Speech of the 1 May 1996, by Ludo Martens, Chairman of the Workers' Party of Belgium
Explanation of Belgian names and concepts
May Day does not belong to the social-democracy. May Day cannot
belong to a party with a program that fights the 'egoism' of the workers. The
social-democracy has become the party that defends the egoism of the employers. That was
well understood by thousands of teachers, youngsters, trade unionists who have expelled
the leaders of the PS (Parti Socialiste) from their own meetings and out of their own
parades on this very May Day 1996. Everyone who engages in the struggle against increasing
exploitation and injustice, understands that you can only draft a real socialist program,
if you break with the pernicious ideas of liberal socialism and police socialism promoted
by the leaders of the PS and the SP (Flemisch social-democratic-party).
The social-democracy has tried to change this May Day, day of the workers' international
solidarity into a day of support of the employers' egoism. But the egoism of the
bourgeoisie, their craving for profit and the domination of imperialism, lead the whole
world to disaster. Proof is found in Russia.
Since October 1917, since the first day of the Soviet revolution, the social-democracy has
been on the outpost of the anti-communist struggle. Already at that time the former
minister of war, the socialist Kerensky, called the bolshevists 'a gang of madmen,
villains and betrayers who nip freedom in the bud' and wield 'leninist terror'. (1)
We all remember the enthusiasm with which the social-democracy welcomed the fall of the
Berlin wall in 1989 as the beginning of a period of 'democracy, freedom and wellbeing'.
But the restoration of capitalism in Eastern Europe and the establishment of imperialist
domination over those countries have brought about an unimaginable catastrophe.
In 1989 perestroïka reached its climax. But the economic growth of the Soviet Union had
dropped to a barely 1.6 percent. The Western bourgeoisie broadcasted that the crisis in
the Soviet Union had become 'very serious' and that a change of regime in the Soviet Union
was necessary in order to overcome stagnation. The then minister of the SP, Vandenbroucke,
wrote: 'Radical economic reforms are necessary. ( ) Market mechanisms must be imported on
a large scale. ( ) The Soviet Union needs entrepreneurs who by market forces can bring
about a new vitality.' (2)
Gorbatsjov did exactly what the social-democracy had asked. Let us see to what type of
'vitality' this has lead.
Between 1990 and 1995 the Gross National Product of Russia dropped by 61 percent. The
restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union provoked the largest economic catastrophe
ever seen in an industrialized country.(3) In its best years Russia harvested 116 million
tons of wheat. In 1995 that had dropped to 63 million tons. The bourgeoisie had always
claimed that agriculture was 'the weak spot' of the Soviet Union. But the restoration of
capitalism did decrease the wheat production by 45.5 percent. (4) Capitalism means hunger
for the poor.
In 1985, the Soviet Union had a 35 billion dollar debt. Ten years later, you have to
multiply this figure by five, and this is the debt of Russia alone. It amounted to 144
billion dollar in 1995. Today, the West extends ample loans in order to guarantee the
consolidation of the Russian bourgeoisie.
But also in order to have a strong weapon to blackmail in case the Russian government does
not obey the commands of Berlin and Washington. At the same time the Russian mob
bourgeoisie illegally drains tens of billions of dollars to the Western banks every year.
'According to experts of the Home Secretary twenty percent of the oil and precious stones
leaves Russia illegally.' (6) The restoration of capitalism has put a criminal mob
bourgeoisie in power and made Russia dependent on imperialism.
The Western bourgeoisie said that the planned economy caused stagnation in the Soviet
Union. Vandenbroucke, president of the SP, a 'leftist economist' and former trotskiyst
declared: 'Totalitarian stalinism is contrary to democracy. The total and bureaucratic
planning does not work.' (7) Only bourgeois democracy and free enterprise are said to
bring about welfare. Let us have a closer look at that.
In 1989, the monthly salary in Azerbeidjan was 130 dollar. In Georgia it was 102 dollar.
In 1994 both have dropped to 3 dollar. (8) The workers lost 97 to 98 % of their wages,
thanks to the introduction of 'democracy' and 'freedom', at the urgent request of the
social-democracy.
Labourers and employees in Russia often go without wages. 160 billion Belgian francs of
wages have not been paid. An economist in Moscow: 'Teachers do not really count on being
paid.' (9) Under the socialist regime, the workers lived quietly, there was a real
wellbeing, but the social-democracy spits at this 'totalitarian stalinism'. The real
totalitarian regime is that of the market and the 'free' enterprise. This takes the
liberty, from Zaïre to Russia, not to pay the wages of teachers and workers!
You may remember the campaign 'Rumanian villages', organized with the active support of
the socialist and trotskiyst parties. They pretended that Ceausescu had starved his
people, in order to pay off his debts. Convoys with Belgian sugar and chocolate departed
to Rumania. A pure masquerade in order to justify the restoration of capitalism and the
Western grip on Rumania. In 1989, when Ceaucesco was supposed to be starving his people,
only 1.5 % of the population was living in poverty. Five years later, in 1994, it is 27%.
Between 1989 and 1994, 75 million people in Central and Eastern Europe have for the first
time fallen under the poverty level. (10) The restoration of capitalism means a dramatic
impoverishment of large groups of pensioners and workers.
In 1985 secondary education was almost generalized: 98 percent of the children received
secondary education. After the restoration of capitalism a quarter of them is excluded
from secondary education. The percentage has dropped to 71.7. (11) The restoration of
capitalism means exclusion of education and culture for the workers.
Life expectation of the Russian male amounted to 64.2 years in 1989. In 1994 it is only
58.2 years. As a result of the restoration of capitalism each Russian has lost six years
of his life. (12)
[ Contents ]
If we take the death figures of 1989 as a base, there was a surplus of 1,700,000 units of
death in Russia during the last five years. 1,7 million human lives have been sacrificed
on the altar of capitalist restoration. (13)
In 1985 the birth figure in Russia amounted to 16.7 per thousand inhabitants. In 1994 this
has dropped to 9.4. Under capitalism Russian workers can scarcely afford children. If the
birth figure had remained stable, 1,072,000 children more would have been born in 1994.
Capitalism is an inhuman system. It means genocide.
And this destruction, all the crimes of the capitalist restoration are being justified by
the social-democracy, by way of Robert Falony: 'What has gone broke in the Soviet Union is
not socialism but stalinism. That is the so-called dictatorship of the proletariat, in
fact the dictatorship of bureaucratism.' (15) Today, the workers of the former socialist
countries experience the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, that criminal, barbaric and
inhuman system defended by fire and sword by the social-democracy.
[ Contents ]
In July 1990, at the 28th Congress of the Communist Party, Gorbatchov announced the
restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union. A few months later imperialism started one
of the most destroying aggression wars since World War Two, the war against Iraq. A
coalition of all imperialist countries threw itself at a small third world country of 18
million people. The pretext: 'free' Koeweit from Iraqui 'occupation'. But earlier, Koeweit
was but an oil well in the middle of desert sand, a small region occupied by the English
coloniser. That coloniser arbitrarily cut 'Koeweit' off from Mesopotamia of which it had
formed part for 5.000 years. The purpose of the war against Iraq was to lay hand on the
oil from the Middle-East and set up military bases in the Gulf.
[ Contents ]
The Belgian social-democracy - at that time Coëme of the PS was minister of Defence -
took part in all war preparations. To weaken the country in view of the coming aggression
they supported the economic embargo against Iraq. They confirmed doing their 'duty' at the
side of the imperialist coalition but told in a demagogic way that in war time they would
take up 'defensive tasks' only and would refuse Nato-leadership of the military operation.
Thus Vandenbroucke explained why the SP-PS supported the war against Iraq. But at the same
time he wrote to the organisers of an anti-war demonstration: 'We completely share your
concern: 1. against an intervention of Nato in this affair; 2. the request of a defensive
role.' (16) Coëme said the same in Parliament. (17) But three months later, at the
beginning of 1991, minister Eyskens could declare that sending 18 Belgian mirages to the
Turqui-Iraqui frontier fitted in 'the tactics of preventive solidarity within Nato.'
Besides Coëme admitted that Belgian military efforts fitted perfectly within the global
strategy of the imperialist coalition. He declared: 'The 13th and 20th of August we
received a list with what the Americans think they need. That list stipulates a system of
demining as one of the priorities. ( ) The mission of our ships will provide the Western
Navy with a strategic advantage.' (19)
On January 25th 1991, in the middle of the war, Le Soir published a summon
under the title 'Our solidarity with the allies', thus referring to Great-Britain, France,
the United States and Canada. It was a justification of the war against Iraq. The summon
was signed by figure-heads of extreme right within the PSC such as J. Demaret, by
prominent liberals such as J. Gol and Fr. de Donnéa and by two figures of 'the left'
within the PS: Ernest Glinne and Guy Cudell! Their text says: 'For the first time, thanks
to the the East-West detente, the international community evolves to a new world order
based on the respect for the international right (!), the respect for Human Rights (!) and
the peaceful solution of conflicts (!). ( )
In view of the criminal acts of Saddam Hussein, it is obvious that the main issue of the
crisis is above all the triumph of the right and priority of the people to the use of
violence (!). ( ) The importance and dignity of Belgium make it necessary to contribute
without hesitation and without weakness to the efforts of our allies and that we are
prepared to take part ( ) in their military effort.' (20) There you see how pseudo-left of
the PS allies with the extreme right to justify a criminal aggression. The demagogy on
'detente', 'Human Rights' and 'the international right' shows its true face at the moment
that the Iraqui corpses are counted
[ Contents ]
The technological war against Iraq indeed was extremely murderous. The amount of Iraqui
soldiers killed is estimated at 100,000 up to 150,000. (21) If we add the civilians, we
arrive at a total of 200,000 Iraqui deaths.
After the military war, the war continued as it had started: as an economic war with an
equally murdering embargo. Loudly defended before the war by the socialist and green
parties, this embargo today shows its real face. According to the agriculture and food
organisation of the UN, the FAO, 620.000 Iraqui children have died since the end of the
Gulf war as a result of the embargo.
Imperialism means the destruction of human life and wealth generated by people, and has
the blessing and the cooperation of the social-democracy.
[ Contents ]
The total cost of war against Iraq amounts to 676 billion dollar. One third of that sum
could finance all of Unicef's main goals during ten years: to control the most important
children diseases, to decrease malnutrition by half, to provide water and basic health
care, to guarantee elementary education for each child. (23) These improbable figures are
confirmed by another source: 'In 1992, during a meeting in Abu Dhabi, a rapport was
submitted to the directors of the Arabian central banks, in which Arabia's losses during
the Gulf war were figured out. The global sum was 620 billion dollar.' (24)
820,000 deaths, 676 billion dollar of destruction and loss. These figures allow us to
measure the cynicism of the social-democracy, who at the moment of full preparation of the
war against Iraq by the lips of Tobback said: 'I am and remain a cool Nato-lover. ( ) I do
not have any difficulty in calling oil supply the real purpose of the conflict. I do not
find it disgraceful to do something in order to secure our economic interests.' (25)
[ Contents ]
From the beginning of the operations of the Patriotic Front in October 1990, the socialist
minister of Defence Coëme sent the Belgian army to Rwanda to save the dictatorial regime
of Habyarimana, together with the French and Zaïrois army. A little later, the Ruandese
army staff published a document in which the Tutsi population was called 'the interior
enemy'. In 1991-1992 several thousands of Tutsi's were systematically murdered in Kiberia,
Bugesera and Bugogwe. Two years later this was practised all over the country. The Belgian
army was in Bugogwe at the time of the massacre. As from 1992, the regime of Habyarimana
started the organisation of the Interahamwe-militia in the entire country. Mitterand,
Claes and Coëme knew this. In November 1993 the army staff of Habyarimana adopted a plan
for the elimination of all Tutsi's. The Belgian military security service immediately
informed the government.
The CVP-SP government also knew that Hutu-extremists intended to murder Belgian soldiers
of the UN mission, in order to make these troops leave and then start the genocide. From 8
April on, thousands of Rwandese in Kicukiru, Ndera and other places sought protection from
the Belgian army. The Interahamwe had already surrounded the refugees when the Belgian
army decided to withdraw. Fully conscious, it left these people to their murderers. The
Belgian army is an accomplice and is guilty of refusing assistance to people in mortal
danger. The Belgian government used the murder of ten Belgian paratroopers as a pretext to
withdraw the troops. But in 'normal' times the murder of whites is a classical pretext of
the imperialists to invade the specific country! Belgium withdrew its troops because it
wanted to prevent them from acting against the Habyarimana army consisting of French and
Belgian confidants. During the months of April, May and June, the Belgian and the French
government allowed their friends and confidants to murder in the most barbarous way one
million Tutsi's and democratic Hutu's. Socialist Mitterand's France military intervened in
July 1994, with the purpose to stop the Patriotic Front before Kigali and thus save the
murder government of Kambanda. But it was too late. 'Socialist' France had to limit itself
to the occupation of the so-called zone Turquoise which became a refuge and escape road
for the instigators of the genocide. Without the French intervention they would have been
arrested by the FPR.
The Rwandese genocide exceeds in intensity and in cruelty the genocide perpetrated by the
followers of Hitler. The Ruandese genocide is the first in history that was patronised by
christian-democracy and social-democracy. This genocide shows that fascism is not the
monopoly of classical extreme-right. The social-democracy can also, in some circumstances
carry its anti-popular policy as far as genocide, up to fascism.
[ Contents ]
The European workers would make a mistake in thinking that the bestialities of imperialism
such as in Iraq and in Rwanda can only happen in third world countries.
Imperialism already sparked off the war in the center of Europe, in the Balkans, which
caused at least 250,000 deaths.
The war in Yugoslavia has been sparked off by Germany and was maintained by the United
States.
At the moment of the foundation of the German Democratic Republic, Stalin said that the
GDR was a guarantee for peace in Europe. The existence of the GDR made the traditional
expansionism of Germany towards the East impossible. But immediately after the annexation
of the GDR Germany resumed its expansionistic course. For many years Germany had stirred
up Croatian and Slovenian separatism. Germany caused Yugoslavia to fall to pieces because
this country had twice already blocked the access to the oil of the Middle East.
But once fallen to pieces, the United States kept the fire burning. They wanted pretexts
to intervene and gain the control over the mini-states Bosnia, Macedonia and Albania. The
military intervention of Nato in Yugoslavia, the first in its history, was conducted by
the socialist Willy Claes.
Nato was formed in 1949 as an aggressive pact under American leadership. Its main purpose
was the destruction of socialism in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union and the
'recuperation' of those countries by international capitalism. Nato strived for that
purpose by military means, by political and psychological war and by subversion. The main
purpose of Nato was realised in 1990.
Imperialism's nature is aggressive and when it gained the victory over its main enemy,
Nato immediately looked for new fields to conquer. In the American strategy for world
domination, after the fall of the Soviet Russian super power, Nato took on a whole new
meaning.
In scarcely hidden terms a speaker of the American government admitted that the Gulf war
and the war in the Balkans were sparked off to enlarge the intervention zone of Nato.
Strobe Talbott, American vice-minister of External Affairs declared: 'The Gulf war
convinced the alliance of the necessity to extend the military intervention capacity
outside the Nato zone. The events in ex-Yugoslavia have confirmed this necessity.' (26)
[ Contents ]
In order to extend its intervention and aggression field, Nato first wants to realise its
expansion with the 'annexation' of Poland, the Czech and Slovak republics, Hungary, the
Baltic states and others.
To make us swallow this expansion, Nato presents them as charity work that will guarantee
'stability and democracy'! German and Hungarian politics, who advocate this expansion
declare: 'Nato must, through security, guarantee the stability necessary to give the
democracies in Central Europe a chance to develop.
These countries want integration in the West and Nato has to help them reach that goal.'
(27) Immediately after the fall of the socialist regimes in the East, Nato had already
suggested the possibility of interventions which would be 'necessary' because of 'the
instability that can arise from serious economic, social and political difficulties -
among which these of ethnical and different territorial rivalries - which a large amount
of countries of Central and Eastern Europe have to face.' (28) But the instability in the
East mainly arises from the capitalist restoration and the unbearable inequalities it
creates. When destabilising imperialism talks about 'stability', it means: the military
occupation by Nato has to guarantee that restored capitalism and Western neocolonialism
will not be threatened by popular uprisings. Nato promises the new rapacious bourgeoisie
stability of its power thanks to the military 'protection' of imperialism.
[ Contents ]
But there is a second reason for the annexation of the countries of the East: Nato wants
to use these countries and their armies for future aggression against Russia.
The Spanish social-democrat Javier Solana, the new general secretary of Nato, has
confirmed that war in the Balkans is a general rehearsal for a large war against Russia,
in which all countries of the East are involved. Solana: 'The experience in Bosnia will
have a thorough influence on the role of Nato. The experience of a multinational power of
60.000 men from more then 30 countries can serve as a model for future operations. ( )
With the start of Partnership for peace (with the countries of the East) in the beginning
of 1994, we tried to develop a concrete way of cooperation with the Nato-members and the
partners, in view of such operations. ( ) Indeed it seems that Partnership for Peace has
been developed especially for the operation in Bosnia. In the future we must profit to the
utmost of the experience in Bosnia to prepare their forces for future operations and to
accelerate the convergency process that has developed amongst them. ( ) Many partners from
Eastern and Central Europe will in practice remain under Nato command. This encourages
them ( ) to adapt to Nato standards. The Bosnian experience will be an enrichment for the
intense bilateral dialogue which Nato conducts in 1996 with those partners that are
showing interest.' (29) In other terms: the occupation of Bosnia by Nato and its new
'partners' has 3 purposes: to place the armies of those 'partners' under Nato command, to
accelerate their integration in Nato and to involve them in preparations for future wars
against Russia.
The purpose of imperialism was not only to destroy what was left of socialism in the
Soviet Union. Imperialism which has made neocolonies of the so-called 'independent'
republics wanted to change Russia into a dependent capitalist state under direct control
of the West.
Imperialism did not only frontally attack the profound socialist needs of the people of
the Soviet Union, but also soviet patriotism, the pride to be part of a large independent
and sovereign socialist country. The dissolution of the Soviet Union was an illegal act,
contrary to the will of the large majority of the Soviet people. This illegal act was
committed by the clique of Jeltsin after his coup d'état in August 1991, which was
carried out at the instence of American imperialism. This dissolution has weakened Russia
and the other 'independent' republics and all these countries have fallen under American
and Russian control. Even a large part of the new bourgeoisie of White Russia, Ukraine,
Georgia, Kazakstan, Ouzbekistan has an interest to reunite with Russia. The dissolution of
the old Soviet Union does not at all mean the 'end of history.'
The two most aggressive imperialist states, the US and Germany, want 'to stand surety' for
the maintenance of that dissolution by expanding Nato.
[ Contents ]
One can distinguish three axis in the war preparations against the Soviet Union.
First axis : imperialism wants to lay hand on the Caucasus and on Central
Asia and this can lead to a confrontation with Russia.
In his book Oil politics Karl Hofmann explains how the rightists in 1922-1924
wanted the 'independence' of the countries of the Caucasus, separate from socialist
Russia. 'The Russian oil regions must be detached from the Soviet empire and brought under
the influence of the oil monopolies and exploited to their benefit.' (30)
Today the US and Germany want to conquer the oil of the Caucasus from their 'ally', the
Russian bourgeoisie.
The 'contract of the century' has been concluded in September 1994 in Bakou. The contract
transfers the big oil fields of Azerbeidjan to an international consortium, which is for
80 % in the hands of Western companies and for 40 % of purely American companies such as
Exxon, Penzoil and Amoco. The oil of this region is now transported through Russia via
pipe lines. The consortium wants to pump the oil via Georgia and Turkey to the Turkish
terminal of Ceyhan-Yumurtalik. The war in Chechenya, stirred up by the Americans and their
Turkish ally intends to keep Russia permanently from the Caucasian oil. A rightist French
newspaper writes: 'The Caucasus leans towards wars in which the black gold is one of the
few common points.' (31) Thanks to the dissolution of the Soviet Union imperialism wants
to acquire the immense reserves of raw materials in the periphery. An influential German
newspaper writes: 'The oil fields of Kazakstan, the gas fields of Turkmenistan and the
enormous reserves of black gold in Azerbeidjan are so gigantic that within the next fifty
years they could become as important as the Gulf today. (32)
Under the title 'Da müssen wir hin' (There we have to go) Der Spiegel makes
the German ambitions public: 'Nato finally wants blue helmets in the Balkans. The Germans
prefer a peace mission in the Caucasus.' (33)
Robert Dole, the republican presidential candidate in the US, said that 'the Gulf war is a
symbol for the concern of the Americans for the security of the oil and gas reserves. The
frontier of this concern is now moving north and includes the Caucasus, Kazakstan and
Siberia.' (34) This means that oil and gas of Caucasus and Kazakstan are from now on 'of
vital importance' for the US and that they will be 'protected', if necessary with weapons.
A new war for oil in the Caucasus will be a war against Russia.
[ Contents ]
Second axis: imperialism wants Ukraine under its guardianship to weaken
Russia economically and strategically.
The West today has reached the maximum. The men in power advocate the free market, the
invasion by multinationals, the bourgeois political system and the close coordination with
Nato. In fact, the present regime chooses the card of the aggressive military alliance. An
important American stock exchange newspaper writes: 'Ukraine supports the systematic
expansion of Nato in Central Europe, to which Russia is opposed. In Kiev, the Ukrainian
president Kuchma said to journalists that he 'is interested in a closer cooperation with
Nato.'' And for this reason: 'Last year, Washington has made Ukraine into the third
largest receiver of American foreign aid. Ukraine now comes after Israel and Egypt.' (35)
For analysts of the Rand Corporation, an institute that works for the American Ministry of
Defence, the 'independency' of Ukraine, i.e. its complete dependency on the West, is
'crucial to Western interests. The future orientation of Ukraine will be an essential
factor, it is a condition for the power relations in Central Europe.' In an 'independent'
Ukraine the West is the guarantee for the maintenance of the capitalist system and Nato
views this 'independent country' as a step towards aggression against Russia. American
army advisers conclude: 'Western politics must strengthen the independency of Ukraine and
prevent the military integration of Kiev in the Community of Independent States.' (36)
The German-American rivalry already caused a war in Yugoslavia. A Belgian general now
talks about Russia as 'a Yugoslavia to the tenth power.'
The restoration of a federation with Russia corresponds with the national interests of
Ukraine and the interests of the labourers and workers. The large masses, suffering under
the capitalist restoration and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, are more and more
aware of this truth. But imperialism counts on preventing the people's will to become
reality. The most important American stock exchange newspaper has already written: 'If
Moscow forces Ukraine to reunite with Russia, then Russian imperialism will have started
again. (37) With the orchestration of Yeltsin's coup d'état in 1991, United States have
been able to impose the illegal act of the dissolution of the Soviet Union. But if the
people of the old Soviet Union can put this situation right and can create a new
federation, then the US shout about the resurrection of Russian imperialism! Advisers of
the Pentagon confirm this tactic: 'The worst that could happen from the Western point of
view is the political, economical and military reintegration of Ukraine with Russia in the
Community of Independent States. ( ) If Russia would station troops on Ukraine soil nearby
the Poland frontier, then the pressure on Nato would be reinforced in order to deploy a
substantial and credible defence including Western troops in Central Europe. (38)
An 'independent' Ukraine, almost integrated in Nato, means that Nato troops stand at the
gateways of Moscow. Ukraine in a federation with Moscow will see Nato troops moving to the
frontiers of the federation. That is as if the Russian army would deploy troops in Mexico,
at the American frontier
[ Contents ]
Third axis: the war preparations against Russia.
Last March the Russian parliament, with 250 votes against 98, declared null and void
Jeltsin's dictate of 12 December 1991 that organized the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
(39) An important American newspaper declares that this decision 'is a threat for world
peace'! (40) In Kiev, the American secretary of state Christopher also condemned the
decision of the Doema. He called it 'extremely irresponsible. One cannot change the course
of history', he said. (41)
Strobe Talbott, the American vice-minister of Foreign Affairs has already directed an
unconcealed military threat to Russia: 'The Nato has to be armed amongst others against
the possibility that Russia turns away from democracy.' (42)
The CVP-SP government is fully involved in these war preparations against Russia. Thus
Guido van Hecke, chief of staff of the air force could declare: 'If things derail in
Russia, we will get a Yugoslavia to the tenth power. I think of some problem with Boris
Jeltsin, a return of military nomenclature or ethnic wars.' In short, from now on whatever
pretext is good to justify the planned attack. The Belgian officer concludes: 'It is
possible that at midlong-term, Western Europe will need to intervene by political but also
by military means, for our own interest.' (43)
[ Contents ]
But the expansion of Nato also hides another political fact of crucial importance: the
rivalry between American imperialism and German-French imperialism for the domination of
Europe.
When Germany set fire to the Balkans by organizing Croatian and Slovenian separatism, the
United States let the European Union mess about. But behind the scene they were very
actively busy bringing the mini-Balkan states under their control. The Americans finally
decided to exchange Uno troops by Nato troops. Thus the army of the United States durably
settles down in the Balkans. The bases the United States want to put up, will serve to
intervene in the Middle East or in Russia and to keep Europe under American domination.
Part of the European social-democracy remains strongly tied to American imperialism. Thus
the social-democrat Solana declares: 'From the situation in Bosnia appears very clearly
that the United States remain equally important for the security in Europe as before.'
(44)
The American authorities talk even more clearly of their objectives in expanding Nato. An
adviser of the Pentagon says that it has to do with 'rooting' the United States in Europe:
'To root the United States in the European security, the alliance has to agree that it is
our duty to stabilize the East and it becomes a new transatlantic challenge how to succeed
this.' (43) And the famous Brzezinski plainly says: 'Eastern Europe must come under
American control through Nato, otherwise Germany will take up its position alone and
become an independent military super power. He literally says: 'The expansion of the
European Union, promoted by a mighty Germany, means that at once, the question of the
expansion of Nato is on the agenda. Not raising this matter implies the danger that the
Atlantic alliance falls apart.' (46)
European imperialism conducted by the French-German tandem, wants to preserve Nato in
order to have the support of America against Russia. But within Nato the European block
wants an independence as large as possible.
The German Minister of Defence Volker Rühe declared: 'We want another kind of alliance.
This has to reflect the actual political and strategic relations and have a clear identity
on the matter of safety and defence.' (47)
The French minister of Foreign Affairs Hervé de Charette explains that France has
reentered the military structures of Nato to prevent American domination: 'We want the
European identity on the matter of defence, politically as well as military, to become
visible within the Alliance. (48)
Thus the European bourgeoisie, now that it is politically, economically and military
reinforced, wants a repartition of the world. It contests the American domination.
Since the annexation of the GDR, German imperialism again dares to announce worldwide that
the German army prepares itself for new wars outside its frontiers. Volker Rühe says that
the war 'has made a come-back as a political means'. And Naumann, commander-in-chief of
the German army, says that his troops can be used 'for the defence of free world trade and
to guarantee the unlimited access to raw materials throughout the world.' (49) Thus a
German general promises to send his army into the world with the same arguments that have
been used since the beginning of the imperialist era: freedom of trade, free access to raw
materials and to the markets.
The Herald Tribune , in an analysis of the military policy in Germany,
writes: 'Germany has become the axis of the European military cooperation. It is the
dominating power in all areas of the European security policy, inclusive the defence
industry. Thus we see European military companies appear under the guidance of Germany,
which can compete with their American rivals. And at the same time Germany has access to
all possibilities to equip its army for future interventions in order to defend European
(read German) interests.' (50)
To defend peace in Europe, we must not only claim the dissolution of the aggressive
Nato-pact, but we also have to prevent the creation of a European army under German
control.
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