5/10/99, Jan Slakov wrote: >Dear Richard, > >I think Hans Sinn asked a good question, ie. why Germany would have >strong-armed countries into dividing up Yugoslavia... > >I hope you'll reply to Hans, and if the reply is useful to the whole >RN list. Dear Jan & rn, I apologize for being so long in replying, and I'm glad Jan didn't wait for me before continuing this important thread. Hans Sinn asked: >Why were and are the Germans (and the former German Minister of Foreign >Affairs Hans-Dietrich Genscher) so interested in seeing Yugoslavia >disintegrate ? Please understand that I'm talking about German leaders only, not about "Germans" as a society. German national decisions aren't made democratically, any more than they are in the US. The whole Yugoslav scenario is an imperialism scenario, and it can be placed in context by looking at the four major types of activities that have been characteristic of imperialism down through the centuries... 1) Competing among imperial powers ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ These are known as "real wars", and they occur when one imperial power thinks it can succeed in grabbing territory from another. Examples: Mexican War (1830's, seizing American Southwest), Spanish American War (seizing Cuba and the Phillipines), WW-I (competing over the Balkans and North Africa), WW-II (Hitler thought he could take over Russia outright; Japan and US were competing over Southeast Asian dominanance). 2) Confiscating native territories ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ These aren't known as "real wars" and aren't covered much in school history books. They occur when indiginous peoples get in the way of capitlist growth, and typically involve ethic cleansing and systematic genocide. Obvious examples were Native Americans and Ausralian Aboriginies, but the process continues today with rain-forest tribes and much of Black Africa (through Western financed, trained, and armed insurgent groups which are encouraged to incite genocidal civil wars). 3) Destabilizing colonial economies ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ When the British East India Company first reached India, the Indian economy was comparable in its productivity to the British economy. This was not a case of an advanced country meeting a primitive one. But the British had better arms, and proceeded to destabilize and destroy the Indian economy so that it could be dominated by Britain and become a market for British goods. Destabilization of local competition is a universal tactic of capitalist imperialism, and is reflected in the "guidelines" laid down by today's IMF - which systematically destroy economy after economy, taking local competition off the international market and creating local markets for TNC products and fire-sale investment opportunities for outside investors (eg: Rwanda, S Korea, Russia). 4) Restructuring home-country economies ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Capitalist imperialism does not limit its activities to the far side of the Rubicon. Destabilization, or re- structuring, of home-country economies has long been used to provide capital growth opportunities. The Enclosure Acts in England - the classic case - forced rural populations into low-wage factories while enabling agriculture to be reorganized along industrial lines. The dismantlement of railroads in postwar US, Britain, and Ireland - forcing people into cars, goods into trucks, and creating a huge market for petroleum - is a more recent example. In Yugoslavia, from the perspective of Germany and the US, I'd say it's pretty clear we're dealing with a type-3 scenario: split Yugoslavia into manageable pieces, make sure they're in conflict with one another, and bomb the economic infrastructure back to the stone age. In all, it's an effective master plan for reducing Yugoslavia, effectively, to colonial status - subject to Western domination, a market for Western goods, and no longer a competitor in international markets, as it was until recently, for example, in automobile production. Naturally the conflict is presented publicly as a moral crusade - that's been the Western battle-theme ever since the original, looting-motivated Crusades in the late Middle Ages. Always there's an evil enemy... the "saracen", the "heathen", the "hun", the "fascist", the "commie", the "treacherous jap", the "terrorist"... _never, it would appear, do Western powers act out of selfish interests - unlike everyone else in the world, whose every action is interpreted as coming from their self-interest. With the West's presumed nobility of purpose, and centuries of Western global domination, one might wonder why the world isn't a better place - _if one believed the rhetoric. --- Hans: >Where did the Germans get the political muscle to force the other western >governments into a premature recognition of the secessionist governments of >Slovenia and Croatia? Germany is, after all, the biggest economy by far in Europe; the Mark dominates European commerce; the Bundesbank more or less sets Europe's interest rates; and Germany is the largest single market in Europe. Germany has countless ways to twist arms and get its way. In the case of Croation recognition, according to the reports I read, the primary deal was struck with Britain - once Britain switched sides, the rest of the European leaders capitulated. What Britain got out of the deal was the right to opt out of the "Social Chapter" - that set of EU provisions which call for uniform labor laws, wage levels, and other socially-oriented measures. In essence, the deal was: "If you let us destabilize the Balkans, we'll let you exploit your workers." (As usual, a "deal" among imperialists is one where they split the cash benefits, and everyone else pays the human costs.) --- Hans: >Why would the Germans precipitate a situation in which they would become >the major recipient of the consequent refugee flood? For instance, there >are now 800.000 Albanians living in Germany. > >According to you it appears that the Germans were and are merely the >instrument of the Americans and the "capitalist elite", who are reaping the >benefits of the Balkan chaos, while the German government merely saw fit >(for some reason) to invite another two million refugees or so into its >already densely populated country. Here it is important to make the clear distinction between the German people and German leaders. The influx of refugees is highly destabilizing of German society. It is over-stretching the national budget, throwing flames on an existing right-wing racist backlash, swamping the social-services capacity of the nation, and bringing in gangster elements from the KLA (such groups always seem to get first chance at immigration, eg: Miami). Clearly these developments are not to the benefit of the German people. Is this societal destabilization a case of accidental, collateral damage, or is it one of the goals of the esteemed German leaders? To answer this question, we need to consider a new major form of imperialist activity, one that began with the Regan/ Thatcher Reactionary Revolution, and which has since become the dominant global paradigm. I speak of course of the "neoliberal" revolution - privatization, downsized government services, the end of entitlements, deregulation, lowered corporate taxes, and free trade. To some extent, these are a case of Type-4 devilry - cannibalizing national assets and social welfare to provide another round of capital growth. But the neoliberal revolution goes further than that - it is aimed specifically at destabilizing Western society and the institutions of liberal democracy. You can see this by the way polticians and government are continually denigrated in the corporate media - whereas before the 80's the spin was the other way around, toward respect for officials and toward national patriotism. You can also see it by the homeless in the streets, the readily available CIA-supplied drugs, the skyrocketing prison population, and any number of other indicators. As our old friend Sam Huntington said in his historic '73 "Crisis of Democracy" article, the "excesses of democracy" had, in the postwar era, become an impediment to business-as-usual operations - these "excesses must be reduced" if the normal business of the West (ie, capitalist growth and imperial management) was to continue unfettered. The US and Germany, the leading Western capitalist powers, were also in the '70's leaders in environmental protections and anti-war sentiment. (These are examples of Huntington's excesses.) There was a spirit of renewed bottom-up democracy, and a somewhat leftist energy alive in national politics (more excesses). In other words, these bastions of Liberal Democracy were also threatening to become thorns in the side of global capitalism, a kind of domestic democratic cancer that hampered global activities - rather than providing the fortresses of imperialism that had been the Western tradition ever since Columbus. The neoliberal revolution was only the opening salvo in the assault on Western democratic institutions and societies. NAFTA, the later GATT rounds, and the other free-trade treaties were a second-wave assault, whose full ramifications are yet to be felt. Major influxes of refugees, without any effective plans to integrate them into society, furthers the aims of destabilization in many ways at once. It creates a vulnerable, low-wage labor pool - unlikely to demand its rights or sign on for its benefits - which can be used to make further inroads against unions, labor-protection laws, etc. It accentuates divisiveness in society, not only between citizens and newcomers, but also among political factions - in particular it fans the flames of a right-wing reaction, as was mentioned above. No, Germany's schemes in the Balkans are not to the benefit of the German people, but they advance the cause of globalization, and the destabilization of Western societies (especially Germany), very well indeed. --- The whole matrix of globalization is being revealed, and is coming to a rapid climax, in the current episode in Yugoslavia. At the beginning, NATO was simply exceeding its charter a bit, allegedly taking emergency action for an emergency situation - no time to wait for the UN committees, as it were. But already things have progressed to the point where Clinton has announced that this is now a new permanent regime - NATO is no longer tied to the UN and it now has an official responsibility to police the world. Where in hell does he think he gets the authority for such a pronouncement?? Louis XIV claimed divine right; I suppose "backing of the capitalist elite" is today's equivalent, and need not be spoken. At the beginning, we were told that withdrawal of Serb forces from Kosovo was the main objective... subsequently we learn that NATO occupation of much of the region was a non-negotiable demand from the outset, unbeknownst to us mere citizens. Increasingly, the correct term is becoming not "neo imperialism", but rather "old-fashioned colonialism", with Western troops garrisoning the dominions, and ships-of-the-line bombarding resisting targets. Again, Yugoslavia marks a warp-speed acceleration in the globalization agenda. And then there are the Russian and Chinese angles. These are not peripheral to what's going on, but are strategically central. While the US, in a de facto sense, completely dominates the world militarily, China does not accept this as a permanent state of affairs. You can read about this in Foreign Affairs, March-April, 1997, or you can see my article "China vs. Globalization" on the cdr website, under "CyberLib". China believes in sacrosanct national sovereignty - at least for itself (did I hear someone mention Tibet?) - and is working feverishly to develop the military and technological capacity to defend its sovereignty effectively against the threat of American hi-tech and first-strike weaponry. In some sense, outside public awareness, there's a replay of the Cold War arms race going on, but with a hi-tech emphasis instead of raw nuclear firepower. (Naturally, as is tradition, Western suppliers are selling to both sides in the arms race, and Western capital is participating, at least indirectly, in Chinese military development. Desert Storm, among other objectives, provided an opportunity for testing the hi-tech weapons which the US had been developing in its unannounced arms race with China. Iraq was so totally outmatched that the display of American weaponry was entirely gratuitous to that conflict; as a veteran of that war expressed it, "It was like a college team playing against a grade school team - they didn't even fight back." That's because the weapons were designed with a more powerful adversary in mind. The main tactical problem in the Gulf War was sheduling in all the targets they wanted to test their weapons on; the enemy wasn't a factor - strange "war" indeed. Once the tests were over, they launched the long-heralded "land war", and the rest was over in a day or two. Again in Yugoslavia updated weapons are being tested, and the NATO lads are getting their chance to try some of them out. Taken together with the arrogant and belligerent stance being taken by Clinton and NATO - thumbing their noses at the UN, and claiming official sovereignty over the world - there is no way that the Chinese would not feel they were being implicitly confronted. Desert Storm, as George Bush put it, heralded the beginning of a New World Order. The blitzkrieg assault on Yugoslavia reveals more of the subtle grossness of that new global regime. Chinese leaders can watch their televisions and see the weapons being deployed that were designed with them in mind; they can hear the US President saying he has the unaccountable right, along with NATO, to enforce against anyone they choose whatever conditions they might come up with, based on whatever PR story they wish to concoct. Meanwhile, the Chinese can observe that the global media falls into line like so many sheep to echo and illustrate the official line. As if the implicit confrontation weren't enough, along comes a salvo of US missiles to blow away the Chinese embassy. Don't believe for a second that was an accident. Today's earlier rn posting, "WHY the Chinese embassy..." was probably much closer to the truth than what we're hearing on the media. The embassy attack was so much spit in their face - it was saying "In case you don't get the message, tough guy, I'm number one around here and you better just watch your step. Wanna do something about it?... I dare you." The New World Order is about total global hegemony for the capitalist elite, to be managed by the IMF, the WTO, American and NATO forces, and a collection of mega TNC's. This is not a world which has room for an independent national power, not one as big as China, and not one with the designs China has for a "special role" as Asian hegemon. A full scale conflict with China, in the opinion of one significant branch of US policy making, is inevitable. Perhaps that branch of policy making is in the ascendency; perhaps the timing is now considered right; perhaps the secret bombing strategy is to escalate and escalate further, to involve neighboring countries, to keep pushing and pushing until finally a response is forced from Russia and/ or China. Perhaps the climactic ascendency of the New World Order is nigh upon us, and China, like Yugoslavia, is soon to be bombed back to the stone age, and Russia is to be taken out for good measure. "Grind all Carthiginians into the dust, and get it over with", would certainly be a welcome motto among many Pentagon veterans (shades of Dr. Strangelove). Or perhaps the point is simply to humiliate the Chinese publicly, to demonstrate their impotence, to give them no face - to teach them to accept their subservient role in the newly announced global power structure. We don't know which way this game is going to go, to predict would be like trying to guess whether the bird in their hand was alive or dead - they can always change their mind and create the reality they want. --- Hans: >I like to believe your analysis, but to do so I would have to know much >more about the actual past and present German motivation. I'm not sure why anyone would "like" to belive my analysis - I'd much prefer if I was wrong - but it is important to know the truth even if it's painful and seems at first hopeless. Hope (as opposed to wishing) becomes possible only when you acknowledge how bad things are, and can then get on realistically with the challenge of figuring out what can be done. I hope this has clarified the question of past and present German _leadership motivation. rkm ======================================================================== an activist discussion forum - •••@••.••• To subscribe, send any message to •••@••.••• A public service of Citizens for a Democratic Renaissance (mailto:•••@••.••• http://cyberjournal.org) Help create the Movement for a Democratic Rensaissance To review renaissance-network archives, send any message to: •••@••.••• To subscribe to the the cj list, which is a larger list and a more general political discussion, send any message to: •••@••.••• A community will evolve only when the people control their means of communication. -- Frantz Fanon Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world, indeed it's the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead