speaks of ‘peace-keeping and humanitarian missions’ - euphemisms designed to portray in pretty colours the missile attacks on Iraq and Sudan, and now Yugoslavia, and aggression against and pillage of other countries. And this murderous and mercenary military machine is referred to as ’a force for good’ in the service of ‘ethical foreign policy’.
No euphemisms, no dulcet phrases, no hypocritical assertions, can hide the reality, namely, that monopoly capitalism "is, by virtue of its fundamental traits, distinguished by a minimum fondness for peace and freedom, and by a maximum and universal development of militarism" (V I Lenin). And further, nothing can hide the fact that:
"Imperialism is the epoch of finance capital and of monopolies, which introduce everywhere the striving for domination, not for freedom. Whatever the political system the result of these tendencies is everywhere reaction and an extreme intensification of antagonisms in this field. Particularly intensified become the yoke of national oppression… " ( V I Lenin ).
Common European security
Before answering the last question, that of Britain’s special role in NATO, and the political and military contradictions between the UK and Germany, it is necessary for me to refer to the fourth assumption which underlay the British Defence Strategic Review, and, in connection with this assumption, to present a brief survey of some of the important recent developments, which will not, I very much hope, be viewed as an unnecessary diversion from the subject.
The last assumption of Britain’s Review was that there will be no integrated European defence beyond a more effective European Security and Defence Identity (EDDI) in NATO through the West European Union (WEU). This assumption was merely the continuation of a long-held policy. Successive British governments have doggedly blocked steps towards a common European foreign and security policy, which might result in the establishment of an independent European defence entity, on the grounds that it will be a rival to NATO and be inimical to British imperialism’s special relationship with US imperialism. Britain, however, is finding it increasingly difficult to sustain this stance in the face of the determination of the leading members of the European Union, notably France and Germany, to push ahead with their plans for a common European security and foreign policy.
Despite steep cuts since the fall of the Berlin Wall, Europe’s defence expenditure is significant, amounting as it does to 60% of the US Defence budget. But this huge expenditure is not matched by the level of military force achieved from this spending. Europe is thus determined to get more for its money. Britain has, at long last, been converted to this view. Tony Blair, of all the people, dropped Britain’s long-held opposition to a common European defence policy, thus making way for last December’s St Malo agreement between France and Britain on defence co-operation. According to the St Malo Declaration, the European Union (EU) "must have the capacity for autonomous action, backed up by credible military forces, the means to decide them, and a readiness to do so, in order to respond to international crises." In short, the European bourgeoisie is limbering up to fight what Delors called the "the resource wars of the 21st century" i.e., a fight for the redivision of the world, backed by credible armed forces, which can rival those of any other imperialist bloc. Since the collapse of the USSR and the east European socialist countries, a huge area, with vast mineral wealth and possessed of a very highly-educated and scientifically-trained workforce, is suddenly up for grabs, whetting the appetite of the various imperialist powers and blocs. They are all, without exception, salivating at the prospect of grabbing the largest and the juiciest part of this dazzling prize. And these questions, despite the declarations of the foreign ministers, heads of government and heads of state, of the various imperialist countries, that there prevails perfect harmony, and complete unanimity of view, among them, cannot, in the final analysis, be decided in a peaceful way. The fact is that the imperialist powers, formally allies under the NATO alliance, are hopelessly divided, for their interests are opposed to each other. They are allies and enemies of each other at the same time. They cannot help falling out with each other any more than the capitalists on the floor of the Stock Exchange can help making a fast buck at each other’s cost, or than thieves can help fighting each other over their booty. In the words of Lenin, "the imperialist powers cannot take any serious step in any political question without falling out among themselves," (Speech delivered 5 May 1920 at a Joint Meeting of the All-Russian CEC, the Moscow Soviet of Workers’, Peasants’ and Red Army Deputies, the Trade Unions and the Factory Committees).
The Kosovo crisis has brought to the surface the cracks, indeed the deep divisions, in the NATO alliance. While pretending to be united, each of the principal imperialist powers – the US, Germany, Britain and France – is furiously pursuing its own separate agenda and trying to undercut its rivals with whom it is in formal alliance. A war within a war is taking place not only for the carve-up of the Balkans but also for the carve-up and domination of the vast region, endowed with fabulous oil, gas and other mineral wealth, stretching from the Middle East to the shores of the Caspian and Black Seas. This life and death struggle of the imperialist powers over the dazzling riches of this huge area alone, and not any humanitarian concern for the plight of the Kosovars, provides the key to understanding the reasons for the carnage visited on Yugoslavia by the NATO neo-Nazi alliance.
Since these questions are not decided in a peaceful and gentlemanly way over a drink, each side has to build a credible force to confront the other. Hence the St Malo Anglo-French Declaration; hence the Toulouse Franco-German Declaration. At the NATO Summit in April this year, the EU members of that military alliance were successful in having the idea of a European defence initiative written into NATO’s ‘strategic concept’. The Franco-German Toulouse Declaration of 29 May 1999 went much further. At the end of the 73rd Franco-German Summit in Toulouse, German and France spoke of their "determination to contribute all their weight so that the EU equips itself with the necessary autonomous means to decide and deal with crises." In other words, the parties to the Declaration pledged to use all their weight to ensure that Europe acquires the necessary military and intelligence means to cope with international crises without direct US involvement. The events in Kosovo, says the Financial Times of 31 May 1999, "have convinced the French that Europe must now proceed to act independently of the US since the EU has increasingly a different set of priorities from that of Washington … " (my emphasis).
Following the coming into force on 1 June 1999 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which created the post of High Representative, the EU’s first foreign policy supremo, the EU’s Cologne summit, held during the first week of June, appointed the revolting Spanish social-democrat Mr Javier Solana, to this post. He has impeccable credentials for this kind of filthy work. As Secretary-General of the war-mongering neo-Nazi NATO alliance, he has supervised NATO’s extension eastward to the borders of Russia and presided over NATO’s genocidal war of aggression against tiny Yugoslavia.
It will be Solana’s job to help fold the Western European Union (WEU) defence organisation into the EU by the end of 2000, as well as to get the EU states to boost their defence effort in intelligence, military transport and command and control – areas in which, as the war against Yugoslavia has highlighted, the EU is dependent on the US.
The requirements for, and obstacles in the way of, a common European security policy
Undoubtedly the EU faces formidable difficulties in pursuing the enterprise it has embarked upon. To begin with there is the membership mismatch between NATO and the EU; and the membership of the WEU, the security organisation which is to be folded into the EU matches neither. While Turkey, which is a loyal, not to say servile, member of both NATO and the WEU, will be out in the cold as it is not a member of the EU, neutral countries – Austria (which kept NATO warplanes out of its air space), Sweden, Ireland and Finland – being members of the EU will be able to exercise an effective veto on European security policy.
On top of this, while setting itself the objective of creating an independent defence identity, it has, for the time being at least, to pretend that its efforts in this direction are in no way designed to undermine NATO, for the EU leaders are fully aware that during the latest Balkans War, it is America’s military power which dominated the campaign; that it is the US B-2 Stealth bombers that flew all the way from Missouri to shed their deadly payload of smart bombs on Yugoslav targets; that only the US has satellite-guided bombs, ‘Jstars’, airborne battlefield reconnaissance and other sophisticated weapons; and that it is only the US that can fire Cruise missiles, with the partial exception of the British Royal Navy, whose few missiles are made and loaded in the US. Thus, now is not the time to upset the US. Precisely for this reason, however, the Kosovo crisis has added a sense of urgency to the question of common defence by underlining how dependent collectively the EU member states are on the US for sophisticated defence technology, for command and control, and for what the generals like to call ‘strategic lift’.
"Kosovo has rewritten the rules of western security and governments must summon the political will to face this," writes the reactionary journalist Philip Stephens euphemistically in the Financial Times of 21 May 1999. He scold the EU for not recognising that the US "no longer has the will to play the role of the continent’s leading power." In plain language, it amounts to saying that old unity displayed by the entire western imperialist bloc in the face of the mighty USSR has, since the collapse of the eastern bloc, made way for "visible tensions in the Atlantic relationship." So Europe must "reconfigure its armed forces" and reclaim a "significant part of the peace dividend." i.e.,, increase defence spending.
George Robertson, Britain’s war-mongering Defence Secretary, concurs. The conflict in Kosovo, he says, has made it ‘glaringly obvious’ that Europe must make more of an impact.
While not necessarily matching US weapon for smart weapon, the European defence project necessitates the harnessing of research expenditure so as to enable Europe to produce technologically sophisticated equipment of the type available to the American armed forces. This means acquiring ‘stand-off’ weapons, which enable European aircraft to fire at targets from a long distance, combat search and rescue capability to save pilots following any crash; and more transport aircraft.
In order to acquire this enhanced capacity, Europe could spend more on defence, especially defence research, in which area Europe spends $10 billion a year, as compared to the $36 billion a year spent by the US. Substantially increased spending in defence being unlikely owing to public opposition, the other three options are as follows :
First, a smarter spending of existing budgets. In this regard, defence ministries across Europe are keenly studying the UK’s Strategic Defence Review, with its emphasis on the deployment of flexible forces with appropriate equipment and attempts to improve defence procurement.
Second, collaboration across national boundaries on defence projects, which will be very testing indeed in view of the long line of flopped or stagnating efforts at Europe-wide collaborative procurement. While proclaiming that it is committed to a common defence policy earlier this year, Britain pulled out of Horizon, the troubled £7 billion 3-nation naval frigates project.
Third, Europe could embark upon the road of restructuring her overcrowded defence industry as a further means of squeezing better value for money out of procurement: "If we are going to punch our weight as a continent," says Britain’s Robertson, "we will have to do something about the fact that we are guarding all this overcapacity."
Rationale behind rationalisation of European defence industry
The compulsion for the rationalisation/restructuring of the European defence industry is underlined by the fact that, while the combined EU military expenditure amounts to 60% of the USA’s, the EU is littered with a large number of armament manufacturers. For instance, whereas the EU has 12 contractors for missiles, the US has just three. The answer, therefore, is to consolidate, downsize through privatisation and mass sackings, and create two or three (preferably one) giant European producers, capable of not only supplying the European armed forces with sophisticated weapons to match those of the US, but also of being able to compete against US giants – Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon – in the European, American and international arms markets.
Difficulties facing restructuring
The immense difficulties in the way of such restructuring are only too clearly revealed by the circumstances surrounding the acquisition in January of this year by BAe of GEC’s defence arm – Marconi – for £8 billion – a deal which overnight turned BAe into the world’s third largest defence company, and which "left the British government stunned and French and German rivals seething on the sidelines," (Financial Times, 23 January 1999).
Up to then, BAe had been expected to merge with Germany’s DASA whose board, as BAe must have fully realised, would be left fuming if it struck a deal with Marconi. However, the Chairman of BAe, Sir Richard Evans, was "determined that neither Thomson [of France] nor Lockheed [of the US] should seize this prize, wrap themselves in the Union Jack, and compete against BAe in its home territory." The BAe board decided to "put its best foot forward" and sent an offer of £8 billion to GEC, being convinced that "in the complicated multi-dimensional game of restructuring Europe’s defence industry, the first to move would capture the richest pickings," and those "coming late risked being marginalised." (Financial Times, 23 January 1999).
The very greed which is the motive force behind the drive to rationalise and restructure also constitutes a major hindrance to the creation of the Euro-military industrial complex (MIC), to be known as the European Aerospace and Defence Company (EADC), which will supply the planned Euroforce with technologically sophisticated weapons. The bare-knuckle struggle over who will control, lead and dominate the Euro MIC has intensified dramatically since the acquisition of Marconi by BAe, which has made BAe three times as large as any other European defence company. BAe now has stakes in a wide variety of ventures with European partners, including Airbus, Eurofighter, missiles, sonar, and space. It has a strong presence in the US where it has an impressive workforce of 18,500. It owns 35% of Sweden’s Saab. In fact, with its latest acquisition, BAe will become a large-scale systems contractor for land, sea and air-based defence projects, so that it can no longer accurately be described as an aerospace company.
If the Marconi deal is not blocked by the regulators, and it is most unlikely to be blocked, BAe will emerge as a formidable force in the global defence market – a development that US imperialism does not much relish. The US views with alarm the prospect that restructuring of the European defence industry might bring forth a smaller number of larger groups, including BAe, which, with Marconi under its belt, will be easily of a size to rival the biggest defence companies in the US.
German imperialism had hoped and expected to lead the lucrative arms trade, through DASA’s planned merger with BAe as a prelude to a full-scale 3-way merger, to create a German-dominated MIC. Instead DASA was left standing at the altar by GEC who sold its defence arm, Marconi, to BAe. No wonder, then, that DASA was furious.
Undoubtedly, for the moment at least, BAe’s move has significantly retarded the process of re-structuring the European defence industry. Only time will tell whether Europe’s large defence companies, in addition to domestic-national mergers will look across the Atlantic for their partners. Meanwhile the restructuring of the European defence industry, notwithstanding the setback caused by the BAe-Marconi merger, is taking place, even if at a slower pace. On 11 June DASA absorbed Spain’s aerospace group CASA – a deal which could open the way for reforming the Airbus consortium into a single corporate entity, an idea which BAe and DASA have been promoting for quite some time. CASA out of the way, and Aerospatiale Matra having recently been privatised, the prospect for the Airbus to be knocked into a single company with a centralised management structure look better than ever before. Thus, "although national sensitivities – and sheer complexity – stand in the way of a ‘big bang’ restructuring, the latest [CASA-DASA] deal shows that reshaping of the overcrowded industry is steadily taking place, " observes Alexander Nicoll in the Financial Times of 14 June 1999.
Three or four significant aerospace and defence groups are emerging in Europe instead of the single company that was being talked about only seven months ago. Industry executives and analysts do not believe that number is sustainable. With CASA out of the way, "the next scramble is for the aerospace assets of Finmeccanica of Italy. With BAe, DASA and Thomson all seeking a deal over Alenia, its subsidiary, Alberta Lina, Finmeccanica’s head, could be the most courted man at the [Paris] Air Show," Financial Times, 14 June 1999). Further restructuring will have a lot to do with the two main French defence companies, Aerospatiale Matra and Thomson-CSF. The latter, following its failure to merge with Marconi last year, is perceived as a candidate for a merger with another European or even US company, the outcome of which will influence the shape and direction of the European defence industry, as well as its relation to the US defence giants.
In the crowded global market for the merchandise of death, an all-out war is taking place within Europe, and between Europe and the US, for a place under the sun. In the words of the Financial Times, "the first to move would capture the richest pickings" "D> and those "coming late risked being marginalised." And, we can be sure that in order to be the first to be at the banqueting table, each of the contesting parties, without the slightest scruple, will use every trick, every subterfuge, every single ruse, deceit and chicanery, and every act of slyness and skulduggery.
What is happening in the defence industry is merely a specific illustration of the following observation made by Lenin more than 80 years ago:
"Monopolist capitalist associations … first divided the home market among themselves and obtained more or less complete possession of the industry of their own country. But under capitalism the home market is inevitably bound up with the foreign market. Capitalism long ago created a world market. As the export of capital increased, and as the foreign and colonial connections as ‘spheres of influence’ of the big monopolist associations expanded in all ways, things ‘naturally’ gravitated towards an international agreement among these associations, and towards the formation of international cartels,"" (Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism).
The division of the world between two or three giant monopolies, however, by no means precludes re-division if the relationship of forces undergoes change consequent upon uneven development, war or bankruptcy.
This internationalisation (globalisation in current terminology), so to speak, of capital, far from bringing peace under the conditions of capitalism, only serves to prepare the ground for a most ruthless struggle (today peaceful, tomorrow warlike) between the monopolist capitalist associations, and capitalist states, for a division of the world. In Lenin’s words, "the forms of the struggle may and do constantly change in accordance with varying, relatively specific and temporary causes, but the substance of the struggle, [for the division of the world] its class content, positively cannot change while classes last … The capitalists divide the world, not out of any particular malice, but because the degree of concentration which has been reached forces them to adopt this method in order to obtain profits. And they divide it ‘in proportion to capital’, ‘in proportion to strength’, because there cannot be any other methods of division under commodity production and capitalism. But strength varies with the degree of economic and political development … " (Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism).
Parallel to, and in connection with, certain relations between capitalist associations, based on the economic carve-up of the world, "certain relations grow up between political alliances, between states, on the basis of the territorial division of the world, of the struggle for colonies, of the ‘struggle for spheres of influence’" (Lenin, ibid.)
The consolidation and restructuring within national boundaries and across them is proceeding at breakneck speed. The economic division and redivision of the world is going on at an ever-accelerating pace under our very eyes and certain relations between capitalist monopolies are growing up on the basis of this division. And in connection with it and parallel to it, certain relations are growing up between the capitalist states – between the US and the EU, between the US and individual powerful members of the EU, between each of these blocs and Japan, between all of them and Russia. The substance of the struggle taking place is the division of the world, with each of the contenders jockeying for the top seat at the imperialist banquet, not "out of any particular malice," but because the extreme degree of concentration of capital forces them to resort to this method as a means of obtaining maximum profit.
In the light of the foregoing, it is possible to hint – only to hint – at the answer to the question asked of me. Following the collapse of the USSR and the eastern bloc, developments in the EU are forcing the British bourgeoisie to choose between its special relationship with the US and its relationship with its EU partners, notably Germany and France. The crisis in Kosovo has only added urgency to this question. Although the British bourgeoisie is divided on this crucial issue, all the same, the dominant sections of British finance capital, represented by the City, want Britain to join the single currency and play its part in shaping a common European foreign and security policy. Britain’s Labour government, being the most servile lackeys of British monopoly capitalism, is doing everything possible to make it a reality. Hence the St Malo Declaration and the decisions of the Cologne Summit. The contradiction between Britain and Germany arises out of the desire of each of them, possibly with the assistance of France, to dominate the European Military Industrial Complex, which is beginning to take shape. In the end, one of them must emerge victorious. In the event of Britain losing to Germany (economically a far more vibrant country), it is anybody’s guess whether the British bourgeoisie would philosophically accept its defeat, or whether it would break up the EU in a clatter of nationalist jingoism and join forces with US imperialism. For the present, however, it is intent, while contending for the top position, upon joining other EU members in creating a common security policy, and a restructured European defence industry to back it up.
As of the moment, it is difficult to give a more definitive answer to the question asked of me for, in the words of J A Hobson, "the situation is far too complex, the play of world forces far too incalculable. " to render any single interpretation of the future a certainty. Events, however, are moving in the direction of the creation of a new imperialist bloc centred around the EU for the purposes of the joint suppression of socialism by the European bourgeoisie in Europe, the joint suppression and super-exploitation of the oppressed nations abroad, and for challenging US and Japanese imperialism.
Conclusion
The proletariat of the European countries have nothing to gain from this project but mass redundancies through rationalisation (of course we are not speaking here of its privileged stratum – the labour aristocracy) and slaughter in imperialist wars. Notwithstanding the soothing assurances of Social Democracy, the European enterprise, with its common Foreign and Security policy, backed by a powerful Military Industrial Complex, well under way, is not about easy travel, foreign holidays and consumer choice, or eliminating war in Europe, as the bourgeoisie and its ideologues would have us believe. On the contrary, its sole purpose is to strengthen the European bourgeoisie for an unprecedented war against the working class in Europe and the oppressed nations abroad, and to prepare it for a cut-throat trade war, with a real possibility of this trade war spilling over into a titanic military conflict against rival imperialisms.
Instead of hitching itself to the war chariot of the bourgeoisie, the proletariat of the EU, if they wish to be loyal to their own class interests, if they wish to march along the road to their own social emancipation, are duty bound to oppose their own bourgeoisie and work for its overthrow. As the European proletariat ponders over the momentous developments taking place, as they deliberate questions of war and peace, let them realise, and grasp, the significance of the following, never to be forgotten, words of V I Lenin, that "it is impossible to escape imperialist war, and imperialist world which inevitably engenders imperialist war, it is impossible to escape that inferno, except by a Bolshevik struggle and a Bolshevik revolution." (The Fourth Anniversary of the October Revolution, 14 October, 1921).
This is the message that must permeate the European working class movement.
Contribution to the 8th International Communist Seminar, Brussels, 2-4 May 1999
Theme: Imperialism means War