UPDATES
E-mail to hear about site changes, placing 'update' in body of message

Globalisation, war and New Labour

Whatever way you examine it, the intense globalisation of the capitalist economy has run into serious crisis. This is the explanation behind both the growing threat of a unilateral attack on Iraq by the US and Britain and, at the same time, an emerging trade war between the United States and Europe.

By Paul Feldman, the Editor

Globalisation has not resulted in capitalism overcoming the essential contradictions that lie at the heart of its economic and political system, as New Labour and others would have us believe. These concern, principally, over-production, the anarchy of the free market, the relentless drive for profits, the wastage of resources, the dominance of credit and the contrast of all this with nation state structures and the highly socialised nature of the economy and society.

On the contrary, the globalisation process has intensified these inner tensions to bursting point. This is the background to plans for a wilful war against Iraq by the leading political representatives of global capital – Bush in the White House and Blair in Downing Street.

The September 11 attacks on the United States came at a time when key parts of the global economy had already plunged into crisis. In America and Britain, the dot.com bubble had burst with a vengeance, leaving many small investors with severely burnt fingers. IT and communications corporations were experiencing a slump in sales and profits. The “new economy” was as flawed as the “old” one.

Japan, the second largest component of the world economy, was already in slump and on the edge of financial bankruptcy. Unemployment was mounting throughout Europe.

The terror attacks on the World Trade Centre accelerated a process that was, therefore, well under way. Continuous expansion through capitalist globalisation had proved impossible to sustain and had also brought fierce resistance in countries like Indonesia, France and Italy.

September 11 represented a crude, mindless form of rejection of the impact of globalisation based on a religious outlook rooted in the middle ages. The attacks nevertheless constituted a violent assault on the world’s largest economy. Some estimates suggest that the cost to the US economy will be more than $60bn.

That is why the “war on terror” has become synonymous with any perceived threat to the dominance of the global corporations that trade across states and borders as the new masters of the universe. As one intelligence officer told The Observer: “The threat we are now facing in Europe and the US is the greatest threat to security and economic interests in the last 60-70 years.” (emphasis added).

Despite attempts to talk up the prospects for the global economy, matters have deteriorated in 2002. Argentina is bankrupt, and is in social turmoil. Japan’s crisis has deepened and the collapse of Enron shows that large sectors of capitalism are based on fiction, where auditors “certify” non-existent profits.

This is the content of the planned attack on Iraq, which could even involve nuclear weapons. An assault on Saddam Hussein is, of course, not about freeing the Iraqi people from a crude dictatorship. After all, it suited the major powers to support Iraq when it used chemical weapons in its horrific war with Iran.

No, any attack is essentially about destroying a regime that is seen to stand in the way of the political conditions needed to protect and advance the interests of the global capitalist economy as a whole. The very existence of the regimes in Iraq, North Korea, Iran, China and Libya is seen as a threat primarily because each in their own way is outside the direct orbit of the “free market”.

The existence of “weapons of mass destruction” in some of the states is only another smokescreen put up by Bush and Blair. India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons but America has lifted any sanctions on them as a result of their support for the bombing of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the installation of a client regime. Israel too has nuclear weapons and invades Palestinian territory to kill civilians, doctors and children. Their murderous actions bring scarcely a peep from Bush or Blair.

Of the record increase in the US defence budget announced by Bush, only a fraction is devoted to anti-terrorism measures. Paul Krugman, an economist, told the New York Times: “The military’s build-up seems to have little to do with the actual threat, unless you think that al-Qaeda’s next move will be a frontal assault by several heavy armoured divisions.”

Analysts say that the total 2003 defence budget will be 11% higher than the average military expenditure during the Cold War and by 2007 will be 20% higher. The increases are to be paid for from cuts in federal health, social security and urban renewal programmes.

The next stage in the “war on terror” is equally about creating a hysteria at home to justify authoritarian rule in the US and Britain against domestic opponents of capitalist globalisation. Those demonstrating against European Union policies are already in line for arrest as “terrorists” under new regulations. Like those in the infamous Camp X-Ray and Belmarsh Prison in London, they too will be held without trial or charge.

In Britain, it is a wrong to characterise Blair as a poodle of the US government. The New Labour leader is actually the chief advocate internationally of both capitalist globalisation and the parallel “war on terror”. His “civilisation” is the same as Bush’s – the rule of the free market. New Labour is the management team for the global corporations operating in Britain. That is why Blair stands “shoulder to shoulder” with Bush, who fulfils the same role in America.

To oppose the coming war it is necessary to campaign for the defeat of New Labour and for a transfer of power from the corporations that finance and determine the government’s priorities and policies. We must at all costs avoid a crude anti-American posture, which organisations like the Socialist Workers Party adopt for populist reasons.

The main enemy of all those who reject wars are the governments that order them and the big business interests that stand to gain from military action, not the people of the United States.

That is why it is also wrong to characterise the “war on terror” as an attack on Muslims and Islam. This misses the point about what is involved and suggests that there is a religious solution to the problems of the masses in these countries when there is not. The “war on terror” is essentially a class war against workers in every country.

The conditions for defeating New Labour are rapidly emerging. A number of trade unions have declared their reluctance to fund a party that is privatising public services and eroding rights in an alliance with the neo-fascist Italian leader, Berlusconi. The RMT’s new leader Bob Crow has threatened to sever the relationship with New Labour. Even the TUC, that most respectable body, has warned New Labour of a potential “haemorrhaging of support”.

This is against a background of a crisis within the state itself, as seen in the conflicts between New Labour and the police, the political take-over of the civil service and the resistance of the judiciary and legal profession to what it sees as a threat to its independence and the rights of defendants to a fair trail. This is not to mention the continuing crisis in parliament, which serves only to interest the tourists as New Labour continues to bypass its procedures.

The plan to attack Iraq is not a sign of strength but of deep turmoil in the world economic system. Bush’s decision to impose tariffs on imported steel and the EU’s continued rejection of US farm produce are indications that globalisation within a capitalist framework is doomed.

Globalisation can in fact only succeed through co-operation, respect for diversity, protection of natural resources and equal relations between people and nations. The anarchy of global capitalism threatens us all instead with global war, environmental destruction and political dictatorship.

New Labour’s authority is weakening. Polls show a majority reject an attack on Iraq. Our obligation is to campaign to remove the government from office and to construct new forms of political, social and economic rule based on a transfer of power from those who have proved incapable of wielding it for anything but their own crude interests. Help this aim by joining the Movement for a Socialist Future.