II. The International Situation

The End of the Cold War / Bi-Polar Division of the World

The end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, both politically and economically, also put an end to the bi-polar division of the world which emerged in the post-World War II period. The United States was left as the only remaining military superpower, but economically it was weakened and faced serious challenges, especially from Germany and Japan. It immediately embarked on a course of creating a unipolar world under its dictate, of using its military power to re-establish its economic domination of the world.

This course has resulted in a U.S. campaign of military expansionism, first to seize control of the Arabian Gulf region and next to establish a foothold in the Balkans. A perpetual state of unrest and tension is being deliberately maintained in these areas to justify continuing the U.S. military presence. This indicates that the main goal of the Gulf War and the various wars in the Balkans was to seize militarily strategic territories and station permanent U.S. forces there in preparation for war in Europe.

The period of preparation for inter-imperialist war began with collusion amongst all of the imperialist powers against socialism, against the revolutionary movements of the peoples, and especially against communism. One of the facts of life learned by the great powers during World War I was that before they could pursue their imperialist aims through wars against their neighbours, they first had to destroy the revolutionary movements amongst their own populations. Therefore, especially since 1985, they have carried out an unprecedented ideological and propaganda campaign against socialism and communism. If they can deprive the working class of its historic aim, of its hope for the future, then they can easily convert it into a reserve of imperialism and reaction.

The development of events during the past decade has shown that while the U.S. is determined to establish its unipolar dictate over the entire world, the entire world is just as determined to prevent that from happening. This is especially the case amongst the allies and main competitors of the U.S.. Tensions between the U.S. and its European allies began to sharpen during the Gulf War and were again highlighted during the recent war against Yugoslavia.

The basis of these tensions is trade, or more specifically which powers will dominate world trade and which monopoly capitalists will reap the lions share of the profits. In this the Asian markets are crucial. These tensions have become quite evident in the various rounds of trade talks over the past several years. The failure of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment illustrated just how sharp the conflicts have become. The problem of how best to open up the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America to finance capital and predatory trade is a very real problem for the imperialists. However, the various G-7 governments and the groups of finance capital they represent are mainly interested in establishing a structure which will both give them an edge over their competitors and, in turn, prevent their competitors from gaining such an edge.

The current round of talks being held under the auspices of the World Trade Organization has met a similar fate. As the global crisis of overproduction deepens, it is becoming increasingly impossible for the great powers to sort out their trade differences peacefully. Conversely, each failure to sort out trade differences through negotiations leads the world closer to the brink of inter-imperialist war.

The history of Europe during the past five centuries has been dominated by wars between the European powers to determine which will control access to the riches and markets of Asia, Africa and the Americas. During the 20th century the main focus has been on Asia and, secondarily, Africa, with Latin America generally being left to the U.S.. Almost a decade of wars in the Balkans indicates that, once again, Europe is going to be turned into a battleground to determine control of Asia. The Balkan region has always been a strategic geo-political area. It lies at the cross-roads between Europe and the Middle East and straddles the main trade corridor between the Middle East and the markets of Western Europe. It also is strategically positioned to control the north-eastern region of the Mediterranean Sea and especially Russian access to the Mediterranean. The Balkans also have enormous mineral deposits which are important for European industry. In addition, control of the Balkans offers easy military access to the entire European continent.

Exactly what alliances will take shape is not yet clear. The international situation is very complex and fluid. The U.S. has forged alliances with virtually every country in the world, with the exception of Cuba, North Korea and a handful of other so-called "rogue states". At the same time it has a strategic military weakness. It has no stable base anywhere in the world, not even in its own country, where vast sections of the population are reduced to second-class citizens. And these problems are further exacerbated by the steady decline of U.S. economic power, as the U.S. economy shifts from its traditional industrial basis towards a service and information based economy.

The past two decades have been characterized by the rapid expansion of trade blocs. First the European Economic Community was transformed from an instrument used by the U.S. to penetrate all of the European markets into an instrument in the hands of Germany and France to dominate all of Europe and to contend with U.S. capital. The U.S. then turned its attention towards the Pacific Rim, but the growing strength of the Japanese economy gradually resulted in Japan becoming the dominant economic power in that region. Suddenly, the U.S. faced the possibility of not only being shut out of European and Asian markets, but the EEC and Japan were also becoming major players in the North and South American markets. The U.S. responded with the Free Trade Agreement with Canada and the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico, and now it is trying to expand this trading bloc to include the entire Americas.

The growing economic dependency of huge regions of the earth is being touted as the natural outcome of the growth of information technology and increasing globalization. However, in reality, it has more to do with the increasingly fierce competition over trade and markets and the necessity for all of the major powers to sew up their own spheres of influence in preparation for wresting control of the other regions from their competitors. The formation of such huge blocs and alliances was also characteristic of the periods leading up to the First and Second World Wars.

At this point it is still not clear how the battle lines will be drawn. For example, Russia is a country with a large Slavic population and a large Asian population. The U.S. is encroaching on Slav territories from the West, while various Islamic countries are interested in its southern territories. An attack from the east threatens Russia's Asian territories in Siberia. Certain U.S. circles are already discussing the internationalization of Siberia and are hoping to dismember Russia while she is weak. Will Russia turn its attention west as the protector of the Slavic nations, south to protect the Caucasus or east as the protector of the Asian nations? There is a saying that Russia only betrays its closest friends, so right now the U.S. probably has the most reason to worry.

What position China will take is also not clear yet. What is clear is that China will serve the interests of China and no one else. It has repeatedly repulsed any attempt by the U.S. to change the status of Taiwan and has made it clear that the U.S. Seventh Fleet will not be sufficient to keep it from taking back Taiwan if and when it decides to do so. As events unfold, China could ally itself with the U.S., with Japan or with Russia depending on which alliance best serves its interests.

India is also a country to be reckoned with, both because of its population and its possession of nuclear weapons.

The Role of United Nations

From the beginning, the United Nations reflected the contradiction between the desire of the majority of countries to settle international disputes peacefully and the aim of the imperialist powers to dominate international relations. The Security Council had its origins in the wartime alliance of the U.S., Britain, France and the Soviet Union. It appropriated the real power of the United Nations for itself, while leaving the General Assembly virtually powerless. With the advent of the Cold War, the UN quickly became an instrument wielded by the U.S. and its allies against the revolutionary struggles of the peoples, the aggression against the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea being a case in point. During the 1960s and 1970s the United Nations was rendered ineffective by American and Soviet use of their veto powers in the Security Council. The admission of the Peoples Republic of China as a member state and a member of the Security Council changed the dynamics to some degree, but the basic anti-democratic nature of the UN remained. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s the U.S. attitude towards the United Nations was to starve it for funds and to block any possibility of its effective intervention in any affairs which affected the interests of the U.S.

The U.S. adopted a new approach with the end of the bi-polar division of the world. Beginning in 1990 with the U.S.- engineered crisis in the Gulf, the U.S. began to use the UN to provide a facade of legality to its illegal activities. The U.S.- led alliance bombarded Iraq under the signboard of upholding the UN resolution against the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, even though the UN refused to authorize such actions because of the veto power of Russia and China.

During the genocide in Rwanda the U.S. and others ensured that the UN was incapable of preventing or stopping the bloodshed. This resulted in serious damage to the prestige of the UN. With the most recent aggression against Yugoslavia, the UN was once again put into a passive position as the U.S. simply bypassed it completely, not even bothering to use it as a facade of legality. Again in the case of East Timor, the UN was totally ineffective in protecting the East Timorese people, even though East Timor was supposedly a protectorate of the UN.

For a number of years there has been a growing movement within the UN for democratization. This movement is demanding an end to the veto power of Security Council members and the raising of the General Assembly to the level of the highest decision-making body. This is a movement which favours the interests of the smaller nations and the interests of the peoples of the world. However, it is a movement which is opposed by all of the major powers, with the exception of China, as it would mean an end to their dictate.

At this time the prospects for the survival of the United Nations are not strong. As the contention between the big powers sharpens, international policy is being set more by trade and military blocs than by any agency of the UN. In this situation, the UN has reverted very much to its status during the Cold War - an irrelevant institution which is routinely ignored and by-passed by the Great Powers. Only democratization can make the UN relevant, but there are few signs that this movement is making any headway. This represents a very serious danger to the peoples of the world; the marginalization of the UN could very easily give rise to a situation similar to that which existed in the late 1930s with the collapse of the League of Nations, a situation in which "might made right" and unbridled war preparations were the order of the day.

The Role of NATO

Although supposedly established for the purpose of defending Europe, the actual role of NATO has historically been two-fold: 1) the destruction of socialism in Europe; and 2) the domination of Europe by the United States. Although superficially this role does not appear to have changed significantly, numerous cracks in the alliance are beginning to appear. The European economies are no longer shattered by war and the threat from the Soviet Union is a thing of the past. The European countries, especially Germany and France, are powerful enough to challenge the economic might of the U.S. and no longer need U.S. troops to defend their borders. The presence of those troops has now become a threat to their own sovereignty. However, convincing an armed thug to leave your home can be a delicate matter, especially if he has an interest in staying. Therefore, the European powers are taking gradual steps to establish their own collective military force and render NATO irrelevant. The U.S., on the other hand, wants to create a situation in which it can keep its troops permanently stationed in its main competitors' back yards. Bosnia and Kosovo are both elements in this strategy.

Despite the show of solidarity during the Kosovo campaign, it was common knowledge that certain countries, especially Germany, were not pleased with the situation. Germany participated in the campaign because it could not stand by and watch the U.S. carve up the Balkans without trying to carve out a piece for itself, but it was clear that Germany's interests were not being served by the bombing campaign. Indeed, apart from Britain, no European country seemed very enthusiastic about the whole thing. It is quite possible that all of them were hoping that the U.S. would have to commit ground troops and would get bogged down in an unwinnable war. These growing tensions between the majority of the European countries and the U.S. could very easily lead to the dismantling of NATO itself in the near future.

Most recently, the governments of Britain and France have announced that they are both in favour of establishing a European Rapid Deployment Force. The establishment of such a force would, of course, spell the end of NATO and the end of a military role for the U.S. in Europe. The fact that Britain is pushing for this indicates that the Labour government may see the future of Britain in terms of an alliance with Europe rather than with the U.S.. This would be a major blow to the U.S. and to NATO.