Ue, Usa, Israele Wsws 06-07-21
L’incapacità dell’Europa a
contrastare la politica di guerra di israelo-americana
Ulrich Rippert
Tesi Wsws:
La dichiarazione uscita dal G8 di Pietroburgo emerge come i
paesi europei, che si posero in modo critico rispetto all’attacco americano
all’Irak, ora si allineano dietro l’offensiva bellica israelo-americana contro
il Libano.
Questo non risolverà le crescenti tensioni tra le grandi
potenze, e contribuirà poco ad alleviarle.
–
Un ruolo importante l’ha svolto la Germania
della Merkel che si è allineata incondizionatamente alla proposta Americana di pieno
appoggio a Israele; la posizione filo-americana della Merkel e di altri leader
dell’Union era già emersa 3 anni fa. La Francia invece ha chiesto un cessate il
fuoco e ha messo in dubbio l’adeguatezza del bombardamento israeliano.
–
Questo
rilevante cambiamento di rotta deriva dalla presa di coscienza dei paesi
europei che la Guerra contro l’Irak rappresenta un punto di svolta rispetto
agli assetti internazionali sanciti alla fine della Seconda Guerra Mondiale,
con gli Usa che, senza farsi condizionare né dall’ONU né da accordi internazionale,
si sono basati sul principio “la forza è il diritto”.
–
I paesi
europei si sono trovati di fronte a un dilemma: avrebbero preferito una
soluzione diplomatica alla guerra, o meglio avrebbero preferito assicurare i
propri interessi energetici e geo-strategici tramite una mediazione, ma per
fare ciò hanno bisogno della cooperazione Usa, che invece non hanno alcun interesse
a seguire questa linea.
–
La richiesta
principale proveniente dai paesi europei è l’intensificazione dell’impegno
americano in MO, questo nonostante gli europei sono consapevoli del piano
d’azione americano che mira a porre l’Iran sotto il proprio controllo, per
assicurarsi l’accesso alle riserve di petrolio e gas nel bacino del Caspio.
–
Uno dei primi
a enfatizzare questa posizione è stato il coordinatore delle relazioni
tedesco-americane del governo tedesco, Kaarsten Voigt che ha dichiarato ad una
emittente radio tedesca il giorno in cui l’attacco israeliano ha distrutto
l’aeroporto di Beirut: «Innanzitutto una cosa è giusta e cioè che il MO è un’area dove noi
vorremmo una maggiore presenza americana, non minore. Ed è ciò che dicono
coloro che normalmente criticano gli USA, perché senza gli Usa non è possibile
portare calmare la situazione».
–
Le conseguenze disastrose della politica americana in Irak, non hanno
rafforzato le borghesie europee, come ci si poteva attendere, che hanno invece
richiesto l’intervento americano.
–
Anche l’ex ministro degli Esteri tedesco, Joschka Fischer, in un’intervista
a Die Zeit: «Tutto dipende fagli Usa, dalla loro leadership, ma da soli
sarebbero sottoposti ad un’eccessiva tensione»; all’obiezione che già gli Usa
sono sottoposti ad un eccessiva tensione essendo «del tutto bloccati in Irak»,
Fischer ha risposto: «Non c’è soluzione senza un’America determinata. L’Irak e
il vuoto di potere in Irak pone all’America e a tutti noi gravi problemi. Ma la
questione decisiva non è l’Irak ma l’Iran».
–
Anche il francese Le Monde: «Cosa fare? È stato tentato quasi tutto,
tranne un forte impegno della comunità internazionale, in particolare degli
Usa, per raggiungere quel benedetto compromesso, compresa una presenza militare
nella regione».
–
Le élite europee dominanti, a pochi mesi dal cinquantennio del Trattato di
Roma della primavera 1957, che ha dato il via al processo di unificazione
europea, stanno verificando che, nonostante la moneta comune, l’unificazione
europea si è fermata e rischia di trasformarsi nel suo contrario.
–
Sono mutate anche
le relazioni europee con la Russia; la Germania da parte cerca di mantenere un
equilibrio tra le relazioni con Mosca e con Washington, ne è costretta per l’alta dipendenza
energetica da Mosca, ma se le tensioni tra Usa e Russia si acuiranno, l’equilibrismo
non sarà più possibile.
–
La decisione
attuale di appoggiare gli Usa Israele nella guerra in corso rappresenta un
punto di svolta nella politica tedesca.
Wsws 06-07-21
Europe’s inability to counter US-Israeli
war policy
By Ulrich
Rippert
When the Bush government unleashed its
war against Iraq
three years ago, a number of European governments warned of the danger that
such an enterprise could lead to a military and political disaster. In
particular, leading circles in Berlin and Paris warned publicly of an uncontrollable wildfire that
would spread across the Middle East.
Today, after these fears have been
confirmed in the most terrible form, the former critics of such a policy in Europe have now decided to line up
behind the war offensive currently being waged by the US and Israel. This is
the significance of the joint statement that was issued by the G8 summit in St. Petersburg.
–
The German government, in particular,
led by Angela Merkel, played an important role. While the French president
raised the demand for a ceasefire and questioned the appropriateness of the
Israeli bombing raids, the German chancellor lined up unconditionally behind
the American proposal made at the summit for complete and uncritical support
for Jerusalem.
Two days prior to the summit, as the
Israeli army began its brutal military offensive against Lebanon and in front of the eyes of the world
bombed the country’s most important airport, Angela Merkel gushingly welcomed
the American president when he touched down in Germany.
–
What lies behind this
turnaround? It is insufficient to point out that it was clear three years ago that Merkel and other leading
members of the union alliance of the Christian Democratic Union, (CDU) and the
Christian Social Union (CSU) backed the Bush administration. Such momentous
changes in political line are not decided upon by individuals, but have deep
objective roots.
–
The fundamental problem
confronting European political circles is that the Iraq war, involving terror for broad layers of the population on a daily
basis—terror that is now being extended to the territory
of Lebanon and Palestine,
and that may soon extend to Syria
and Iran—represents
a historical turning point.
–
Three years ago, the Bush administration brushed aside the
United Nations and all existing international legal restraints and began its
illegal war. In so doing, it made clear that it no longer felt restrained by
contracts, agreements and international law, but with
its highly developed military strength based itself instead on the principle of
“might is right.”
–
In other words, the political system established on the
rubble left by the Second World War, and which required that every country
abide by international rules and laws, ceased to exist.
The Iraq war and its
extension to Lebanon
and the Palestinian territories represents a return to imperialist politics in its most aggressive and
brutal form.
This development posed European governments with a dilemma.
They would much prefer a diplomatic solution to the war—or to be more precise: they would prefer to secure their
own energy and geo-strategic interests through arbitration, but to do this they
require the cooperation of the US
government, which has absolutely no interest in following such a course.
This contradiction currently takes bizarre
forms. European ruling circles
and editorial boards are well aware of a number of facts:
–
firstly, the Iraq war and the US
occupation have had disastrous consequences for Iraq and the entire region;
–
secondly, the Israeli
government would never have contemplated the operation it is now carrying out
in Lebanon
without consultation and agreement with the Pentagon;
–
and thirdly, the US
government has been following a plan of action aimed at bringing Iran under its control—if necessary with force—to
ensure access to the oil and gas reserves in the Caspian Basin.
–
Nevertheless, the central
demand to be heard at the moment in Europe is that the US government must intensify its engagement in
the Middle East.
One of the first to emphasise this standpoint was the social democrat
Karsten Voigt, who is the German’s government coordinator for German-American
relations.
–
On the day the Israeli army destroyed the international
airport in Beirut, with Washington’s approval and with
weapons “made in the US,” Voigt
told a German radio station: “First of all, one thing is correct, i.e., that
the Middle East is an area where we would like more US, not less. And
this is what normal critics of the US
also say, because without the US it will not
be possible to calm the situation there.”
–
One would assume that the
disastrous consequences of US
policy in Iraq and
throughout the Middle East—of which some
European governments had warned—would have strengthened the role of the
European bourgeoisies. In fact, quite the opposite is the case. Under conditions of an inflammatory situation and the danger of a
military conflagration throughout the Middle East,
the Europeans have now called for the intervention of the world’s principal
arsonist.
–
In similar manner to Voigt, Germany’s former foreign minister,
Joschka Fischer (Green Party), argued in an interview with the Die Zeit paper:
“Everything depends on the US,
on its leadership, but on their own they would be overstretched.”
–
When Die Zeit raised the objection that Washington
is “totally tied up at the moment in Iraq”
and therefore already overstretched, Fischer responded: “There will be no
solution without a determined America.
Iraq and the vacuum of power
there pose America
and all of us with considerable problems. But the decisive question is not Iraq, it is Iran.”
In a comment on Wednesday, the French
daily Le Monde also wrote: “What is then to be done? Nearly everything has
been tried—other than a
massive engagement of the international community, in particular the United States,
for the known compromise, including a military presence in the region.”
The fact remains, however, that the
military presence under the leadership of the US has led to a disaster in the region.
Futile hopes on the part of the Europeans that one could damp the fire by
tossing on more oil make clear
that the power brokers in Berlin and Paris have absolutely no means of countering US war policy.
At one and the same time, they are both impressed and intimidated by the way in
which the Bush government follows its aims with such cold-blooded calculation
and naked force.
The brutal bombing terror in Baghdad, Fallujah, Basra
and now Beirut and Gaza—possibly
tomorrow in Damascus
and Teheran—have been instrumental in this respect. Also significant was the way in which the US government threw its weight around in Europe, with illegal renditions of alleged “terrorists,”
the maintenance of torture prisons and the contemptuous rejection of any sort
of legal restraint, which left its mark and strengthened the most
reactionary political elements.
It has not taken much to intimidate
European governments. In
addition, just a few months before ceremonies aimed at celebrating a
half-century since the signing of the Treaty of Rome in the spring of 1957,
which began the process of European unification, the European political elite
is increasingly coming to the conclusion that, despite a common currency,
European unification has not only come to a halt, it is threatening to go into
reverse. Expansion of the European Union to the east has proved a
failure, and national egoisms and contradictions are erupting throughout Europe.
–
European relations with Russia have also changed. For its
part, the German government favours a balanced relationship that reaches
out to both the west and the east. This is necessary
in light of Germany’s high
level of energy dependence on Moscow.
However, as tensions intensify between America
and Russia,
such a tightrope walk is no longer possible. At the same time, Russia under
President Vladimir Putin is very different from the Russia of Boris Yeltsin.
The decision by the Kremlin government to turn off gas supplies to Ukraine at the start of this year sent shock
waves through Berlin.
Those voices warning of an over-dependence on Moscow
grew louder, and contacts with Washington
intensified correspondingly.
–
There is, however, an
additional factor that has led European governments to line up behind the
strongest imperialist power in Washington—the growing social crisis in Europe and a marked increase of social conflicts. This applies in particular to Germany.
From the very beginning, Germany’s grand
coalition was afflicted with a birth defect. It had emerged from an election in
which the so-called “lefts,” comprising the Social Democrats, the Greens and
the Left Party, received more votes than the “right wing” of the conservative
union parties and the free market FDP. Merkel was only able to take over as
chancellor because of the readiness of the SPD to form a grand coalition.
Shortly after the formation of the new
German government, mass demonstrations developed in France opposing the attempts by the
French government to do away with job-protection laws. Under pressure from the protests, which embraced millions,
the Villepin government was forced to make a temporary retreat.
Under these conditions, the Merkel government proceeded more cautiously
in terms of its domestic policies, which in turn earned it the wrath of
influential business lobbies for whom the dismantling of the German welfare
state was not proceeding quickly enough.
The decision to now back the side of the warmongers in the current war in
the Middle East—although the regime is well aware
that the vast majority of the population rejected the Iraq war and
took to the streets in their millions to protest against it—represents a
turning point. In the future, the German government will be ready to
demonstrate the same degree of ruthlessness against its own population as it
now does to the peoples of Lebanon,
Palestine or Iraq.
In the final analysis, the new political
orientation in Paris and Berlin arises out of the class character of
these governments. Regardless of those critics who complain of “predatory US capitalism,”
the European elites pursue similar economic and political interests, and under
conditions of growing tensions at home and abroad, have decided to align themselves with the strongest
imperialist power.
This will in no way resolve
the growing tensions between the Great Powers, and
will do little to alleviate them. Instead it inaugurates a new stage of violent
attacks on social and democratic rights.