Contribution to the 13th
International Communist Seminar
Brussels, 2-4 May 2004
www.icsbrussels.org , ics[at]icsbrussels.org
Communist Party of India (Marxist -
Leninist) — Janashakti
India
While discussing the inter-imperialist contradictions in the contemporary world, the reference point should be the Yalta Conference of 1945. When in February 1945 Churchill, Rossevelt and Stalin met in Yalta it seemed almost certain that Germany would be defeated within an year. The US and British forces had invaded France in June 1944 and had taken Paris by the end of August. The Red Army was marching fast towards Berlin and Finland, Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary had signed an armistice with the Soviet Union and in the Pacific the US army had reached the Phillippines. An allied victory was a matter of time and the objective of the Yalta Conference was to formulate a post-war balance of power. What Churchill wanted was the rehabilitation of France, containing communism in Europe and the continuity of the British empire in the rest of the world, Roosevelt sought an understanding among USA, USSR, UK and Chiang Kai-Shek's China in order to police the post war world. Stalin sought security of the USSR, support to national liberation struggles and socialism.
USA moved into the gap created by the decline of the old imperialist powers. With Bratain, France and Germany in economic ruins, what the USA first sought was to buy western Europe with Marshall Aid. While celebrating the 50th year of the Marshall Plan, the former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said : "we must first remember that the Marshall Plan was more than an effort to fix the physical damage caused by the World War II. Had that been the point, it would have simply restored Europe to the status quo of 1939 — a status quo of faltering economic disunity and growing disdain for democratic values. In fact, the point of Marshall Plan was not to rebuild Europe at all, but to build an entirely new Europe. It's most enduring legacy is visible not so much in the steel mills and raliways and farm lands of nations like Germany and France. It is visible in the institutions that ended centuries of European conflict, transcended old ways of thinking, formed the basis for West European and trans Atlantic unity". Marshall Plan was part and parcel of post second world war policy of the USA to use Western Europe as a counter weight to the USSR. This policy also sought a double containment to keep the former West Germany strategically dependent on the USA. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was formed in 1946. Former West Germany joined it on May 6, 1955 and on May 14, 1955 the Warsaw Pact was signed. Both alliances were natural consequences of the agreement reached at Yalta. While NATO under the leadership of USA roped in Britain, France, Italy, West Germany, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Greece, Turkey, Luxemberg, Portugal and Canada, the Warsaw Pact under USSR could rope in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany, Bulgaria and Rumania. Over a period of ten years, the USA succeeded in dividing Europe, politically, militarily and economically. The USSR responded to each stage of this policy. But after Stalin and 'de-Stalinisation' there happened a qualitative and characteristic change in this regard since working class lost its control of the state.The only other change that has taken place to this situation is the disintegration of that degenerated USSR in 1990s. This does not mean that Russia, the successor state of USSR has withdrawn from Europe. NATO and Russia signed the Founding Act of co-operation in Paris on May 27, 1997. (Leaving Russia aside, since the subject is on "Imperialist centres — USA, EU and Japan") Reference to Yalta is to say that the only remaining product of Yalta conference — inter-imperialist contradictions and contradictions between USA and the Western Europe — is still kicking alive. What the first secretary General of the NATO said at the time of it's formation that it's role was to "keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down" is still relevant.
USA did not want either Germany or Germany together with France to become hegmonic in Central Europe for that might mean Germany reaching agreement with USSR excluding USA from Eurosia, including access routes to central Asian energy resources. The US is interested in the former USSR's oil and gas and has already sought a strategic alliance with central Asian republics. USA secured Russia's agreement on NATO through a combination of economic incentives. Britain is firmly aligned with the USA. Germany with it's economic power is opposing more and more of US policies. It is aiming to set-up an European Defence force. France is oscilating between the USA and Germany. While it opposes US domination, it fears a German resurgence. At the same time, increasing tensions on trade, military strategy, new world order etc. between the USA and France are turning the classical allies into bitter rivals. USA is also scared because France may help Germany to acquire nuclear power.
European Union
Of the three imperialist centres about which we are discussing USA, EU and Japan — EU is one that is not a sovereign nation state in Europe and therefore have some inherent contradiction within itself. Some states which are members of the EU but not in the NATO, some others which are in NATO but not in the EU and some neutrals which are members of neither. Yet the EU is a potential world power in the sense of the size, the wealth and the productive capacity. With 15 members it's population is 450 million which will further increase when the membership becomes twenty-five. It's economic strength lies in it's productive output in auto mobiles, steel, cement etc. which places it ahead of USA and Japan. In military terms, taking only the four larger countries, Germany, France, Britain and Italy, their combined army size is larger than the US army. They also possess hundress of major surface warships and submarines and thousands of tanks, artillery and aricraft. Above all both France and Britain possess nuclear weapons and delivery systems.
Recently, the Euro has risen more than 30 percent against the dollars. The dollar was already buckling under the strain of USA's trade and budget deficits. Now, after the Iraq war Euro-zone policy makers sense the opportunity to realise their ambitions to create a rival to the dollar. The extent to which the EU will go to replace the dollar can be seen from the fact that Russia is considering selling it's oil in Euro rather than dollar. The EU hopes that if Russia, the world's second largest oil producer, starts selling it's oil in Euro, other countries will follow suit. Iraq made the switch to the Euro in 2000. Iran and other members of the "axis of evils" has been openly concidering a switch to Euro since 1999. Last year the OPEC made a suggestion that it could make economic sense for the oil producers cartel to price it's oil in Euro in the future.
The euro was conceived a decade ago but the final decision to have a common currency was taken four years back when the exchange rate for each currency was fixed for all time. For instance the euro was fixed at 1.95 D Mark, 6.56 FF and so on. The day the euro was introduced for accounting purposes it exchanged for 1.17 dollars and even appreciated in the first week of it's existence. But since then it crawled down gradually untill it established at ground 0.88 dollars. But, after sometime it has been rising and stands a chance to become a challange to the dollar.
Yet the European Union's effective role in the international political arena is lower than it's economic and military strengths. In spite of it's near total economic integration, it is more splintered than a soverign state due to historical and political reasons. European leaders meeting in Brussels in December last failed to agree on a constitution for the enlarged 25 member body. The talks failed because Poland and Spain which had done some hard bargaining to obtain a disproportinate number of votes at the Nice summit in 2000, refused to give up some of that power. Under the Nice Treaty, Spain and Poland, which together account for 40 millions population have 27 votes each, while Germany with a population of 82 millions has 29 votes. France, Britain and Italy which too have large populations have only 29 votes each. The new constitution attempted to do away with this imbalance by proposing a simple majority vote that would represent at least 60 percent of Europe's population of 450 million people could not be finanlised because of division among the members.
To sum up : The European Union's contradiction with USA has been increasing for some time. Apart from sharp differences over some economic matters like subsidy, protectionism, etc. even politically, to cite one latest case of war on Iraq by the US by vehemently opposing the war, many major powers in European Union firmly stood against the US. This does not mean that they have broken away from the post war camp imposed on them by the US. Immediatly after the war when the question of particapation in the re-construction of Iraq came up they mellowed down. When the US decided to bar opponents of the war in Iraq from reconstruction contract, the leaders of the EU declared their commitment to a "constructive, balanced and forward looking partinership". This is part of their conciliation; conciliations for the share in the loot in the name of reconstruction of Iraq. As far as EU's long term objecitve is concerned, it's leaders declared ahout four years back in their Lisbon summit that they intended to turn the EU into the world's "most competitive economy by the year 2010."
Japan
After the shattering defeat in the Second War what the US imperialism introduced and the Japenese bourgeoisie accepted was a complimentary deal or a system of paralelism. Under this deal the Japanase bourgeoisie relegated to US imperialism some of it's own imperialist superstructural functions, mainly military apart from some political functions. In exchange it would mainly concentrate in rebuilding and expanding it's economic base. In this arrangement of working through a borrowed imperialist superstucture, military alliance with the US imperialism became a built-in stucture. Whatever might have been the result later, the arrangement or deal was not in the interest of Japan but USA. The United States established it's right to use Japan as it's military outpost and the single most important logistical base for military operation in Asia. And the US imperialism has exercised this right during the Korean and Vietnamese wars. At the sametime USA enjoyed the benefit arising out of a sound Japanese capitalist economy buying vast quantities of US grain, machinery and technology. Above all, this arrangement barred Japan from trying again to build it's own empire as a threat to US imperialism. So, it was not the lower military expenditure that contributed to the unprecedented growth of Japanese capitalism known as the "Japanese Miracle" but the division of labour between USA and Japan dictated by US. But the premises of the 'complimentarity' theses collapsed in the 1970s itself. Two factors that contributed to this were the erosion of US global economy with the emergences of another super power, USSR, and the end of the long cycle of prosperity of world capitalism of which Japan was a part. The US ended the division of labour between military and economics and introduced a new division in the military field itself. If Japan wants to continue to export, it should share more equally the global military burden of the US. This has created a new situation to the Japanese ruling classes. Under the 1978 US Japan Guidelines for Joint Defence, Japan is required to fight a real war in and around Japan. While the 1951 US-Japan security treaty was meant to create a legal basis for the American military presence in Japan, the 1978 guidlines for Joint Defence was to make Japan share the burden in defence matters. Further in 1995 US declared it's "United States Security Strategy for the East Asia - Pacific Region" which stated that the Asia Pacific region is currently the most economically dynamic region in the world and on that basis alone it's security would be critical to America's future. US imperialism, in it's strategy to expand it's own market and interests in this region in order to recover it's economic power now in a decline and maintain it's leadership for world domination, subordinates Japanese imperialism and also tries to prevent the European imperialist intervention in this region.
Though Japan, thus, is locked into an aliance with USA, it has strong urge to restrain USA from bellicose adventure; if possible to extricate from the present subordinate imperialist position. But the Jananese "miracle" has two sides. On one side , it is the world's leading net creditor nation, while USA has been transformed from being the biggest lender to being the biggest borrower. The other side is Japan, now, one of the world's largest food importers. Japan's import ratio for a number of key industrial raw meterials is : oil - 99 percent, energy 88 percent, iron-ore 98 percent, copper - 92 percent, lead - 77 percent, zinc - 62 percent, bauxite 100 percent, tin - 92 percent, nickel 100 percent. In such a situation what happens if an overextended United States withdraws from it's Asian committments or finds it impossible to protect the flow of oil fram Arabia to Yokohama is the worry of Japan. What happens if China begins to dominate the region or Russia take aggresive actions are other problems of Japanese imperialism.
United States of America
US hegemony over the capitalist world has been declining from the early 1970s. This decline was marked by several international events like US defeat in Vietnam, the successful operation of the OPEC countries in pushing up oil prices and finally the break down of the Bretton Woods arrangement. At the same time, the system created by the US imperialism after the Second World War resulted in the relative economic growth of Western Europe and Japan. Besides, the other factors that contributed to the decline of US were the liberation movements in the third World and the military capacity or rather parity of the former USSR.
The US economy slowed down during 1970s and 1980s with the GNP growing only by about 3 percent per year as compared to 4 percent in the 1950s and 1960s. The policy persued to meet this situation was increased military expenditure to 7 percent of the GNP in the 1980s. The foundation laid down for the new world order by expanding military spending resulted in fiscal disorder in the form of huge budget deficits and failure to provide consumer needs. The United States supplied half the world's gross product in 1950 but now it is 21 percent. Sixty percent of the world's manufacturing production in 1950 came from USA against 25 percent in 1999. The share of US multinationals in the foreign sales of the world's one hundred large multinationals decreased form 30 to 25 percent, while the share of EU based companies increased from 40 to 45 percent. A new scenario of mergers, closures and take overs has been unfolding in US capitalism during the past three decades. Resourceful financial entrepreneurs with no interest in production buy paper assets and real estate to make as much money as possible by selling it later for a higher price. This accumulation of liquid capital helps them to buy over the controlling interests of large corporations. In short the US economy is dominated by speculative finance capital instead of productive manufacturing capital. The US has been losing it's dominant position in global finance because of the erosion in the status of the dollar since the 1970s. While the dollar's share of private world savings fell from 67 perent to 40 percent by 1995, such savings held in European currencies increased from 13 percent to 37 percent. Thus during the past two to three decades, USA, the number one imperialist power has emerged as the number one debtor nation. Many of the countries that are funding the US debt do not like a lot of what the US does but they are still not prepared to pull the credit rug from under the feet of Uncle Sam, because they want a strong America's vast market in an unstable world. But this connot continue for ever.
Now, on the political and military sides, why USA wants NATO expansion, when there is no strategic threat from the USSR as envisaged at Yalta? The USA, since 1993 has envisaged a widening of the military alliance as a means of ensuring it's strategic preeminance in Europe. In 1991, Germany has in fact, advocated for building a European security architecture. France and Germany, proponents of European Union are also proponents of on European defence arm which excludes USA. Thus, while supporting NATO expansion, the German and French perspetive differs from that of the USA, At the 1996 NATO foreign minsiters meeting, an equipment sharing agreement was arrived at to enable European-only task forces for deployment. When USA said that such forces could only go into action with their approval, the Germans retorted by saying that "in the long run, it is neither in the American nor in the European interest that we have to call our American friends each time something flares up somewhere."
For the first time since the founding of the United Nations, USA could not get a majority in the security council on the issue of Iraq war when it found itself in a miserable minority of four, it withdrew it's resolution in March 2003. Still it launched the war. World is not that foolish to believe that USA did not know before the war that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam's WMD therefore was not the reason for the war. Launching a war for oil was not unavoidable in the background of disappearence of the USSR and it's success on Russian imperialism being on the defensive. There were other motives for the war. One was to warn Western Europe, particularly France and Germany at a time when they are moving away from the US security umbrella. The second was to ask the "axis of evil" countries to behave and keep away from nuclear proliferation. This is happening at a time when Russia enters the European arena. Russia hopes for the "better use of the aggressive potential of Europe for the benefit of it's scope and in relation with the rest of the world". Germany has already established close links with Russia. Some East European countries are joining the European Union. EU members have less differences with Russia than with USA. Thus, while the contradiction between France and Germany on the one hand and the USA on the other are increasing France, Germany and Russia are moving closer.
In order to ensure it's hegemony the US is activating some of it's old base and has planned new ones in key strategic areas. New bases are being built or expanded in countries as wide spread as Qatar, Bulgaria, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and has shifted a contingent of troops from Germany to Azerbaijan. The move from old bases like Saudi Arabia, Germany and Turkey is not because the US is abandoning the old bases, but they are repositioning , diversifying, creating flexible "forward operating bases" in southern and eastern Europe, middle and Central Asia, South Asia (Pakistan) and East Asia (Philippines and South Korea). The US is using military aid as leverage to advance it's agenda. To win over countries for their Iraq and West-Asia policy, a large number of countries have been sanctioned military aid. Those included : Turkey, one billion dollars in economic aid, Jordan, 700 million dollars in economic aid and 406 million dollars in military aid and an additional 1.4 billion dollars in defence department reimbursements; Israel, 1 billion dollar in military aid plus 9 billion dollars in loan guarantees and Egypt 300 million dollars. Fifteen countries Bahrain, Oman, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Rumania, Slovakia and Slovania received a total of 308 million dollars as military aid for the "logistic support" they provided for the Iraq war. In addition to this, Pakistan received 200 million dollars for border security and they have been promised an additional 5 billion dollars for the next three years, half of which is to go to defence related purposes. The Philippines, an old US base, has a "visiting forces" agreement and received 92 million dollars worth of excess military equipment.
The objective of this expansionism is for the purpose of restructuring of the international political system to suit the US interest and those of global capital. It's strategy is very clear. First, to make the US the safest place to park finance capital. Second, to provide the transnational companies safe and unbridled access to raw material and natural resources that have been denied to it by regimes opposed to the US or global capital. Third, to ensure the policing capacity at all geostrategic areas that are linked to these resources and the routes that transport these resourcs both to the US and other areas where their profits would be derived to this finance capital. Finally, to ensure it's hegemony so that the earlier three objectives can be insured.
But, the US has failed in it's objective of ensuring hegemony. It launched a war on Iraq as if it was leading a unipolar world, but after the war it failed to act unilaterally. It is reaching out to the world for help in bringing "peace" to Iraq with little response or no response at all. Iraq is not Vietnam, where about 60,000 Americans were killed but it is like Vietnam.
Disarmament - Cold War - And Russia
Russia and the NATO may have made their peace for the time being, but the former Soviet republics in between feel lost in a European no-man’s land, unsure whether to look east or west. Russia grudgingly approved the first wave of NATO’s expansion by signing the Founding Act of co-operation,but has threatened to turn its back on the West if any former Soveit republic joins NATO.
Despite their post-Soviet independence, the former Soviet republics remain economically dependant on Russia, especially for energy. Russia has ways of applying pressure in terms of gas and oil supplies. Belarus has allied itself firmly with Russia. Moldovia says it wants to be a bridge between the East and the West. Ukraine claims neutrality, but plays both sides of the fence. It has participated in NATO’s partnership for peace programme and also signed a friendship treaty with Russia.
Integration of East Germany with West Germany, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and retention of NATO, and the disintegration of USSR itself are all minus point for Russia. Then one question remains to be answered is against whom does an expanded NATO need to defend itself, if not Russia.
Certain blocks may disintegrate or altogether disappear but for the imperialists, blocks are necessary structures in the period of decadence to prepare for armed confrontation. Today’s situation is fluid.
All rhetoric about disarmament till today refers only to arms limitation or arms reduction, and this limitation or reduction refers only to nuclear weapons. Arms control essentially only means the restraints the nuclear powers impose upon themselves in selling arms to others or rather not selling at all. The nuclear powers do not want their nuclear monopoly to proliferate.
The only binding declaration for nuclear disarmament is the Non-Proliferation Treaty signed in 1972, which states : "Each of the parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control." This has been completely disregarded by the nuclear powers.
The reduction in the nuclear stockpiles amounting to 25,000 on each side and the proposed reduction to 7,000 are not to be considered as disarmament programmes but arms control which permits them to use nuclear weapons and also reduce the risk of nuclear war among themselves. The four nuclear powers, USA, Russia, France and Britain with the exception of China have been successful in carrying out this arms-control policy. The CTBT is another steps in this direction; which is only meant to prevent any new nuclear power from emerging. At the same time, the US is engaged in a massive secret programme to build a new generation of nuclear weapons, despite the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Not to lag behind, Russia has launched a fifth generation tactical combat plane which can outfly similar aircraft produced by other countries. And, in February 2004, Russia has test-launched a missile system that could manoeuvre in mid-flight, allowing it to dodge defences. The test carried out has confirmed that Russia can build weapons which will render any anti-missile system defenceless against any attack by it’s strategic forces.
Lately a new scenario has been emerging After decades of frosty relations, hair-splitting over communist ideology (since then both have abandoned the ideology) Russia and China are warming on each other and finding common ground in their opposition to the self-imposed single super power status of USA. More than the political relationship, what worries the US most is the character of the economic one, which is heavily rooted in the sale of Russian military and nuclear technology. A Chinese arms building on the basis of Russian hardware could threaten the military balance in Asia. Russian exports to China rose to 35% in 1996. With two-way trade at just over 7 billion dollars, China is Russia’s third largest trading partner. They have signed an agreement (in 1997) to increase the volume to 20 billion dollars by the year 2005. When they met in April, 1997, President Jiang and President Yeltsin warned, "No counry should seek hegemony, practice power politics or monopolise international affairs." They signed an agreement entitled, "Joint Declaration on the Multipolar World and a New World Order" for the 21st Century. Russia is already China’s largest supplier of advanced weapons. Sales to China account for a third of Russia’s arms exports. Russian technicians are building a nuclear reactor near Shanghai and a spearate nuclear fuel errichment facility. Yeltsin referred to the proclamation of the new world order as ‘historic’ and the beginning of a ‘strategic partnership’. The fifth summit between Russia and China in six years, in November 1997, again underscores the importance both sides attach to building closer ties. The signing of a declaration demarcatng the 4300 km long frontier and the agreement to boost economic co-operation are a tangible expression of the growing rapprochement between the two countries.
Thus, the scenario is that while Gorbachev’s former USSR and Yeltsin’s Russia came with a bang, ofcourse after a bash at home, as an European power, now wants to be an Asian power. Russia is determined to move closer to the East, particularly China, India, Japan and ASEAN nations, to checkmate NATO’s threat. While the USA, Russia and China have trilateral relationship by way of summits and bilateral agreements, mainly on trade; Russia and China are trying to build closer ties. While depending on USA for aid, Russia arrived at an agreement with Germany and France to hold regular trilateral meetings.
Today, USA is the number one imperialist power and also a nuclear super power. The only other power capable of challenging the USA in a war is Russia, the other nuclear super power. Only these two powers have the capacity to ensure each others destruction and destruction of any other country.
Strategical longevity of a super-power and for that matter a great power or major power, cannot be measured in a short span of few months or few years. A bipolar world was emerging way back in the first quarter of 20th century, exactly after the 1917 October Revolution and it clearly came into existence by 1945 i.e. after the Second World War. The basis for this bipolar division was ideological, political, economical and military. The position of the two super powers - U.S.A and USSR - as leader of the bipolar world was reinforced by the arrival of nuclear weapon and long distance delivery systems which displayed that the strategic landscape created by the bipolar world was entirely different from that of 18th or 19th or first half of 20th centuries.
While Russia, during the past one decade or rather since it’s inception in the new form, has not offensively intervened in the international arena as it’s predescessor, USSR, has done in Afghanistan and some other places. USA has done so in many places the latest being Iraq. But Russia has not given up it’s politics of contention with USA, Russia is planning to sell it’s oil in euros rather than dollars knowingly that there is minimal economic benefit to either Russia or the eurozone to be gained from such a move. Russia is doing this in collaboration with France and Germany in order to undermine the dollar. The dollar is under seige as never before.
The ground on which many have come to the conclusion that the present Russia, a successor to the earstwhile USSR, is no more a super power despite holding on to the nuclear might of the USSR, is because of its loss of economic might. The argument is valid to the extent that military might has to be backed by an equally effective economy, but what is not considered is the economic philosophy of armament.
The armament industry is by far the largest industry in the world. For each dollar spent on development in the decade of seventies, the USA spent 24 dollars in developing armaments; while for each rubble spent on development, the erstwhile USSR spent 180 roubles on arms during the same period. (The Stockholm International Peace Reserch Institute’s year book 1980 & 1981). During the past three to four years, either USA or Russia, alternatively, has been the largest arms seller in the world. The sale of these arms to the underdeveloped world is strictly in accordance with their cold war policy for a proxy war. Arms unlike other goods have no use-value in human needs and it is sold apart from economic gains, only if it suits the politics of the seller.
As the productive potential of a capitalist economy exceeds the size of its market, it resorts to military expenditure in order to stimulate the level of effective demand. The history of the United States since the Second World War is an apt example of this sort of expenditure. This type of search for external market naturally link the economy with militarism. A well known, Harvard economist, Summer Slichter told in 1949. "The Cold War increases the demand of goods, helps sustain a high level of employment, accelerates technical progress and thus helps the country to raise its standard of living ........... So we may thank the Russians for helping make capitalism in the United States work better than ever" (Fred Cook’s "Jaggernaut : the Welfare State". Quoted by Paul Baron and Sweezy in Monopoly Capital). A few months later, The US News and Report published as follows : "Government planners figure they have found the magic formula for almost endless good times ..... Cold War is the catalyst. Cold War is an automatic pump primer. Turn a spigot, the public clamours for more arms spending. Turn another, the clamour ceases ------ Cold War demands, if fully exploited, are almost limitless."
So, the Cold War ideology formulated by the Carnegie Trust led by the representatives of monopoly capital will continue to operate as long as monopoly capitalism survives.Those who have been saying that the Cold-War is over have begun asking a new question as to whether the world is entering a post-Post Cold War era.
On December '03, the Pentagon has formally barred companies from countries opposed to the Iraq War from biding on $ 18.6 billion worth of reconstruction work. Naturally, this decision angered all – Russia, Germany, France Canada etc. Russia first came out openly and its foreign minister lgor lvanov "denounced" the Pentagon proposal. Germany, the European super power first talked to Russia and then stated that the decision "is not acceptable". Spokesman of the French foreign ministry stated "we are studying the compatibilibity of these decisions with international competition laws together with our partners that are involved, notably in the European Union and the European Comission." All the vultures wanted to have their share of Iraqi meat but this decision of the Big Brother, the U.S., will definitely complicate "American efforts to restructure" Iraq's estimated $ 125 billion debt, largely owed to France, Germany, Russia. The Russian defence minister Sergei lvanov said that Russian "is not planning any kind of a write off of that debt" Germany and others are going to speak about this with the U.S.
So, the contradiction between U.S. and other major powers like Russia, Germany, France is on the rise. It is on the rise not due to Iraq factor alone.
Present world has become used to watch that the U.S. impose sanctions and embargo on this country or that country - Cuba, N. Korea, Libya, Iraq, Iran even India and Pakistan and others. But 15th of January '04, it was not a big surprise that EU came out asking for trade sanctions on U.S. And, the EU was set to be joined in by in it sanctions request later on the same day by other nations including Japan, China, Brazil, India and South Korea.
This request to slap trade sanctions against U.S. is placed, and will be heard by the WTO's disputes settlement body, at the time when efforts are underway to revive global commerce talks. Why this attempt? It is simply because the U.S., under the fraudulent slogans like "Free Trade" etc. has imposed one measures after another to have in their advantage heavily one-sided trade-relations not only with the third world countries but also with EU countries. EU trade commissioner Pascal Lamy said "I hope the US will now take actions to remove this measure, thus avoiding the risk of sanctions."
Everyone is very clear that this inter-imperialist contradiction has nothing to do with people's interest but, still, let the vultures fight each other and people will take advantage of this whenever needed and wherever they can. Again these contradictions, like one around Iraq between U.S. and others or the other on trade commerce relation of disparity between EU and US. Within EU itself not everything is smooth and good, rather so many things are bad and worse. In the summit meeting of the 15 EU heads of government which met on 12th December '03, and foreign ministers' meeting of following two days collapsed and could not bring out the much hyped E.U. constitution. Here also the fight was between big and small imperialist, not between good imperialists and bad imperialists(!), over the share of control, power - precisely the market. Here, apparently the contradiction surfaced on the issue of incorporating "God" and "Christian Heritage" in the proposed European constitution, but more so on the question of proportional voting rights. Even the attempts of Tony Blair and the Italian P.M. to find out a midlle-of-the two compromise failed and the entire thing has been placed on the back burner.
Resistance to imperialism — perspective
During the past few years resistance to the economic gendarms of imperialism have been growing all over the world. In the April 2000 protest in Washington, the very existence of Bretton Woods institutions set up for the sustainance and strengethening of post secord world war capitalism led by the US was questioned. This protest did not take place in any far off third world country, but in the capital of capitalism. The movement against the war in Iraq was the largest anti-war movement that has ever taken place. This protest movement against the war in Iraq was more international than any other anti war movement.
Apart from impeialism's natural and usual methods of exporting crisis to to the third world, the growing dominance of international finance capital attacks the working class in imperialist countries itself. In the United States 94 percent of all financial wealth is owned by the top 20 percent of the population, leaving only 6 percent for the bottom 80 percent. In fact the top one percent of the population with 48 percent of the total financial wealth owns eight times as much as the bottom 80 percent. The decline of economic activity owing to the dominance of finance capital is affecting all countries leading to world economic crisis. Factory closures, lay off etc resulting in the increase of unemployed is not peculiar to third world countires, it is equally taking place in US, UK and other imperialist countires. In US alone millions of workers have been laid off between 2001 and 2003. This situation creates scope for fresh challenges to imperialism in it's home base.
Growing polarisation caused by the neo-colonial plundering weapon of globalisation is intensifying the contracdiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in imperalist countries and imperialism and the oppressed people and the nation in Third World Countries. More and more people in the imperialist countries are bound to rise in revolt against the policies that push vast masses to the brink at the cost of a few elite. And once that happens on a major scale, a powerful suport base utilised by the irrational monopoly capital will crumble. The Third World People, while fighting against imperialism will sharpen the struggle against their own comprador rulers. The classs struggle in our time has been thoroughly internationalised and the revolutionary initiative today is in the hands of the impoverished and oppressed people of the Third World.
The General Line of the International Communist Movement stated that : "The anti-imperialist revolutionary struggles of the people of Asia, Africa and Latin America is definitely not merely a matter of regional significance but one of the overall importance for the whole causes of proletarian world revolution".
Lenin said : " The revolutionary movement in the advanced countries would actually be a sheer fraud, if in their struggle against capital, the workers of Europe and America were not closely and completely united with the hundreds upon hundreds of millions of 'colonial' slaves who are oppressed by capital".
What is urgently required is to strive to build anti imperialist movement against exploitation, subjugation, control and bullying by imperialist powers and linking this struggle with the agrarian revolutionary movement in semi-colonial semi-feudal countries.