German CP , Contribution to the Athens Meeting 21J2002
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------
From: German Communist Party, Wed, 26 June 2002
http://www.dkp.de
========================================================
by Manfred Idler
With the USA into the long-lasting global war?

"Steadfast solidarity" the german chancellor promised to
the President of the United States, who represents above
all the interests of the oil-magnates and arms-concerns.
With the concept solidarity Schr�der misused a practice of
the working class and its movement for his accomplicement
with a US leadership, that strives to realize their
world-power-plans with a "never ending war against
terrorism" weighing on the peoples of the world.

Of course, the leading Social-Democrats know that the US
military has prepared the war against Afghanistan some
years before the 11th of September, 2001. As the german
government knows, the U.S. strategy expert Brzezinski
disclosed already in 1997 in his book " The only world
power " that the raw material-wealth in central-Asia and
the Caspian region and the globally-strategic meaning of
this region was of great interest for the United States.
And it was the objective to push back Russia's influence in
this region.

The social-democratic leaders can also not have failed to
notice, that representatives of US oil companies in 1998
pushed the U.S. politics to create prerequisites in
central-Asia including Afghanistan for use of the raw
material-riches. In this respect the german Government knew
that the this way initiated "war against terrorism" was the
same misleading like the "war for protection of humanity "
against Yugoslavia in1999. Raw materials and US-military
bases are the reason, not an " attack on western freedom ",
as U.S. and German government proclaimed.

Was it to be expected from a social democraric government
to insist primarily on civilian instruments in order to dry
up the fertile soil of terrorism? "When will the United
States draw consequences from the narrow context between
the military interventions and the terrorist attacks
against the USA? Does european statesmen have thought about
this connection, when they offered their soldiers for the
Afghanistan-war? The terrorism cannot be eredicated by war.
"If innocent people die in the bomb-hail, the next
generation of terrorists grows up.� This stated Oskar
Lafontaine, former minister of finance of chancellor
Schroeder.

But Schroeder approves war. Even there were no concrete
claims of the United States he offered German soldiers!
Although the U.S. government neither offered their strategy
nor their goals of this war not sanctioned by United
Nations. In his declaration in October 1998 Schroeder
promised to see to it to beware the monopoly of power of
the UN.

Considering the speech held by President Bush jr. on the
23d of May in the german parliament, Schr�der took over the
U.S. motto, it will be a "historic". But critical
journalists recognized a "biblically simple message" with
unbiased separation of "good ones and evil ones": a
"setback into the world before enlightenment ". Above all
Bush demanded of the European partners more military
expenses, than he promised - in contrast to the previous
practice - consultations before the next military blow and
pointed context between the quest of the terrorists and the
not verified production of annihilation weapons in the
Iraq, threatening Europe. Beside that Bush veiled all
problems.

Although chancellor Schroeder declared not to take part of
adventures, a detachment of the german army was sent to
Kuwait, however. There is no official inquiry about the new
"Nuclear Posture Review" (NPR) of the USA and the plans for
the first strike with mini-atomic weapons. These plans are
not only directed against the so called "axis of the evil".
Bush's threat "Who is not with us, stands on the side of
the terrorists and will be treated accordingly� is a
blackmail attempt against all peoples.

Political explanations and military plans are one side,
economic facts and their effects are the other one. One of
the grave consequences for the international development is
the growing deficit of the US-balance of current
transactions more than 500 bil. Dollars - and the
increasing net-indebtedness of the USA - 3.493 bil.
Dollars. But the United States don't live only on credit.
They finance their high-tech armament and their standard of
living on expenses of other people. The function of the
U.S. dollars as a key currency allows permanent robbery and
deceit. Only the access on values and raw materials in
other countries saves the USA from the super-crisis. Not
the Federal reserve bank guarantees the U.S. dollars but
the Pentagon with the hugest military-machinery of
world-history.

Because the USA as only world power can guarantee the value
of the dollar by means of cannon-politics and nuclear
extortion any time, the US leadership is at a long-lasting
war against the terrorism.

Are Germany and the European Community supporting the U.S.
war-series for not to come themselves into the big crisis
as exporters and creditors of the USA? This is an
adventurous policy! There are alternatives: tight
cooperation with developing countries could create new
markets and employment, equal trade conditions as basis.

Economic growth and taking part at the international market
is connected with available raw materials. The USA waste 26
per cent of the oil and 36 per cent of the natural gas with
3 per cent of the world-population. In both cases, that is
more than double of the consumption of France, Italy,
Britain and Germany together. In the gulf-region, presently
the greatest reserves of those raw materials are to find.
The opening of huge quantities in central-Asia and at the
Caspian region is on the walk. Not the terrorists are it,
that the USA lure into this region!

Do Germany and the European Community support the U.S.
war-policy in order to gain part of the loot? Could they
not reach the required raw materials of the conveying
countries by favorable contracts?

In spite of many equalities of the imperialistic states,
they are rivals on the world market and with the
acquisition of raw materials. These contradictions grow
rapidly. So far there are so-called deputy wars they lead
to those contradictions: at the gulf in1991, now in
Afghanistan. The dangerous illusion, that a highly armoured
EC could solve this problem, means a bigger war than the
one the world is confronted with at the time! Is the German
government leading a double-strategy: on the one hand
support of the U.S. war-series, on the other hand building
up a military counter-power? In both cases, the German
government helps to enlarge the poverty in the world, that
produces the terror beside the humiliation of relatively
weak states.

The costly change and conversion of the armed forces for
this new type of warfare increases continually. New kinds
of conventional destruction instruments serve planned
interventions "out of area". The air-transporter AT 400 M
is in job in unison with the EC in order to get an
autonomous potential for interventions and a counter-power
to the USA. The so-called special-forces for new wars,
speak : killer-troops will be enlarged from 53.600 on
150.000 soldiers, added by sea- and air capacities, for
example 15 new corvettes armed with rockets. Approximately
100 bil. Euro are the estimated total costs for the
building of new destruction facilities, approximately 7 bil
Euro annually. With the sale of old killing-appliance,
Scharping wants to obtain additional means for an expanding
army. A conservative government could not serve better the
special-interests of the arms industry as well as of the
financing capital. What the social democrats criticized
rightly once, they produce themselves: military thinking
defines the " national security politics ". This shows a
dreadful irrationalism.

Or do Schroeder and Scharping believe that Germany as
hegemon of the EC would get ito a better position opposite
the extremely armed USA, if this becomes a quasi
independent military power? The german government pushed
the EC to prepare 80.000 soldiers for a fast interference
troop with a reach of approximately 3.500 km from Brussels,
to Middle east and North-Africa. With 18.000 soldiers, the
german contingent would be the biggest and have the
military leadership, maybe hoping in this way to dispose
the French and British atomic potential?

The German finance-capital does not only whish to use money
as offensive weapon to enlarge their global position of
power, but also to use military power whith sufficient
backing in the people. If the social democratic leadership
has managed this backing with paralysis of antimilitaristic
strengths, they would have done their duty and another
government can continue this policy.

There are realistic alternatives of a policy of war. The
growing slope of poor ones and rich ones, which creates
terror- beside ignorance of other cultures is to overcome
by the power of the basis. The inhumane reality can be a
signpost for political mobilization.