Germany & US: Discordant Harmony
Dan Jakopovich - 25.03.2005 19:22
the real reasons for the German & French ruling class opposition to the war in Iraq; Franch & German imperialism - from ZNet
The recent US diplomatic campaign in Europe was largely interpreted as an end of the “cold war” between the European Union and the United States, which seemingly started on the eve of the present war in Iraq. Here’s an account of the February rendezvous:
“Rice may be viewed as a White House hawk by many Europeans, but EU leaders became dove-like in her presence. French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier referred to her as "Dear Condi," French President Jacques Chirac kissed her hand twice, while Germany's Frankfurter Rundschau newspaper referred to the "relaxed flirting" between Schroder and Rice in Berlin”. (1)
Later that month, Bush himself strolled through the palaces of NATO and the euro-bureaucracy and was “warmly greeted” by Schröder in Germany. Yet, just a few weeks before, during his visit to Beijing in December last year, Schröder called for the lifting of the 15-year old EU arms embargo against China, despite clear US opposition to any such moves. (2)
Conflicting statements abound. While the European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso clearly indicated the reconcilable position by stating that "Europe and America have reconnected" and that “the reality is the world is a safer and more prosperous place when the EU and the United States work together as global partners”, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana told the International Herald Tribune that “Iraq is not over”. (3)
It is good to remind ourselves here of the deep-seated conflict of interests and disagreement of elites that no amount of diplomatic chit-chat is going to be able to erase. Although this article will concentrate more on the German position, it fundamentally also applies to the chief segment of the ‘French’ ruling classes.
Especially after becoming a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council in January 2003, Germany intensified its opposition to the war in Iraq, which constituted a sharp break with the previously held rhetorical position of “unlimited solidarity” with the US (adopted after the attack of September 11).
The vulgar, reductionist explanation for this shift offered by The Telegraph contained an assertion (ostensibly valid, as even a spokesman for the German government confirmed it) that “the Iraqis offered to give lucrative contracts to German companies if the Berlin government helped prevent an American invasion of the country.”(4) Albeit propagandist, this approach rightly rejects adherence to the (culturally imperialistic) notion of “old Europe’s” moral superiority. If nothing else, their compliance with the sanctions imposed on the Iraqis after the first Gulf War (for instance), which ultimately resulted in more than 500 000 dead Iraqi children under the age of five (5), represents the final notch on an epitaph to any such prospects.
With the collapse of the Soviet Empire, the end of the Cold War and the reunification of Germany, the country’s elite took a significant turn with its policies aimed at greater political and economic independence, particularly in relation to the US. Although this new direction can be traced back to the former Chancellor Helmut Kohl (CDU-Christian Democratic Union) and his foreign ministers, Hans-Dietrich Genscher and Klaus Kinkel (both Free Democratic Party—FDP), the current prime minister Gerhard Schröder has done the most to advance Germany’s imperialistic agenda. During his term in office, despite the almost “pacifistic” traditional image which it has created, Germany has become the second largest interventionist force in the world (after the US), with its military taking part in two wars in the past few years (1999 NATO war against Yugoslavia and the 2001 war in Afghanistan), as well as having troops deployed in more than a dozen countries or regions (6) There has been a 10-fold increase in spending on international interventions during Schröder’s leadership, in accordance with his emphasis that “doing away with taboos about the military” is needed.(7) Approximately 110 billion euros for military spending between 2001 and 2015 are planned.(8)
The general framework within which all specific factors that led to German opposition to the war in Iraq can be placed is the broad Franco-German (federalist European) opposition to the US project of world hegemony. In this sense, I am not the only one who contends that NATO’s inability to conduct concerted action with regards to Iraq (9) also represents the beginning of a new epoch of its diminishing influence, and an end to its utilization by the US as an interventionist backbone of its national imperialistic policies and agendas.
Even apart from this war, there seems to exist a deeper mistrust and resentment on the part of German elites, particularly dating back to the first Gulf War, when Germany was (along with Japan) a major sponsor of the intervention, but wasn’t “adequately” included in the splitting of the war booty. No satisfactory negotiations or offers were made by the US in the run-up to the present war either, as German foreign minister Joschka Fischer (Green Party), also known as “green cadaver”, probably indicated when he was asked whether Germany would vote against the war in the UN Security Council.(10)
The swift changes in normativity, Washington’s growing unilateralism and disregard for international institutions and international law intensified concern for German interests and significantly eroded US authority.
Additionally, the EU expansion into Eastern Europe in 2003 increased the unease over already present centrifugal tendencies within EU.
With important members such as Great Britain de facto functioning as a Trojan Horse, constantly sabotaging the EU project (through its continual pursuit of the lowest common denominator for instance, while preserving its dutiful alliance with the US) and the complicated prospect of Turkey becoming a member-state, Franco-German dominance was seriously brought into question by the eagerness of the new members, as well as some of the older ones, to please American hegemonic appetite.
To the already unstable European economy, the American “death grip” over the world’s major energy resources and profitable markets presents an intimidating advantage in the years to come.
Furthermore, with the continued existence of a dormant idea of US hegemony over Eurasia, advocated by some of the infamous strategists and policy-makers within the ranks of “American hawks” (11), the (long-term) prospects of US establishing military bases in ex-Soviet countries seem quite plausible (as the Georgian “velvet revolution” in 2003, as well as the recent unrest in Ukraine, both backed by US, also seem to indicate).(12)
Another geostrategic concern lies in the risk posed by a possible early US withdrawal from Iraq, which is seen as potentially being able to cause a chaos in the whole region, in Europe’s frontyard.
In addition to that, the terrorist threat within EU (considering Arab ties with France and the number of Turks and other Muslims living in Germany for instance) is a greater and more direct probability in the EU than it is in the US. Right-wing implications of this threat still hold some attraction for the possible future, though.
The struggle between the currencies, namely between the euro and the dollar, is also seen as one of the principal reasons for the war in Iraq, or the opposition to it in the case of France and Germany.(13) Ever since the gold standard was dropped in 1971, all oil has been traded in US dollars (under an OPEC agreement), positioning the dollar as a major international trading currency. In November 2000 Iraq, which has the world's second largest oil reserves, began selling its oil in euros (and benefited), thus infuriating the US administration. The increasing possibility of a domino-effect - i.e. Russia, Venezuela (4th largest oil producer, already experimenting with ways to escape the American squeeze) and others switching to euros – was a risk and a challenge that the US couldn’t allow, which was exactly what appealed to the levers of the European project.
Finally, the German general elections made any war experimentation too costly for the ruling coalition between the Social democrats and the Greens, who were already seen as the losing side behind the Conservatives (CDU). With neoliberal structural adjustments (deregulation of the economy, privatization, social welfare cuts…) taking place in both France and Germany, and the resulting mass demonstrations and strikes putting the implementation of the Lisbon Agenda (14) into question, most German business leaders opposed the Iraq war. (15) With the quasi-leftist anti-war stance the rise of a unified labour, social and anti-war protest movement was avoided, and the ruling coalition won the election. Anti-war rhetorics provided a badly needed (if short-lived) ideological raison d’etre for the otherwise weary “European project”.
This short exposition is merely an outline. Some of the recent French policies seem to be even more firmly rooted in the “old-style”, national imperialistic tradition, such as the sordid, unresolved tale of the battle for influence between French and US imperialism in Africa, especially over the rich oil reserves (eg. Congo Brazzaville). (16).
At the same time, the Triad (US, EU and Japan) remains fundamentally unified in their common ruling class interests - largely determined by “the huge amount of commerce between the world’s two biggest trading entities (the United States is the EU’s biggest trading partner, accounting for nearly 22% of the EU’s total trade (export plus imports)” (17), “immense reciprocal business investments” (18), the Asian challenge and generally global insecurity coupled with US control over the main resources, its military and financial dominance.
Meanwhile, some speculate about a possible future EU alliance with Russia in order to gain independence from the US over resources. (19) The draft for the EU constitution, on the other hand, is quite explicit in the daring new course which the EU proved to be more than just contemplating. A very informative analysis by Tobias Pflüger (20) recognizes an intensified commitment to “collective security”, increases in arms, “pre-emptive action” (like the new US National Security Strategy), neo-liberal and imperialist policies and, what is probably most worrying to the US – a path of increasing independence from NATO. (21)
Although it remains unclear exactly which “modus operandi” with regards to the US the European elites are going to adopt (and it essentially depends on the future conjunctures), it seems safe to conclude that “the end of the beginning of the new world disorder has started.”
(1) Gareth Harding, Rice makes Europe feel loved again, World Peace Herald, February 10, 2005 - www.wpherald.com/Europe/storyview.php?StoryID=20050210-033452-1631r .
(2) For a brief strategic analysis/report see the website of the Project for a New American Century - www.newamericancentury.org/schroeder-20041207.htm .
(3) Gareth Harding, ibid.
(4) David Harrison, German spies offered help to Saddam in run-up to war, The Telegraph, April 20, 2003 -www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/20/wirq20.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/04/20/ixportaltop.html .
(5) John Pilger, A People Betrayed, The Independent, February 23, 2003 (on ZNet - www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=3106§ionID=40)
(6) Peter Schwarz, Behind German Chancellor Schröder’s opposition to war on Iraq, World Socialist Web Site, 10 September 2002 - www.wsws.org/articles/2002/sep2002/germ-s10_prn.shtml
(7) Ibid.
(8) Jim Green, Germany: Anti-war rhetoric puts SPD-Greens coalition back in office, Green Left Weekly, October 2, 2002 - www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/511/511p19.htm
(9) EU allies unite against Iraq war, BBC News, 22 January, 2003 – www.news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/2683409.stm
(10) Peter Schwarz, German government signals support for Iraq war, World Socialist Web Site, 16 January 2003 - www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jan2003/germ-j16.shtml
(11) See for instance Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, Basic Books, 1998.
(12) What is at stake in the Ukraine, Socialist Worker, 4 December 2004, www.socialistworker.co.uk .
For the Georgian case, see Andreas Speck, A velvet revolution in Georgia? (www.wri-irg.org/news/2003/georgia-gwr-en.htm)
(13) See for instance Geoffrey Heard, Eco-Economy: Economic Perspective On The War, Scoop, 21 March 2003, www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0303/S00182.htm and Tariq Ali, Re-Colonizing Iraq, New Left Review, May-June 2003 - www.newleftreview.net/NLR25501.shtml .
(14) Concerning the Lisbon Agenda, The European Round Table of Industrialists (www.ert.be ) - a semi-covert pressure group consisting of about 45 CIOs of the biggest European corporations, which basically advocates for a unified and competitive market - is obviously a resource of major importance. The ruling continental corporate elite seems very interested in the idea of a federalist Europe as an independent force.
(15) Most German Business Leaders Against Iraq War-Poll, Berlin, Feb 19 (Reuters) - www.webprowire.com/summaries/402420.html .
(16) www.marxist.com/Africa/congo.html , www.marxist.com/Africa/darfur_crisis.htm , www.marxist.com/Africa/ivory_coast_intervention.htm etc.. See also for example Immanuel Wallerstein, Haiti: The Bicentenntial Coup d'Etat, www.criticalconcern.com/alternative_news_and_articles.htm .
(17) EUROPA website/trade/trade issues - www.europa.eu.int/comm/trade/gentools/faqs_en.htm .
(18) David P. Calleo, Rethinking Europe’s Future, Princeton University Press, Princeton & Oxford, 2001, p. 248.
(19) Samir Amin, U.S. Imperialism, Europe, and the Middle East, Monthly Review, November 2004. - www.monthlyreview.org/1104amin.htm
(20) Tobias Pflüger, A military constitution for the European Union? (www.wri-irg.org/news/2003/eumil-en.htm )
(21) See for example Robert Cornwell, Europe warned not to weaken NATO, The Independent, October 8, 1999 in Istvan Meszaros, Socialism or Barbarism, Monthly Review Press, New York, 2001, p. 55.
 Website: http://www.aeinstein.org
|
