The Munich event illustrated the growing rivalry among the handful of major imperialist nations in North America, Europe, and Japan as they compete for economic and diplomatic advantage. In Europe, this rivalry is putting new strains on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) imperialist military alliance.

Statements by U.S. secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld underlined for the European rulers their relative weakness and disunity. He pointedly refused to utter the words "European Union" once during the conference. Rumsfeld reasserted Washington's opposition to any challenge to the U.S.-dominated NATO alliance and its concern over the European Security and Defense Initiative, under whose auspices the 60,000-strong rapid reaction force is being prepared.

The proposal for such an initiative was originally adopted at an EU summit in December 1999. Since then a military planning staff of around 50 has been established--less than one-eighth the number of NATO's corresponding personnel.

"I'm looking at [the rapid reaction force] fresh and I'm a little worried," said Rumsfeld at the conference. "Actions that could reduce NATO's effectiveness by confusing duplication or by perturbing the transatlantic link [between the U.S. and Europe] would...run the risk of injecting instability."

Republican senator John McCain implied still stronger opposition. "What the transatlantic partnership requires is not new institutions, but improved capabilities," he said.  
 
London vs. Paris
Differences have emerged between London and Paris, the original sponsors of the proposal, on the EU force. The Financial Times reported that "links between the EU rapid reaction force and NATO have yet to be finalized, and Britain and France appear to be at odds over some of the details. Britain insists that preparations for the EU force's operations should be done by NATO planners at the alliance's headquarters at Mons in Belgium. France has suggested that NATO planners should only be involved in EU operations if NATO military assets are used."

For the moment, the rulers in Germany, the strongest of the European powers, have sided with London in this debate--a stance that has exacerbated the growing rift between Paris and Berlin.

London is weighing in against proposals by Paris to use the rapid reaction force as a means to loosen Washington's grip on the continent. As the New York Times bluntly observed on February 8, "Washington is...counting on the British to counter the French, who have sought to use the initiative to diminish American influence in Europe."

Following a meeting with UK foreign secretary Robin Cook two days after the conference, U.S. secretary of state Colin Powell observed, "If we approach the European security and defense initiative in the way that Robin and I have discussed, with an understanding that it is firmly embedded in NATO, and we're not duplicating planning capabilities and that we are adding to the overall strategic capacity of both NATO and EU countries, then there is no reason to see this as destabilizing NATO in any way."

Washington's domination of military affairs in Europe was reinforced during the war in the Balkans during the 1990s, when the U.S. military mounted massive bombing campaigns to impose the partition of first Bosnia-Herzogovina and then Kosova. Its European allies were largely left as spectators to U.S. military power.

Kenneth Adelman, who served as an assistant to Rumsfeld in the administration of Gerald Ford, noted smugly in a February 6 Wall Street Journal commentary on the Munich conference that "U.S. high-tech prowess has become obvious in air, ship, and tank capabilities. It's even more so in intelligence, communications, and airlift."  
 
The missile shield debate
Washington's arrogant promotion of the so-called National Missile Defense underlines this superiority. Representatives of both the Republican and Democratic parties spoke in favor of the National Missile Defense (NMD) program at Munich.

This "missile shield," initiated under the Clinton administration after the more ambitious "Star Wars" pursued by the Reagan administration was set aside, is designed to give the Pentagon the power to neutralize an opponent's missiles by knocking them out of the sky. Clinton alleged that such a development was necessary for defense against threats posed by "rogue nations." In reality, the NMD program represents a determined push by the U.S. rulers to gain a first-strike advantage over their rivals, especially the Russian and Chinese workers states--with the power to blackmail and bully that would go along with it.

The George Bush administration has steadily promoted a "more robust" missile shield, without yet spelling out any technological or budgetary details. The alternatives for the antimissile shield put forward by various pundits include an expansion of the present land-based program; missiles based on ships; air- and space-based interceptor missiles; and some combination of these different variants, known by the catchword "layered defenses"

Bush has also ordered an overall review of Washington's military forces, and a debate is under way among the rulers on how much to increase the military budget. While promoting the missile shield, Bush has floated the possibility of cutting back excess warheads and missiles in Washington's massive nuclear armory.

Both Moscow and Peking oppose the program. Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Sun Yuxi warned on February 6 that it "will have a far-reaching and extensive negative impact on the global and regional strategic balance and stability." Moscow has reiterated its support for the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, whose provisions bar the development of a missile shield.

European governments expressing concerns about the plan include those of France and Sweden. French president Jacques Chirac told an Anglo-French summit on February 10 that he had "tremendous reservations" about the "hugely expensive" plan, predicting that it would upset international relations. Even UK foreign minister Robin Cook has said the ABM treaty should be respected.

German representatives, including keynote speaker Prime Minister Gerhard Schroeder, expressed reservations at the Munich conference about the missile development. The German Christian Democratic Party's Karl Lamers said that Europeans saw it as representing a "dream of [U.S.] invulnerability."

Rumsfeld disingenuously reassured the conference that a missile shield "doesn't threaten anyone." He was reacting in part to a statement at the conference by Henry Kissinger, who served as secretary of state from 1973 to 1977 under President Richard Nixon. Kissinger had spoken with candor, stating the system would be the "precursor to an American first strike" capability.

Clinging to the ABM treaty was "Cold War thinking," said Rumsfeld. Elsewhere Rumsfeld has described the treaty as "ancient history" and a "straitjacket."

The question of Russia--a weakened, yet still massively armed nuclear power--looms large among the concerns of the rulers of the European powers. In addition to the antimissile project, Washington is pushing to expand NATO eastward, a move also opposed by Moscow. Europe remains the scene of future conflict as U.S. imperialism pursues its drive to ring Russia with a noose of steel and eventually attempt to militarily retake the country for capitalist exploitation. This prospect, which places Europe at the center of a future battleground, is one factor pressing the ruling classes in Europe to consider options other than those posed by Washington and to find ways to pursue what are often diverging interests.

"Increased European capabilities are a political imperative for both sides of the Atlantic," said Gen. Wesley Clark, former NATO commander in Europe who was present at the conference. "But the evolution of European capabilities should not distance the European Union from NATO. Europe must not become a middle ground between NATO on the one hand and Russia on the other."

The New York Times took note of a statement by German defense minister Rudolf Scharping, that "caused American military commanders to shudder: 'As the European Union develops its security and defense policy and becomes an independent actor, we must determine our security policy with Russia, our biggest neighbor,'" Scharping said.

The Times observed that the "specter of Europe--and particularly its central power, Germany--adopting a more independent stance from NATO and playing close heed to Russia is chilling for the United States, and hard to reconcile with the Atlantic alliance that has preserved Europe's stability and advanced American interests for more than a half-century."  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home