Is war necessary

What are wars for?

 

War is always war against claims, the desires, the hopes and the struggles of the people. Not just in the war zone. It had started again: hopes for a better world. Dictatorships have been eliminated by the people, from South Korea to South Africa to Indonesia. Movements have emerged that challenge the rule of money and capital - from the demonstrations against the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to the workers 'and peasants' struggles in Asia, Africa and North and South America. Hundreds of millions of people are in moved to the cities in search of the happiness that capitalist propaganda had promised them. And many millions are on the move around the world in order to get at least a bit of prosperity. But war changes standards. You're happy when it doesn't get worse ...

War is supposed to create fear and a feeling of powerlessness. In view of the approaching military machine, any resistance seems pointless. It appears that the Bush and Blair administrations are intentionally preparing their war so poorly in terms of propaganda. As if they wanted to tell us: We no longer need justification, your protests do not impress us.

War is good for religion. If there is nothing else you can do, then there is still God, no matter which one. Whether it is the Pope who rides the wave of peace this time or Islam that offers people a way out to paradise. Wars like this will reinvigorate the importance of religion in parts of the world where this delusion had already subsided.

War creates nationalism, ethnicism and hatred. The fear of the arbitrariness of the powerful feeds not only racism as hatred of the other powerless, be it the refugees, the migrants, the young people, the unemployed ... but the national or ethnic affiliation again becomes the characterization of each friend or enemy.

War dramatically brutalizes society. It goes without saying that he introduces mass murder and manslaughter. Militarization, police presence, consolidation of borders and surveillance are becoming the lesser of two evils. War strengthens the state not only with the introduction of openly declared or only de facto exercised martial law on all sides, but it promotes the view that only the government can regulate the matter: either the state is appealed ("Gerhard, stay hard") or the state is supported or longed for as the savior of its people.

War justifies capitalist peace. A peace in which hundreds fall victim to small wars, thousands starve to death or die of curable diseases every day. A peace in which we are only respected as workers or consumers and have to live against our needs every day.

But: Wars are a dangerous game even for those in power. In war all questions of existence and happiness are asked anew. Around 20 million people or more protested against it on February 15th: this is a form of globalization that the rulers of the world certainly do not want. If the lives of perhaps hundreds of thousands are being questioned, then our answer can only be: We are questioning our previous life!

There is much speculation about the US government's motives. Oil, oil price, crusade, geostrategy, dollar crisis, world order. All of this is part of it. Beyond the possibly very crude world of thoughts of George W. Bush, it is probably best to take a look at the current world situation and especially the development since the declaration of a "New World Order" by Bush Senior 12 years ago. This is the only way to understand the urgency with which the US government moves from one war to the next in almost panic.

From the increase in regional crises (to name just a few of the most important ones at the moment: Philippines, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Chechnya, West Africa, Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia ...), regional economic crises (Russia, Indonesia, Turkey ...) , a worsening general economic crisis up to the growing migration flows: the political structures inherited from the time of the "Cold War" are no longer suitable for maintaining orderly relations of exploitation and domination.

The Soviet Union (as well as the military dictatorships in Asia, Africa or Latin America) had its people somewhat under control. All of these dictatorships functioned under conditions in which the peasants made up the majority of the population. That is the essential change in the last twenty years: Today most of the people live in cities and have nothing but their labor. But also needs, hopes and wishes that go further than the next harvest. That is why most of these regimes have been overthrown over the past decade, almost always through urban revolts. Others, including the regime in China, are increasingly losing control of their people. Some states simply collapsed, such as Afghanistan, Somalia, Central Africa.

Security laws are being tightened everywhere ("anti-terrorism" laws in Europe and elsewhere, "Homeland Security Act" in the USA), police, intelligence services and the military are being upgraded or converted in the direction of "internal security" and given new powers. The first victims are immigrants. But it shows that the ability of the state to tell us what to do and what not to do has waned everywhere. Within the framework of the previous world order, the task of the states was and is to limit the social contradictions and the class struggle to state territory and to negotiability and regulatability. In addition to the nation states, their counterparts in social mediation and regulation, such as national liberation movements, communist parties and often also trade unions, have lost their influence and importance. It is therefore no wonder that the role of the sovereignty of the nation states in "international law" is losing weight, that not only the US government but also the European Union understand the situation of this world as a problem of world domestic politics. After the disappearance of most of the little dictators, the rulers of the world now have to take matters into their own hands more and more often.

The history of Iraq itself may make this clear: after the revolution in Iran in 1979, Saddam Hussein's regime was given massive support so that he could wage war on Iran for years. The social revolution in Iran ended in a religious dictatorship. After that, the Iraqi regime itself wavered and Iraq was attacked on the occasion of its annexation of Kuwait. With the result that hundreds of thousands perished, but Saddam Hussein was firmly back in the saddle. There are now many indications that all the major dictatorships in the Gulf region (Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran and others) have become unstable. But anyone who no longer has the situation under control is due. The latest twist in propaganda is that US troops will bring "democracy" to Iraq. Many threats or promises can be made before the war. After the war, the memory is often short: when the US government presented the 2003 budget, it simply forgot to include an item "Aid for Afghanistan" ... (The American Senate then approved a few million of its own accord.)

US military administrations or UN protectorates cannot be established everywhere. In the sense of "divide and rule", it is still necessary in a globalized world to limit crises and to orient struggles towards the state. The nation states and the positive reference to them, nationalism, are therefore far from dead. How should the world be rearranged in the interests of unhindered capitalist exploitation? And who should do this? The USA as the strongest military power? The UN, "old Europe"? All working together? This is completely open and also controversial within the capitalist nomenclature. The differences of opinion in the UN Security Council are not about war or peace: Russia is waging war in Chechnya, France has intervened militarily in Ivory Coast. And Germany is supporting the deployment in the Persian Gulf by deploying the German Armed Forces to protect US military installations, granting overflight rights, and deploying Awacs personnel and Fuchs armored vehicles. There are, however, differing views as to what dosage of military, political and economic means is necessary to establish stable relations of rule. In Afghanistan, the US government used its military power to then hand the country over to the warlords, while Germany is still trying in vain to establish something like state order there.

As always, this war is also a response to domestic political difficulties. In the USA, capitalism is in crisis not only economically (collapse of the new economy, external and internal debt, trade deficit, rising unemployment, increasing poverty), but also politically and morally. After the Enron scandal, the head of the New York Stock Exchange, NYSE, even spoke of "terrorism on supervisory boards".

A peace movement that is already looking for solutions to problems that are not the issue has no perspective. Again an alternative solution for maintaining order is sought. Before the last Gulf War it was called "embargo instead of war". The result: war and an embargo. The people of Iraq have paid for this with hundreds of thousands of deaths over the past twelve years. Today it is "inspectors instead of war". That means the continued misery of the Iraqi people indefinitely. The movement against war is also the fight against the wretched peace in the Gulf region. It is our contribution so that the people in the Gulf region can get rid of their exploiters and dictators, their Saddam Husseins, their sheikhs, their mullahs as well as the international oil multinationals.

As long as people allow themselves to be exploited and oppressed, exploitation and the compulsion to work with violence and war will be secured and organized. As long as people accept the logic of war, reduce their claims, fall into fear and powerlessness, turn to religion, the state or the people, as long as there will be wars.

No prayers, flags or appeals!

We have better things to do:

To overturn all conditions in which the human being is a humiliated, enslaved, abandoned, contemptible being.


Top