[ Contents ]
The splitting of Yugoslavia into several mini-states is the best warranty for future
imperialist interventions and aggressions in the Balkans. The so-called
'self-determination' is grotesque: The lumpenbourgeoisie at the head of these mini-states
have no possibility of independent development. They are at the mercy of imperialist
powers, ready for the domination over the Balkans. An Australian of Macedonian origin had
to rush from Oceania to save Macedonia through a privatisation plan... This is the time
for international gangsters and adventurers, like during the conquest of the Far West. The
pseudo-Bosnian state will have a constitutional court of which a majority of members will
be non-Bosnians and will settle conflicts between the central government and the
provinces. And the cheerleaders of imperialism say openly: 'The installation of a control
by the UN on Bosnia could lead to a true solution of the conflicts'(68)
This compulsory foreign tutelage renders unavoidable a struggle between the big
imperialist powers, wanting to dominate the Balkans. Those who justify the creation of
those mini-states, are accomplices of the imperialist interventions in this region and of
the coming wars.
German imperialism already economically dominates former Yugoslavia. Today, for the first
time since Hitler's defeat, Germany openly proclaims their moral duty of sending armed
forces to the Balkans! 'Die Zeit' writes 'depending on the situations, we must ourselves
decide if our participation corresponds to our interests'. 'We must be able to give as we
were able to take. As a matter of fact, to devote our troops only for our national defense
amounts to privilege the latter against the rest of the world'. 'The war in Bosnia does
not justify an outside military intervention'. 'It would be different in Kosovo, or even
more in Macedonia. There, the West can warn: the first one who enters there will have to
deal with us! Consider Macedonia. If the Serbs enter there, many things will be clear,
starting with the adversary. The goal will be clear also: to chase the Serbian army from
Macedonia- as before with Saddam Hussein in Koweit' (69).
The German bourgeoisie is quite conscious of the fact that it will not be able to extend
and to consolidate its hegemony in the Balkans and Eastern Europe, unless it drags the EC
into its expansionist policy. the reactionary newspaper Bild writes: 'Since the beginning
of the war, one tries to stop a feared German influence in South-East Europe. We are not
in 1914, Germany is not isolated as it was then. A long-lasting security can only be found
in the collective haven called Europe' (70).
And a French general envisions accurately the consequences of a 'European' military policy
in which Mitterand has engaged France. 'Will the weak Eurocorps, which is necessarily led
by the strongest of its contributors, be the instrument of an expansionist strategy, first
hidden, then imposed by the almighty mark?' (71)
[ Contents ]
In political and military terms, the United States remain the first power in the Balkans.
In June 1991, Panic, American citizen and billionaire businessman appeared in Belgrade,
like a UFO, to become prime minister. This miracle, similar to the ones of the Virgin
Mary, can be explained through the pro-american orientation of the Yugoslavian and Serbian
policies since 1948. On June 22, 1992, Secretary of State Baker had reaffirmed the desire
of the US to see some Yugoslavian unity being set up, on a new basis. Panic, the Yankee of
Serbian origin, is part of the Kissinger-Eagleburger-Showcroft tendency. The official
policy of the Pentagon is to 'prevent the rise of any other superpower'. In Europe, only
Germany can pretend to this role. A part of the American bourgeoisie wants to use Serbia,
or a Yugoslavia more or less put together, against German expansionism.(72)
But the main axis of the US is to use Turkey and other pro-American Islamic states as
go-between. Saudi Arabia gives financial help to Bosnia, Kuwait urges for a military
intervention and Turkey examines possible bombing of sites on the Serbian side. A 'green
link' puts together the Islamic communities in the Balkans: from Bosnia through Kossovo
and Albania, Macedonia, Bulgaria and up to Turkey.(73) On December 17, 1992, the US
proposed at a NATO meeting to lift the arms embargo against Bosnia. This would have led to
a flood of weapons from the pro-American Islamic countries. In the American government,
some hope to avoid a direct military intervention, by using 'Islamic' troops. The
Americans are also trying to divert the hatred of the Islamic populations, shocked by the
American intervention in Iraq and Palestine, by using the intervention in the Balkans
where the United States would protect Islam (74). The problem with this tactic is that one
is playing with fire: one false step, and the entire region explodes.
Turkey, today a priviledged ally of the US, remains divided about its strategic options.
Erdal Inonu, of the populist social-democratic party, restated the firm desire of the
Demirel government to join the EC. Germany fights with the US about the control of Turkey,
its traditional ally in the Balkans.
[ Contents ]
The third great power that has 'interests' to defend in the Balkans is Russia. The general
perception of the civil war in former Yugoslavia is expressed by the pro-Yeltsin newspaper
Rossija, which claims that this war can lead to a new world war. Analysing the policy of
the West, the paper writes: 'Serbia must be weakened and the formation of a strong slavic
state in the Balkans must be prevented. Stability in the Balkans is stability of Russia-
and today the unity of Russia is in danger' (75).
The reactionary nationalism of Serbia finds its 'natural' partner in Russian reactionary
nationalism. They have a common enemy: Germany. Germany, which made Yugoslavia explode to
make it possible to impose itself, might do the very same thing with Russia. After the
explosion of Yugoslavia, 31% of the Serbs were outside of the 'Serbian country'; today, 25
million Russians live outside of the 'Russian country.'
Eltsin came to power by preaching the old nationalist ideology of the tsars: he putted
back the tsarist symbols, reestablished the prestige of the orthodox church, spiritual
pillar of tsarism. But to succeed in his coup, Eltsin mostly relied on the US, of which he
became the hostage. Since the terrifying crisis that shakes the society forces the new
bourgeoisie to use an ideology that is more and more right wing and nationalist-fascist,
there is the following alternative: either Eltsin make another turn around and become the
champion of the ultra-nationalist Russia, or he will be overthrown by the
ultra-nationalist forces. An independent Serbian newspaper considered the possible
intervention of Russia in the Balkans. 'Russia will remain on the side as long as the
nationalists will not have overthrown Eltsin. If they succeed, it will be the beginning of
the general post-socialist tragedy. You wanted the nationalists to get you rid of the
communists? Look what they will do. The West did not invest a penny for the
privatisations. The collapse of the East was accompanied by the criminal enrichment of a
thousand families, of an empoverishment of the state and its becoming a servant of armed
gangs and of the secret police. Millions are starving, and for a piece of bread they will
be ready to defend the 'nation'.'(76)
[ Contents ]
An expansion of the war in the Balkans may pull in Russia. This would be the beginning of
a European war in which all three parties, the United States, Germany and Russia would
aspire reactionary, expansionist and criminal goals: their local allies would only be
second ranks in this imperialist war. This would be like WW1, when the duty of all the
revolutionaries was to prepare the conditions of a victorious insurrection against their
own bourgeoisie, for international socialism.
A major unknown in such a conflict would be the possibility of the soviet communists to
influence and lead the masses against the reactionary Russian nationalism, to overthrow
the new bourgeoisie and to reestablish the dictatorship of the proletariat.
[ Contents ]
It is a quite significant fact that, three years after the 'revolutions for democracy and
liberty', the possibility of a general European war exists. The 'democratic' and
'populist' mask that imperialism gave himself when socialism collapsed has already fallen
down. Lenin often said that imperialism means reaction, violence and complete
antidemocratism: 'development of militarism, multiplication of the wars, strengthening of
the reaction, extension of the national yoke and of the colonial looting.'(77) During its
long struggle to subvert and overthrow socialism in the USSR and the East, imperialism has
supported all that was reactionary and medieval, obscurantism and religion, nationalism
and fascism. The collapse of socialism and of the progressive ideals that it represented
was necessarily the victory of all that was retrograde and reactionary. So, we witness on
all five continents the development of fascist-like nationalism and fundamentalist
religious trends. If religion remains the opium of the people, nationalism is its cocaine.
Both are used to blind the masses. Both push the desperate masses into reactionary wars
serving 'their' bourgeoisie. Until recently, the true face of our bourgeoisie was shown
mostly in the third world. Today, the profound nature of our 'democracy' and our 'liberty'
is shown in the Balkans where imperialist Europe and their local accomplices are provoking
terror, destruction and primitive violence; a reactionary civil war. We, communists, must
be proud to be the only ones that keep believing in the flag of the unity among the
peoples, the flag of creative work, progressive culture, social progress and of popular
democracy and peace. A flag around which the oppressed masses will eventually come
together to struggle for the socialist revolution.
[ Contents ]
The recent events in Yugoslavia have indeed a profound meaning for the future of Belgium.
In Belgium, the Vlaams Blok defends the criminal policy that set Yugoslavia into flames.
The Vlaams Blok is against multinational states. Yugoslavia was a 'mixture-state' of which
the 'deafening internationalism was criminal'. In the same breath, Verreyken, from the
Vlaams Blok claims that 'it was proven in Belgium that the ideal of the mixing does not
work'. The Flemish fascists envision a Yugoslavian scenario for Belgium. Putting aside the
countless butcheries organised by the various Yugoslavian fractions, Verreyken says:
'popular nationalism has shown itself to be a liberating force during decades of
communist-socialist terror' (78). A good example of Nazi propaganda! During decades,
Belgians went to Yugoslavia and saw the prefect cohabitation between Serbs, Croats,
Slovenians and Muslims. This common life, relatively harmonious and peaceful is presented
as 'communist terror'. Of course, the Yugoslavian state did repress individuals who were
preaching the resurrection of Croatian or Serbian fascist nationalism. Today, these
fascist nationalist maffias, the Oustachis in Croatia, and the Tchetniks in Serbia act
openly. Through lies, propaganda, provocations and crimes, the nationalism has divided
Serbs, Croatians and Muslims and has thrown them in a barbaric and criminal civil war.
This is what the Flemish fascists call 'the popular and liberating nationalism'!
All this proves that the fascists of the Vlaams Blok create in Belgium the threat of
separatism and of a reactionary civil war. No, this is not an absurd hypothesis. Who could
have thought, even ten years ago, that Yugoslavia could be thorn apart in 1993 by criminal
wars? In that country, the factor that led the deadly machine to start is the German
intervention in favour of Croatian and Slovenian separatism. If, in the future, Germany
wants to exert a direct control over Belgium, it can give some 'help' to its traditional
'friends', the nationalist-fascist Flemish, as it did with their Croatian colleagues.
It is even more frightening to see the bourgeois parties follow the steps of the
reactionary nationalism of the Vlaams Blok. The Flemish 'president', Luk Van Den Brande
declared: 'My conviction is mostly a confederal one.'(79) The Vlaams Blok hasten itself to
support him! Let us remember that Yugoslavia became a confederation in 1974, which opened
the door to the nationalist-fascist drift. Van den Brande also says: 'Separatism is no
specter for me'(80). 'There is a risk that the Walloons make cohabitation in Belgium
impossible' (81). The socialist Louis Van Velthoven got closer to the nationalist-fascist
thesis according to which 'the Flemish interest is the superior one' when he said: 'The
time when there was always an interest above the Flemish one is over.'(82) Just like the
reactionary Serbian and Muslim nationalism manifested themselves as a reaction to the
nationalism-fascism of Croatia, the bourgeois leaders of Wallonia and Brussels jumped into
the bandwagon. Spitaels: 'It is necessary to be pro-Walloon. How can one create a nation
or a state without putting forward an identity and a pride?'(83) And Charles Picque
discusses the possibility of 'breaking with Flanders': 'Brussels should affirm, at the
international level, its independence with respect to Flanders' (84).
[ Contents ]
Today, there exists an avalanche of nationalist conceptions that are similar to those of
Yugoslavia. It is very important to reiterate some basic marxist ideas.
The European socialist countries of the future will be the multinational states. We
support a multinational and unitary Belgium. Unity of the workers and laborers, beyond any
linguistic or religious differences, is a basic marxist principle. In a multinational
state, the first principle of every marxist will always be the principle of common
struggle and a unified workers organization, whatever be their nationality, language or
religion. We want a unitary Belgium because the interests of the workers and laborers are
unique: Dutch speaking, French speaking, German speaking and foreigners; they fight
together to impose their economic and democratic needs, unitarily, all over Belgium. In
Belgium, a country without oppression or national discrimination, federalism only serves
to rank the 'Flemish' workers behind the Flemish exploiters, and under the rotten roof of
popular nationalism. With a common determination, the Dutch and French speaking workers
are opposed to every kind of discrimination based on language, whether it is arab or
turkish, or on religion, muslim or not.
[ Contents ]
Since the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union, reactionary violence is on the
increase. Imperialist violence and local wars are rampant in the Balkans, in Azerbaidjan,
in Georgia and in Tadjikistan. The Peace movement, which was mobilizing hundreds of
thousands of people, shamefully disappeared right a the moment peace was threatened more
than ever. During the sixties and the seventies, thousands of pacifists marched through
the streets of Brussels opposing the Pershing and SS-20 missiles, opposing both Warshaw
Pact and Nato. The Warshaw Pact has disappeared now. Still, Nato is becoming ever more
aggressive and has widened its radius of intervention. But where are these pacifists now?
Peace movement: disappeared Once capitalism was fully restored in the East under economic,
political and military pressure from the West, and once the Warshaw Pact has been
dissolved, the peace movement declared that this evolution was a positive step for peace
all over the world. Anti-communism pushed many pacifists to support an evolution that
necessarily would lead to reaction, fascism, civil war and ethnical and religious wars.
The peace movement was inspired by vague moral references and has never been able to
incorporate a class analysis of the imperialist system and of its primary and decisive
responsibility in the arms race.
After the bourgeoisie had claimed victory in the East, it immediately began criminal
military campaigns in Panama and Iraq. It justified these acts as 'humanitarian' by
referring to 'human rights issues'. The peacemovement swallowed this imperialistic
demagogy and thus it disappeared shamefully from the scene, at the very moment that
imperialistic wars were brought first to the Third World and then to the Balkans.
At the same time, we acknowledge that a large part of the Belgian population feels woried
and anxious: almost instinctively people become aware that the crisis of capitalism might
well -- once again -- end up in an overall European war.
We ourselves did not catch up with the raising of consciousness raising amongst the
masses. Yet we have many opportunities to explain that capitalism always means war, that
capitalism is a murderous system. The arrogant aggressiveness of the bourgeoisie has
intimidated some of us. They have become defeatist. We have not shown enough initiative
and fighting spirit against the danger of war.
All recent developments in Europe, Yugoslavia and Russia give clear evidence that
capitalism means war. It is high time for the pacifist movements to rise up again, to
oppose all capitalist military adventures, and to cry out loudly: 'No to war, No to Nato,
no to German revenge!' 'No to war, No to 'humanitarian' interventions!' We have to make
use of the horrifying facts that come in the open each day to bring forward our slogans:
'No to humanitarian aggression and wars!' 'No to war, No to NATO. No to German
expansionism.'
[ Contents ]
During Stalin's time, the communist international movement defined NATO as an aggressive
pact which aimed at destroying the socialist states and at reoccupying its territories. As
a pact dominated by the USA, NATO was also used by the U.S. to control and dominate their
European allies.
With the disappearance of the Warshaw Pact, the rationale for the existence of this
aggressive NATO alliance should also have disappeared. All forces for peace should thus
demand the dissolution of NATO.
But on the contrary, NATO took advantage from the collapse of socialism in Eastern Europe
and the Soviet Union to venture in even more adventurous and more aggressive policies.
NATO enlarged its field of domination and military intervention. The war against Iraq, its
first war against the Third World, was also the first NATO war outside its traditional
territory. Moreover NATO enlarged its field of intervention to the whole of Eastern Europe
and to the so-called independent republics of the former Soviet Union. The aggression
against Yugoslavia gives evidence that NATO is preparing for intervention and wars in all
the former socialist countries. USA: 'We the leaders of the world' Under the changed
circumstances, NATO developed two new characteristics.
First, American imperialism plans to use NATO as an essential instrument to maintain its
position as the only remaining military superpower.
Second, NATO is the new framework for German imperialism to manoeuvre and obtain its new
status as a superpower. Today, American imperialism declares with revolting openness that
it is and will be the only military and economic superpower. America sees it as its task
to lead the world, it has the right to impose its 'order' in the whole world and is
willing to intervene everywhere to 'protect' that order.
At the moment American imperialism has reached its height, the Marxist analysis that
imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, a system of international terror and a
source of war, has become more relevant than ever. American imperialism now declares
openly that in the New World Order no country has a right to national independence and
sovereignty. American imperialism is well known to be the most dreadful killing machine
the globe has ever seen. It declares itself to be the sole judge to assess the internal
situation in other countries. It can invoke all kind of 'humanitarian' reasons to set
aside the independence of countries and to decide military intervention.
Moreover, it should not be forgotten that in the name of the holy principle of 'national
independence' American imperialism has spearheaded the counter-revolution in Hungary,
Czechoslovakia, Ukraine and Armenia. In all the above mentioned countries and republics,
reactionaries and fascists have fought in the name of 'independence', while in fact they
were mercenaries of imperialism, enemies of socialism and of real independence.
Criminals such as Nagy in Hungary were rightly brought before the firing-squad. Today we
see how the followers of Nagy and Rayk, people as Vaclav Havel and Walesa, effectively
operate as agents of imperialism in their countries. As a real CIA-agent Havel, declared
that 'NATO has been constituted as an instrument to defend the freedom and the values of
Western civilisation'(85). As a matter of fact, he requested that his country be granted
membership in NATO.
'Independence', 'democracy', 'freedom', and 'human rights' are demagogic slogans. These
are the windscreens used by imperialism to hide its basic aims: to impose a totalitarian
free market economy onto the world and to act as the over-armed 'protector' of a system of
worldwide exploitation.
In the beginning of 1992, the Pentagon and the Committee of chiefs of staff of the
American army have published two documents on the strategy of the United States. The
documents state that the USA 'are the only superpower', and that this status 'should be
enforced through a military pervasiveness strong enough to ensure that no nation or group
of nations will challenge American supremacy. (...) In the last resort, the international
order is guaranteed by the United States, who will have to act independently if collective
action is impossible or if a crisis requires immediate action.' (86)
General Colin Powell, the highest military authority in the USA, stated in writing:
'America has to take up the responsibility of its power. It has to lead the world. That,
we cannot achieve without the armed forces.' 'During the past three years the troops have
been called upon many times. (...) Two times in the Philippines, three times in Panama, in
El Salvador, in Liberia, three times in Iraq, two times in Somalia, in Bangladesh, in
Zaire, in Cuba, in the former Soviet Union, in Angola, in Yugoslavia. We can also mention
the contribution of our troops in the operations of the United Nations, from the West
Sahara to Cambodia and Bosnia-Herzegovinia'. (87) Five axes of USA strategy To maintain
its dominance over the globe, the United States has developed a global strategy that has
five important axes. The first axe is to firmly submit the Eastern European countries, as
well as the independent Republics of the former Soviet Union, to USA control by imposing
military surveillance through NATO.
'American policy has imposed the principle that NATO is authorised to handle so called
security problems in the whole of Eastern Europe. The USA thereby want to use NATO to
conduct their policy towards the former people's democracies and afterwards towards the
former Soviet republics. The purpose is also to involve the European partners so that the
USA keep their leading role.' (88)
NATO made promises to the Eastern European new bourgeoisies, composed of mafiosi,
criminals and exploiters, that it will guarantee the stability of their regimes. Using the
pretext that 'security' includes political and economical aspects, NATO makes itself the
watchdog of the new bourgeois order and of liberal capitalism against revolutionary
workers movements.
The 'extended' NATO alleges its aims 'to build a real partnership between NATO and the
countries of Central and Eastern Europe. (...) Our common purpose is to improve the
European security through the promotion of stability in Central and Eastern Europe. (...)
Todays security is based on a broad concept that embraces political, economical, social,
ecological as well as defence aspects.' (89)
However, reactionary nationalism that overrules Eastern-Europe in this times of harsh
economic crisis, will inevitably lead to civil war. NATO, now defining itself as an
'instrument to secure order in the Euro-Atlantic region', will have to engage in military
interventions and wage wars to protect the 'peaceful' rule of Western multinationals in
the that part of Europe (90). The intervention of American, Dutch, French and Turkish
airplanes on Serbian territory forecast that series of interventions and wars (91). The
second axe of the USA-strategy is to maintain its global dominanation and to prevent the
restoration of the Soviet Union or the establishment of a strong Union between Russia and
other republics.
NATO militarily wants to have a close look at 'the risks for stability in Europe from a
reemerging of nationalism in Russia or from attempts of certain countries which have
become independent to link again with Russia: Ukraine, White-Russia, and possible other
countries. (92)' The third and forth axe of the USA-world strategy is to prevent Germany
and Japan becoming superpowers that can compete with the United States of America.
A Pentagon paper reads: 'It is imperious to discourage developed industrial nations to
challenge the American leadership. It is necessary to avoid the establishment of an
exclusive European security system that might destabilize NATO'(93).
Paul-Marie de la Gorce concludes that NATO 'not only has the aim to protect the European
continent but also to ensure Europe's political and strategical dependence from the
USA.'(94) The new military structure of NATO and more specifically the establishment of a
rapid intervention force, to be led by an integrated command (which means by the USA), is
also set up to make possible a more strict control by the USA over its dear European
allies. The rapid intervention force will have a very high level of integration up to the
level of brigades. There is also a lot of talking about the 'organisation of
multi-national units (95).'
Even in Asia American imperialism 'is adamant to avoid the emerging of any regional
hegemonic power and to avoid destabilisation that could emanate from allies playing a more
important role especially Japan, but potentially also Korea (96).' The fifth axe of the
American strategy is to present the rise, in the Third World, of economic and military
powers that are able to follow an independent course.
The establishment of a rapid intervention force and the production of nuclear weapons,
especially adapted for use in the Third World countries, suits that frame.
After 1995 the USA will develop new tactical air - to - ground missiles. A nuclear load
can be placed in the head of this cruise missiles. The USA want to produce thousands of
them and all strategic bombers will be equiped wtith this cruise missiles. 'They will
greatly contribute to the military supremacy of the USA in the world (97).'
'General Lee Butler and his designers are now in the first phase of the development and
computer modelling; this weapans will enable president Clinton to use nuclear weapons
against Third World countries that endanger the interests of the USA and its allies' (98).
German American rivalry The new NATO is also the framework for rivalry and struggle
between the USA and Germany, aiming at the status of a superpower -- but also between the
USA and France.
Thanks to Krushchev, Brezhnev and Gorbachov, German imperialism acquired through
'peaceful' subversion what it fought for during the first and second World War.
Greater Germany of 1993 declares triumphantly that its 'hereditary enemy, Russia, has been
driven back within the borders of the 17th century'. Germany guaranties the 'national
security interests' of the countries in the East and the former republics of the Soviet
Union. Germany specifically names the countries which it tried to annexed or controlle
during the two World Wars: Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic States and the countries of Eastern
Europe. According to Lothar Ruhl 'a new European responsibility is waiting for Germany.
(...) Western security in Eastern Europe is not feasible without Germany as a faithful
partner of the Western allies. Therefore, the future attachment of Germany to NATO remains
necessary'. 'There you find the most important field for Germany(99).'
Germany wants to take advantage of NATO in order to expand its domination in Eastern
Europe and in the countries of the former Soviet Union. Nato is used as a cover for smooth
economic expansion in the East. Germany has already succeeded in using NATO against its
hereditary enemy: Serbia.
Tomorrow, Germany hopes to use NATO against its secular enemy in the East: Russia. In this
way Germany hopes to be able to use the NATO-shield to continue 'peaceful' economic
expansion in the East. Under the present circumstances it is only the NATO that has the
military and logistical means to wage war against Russia.
[ Contents ]
As always since the end of World War II, Germany is betting on two horses: NATO and the
European Union. The most important axe of German strategy is the reenforcement of its
status as an economic superpower by constructing a German Europe.
For Germany it is absolutely necessary to subordinate the other European bourgeoisies if
it wants to have the whole European market at its disposal. This should enable the German
multinationals to compete successfully with Japanese and American multinationals
worldwide. In addition, Germany needs the political unification of Europe to establish a
base strong enough for its international political and military ambitions.
Germany is working daily to strengthen its economic superiority in Eastern Europe and the
former Soviet Union. By doing so, Germany aims at reinforcing its global economic power
and this could consolidate its hegemony within the European Community.
On the world markets, European imperialists have interests which quite often confront
those of the USA. Consequently, they outline a 'European defence policy'.
In May 1992, in La Rochelle, Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand gave the go ahead
for the Eurocorps which had been announced on the 16th of October 1991. In their common
declaration French and German imperialism declare: 'This corps will give the European
Union its own military capacity'. (100) This corps has to be operational in 1995 as a
rapid intervention force. It will be composed of 35,000 to 40,000 recruits, mainly French
and German, but the Belgian, Luxembourg and Spanish government want to integrate some of
their military forces.
In addition, Germany and the Netherlands will build a multinational army composed of three
divisions of 25,000 recruits. This force can be increased to up to 50,000 recruits. Great
Britain and Denmark have been invited to take part.
Today, 'Democratic' Germany is accomplishing what Nazi Germany was never able to do: the
integration of several European armies into a multinational structure under German
leadership. During the second World War, Nazi Germany organised Flemish, Walloon, French
and Netherlands troops for the Eastern front. In the new situation, this old policy of
using European armies for the realisation of German expansion to the East is brilliantly
applied. 'Volker Ruhe (German minister of Defence) says he places high priority on the
political concept of multi-nationality for the defence of Central Europe (101).'
The creation of a European Army is also the only possible way for Germany to obtain
nuclear weapons, which are until now restricted to France and Great Britain. The French
daily Le Monde notes 'the fact that the French head of State himself makes a reference to
the moment that, in one form or another still to be worked out, it will be possible to
give a European vocation to nuclear deterrence.'(102)
Germany relied on the NATO as well as on the Eurocorps to send its troops for
interventions outside the German borders and the NATO zone. Sending military troops to
ex-Yugoslavia, Germany makes clear it's intent to stick to a military presence in those
countries it was controlling and occupying during the second World War. By sending 1,500
soldiers to Somalia, Germany began its military interventions in the Third World. German
revanchists are preparing actively for the day that it will be 'glorious' for a son of
Germany to die on foreign battlefields. General Neumann, the chief of the German general
staff 'has reminded that the engagement of the army implicates that each man 'is prepared
to take up arms for the defence of our country and our citizens and risks its life, also
outside Germany.'(103) Germany follows the footsteps of Emperor Willem II and Hitler.
Workers' Party of Belgium (WPB)
171 Boulevard Lemonnier
B-1000 Brussels, Belgium
Tel: + 32 2 513 77 60
Fax: + 32 2 513 98 31
E-mail wpb@wpb.be