WSWS : News
& Analysis : North
America
How to deal with America? The European dilemma
By David North
25 January 2003
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email the
author
There comes a point in the development of every major political
crisis when the essential underlying motivations and issues, long
hidden from view, come to the surface. We have now arrived at
that point in the crisis produced by the decision of the Bush
administration to invade Iraq.
It is Iraq that is the immediate target of Americas military
arsenal. But what is being foreshadowed in the increasingly bitter
diplomatic dispute over the fate of Iraq is a direct and open
conflict, potentially violent, between the major imperialist powers.
Much of the discussion of American war aims has focused on
the Bush administrations determination to seize control
of Iraqs oil wealth. This is, of course, a major factor
in the calculations of the US government. But that objective,
however important, is only part of a far broader and more ambitious
goal. The United States seeks world hegemony, which means the
political and economic reorganization of the entire world in the
interests of the American ruling elite. This requires the subordination
to its will of not only weak and underdeveloped countries such
as Iraq, but also, and above all, its powerful imperialist rivals
in Western Europe and Japan.
US War Minister Donald Rumsfelds contemptuous dismissal
of the opposition of Germany and France to Americas war
plans has brought into the open the long-simmering conflict between
the United States and Europe. When asked by a reporter about European
criticism of the Bush administrations drive toward war,
Rumsfeld replied, Youre thinking of Europe as Germany
and France. I dont. I think thats old Europe. You
look at the vast numbers of other countries in Europe. Theyre
not with France and Germany on this. Theyre with the United
States.
Never before has the United States so openly attacked its long-time
allies, called into question the unity of bourgeois Europe, and
expressed so explicitly its goal of creating its own special sphere
of influence on that continent, in direct opposition to France
and Germany.
In his typically artless manner, Rumsfeld left no doubt that
the United States has promoted the expansion of NATOwith
the inclusion of weak former Warsaw Pact states that are easily
manipulated by the United Statesas a means of undercutting
French and German influence in Europe.
The far-reaching implications of Americas hostility to
Europe have not been lost on France, and this is the reason for
its decision to drop its stance of studied equivocation and state
its opposition to a war against Iraq more directly. It is not
a humanitarian concern for the fate of Iraqs people that
accounts for the French shift, but rather the belated recognition
that Americas drive for hegemony poses a threat to core
political, economic and geo-strategic interests of the European
bourgeoisie.
Throughout the 1990s the European ruling elites have lived
in a state of semi-denial, pretending that their relationship
with the United States would not be substantially affected by
the demise of the USSR and that their own continental and global
interests were in the long term compatible with those of the United
States.
This exercise in wishful thinking ignored the fact that Americas
postwar relationship with Europe between 1945 and 1991 was determined
fundamentally by its appraisal of its own essential economic and
geopolitical interests within the specific context of the Cold
War. Americas attitude toward Europe was determined by the
overriding need to (1) enforce the isolation of the Soviet Union
and minimize its influence in Western Europe (containment)
and (2) prevent social revolution at a time when the European
working class was extremely militant and highly politicized.
The United States emphasis during that period on its
alliance with Western Europe was, in fact, a departure from the
historical norm. The more basic tendency of American capitalism,
rooted in its somewhat belated emergence as a major imperialist
power, had been to augment its world position at the expense
of Europe.
The preconditions for the maturation of the United States as
a major capitalist power during the nineteenth century was its
persistent undercutting of European influence in the Americas,
from the promulgation of the Monroe Doctrine in the 1820s to the
expulsion of Spain from Cuba in the late 1890s.
In the first half of the twentieth century, the United States
expanded its global influence by undermining the colonial empires
of the European imperialist powers. This was done not in the interest
of democracy, but to open up world markets restricted by the colonial
system.
To the extent that generally favorable economic conditions
and its own immense wealth made it possible, the United States
masked its predatory imperialistic appetites with a pose of altruistic
benevolence. But despite its humanitarian posturingas the
defender of four freedoms and as the arsenal
of democracythe United States never for a moment forgot
its own self-interest.
Nothing better illustrates the ruthless core of American diplomatic
philanthropy than the bone-crunching terms laid out by Roosevelt
to Churchill in 1940-41 as a precondition for American financial
and military assistance during the height of Nazi Germanys
bombardment of Britain. Yes, Roosevelt agreed to save
Britain, but it would cost a pretty penny. By the time the United
States was finished with Britain, the old roaring imperial lion
had been turned into Americas pussy cata transformation
exemplified in the person of Britains present prime minister.
The exigencies of the post-World War II situation compelled
the United States to nourish its alliance with the old imperialist
powers of Europe and hold its own aggressive tendencies somewhat
in check. Moreover, the general recovery and expansion of the
world economy worked in favor of a mitigation of inter-imperialist
rivalries. But the tendency toward the unilateral assertion of
American interests, regardless of European concerns, remained
active beneath the veneer of multilateralism. Indeed, a deterioration
of world economic conditions generally had the effect of bringing
latent conflicts into the open.
For example, in August 1971, when the American dollar came
under attack in financial markets, President Richard Nixon abrogated
the system of dollar-gold convertibility that had been the foundation
of the international capitalist monetary system for a quarter
century without bothering to consult with European leaders in
advance. They were informed only that Nixon would have some interesting
things to say about the world economy and that they could stay
up late and watch his speech on American television. When asked
whether the British, French and Germans might object to the American
measures, US Treasury Secretary John Connolly replied, in his
own distinct fashion, Fk them.
The collapse of the Soviet Union fundamentally altered the
international framework upon which postwar diplomatic relations
were based. There was no longer any need for the United States
to prop up the Western European bourgeoisie as a line of defense
against the Soviet Union. Moreover, the demise of the USSR created
a vacuum of power that the United States was determined to exploit
to its own advantage.
But the most important reason for the now unbridled aggressiveness
of American foreign policy is to be found in the protracted and
accelerating deterioration of the American economy. The use of
military power is seen by significant sections of the ruling elite
as a means of counteracting the long-term consequences of the
decline in the world position of American capitalism and the threat
posed by international competitors.
In words that appear prophetic, Leon Trotsky, among the greatest
Marxists of the twentieth century, made the following warning
in 1928:
In the period of crisis the hegemony of the United
States will operate more completely, more openly, and more ruthlessly
than in the period of boom. The United States will seek to
overcome and extricate herself from her difficulties and maladies
primarily at the expense of Europe, regardless of whether this
occurs in Asia, Canada, South America, Australia, or Europe itself,
or whether this takes place peacefully or through war.
Officials in the Bush administration have become increasingly
blunt in laying out the consequences of a European refusal to
fall into line behind the United States. As one official told
the New York Times on Thursday, Our goal is to rub
their nose in reality, and then proceed to discuss what we do
about it.
And what is this reality? The Bush administration has indicated
not all too subtly that French and German companies will be excluded
from participating in the carve-up of Iraqs oil industry
in the aftermath of war. Even more serious, there have been suggestions
that the United States, after occupying Iraq, will exert pressure
on Iran, which is a critical supplier of oil to Western Europe.
From the standpoint of France and Germany, the behavior of
the United States is utterly reckless and raises the danger of
a complete breakdown of whatever remains of the entire legal and
institutional framework that regulated the affairs of world capitalism.
For the Western Europeans to submit to the diktats of the United
States would mean to accept their relegation, in the words of
the conservative French daily Le Figaro, into a simple
protectorate of the United States. But to openly resist
would raise the risk of a potentially catastrophic military confrontation
with the United States. Either alternative, or even some middle
road between the two, would profoundly destabilize relations among
European countries. Moreover, the social consequences of conflict
between the US and the old Europe would inevitably
intensify internal class tensions.
This is the dilemma that confronts the Western European bourgeoisie.
See Also:
The war against Iraq
and Americas drive for world domination
[4 October 2002]
On eve of US war against Iraq: the political
challenge of 2003
[6 January 2003]
No to war against Iraq
Editorial of Gleichheit, magazine of the Socialist Equality
Party of Germany
[8 January 2003]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2007
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |