As Bush, Pentagon push Naitonal Missile Defense
World says no to U.S. space war
By Deirdre
Griswold
What is it that propels the U.S. government forward on a
supremely dangerous and costly path of militarizing space, just
when it would seem that finally some swords might be beaten
into plowshares?
The so-called National Missile Defense program now being
vigorously promoted by President George W. Bush and his
cabinet, particularly Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld,
has alarmed the entire world. Everywhere, this vague but broad
scheme is seen as the beginning of a deadly new arms race that
will undo existing arms limitation and disarmament treaties and
compel other nations to divert scarce resources into
defense.
Rumsfeld was in Europe the first week in February telling
the members of the European Union that the United States was
going ahead with NMD no matter what they think about it. He was
greeted by thousands of demonstrators in Munich, Germany. At
the same time, Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien was
making an uncomfortable trip to Washington to visit Bush.
Not out of love for Mexico
It has been customary for many decades now for a new U.S.
president to visit Canada on his initial trip abroad. Bush is
not doing this, opting instead to make Mexico his first stop
abroad later this month. That led Chrétien to come
here.
On the face of it, Bush going to Mexico could be a welcome
break with tradition if it were to acknowledge Mexico's
importance and underline the significance the U.S. attaches to
its relations with Latin America.
That, however, would be to misunderstand Bush's motive.
While Latin America has always been an important source of
wealth for U.S. corporations, and while U.S. presidents as long
ago as James Monroe warned their European rivals not to contest
U.S. hegemony over Latin America, none of this has anything to
do with respect for the peoples or their culture. It is pure
and simple imperialism.
The North American Free Trade Agreement has allowed U.S.
corporations even freer rein in Mexico in recent years and has
opened Mexican markets more widely to U.S. products. Some
elements of the Mexican bourgeoisie have profited from this, as
shown by the electoral victory last year of Vicente Fox, once
Coca-Cola's CEO in Mexico. But for the workers and peasants,
NAFTA means more intense exploitation by both foreign and
domestic capital while imported foodstuffs crush small farmers
and shopkeepers.
Their desperation can be seen in the ever-growing numbers
who risk their lives crossing the border to find hard, low-paid
jobs in the U.S.
Canada, unlike Mexico, is a fellow imperialist country, and
therefore allowed into the G-8 organization of global
plunderers. Usually the political establishments in both
countries boast of their amicable relationship and peaceful
borders. But right now, Bush is signaling his displeasure with
Chrétien by making him have to come to Washington.
Why? Because Chrétien issued a joint statement in
December with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin demanding
that the U.S. live up to treaties it has signed that limit
nuclear weapons and agree not to militarize space.
The NMD program would unilaterally abrogate these
treaties.
A gambler without a mandate
Since Bush is regarded by the majority of people here and
around the world as illegitimate because of the vote fraud in
Florida, it would seem highly risky for him to embark on such
an aggressive militaristic path right from the beginning.
Again, what is urging his administration on?
It certainly is not any fear of vulnerability. Never before
has any country reigned supreme over the world in the way the
U.S. does today. Again and again we are told that now there is
only one superpower. The U.S. government spends more on its
war-making capability than most of the rest of the world
combined.
Under these conditions, it is difficult to convince the
population that they must pay for a nebulous new-tech system of
lasers, satellites and what-not that is estimated to eventually
cost $60 billion, and will undoubtedly come to much more once
the usual cost overruns kick in.
Nevertheless, the Pentagon and the vast web of corporations
and banks that feed off military contracts are pushing very
hard to create a scare campaign that would justify developing
and deploying this ominous new system. For years they have
tried to frighten everyone into believing that "international
terrorism" is gonna getcha if you don't watch out.
Of course, the worst terrorist incident in U.S. history--the
Oklahoma City bombing--was carried out by home grown racists
who'd gotten their training in the U.S. Army. This didn't stop
the Clinton administration from using the incident to
strengthen repressive legislation aimed not at the right wing
but at immigrants.
Blame the victim
Now the argument is that north Korea, Iraq and maybe others
could threaten the U.S. at some indefinite point in the future.
And after everything the Pentagon has done to them, isn't that
reason enough to believe they're out to get us?
It doesn't seem to matter to Washington that the government
of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is conducting
historic talks with south Korea aimed at ending the 55-year
division and hostility on the Korean peninsula. Neither the
Clinton nor Bush administrations have given the slightest
indication that they are willing to even consider withdrawing
the nearly 40,000 U.S. troops stationed there ever since the
Korean War.
On the contrary. Despite a growing movement in the south to
end military exercises and remove the bases, and despite many
overtures from the Kim Jong Il government in the north,
Washington continues to insist that it must deploy a "missile
shield" in Asia because of the "threat from north Korea."
Both Russia and China have denounced the NMD as a
destabilizing threat that would tear down the architecture of
arms control built up over 30 years. It is clearly U.S.
strategy to promote the capitalist market in both these
countries as a way to both "bury communism" and draw them into
a global economy dominated by U.S. imperialist banks and
corporations. So why pursue a military strategy that could
undermine this process?
Lush contracts to die for
At least part of the answer must lie in the current state of
the U.S. economy. While industrial production has begun to show
weakness, it is precisely the high-tech areas that are in the
deepest trouble. High-tech stocks have fallen off the cliff,
and layoffs in the dot-com companies have just begun. There is
no way of knowing how far the crisis will go, but it is clear
that the whole world capitalist economy has been moving into
recession. And while U.S. corporations at first profited off
disasters like the Asian crash of 1997, buying up assets at
fire-sale prices, this last holdout is now succumbing to the
disease. This can then further depress the rest of the
world.
During the Great Depression of the 1930s, the Roosevelt
administration and its Keynesian economists initiated a "New
Deal" of large-scale public works programs that they believed
would be the recipe for recovery. They argued that this state
intervention in the economy would be a "counter-cyclical"
mechanism to prime the pump of industry and commerce by putting
some money in workers' pockets. It was also, of course, meant
to blunt their growing social and class consciousness.
However, the New Deal did not succeed in lifting the U.S.
out of the Depression. It was only preparation for war, first
in Europe and then in the U.S., which overcame the general
crisis of capitalist overproduction and started the economic
engines going again.
And it was the horrendous destruction of World War II that
laid the basis for a long period of postwar capitalist
reconstruction.
Today, the social safety net created in the 1930s has been
largely dismantled, first under Reagan and Bush, then under
Clinton with his infamous signing of the welfare reform act.
There is great anxiety among workers in this country who have
been working extra jobs and overtime to make their bill
payments. What will they do if they are laid off? What if they
need medical attention and can't afford it? Will they lose
their homes? Can they keep up payments on their cars--often a
vital necessity in order to get work?
Even though it is clear that hard times are coming, there is
no talk of bringing any of the safety net back.
But there is more than talk when it comes to military
production. The companies now lining up at the NMD trough for
lucrative government contracts desperately want something
dependable to pull them through lean times. Government
cost-plus contracts look mighty good at a time like this. Worth
fighting for--or risking a war for.
One company that is already feeding at the trough is Boeing.
It currently is signed up for $6 billion in contracts, but that
figure could rise to $13.7 by the year 2007. Boeing, the
world's largest aircraft company, is not faring so well in the
civilian area. It is losing out to Airbus of France in the
competition to build a new super jumbo jet able to carry up to
800 passengers.
The last budget prepared under the Clinton administration
set aside more money for missile defense than for any other
weapons program. The fiscal 2001 request for national missile
defense was $1.9 billion; all forms of missile defense add up
to $4.7 billion. This money will end up in the pockets of a
variety of military-related corporations that unashamedly lobby
Washington lawmakers to keep the green stuff coming.
Bush made a point of holding a secret meeting with a group
of high-tech CEOs in the very first days of his new
administration. What promises did he make to them about
government support--that he won't make to the workers of this
country?
An economic crisis brings to the fore the most irrational
and destructive tendencies in the capitalist system. The NMD
program, son of Reagan's Star Wars, certainly ranks among the
worst. It will force many, many people to think seriously and
deeply about how to get rid of the profit system.
This article is copyright under a Creative
Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)
HOME
:: U.S. NEWS ::
WORLD NEWS ::
EDITORIALS ::
SUBSCRIBE ::
DONATE
Email
this article
Printable
page