Towards a Just and Lasting Peace Conference Secretariat International League of Peoples’ Struggles – Participating Organizations in Canada
SPEAKERS' PAPERS

Imperialist War of Aggression and Provocation Amid Continuing Crisis

Reference paper submitted by the Center for Anti-Imperialist Studies (CAIS) and ILPS Study Commission 4 ( On the cause of just peace and struggles against wars of counterrevolution and aggression)

Neoconservativism is apparently the unabashedly violent complement of neoliberalism. It adds the force of war to  the myth of “free market” under modern imperialism. Both neoliberalism and neoconservatism are intended to expand US economic territory and to make the pretense at building a market economy and democracy. (Jose Ma. Sison, “War, Imperialism and Resistance from Below” )

Wars of aggression and military intervention are the linchpins in the all-round US offensive to consolidate and expand its global hegemony.  This global campaign was designed by the neoconservatives in the US in detail shortly after the collapse of the Eastern European regimes and the Soviet Union, an entire decade before the 9-11 bombings. 

In the early months of  1992, the US Department of Defense headed by then Secretary, now US Vice President Richard Cheney prepared the “Defense Policy Guidance”, a top secret blueprint for world domination.   It advocated the unilateral use of US military power, including preemptive attacks, regime change, the use of nuclear weapons, and the control and military use of outer space in order to serve US national interest and to prevent any other power from even coming close to challenging the US militarily, politically or economically, even to the extent of disregarding international commitments, law and institutions.

The “Defense Policy Guidance” was kept top secret then even if it did not contain any tactical information in the military sense.  With the end of the Cold War, the political mood both internationally and in the US was one of de-escalation, disarming, cutting down on defense spending and troop deployments.   More crucial, the US economy was weighed down by huge trade and budget deficits, making it difficult to justify increased expenditures for the military, much less for waging war.

In the spring of 1997, while Clinton was US President, the neoconservatives organized “Project for a New American Century” (PNAC)  to “promote American global leadership”.  Most of the founding members of PNAC were linked with the previous Republican administration of George Bush Sr.and are currently key persons in the administration of George W. Bush.  Not surprisingly, they are all bigwigs in top corporations in the military industrial complex, especially in oil firms and construction/reconstruction companies:  Richard Cheney (then Defense Secretary, now Vice-President), Condoleeza Rice (current State Secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (former  Undersecretary of Defense, now World Bank President) , Zalmay Khalilzad (former senior member of National Security Council, currently Special Envoy to Afghanistan), Jeb Bush (brother of GWB, currently governor of Florida).    

The PNAC  conducted studies in line with the 1992 Defense Policy Guidance, which it  described as “a blueprint for maintaining US preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests”.  In 2000, a year before George W. Bush became US President, these studies were published as a paper, Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century.  This document laid down the basic arguments and principles and detailed the strategic and tactical requirements for achieving unrivalled US global power.  It amplified and elaborated on the Defense Policy Guidance for the build-up, restructuring and redeployment of  the US forces to allow it to undertake unilateral actions, regime change, preemptive strike including nuclear  attack, “peace-enforcement” and “constabulary” functions, and to rapidly and decisively win simultaneous actions in two or more major theaters with a minimum of reinforcements from other theaters.

In particular, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” called for increasing military spending by USD 15-20 billion annually,  bolstering the armed forces and exploiting the US superiority in military high-technology  in order maintain nuclear strategic superiority as well as develop tactical nuclear weapons systems, increasing active personnel strength, repositioning US forces by shifting permanently based forces to Southeast Europe, the Middle East and Southeast Asia and deal with growing strategic concerns in East Asia, modernizing US forces, deploying global missile defenses, controlling cyberspace and outer space for military use and forming the “US Space Forces” 

PNAC criticized the Clinton government for its policy of multilateral military actions (through coalitions and alliances), cutting down the defense budget and reducing the number of overseas military bases and troop deployments, even as it acknowledged that US intervention in Yugoslavia without UN Security Council approval was a step in the right direction. 

Since the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact with the end of the Cold War, the US and NATO were able to expand to Eastern Europe and to some former Soviet republics.  They subsequently waged war on and occupied the former Yugoslavia under the pretext of “peacekeeping” and “peace enforcement” and established a strong military presence on the southern flanks of Russia.    Further, the US gained foothold in the Caucasus, Caspian sea region and Central Asia, all regions of importance in controlling the sources and routes of energy supply and in occupying the western flank of China.

With the election of Bush Jr into the presidency, the neoconservatives in the PNAC seized the opportunity to implement their grand design. However, the international and domestic political atmosphere and economic conditions were still largely unfavorable for an all-out implementation of “Rebuilding American Defenses”. Right up to the eve of September 11,  the general post-Cold War mentality in the US and internationally was for de-escalation, cutting down the number of overseas US troops and bases, and reducing defense spending. Shortly before 9-11, the Democrat-dominated US Congress had just turned down the Bush administration’s proposals for an increase in the defense budget.  The US public generally had an aversion for  wide-scale overseas military involvement, commonly referred to as the “Vietnam Syndrome”,  that was only partly reduced by the apparent success of “Operation Desert Storm” and US-NATO intervention in Yugoslavia. 

The 9-11 bombings dramatically reversed all this and gave Bush and the neoconservatives the sympathy and support of US Congress and the US public for carrying out their grand design for global US military supremacy.  They provided the pretext for  claiming to wage a permanent war on terrorism and for seeking to deprive opponents of the US weapons of mass destruction. “International terrorism” becme the convenient replacement for the communist bogey as The Enemy that would justify increased overseas offensive troop deployment and military presence, wars of aggression and military intervention, and military spending.

The “war on terror”  was thus neither an outcome of nor a response to the 9-11 bombings, as the Bush government claims. Among the main objectives of the US “war against terrorism” is to secure areas with strategic communication and supply lines and resources, primarily oil (such as in the Middle East, Central Asia and Southeast Asia), trade routes (such as the South China Sea) and geographically strategic areas.  As early as 1995, the commander of the US Central Command (covering the Middle East and Central Asia) declared matter-of-factly that the objective of US engagement in the Middle East and Central Asia was to protect vital US interests in the region – the uninterrupted and safe access of the US to oil in the Gulf.

The “war on terror” gave the neoconservatives the opportunity to effect the “paradigm shift” in force planning and reorienting the US military global posture in accordance with PNAC. This was elaborated on in the Quadrennial Defense Review Report issued in September 2001 (QDRR 2001) a few days after the 9/11 attacks, and obviously prepared much earlier.

The “paradigm shift” meant a shift from “rapid deployment to any given  trouble spot” to   “forward stationing” and “forward deployment” in all potential theaters of war.  The object is to pre-station or permanently deploy sufficient US forces in all critical regions worldwide in order to deter any threats to US interests in the region; and if deterrence fails, to defeat these threats with a minimum of reinforcements from other theaters or regions.  Pentagon apparently was dissatisfied with the performance of US and coalition forces in “Desert Storm” where “rapid deployment” was the operational principle.  

Further, the “paradigm shift” arrogantly and brazenly states that the military posture shall preserve “the President’s option to call for a decisive victory… “including the possibility of regime change or occupation”.  We can see in the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq  the application of  the QDRR 2001 as an unabashed  handbook of US aggression and intervention, in blatant violation of  international law. 

The real objective of the invasion of Afghanistan in October 1997 and its subsequent occupation by US forces up to the present was not to bring the Al Qaeda and the Taliban to justice.  Neither was “arms control” – the destruction of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) -- and the liberation of the Iraqi people from the Saddam’s regime.

War plans against Afghanistan and  Iraq and other military actions in several other countries such as Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines, Georgia and Syria had been prepared long before 9-11, since the 1980s, in the Pentagon and other think tanks such as the Rand Corporation.  “Going to War” a top secret war plan four years in the making by the CIA and other groups,  was presented to Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, dealt on plans to invade and occupy Afghanistan.  “Worldwide Attack Matrix” issued Sept. 15, 2001 to Bush by CIA Director George Tenet, describes covert operations in 80 countries including the Philippines, Yemen, Somalia, Georgia of the former USSR.  

The Taliban and the US had been allies in the war against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.  When the Soviets were expelled and the Taliban came to power, the US oil firm UNOCAL, represented by  Zalmay Khalilzad, proposed to the Taliban laying out oil pipelines from the natual gas- and oil-rich Caspian area down through Afghanistan to Pakistan and the Arabian Sea.  The Taliban readily agreed, provided they could tap into the pipelines for their own oil supply. UNOCAL rejected this provision and since then relations between the Taliban and the US soured. During Clinton’s presidency, State Secretary Albright was quoted to have said that US control over Afghanistan “had very exciting prospects” for the Central Asian region.

The US went to war against Iraq in violation of the UN charter and UN Security Council resolutions by dishing out lies that Iraq had conspiratorial links with Al Qaeda and possessed weapons of mass destruction.  But the real motives of the Bush regime and the so-called neoconservatives are to take over the second largest oil resources of the world in Iraq, keep secure the US dollar as the currency of oil transactions, increase US control over Saudi Arabia and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), use US military bases in centrally located Iraq to control the entire Middle East and remove Iraq as a threat to the US-Israeli collaboration. The Bush regime estimates that once the US occupies Iraq, an additional three to five million barrels of oil can be produced per day.

The restructuring and refurbishment of  the US Armed Forces called for wide-ranging  global redeployment and repositioning of troops and armaments. According to the Defense Department’s Base Structure Report (2002) the US at that time had military bases in at least 38 countries worldwide. This number did not include newly acquired bases and forward bases such as in Saudi Arabia and the Balkans, and considerable troop concentrations in Central Asia since 9-11.  In addition, the US had access agreements with 57 countries.

The US has been increasing its number of bases and shifting its bases so that troops and war material are “forward deployed and stationed” from Western Europe to Southeastern Europe and Western Asia (Middle East), and from Northeast Asia to Southeast Asia.  Troops and bases in Germany have been transferred to the Balkans, while those in Saudi Arabia have been moved to Iraq and Central Asia. 

The 2004 Dept of Defense Base Structure Report lists 860 installations in 43 foreign countries worldwide.  US troops deployed overseas have increased from 200,000 in 2001 to around half a million in 2005.  Official US count as of February 2005 is 364,000 in 119 countries or at sea, with 150,000 of these coming from the Reserve or National Guard.

A partial list of US troop overseas deployment is shown below:

(BBC News, 17 Aug 2004) 

Total: 411,248 (on land) + 50,000 (afloat) = 461,248

Note that this does not include troop deployments in Latin America, Turkey, Greece, Diego Garcia, Australia, the Philippines, Central Asia and Africa. The figures for Japan and Korea are also understated, with other official US documents counting at least 100,000 troops in East Asia.  US official count (Gen Myers, Chairman of USJCOS) of troops in Afghanistan is 20,000. 

Aside from fixed stationing and deployment in military bases and installations, the US achieves and maintains its planned pre-stationing and deployment of troops and war materiel especially in “critical areas” through “rotational deployment” under a number of means and pretexts, such as joint military training exercises, foreign internal defense operations, counter-narcotics operations, arms control, humanitarian operations and civic assistance, counter-terrorism, peacekeeping and peace-enforcement, support to insurgencies, information-gathering,, noncombatant evacuation, “small contingency actions”, and “show of force”. 

Last March 2005, the Defense Department released the summary of a new top-secret military document,  “National Defense Guidelines” which further defines the direction and measures towards restructuring and redeploying US armed forces.  Among other things, it calls for a shift from a merely “preemptive” to a more “proactive” and “offensive” approach, training and deploying more specialized troops with “cultural savvy” to perform “global policing actions”, train and mentor indigenous forces as well as control and pacify indigenous forces and factions in different parts of the world.

The 2005 National Defense Guidelines underscore the importance of expanding the US IMET (International Military Education and Training) program in forming surrogate armies from local forces, familiarizing US troops in local terrain and culture, and promoting tactical coordination between US, allied, coalition and local troops.

Since 1998 US Armed Forces Manuals have erased the distinction between combat and non-combat operations in military overseas operations, pointing out that in such environment, the situation is normally so volatile that a non-combat situation could easily turn into a combat situation and vise-versa. Thus the operation is always planned for and prepared as a “full-spectrum” operation, i.e., including combat.

Special operations forces -- which include Army Rangers, Green Berets, Navy Seals, Air Force Special Forces, and the once clandestine “Delta Force” –  are at the core and play a key role in all these operations. The Special Operations Command is designated as the combatant command responsible for planning and directing global operations against terrorist networks.

A special word on the special forces:  numerous independent and government (e.g., congressional) studies have raised the concern for rampant human rights violations brought about by US-sponsored training programs and by the increased deployment and use of Special Operations Forces.  Since the end of the Cold War, the US has stepped up the training of surrogate forces. The US trains and employs local forces in much the same way and for much the same reason as the AFP trains and employs the CAFGUs:  to economize, to bring down the casualty rate of the regulars, and to exploit the familiarity of the local forces with the terrain and the population.

Special operations forces gained fame – or notoriety --  in the Vietnam War, notably the Green Berets who were touted as highly trained, highly skilled, armed with sophisticated weapons and high-tech gizmos.  Indeed, they are trained and armed to perform special missions deep within hostile territory.  With the end of the Cold War, the political imperative to bring down casualty rates and military spending has further bolstered their role in the US war machine.  More and more, they have been given covert roles formerly reserved for the CIA. 

Listed last but not least among the  “Special Collateral Missions” of the SOFs is the following:  Special activities – subject to limitations imposed by Executive Order and in conjunction with a presidential finding and congressional oversight, plan and conduct actions abroad in support of national foreign policy objectives so that the role of the US government is not apparent or acknowledged publicly

The US has bilateral “status of forces” agreements with at least 92 countries which basically allow the presence of US troops on foreign soil, grants the US extraterritorial rights and grants US troops not only a legal status but also immunity from arrest and persecution for criminal offenses they might commit whether on or off duty.   The US likewise has “access and servicing agreements” with at least 26 countries, while another 48 countries have formal US defense commitments.

The US refuses to ratify the 1998 Rome Statue establishing the International Criminal Court which could try cases of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and violations of human rights and international humanitarian law committed on foreign soil.  Furthermore, in a blatant move to undermine the ICC, the US has entered into bilateral agreements with a number of countries, most of them under pressure or duress, exempting US troops or granting them immunity from arrest and persecution for war crimes, crimes against humanity and violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.)

In early 1995,  Gen. Richard B. Myers, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff admitted that the occupation of and war in Iraq has become much more complicated and difficult than anticipated, necessitating the prolonged deployment of more troops for a longer time in Iraq.  The US reportedly has 175,000 troops in Iraq.  Gen. Myers stressed that the US cannot remain in Iraq without other Coalition troops. Much less has the US been able to achieve a deployment that would allow it to decisively and quickly win another major war should it occur, e.g. in Northeast Asia.  While the US has been able to effect “preemptive regime change” in Afghanistan and Iraq, it has been unable to implement its “paradigm shift” from multilateral to unilateral actions (in major campaigns or theater operations), and from rapid deployment to forward stationing.   

The US is caught in a quagmire of its own making in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to official counts, more than 1600 US soldiers have been killed and more than twenty thousand wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. Other estimates which include non-uniformed US troops count nearly 3,000 US forces killed.  The Iraqi resistance forces are blowing up oil pipelines and facilities in order to make the US aggression unprofitable.  By one estimate, based on Congressional appropriations, US aggression in Iraq has cost USD 168 billion, with USD 4 billion spent every month for its continued occupation.   These, coupled with a declining economy,  further fuel the American people’s protests against the Bush regime’s policy of military intervention and aggression in the Middle East, Central Asia and elsewhere.
A potentially murderous and genocidal element in the US drive for military supremacy is the control and use of outer space for military purposes.  QDRR2001 cites the “security of international sea, air, and space and lines of communications” as vital to (ensuring) US interests.  US military and geopolitical doctrine alternatively calls these “global commons” to which all nations have free access and ergo, the US must have full control over these to ensure its security and national interest.
In January 2001, a space commission headed by then newly-nominated Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld  recommended that the president should “have the option to deploy weapons in space” and that "explicit national security guidance and defense policy is needed to direct development of doctrine, concepts of operations and capabilities for space, including weapons systems that operate in space."
In 2002, the US withdrew from the 30-year-old Antiballistic Missile Treaty, which banned space-based weapons.  Since then, the US Air Force has designed a number of space-based and launched weapons systems and strategy that could strike in 45 minutes from halfway around the world, carrying precision-guided weapons armed with a half-ton of munitions and destroy command centers or missile bases anywhere in the world, disrupt other  nations' military reconnaissance and communications satellites, hurl cylinders of tungsten, titanium or uranium from the edge of  space to destroy targets on the ground with the force of a small nuclear weapon,  bounce laser beams off mirrors hung from  space satellites or huge high-altitude blimps, redirecting the lethal  rays down to targets around the world, and turn radio waves into weapons whose powers could range "from tap on the shoulder  to toast".
Ironically, while the US invokes “arms control” to justify armed aggression and intervention, it is also the biggest arms dealer, its arms sales surpassing that of all other nations combined. 

While the US forces invaded Iraq under the pretext of destroying mythical weapons of mass destruction allegedly possessed by the Saddam regime, it is the US which has the stockpile of nuclear weapons with no less than 10,600 nuclear warheads, 3,000 of which are ready to deploy from its "Enduring Stockpile". Moreover, the US-- the only country that has detonated nuclear weapons in war -- has not minced any words that it will target "dedicated proliferators" which directly threaten US interests.

The US also used 320 tons of depleted uranium artillery in the 1990 Gulf war. Depleted uranium has also been used in the Yugoslavian conflict and in the current Iraq war despite numerous health risk to soldiers and civilians and reported cases of contamination in areas where it has been deployed.

US imperialism is itself the World Merchant of Death, amassing immense profits from selling armaments to both sides prior to joining the fray in the two world wars.  Since 1990, the US has exported USD 152B worth of weapons in form of sales and military aid. In 2001, it exported war material in no less than 170 nations and has earned USD 13.1B in that year alone, under the aegis of the “war on terror”. Also in the guise of counter terrorism it has now increased military aid and activities such as training exercises in more countries than before and it has deployed these US-trained and equipped troops as surrogate or proxy armies through coalitions and alliances and as UN peace-enforcement forces. 

The US has unilaterally rejected the Biological Weapons and Toxins Convention treaty and its protocols in 2001 on the grounds that inspections of facilities would jeopardize US national security. It has since then engaged in developing small weapons delivery devices for biological and chemical weapons as well as biodefense research activities. The Pentagon now considers bioweapons work acceptable as long as "non-lethal" is appended in its activities.
The US has produced some 70,000 nuclear warheads since 1945.   Its  arsenal contains approximately 10,600 intact warheads. Of this number, nearly 8,000 are considered active or operational. In addition, several hundred warheads at the Pantex Plant near Amarillo, Texas, including the W56 and W79 warheads, around 36 B53 bombs, and some excess non-strategic B61 bombs, should have been dismantled by 2000, but for various reasons, the schedule has been extended.
As detailed in the Bush administration's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), the plan is to reduce the number of "operationally deployed strategic warheads" to 1,700--2,200 by the end of 2012. With the possible exception of the Minuteman III W62, there will be no further dismantlement of warheads beyond those specified in the 1994 NPR. The reduction of operationally deployed warheads will be accomplished by transferring warheads from active delivery vehicles to either a "responsive force" or to "inactive reserve." If current plans are fulfilled, by 2012  the United States will have approximately 10,000 intact warheads--essentially the same number as today. (ILPS-SIA Workshop 4 Resolution)
The US Senate passed last  July 2005 a law allocating USD 100M for research and production of a tactical nuclear weapon that will be used against underground bunkers. Such a weapon would be the first tactical nuclear weapon.  Its production will be pursued despite studies showing the dangers of radioactive fallout.

Despite its overwhelming superiority and advantage, the US has not been able to consolidate its global hegemony according to its design or wishes.   It has not been able to conduct unilateral actions.  However, it has wielded its clout in building coalitions to support actions that blatantly circumvent and violate international norms and trample on the sovereignty of nations and peoples in taking preemptive military actions and undertaking regime change. 

Waging war to revive the economy

The Bush regime believes it can revive its sluggish and recession-prone economy by engaging in wars of aggression in order to use up old military inventories and build up new stocks of high tech weaponry while it grants tax cuts and directs monopoly firms towards increased military production (“military Keynesianism”).  Indeed, these were factors in the recovery of the economy since the third quarter of 2002 from its decline in 2000.  But this is only temporary, since the increased military production did not result in any increases in the number of jobs available. 

Shortly before 9-11, the US Congress was in no mood to increase military spending, voting down proposed allocations for an anti-ballistic missile program and nuclear weapons testing.  However, after 9-11, Congress approved USD 356.6 billion plus discretionary White House funds for military spending.

This year, nearly half of the 2005 federal budget has been allocated for military expenses, totaling  USD 535 billion, including USD 150 billion for procurement, research and development. . In addition,  Congress has granted Bush a supplemental fund of USD 80 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. (need to countercheck this)

The US military-industrial complex has benefited from the increased funds available to military spending. At least USD 5 billion dollars worth of contracts have been awarded to Halliburton, Bechtel, DynCorp and other corporations with close connections to the Bush regime.  In addition, defense corporations have been granted tax cuts amounting to at least USD 97 billion.

The heavy military spending has resulted in a slight, artificial and unsustainable economic rebound in mid-2002. Obsessed by its greed for monopoly superprofits, the US is oblivious of its budgetary and trade deficits and mounting public debt which are bound to pull the US economy into another round of depression and stagnation.

Global trade in arms*

Globalization, particularly the liberalization of trade, promoted by the imperialist-controlled-WTO has only increased and made easier the global trade in arms. For instance, global arms trade and military expenditures have averaged $950 billion since the onset of the 21st century..(Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SPIRI). For the period 1999-2002, the total value of all international arms transfer agreements on conventional weapons (about $139.89 billion) was notably higher than the worldwide value during 1995-1998 ($123.3 billion), an increase of 13.4%.(Gimmet Report, US Congress Research Service, Conventional Arms Transfer to Developing Nations, 1995-2002). Compare global arms trade with the budget of the United Nations, which spends about $10 billion annually or $1.70 for each of the world inhabitants. 

The US leads in global arms trade, with American military trade and expenditures at $420.7 billion in 2005 accounting for half of the world’s arms market. Many  Americans are unaware that they subsidize $7 billion of their government’s arms sale, a great bulk of which goes to client governments notorious for human rights violations like those of  Israel,  Turkey and Indonesia. Since the Sept. 11 attacks on the US, the American military-industrial complex has profited immensely from Bush’s global war on terror, which has led to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and is conveniently targeting other “rogue” states like Syria, Iran and North Korea. The US has also sold military weapons and trained troops to 90% of countries it has identified as hotbeds of terrorist activities like Pakistan, the Philippines and Saudi Arabia. The US military-industrial complex sells military hardware to both India and Pakistan, which are locked in a territorial dispute over Kashmir that in the past has led to three border wars between these two countries. While assuming a peacemaker stance, the US has peddled arms to all takers, whether dictatorship regimes, monarchies or pseudo-democratic governments

After the US, the leading arms traders of the world, encouraged by globalization, are Russia, France and Britain. The industrialized countries, while benefiting from the more liberal trade atmosphere prevailing after the founding of WTO in 1995, are, however, the first to violate the sanction of this organization against government trade subsidies. As we mentioned previously, the US spend an annual $7 billion to subsidize American arms manufacturers. Thus, the rules of the WTO are only strictly applied to weaker nations, who are made to absorb the products of the imperialist countries, while the latter follow these rules at their convenience.

Aside from trying to revive its economy through war production, the US is seizing sources and supply routes of oil and gas and is expanding its economic territory in general through military intervention and wars of aggression, in the Middle East, Central Asia, Balkans, South Asia, Southeast Asia and elsewhere. It is pretending to spread democracy by seeking to tighten its stranglehold over the Middle East, occupying Iraq and emboldening the Sharon regime to slaughter the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank.

Europe

The recent addition of ten more countries into the European Union has enabled the EU to have an aggregate GNP that could match that of the US and increase its potential for military spending.  The growing strength of the euro has also enabled it to challenge the dollar as the oil currency.

Politically, the proposed EU Constitution provides for increased military spending by each EU member and the formation of a European Army that apparently is meant to defend and advance the EU’s economic interest even at the expense of its US ally.  However the ratification of the EU is undergoing a shaky process with its rejection by the Dutch, British and French people.  Moreover, European countries have so far been unable to achieve political unity.  Two major blocs are apparent:  the Anglo-Dutch alliance with the US, and the Franco-German alliance. These alliances clearly reflect common and opposing economic interests. Britain and The Netherlands are firmly allied with the US because of the alliance of British Petroleum and Royal Dutch- Shell.  Britain is also a major partner of the US military-industrial complex, through the British Aerospace Systems Corporation.

The impact and dynamic of inter-imperialist rivalry on global politics was recently illustrated in the division of imperialist powers on the issue of the invasion of Iraq.  The US, Britain, Japan and a number of  European powers (Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, Greece, Italy) formed the Coalition of the Willing that invaded and occupied Iraq.  France, Russia and China – all permanent members of the Security Council – along with Germany opposed the invasion.  The reason was simple:  France, Russia, China and Germany had standing contracts and concessions in Iraq with the Saddam regime. An invasion and occupation by a US-led coalition, even if it included them, would certainly jeopardize their economic stakes in  Iraq and bolster the US position instead.  After the US-led coalition brought down the Saddam regime,  France and Germany did not oppose the occupation and instead sought UN supervision of the occupation so as to reduce US control while allowing them to gain a share of the spoils.
France and Germany are the main proponents and backers of the “European Military project” seeking a common EU foreign policy and “security strategy for Europe” independent of NATO, and increasing military spending by each member country and strengthening European armies to catch up with the US military strength or at least putting European forces in a better bargaining position with respect to the US.  The objectives are to protect EU corporate interests, boost the financing of Europe’s military industrial complex and allow EU contractors to share in the spoils in military interventions especially in the Middle East.
France and Germany have military cooperation agreements with both Russia and China. European Defense companies are supplying China with sophisticated weaponry. (Michel Chossudovsky, The Anglo-American Axis, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303B.html )

Japan

Japan pursues its monopoly capitalist interests through multilateral and bilateral trade and economic agreements, accepting its role as the US’ junior partner in Asia. For a long time, its Constitution imposed  by the victorious Allied forces forbid it to build a national army, allowing only “Self-Defense Forces”. However, Japan’s military industrial complex benefited during the Vietnam war with the US granting it contracts for its war production.  Currently,  with the growing US demand for Japan’s assistance in its military interventions such as in the first and second invasion of Iraq, militarists in Japan have been given space to expand and strengthen the Japanese military machine itself under the “new security guidelines”.  For the first time, Japan sent troops overseas to Iraq as part of the Coalition of the Willing, not to mention its monetary and logistical contribution to the war effort both in the first and second Iraq invasions.

China

China was identified in the March 2005 National Defense Guidance as one of the potential enemies of the US.   It has also long been described, as early as the 1990s,  as the US’ potential and most likely peer competitor by year 2020, notably by leading neoconservative Condoleeza Rice.  As pointed out earlier, China is a major player in the world economy being a huge potential market and source of rock-bottom cheap labor. 

The US has been pursuing a dual policy towards China of engagement and containment – engaging it economically to encourage its deeper integration into the world capitalist system; while containing it politically and militarily to deter its expansion and growth as a geopolitical and military power.

Long before 9-11 and the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, the US had positioned its troops in Central Asia, at China’s western flank. As early as 1997, the US 82nd Airborne Division has been conducting exercises with Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, familiarizing themselves with the climate and terrain. These same troops were used in the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.
   
Apparently to counter US presence along its western and southern borders, China has embarked, since 2002, in “military diplomacy”, forming security alliances and holding military exercises with its neighbors.  China formed the Shanghai Cooperation Organization with Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan and held  joint anti-terror exercises in August 2003 named "Coalition 2003".  China also held joint naval search and rescue exercises with Pakistan in October 2003, and with India in November 2003. (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn,  “Joint Military Drills Draw Attention Worldwide”, People’s Daily Online, December 14, 2003)

Since its liberation, China has been at odds with the US over Taiwan, several times to the brink of military confrontation. Recently, the US positioned its Seventh Fleet threateningly close after China fired a test missile in the general direction of Taiwan. China reportedly has around 700 mobile short-range ballistic missiles and 375,000 ground forces opposite Taiwan, and has more than 700 aircraft within its range.