MIM Notes 188 June 15 1999

LETTERS

TROUBLE WITH MIM NOTES ON NATO?

Dear MIM,

Regarding MN186, 15 May 1999, "Imperialist economic interests in 
Kosovo war are mostly indirect," by MC12: This article apparently 
seeks to explain the true motives behind the U.S./NATO attack on 
Yugoslavia. It has some trouble doing so.

Paragraph 1 says "the interests of imperialists require broad 
strategic control, overall dependence of the poor countries on the 
rich, and military dominance over potential allies as well as 
adversaries." By itself, this paragraph would be a dodge. It does 
not explain why the U.S. is waging large-scale war on Yugoslavia 
at this time, instead of any of a number of other countries it 
could have targeted. But the rest of the article keeps trying.

Paragraph 2 says, "All of this is often boiled down to the catch-
phrase of 'stability.' Imperialists, and Amerikan imperialist[s] 
in particular, don't want their domination boat rocked." This is 
at most half-correct. Stability and instability are two sides of 
the imperialist coin, as are imperialist war and imperialist 
'peace'. Ultimately, if stability was the highest goal of the 
imperialists, they would abandon imperialism and work to build 
socialism and ultimately communism. As long as imperialism exists, 
it will cause uneven development, crises, instability and war. 
MC12 is correct that imperialism seeks stability in some times and 
places. But it also seeks to destabilize certain regions at 
certain times. In the case of the Balkans, U.S. imperialism was 
both a stabilizing and a destabilizing force from approximately 
1950 to 1990, and has been principally a destabilizing force since 
1990. German imperialism has likewise been a destabilizing force 
in the Balkans since 1990. Paragraphs 10-13 of MC12's article show 
how destabilization can benefit imperialism. However, a certain 
kind of 'stability' is apparently one of U.S. imperialism's goals 
here. The U.S. and German imperialists have been stirring up 
trouble in the Balkans, particularly since 1990, but they do not 
want this trouble to spread too far. They are particularly 
concerned that rival NATO members Greece and Turkey could be drawn 
into further conflict with each other. But if all that the 
imperialists wanted in the Balkans was stability, they wouldn't 
have destabilized and dismembered former and current Yugoslavia in 
the first place.

Paragraph 3 refers to "the Albanian movement in Kosovo" as if it 
were an indigenous movement, when by all appearances it is in fact 
a tool and creation of Western imperialism.

Paragraph 5, hunting for U.S./NATO economic motives, briefly 
considers "mineral deposits such as lead, nickel, ore, and zinc," 
but correctly recognizes that this is hardly the stuff of which 
such massive imperialist onslaughts are made.

Paragraph 6 examines NATO's eastward expansion and Russia's 
reaction. This is on the money but is only part of the story.

Paragraphs 7-10 look at imperialism's need to export surplus 
capital. There is something to this, but why Yugoslavia? Also, it 
is unclear that the quote from Richard Haass of the Brookings 
Institution is speaking strategically about U.S. imperialism's 
objectives and not just tactically about how to achieve them.

Paragraphs 10-11 show how war can increase dependence of a 
region's countries on imperialism. But again, why Yugoslavia?

Paragraphs 12-14 discuss the imperialist economic interest in 
post-war reconstruction, and paragraph 14 mentions the war 
industry's profiteering. But why Yugoslavia? For that matter, 
after the U.S./U.N. war in the Persian Gulf officially ended in 
1991, U.S. profiteers from the Bechtel Corporation did profit from 
reconstruction. Was that war fought for Bechtel? No. It would be 
closer to the truth to say it was fought for the war profiteers, 
but the reason the war was fought in the Persian Gulf was oil.

Here's the hint: look at the top six slots in the Fortune 500, 
year after year. Is Bechtel in there? No. The sequence varies from 
year to year, but the top six tend to be GE, GM, Ford, Exxon, IBM, 
and Mobil. GE is a major war profiteer. (IBM may be as well). Two 
of the six are oil companies. Since the days of Rockefeller, oil 
has been a very important industry for imperialism. Other than 
money, the three commodities which have the most currency in 
geopolitics are weapons, narcotics, and oil.

Journalist Diana Johnstone explained the relevance of oil to the 
current U.S./NATO aggression in the WAMM [Women Against Military 
Madness] Newsletter, November 1998: "[O]n October 12, the 
International Herald Tribune carried a New York Times story 
reporting that the U.S. is about to lose its two-year campaign to 
persuade major oil companies to quickly build a multi-billion 
dollar oil pipeline from the Caucasas to the Mediterranean, 'a 
campaign that has become a centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy...'

"The U.S. has not totally lost, because apparently the oil 
companies will refrain from making Caspian-oil-dependent pipelines 
through Iran. But even though U.S. officials 'have been exerting 
just about every form of persuasion at their disposal to persuade 
the oil companies to choose a route that would run from 
Azerbaijan, down through Turkey to the Mediterranean port of 
Ceyhan [in Turkey],' it appears that the companies will rely on a 
much shorter pipeline already being built from Azerbaijan to the 
port of Supsa on Georgia's Black Sea coast.

"So here's the problem: 'From Georgia, the oil would be loaded 
into tankers and shipped across the Black Sea toward Europe. This 
would not only deny billions of dollars in potential revenue to 
Turkey, a U.S. ally, but would mean a sharp increase in oil tanker 
traffic through the narrow Bosporus, which Turkey strenuously 
opposes.'

"The solution to this problem is obvious: an oil pipeline through 
the Balkans, specifically, through Bulgaria, Macedonia, and 
Albania. Thus the need for the region to come under a NATO 
protectorate. The same article makes clear that the stakes are 
high: 'The Caspian Region has emerged as the world's newest stage 
for big-power politics. It not only offers oil companies the 
prospect of great wealth, but also provides a stage for high-
stakes competition among world powers.

"'This grand rivalry has begun with an intense competition for 
control over pipeline routes that will carry the Caspian oil to 
foreign markets. Much depends on the outcome, because these 
pipelines will not simply carry oil, they will also define new 
corridors of trade and power.

"'The nation or alliance of nations controlling the pipeline 
routes could hold sway over the Caspian region for decades to 
come.'"

-- a friend in the East.



MIM responds: We thank this reader for his/her letter which adds 
to the case of why Amerika wants hegemony in Yugoslavia. This 
information is not at odds with the article the reader is 
responding to but instead expands on the importance of the region 
to the imperialists. While we agree with our readers who argue 
that oil is a big part of the attack on Serbia, we also see the 
need for stability in that region at this time to also be a big 
motivating factor although this reader is correct to point out (as 
the article s/he is discussing did also) that at other times 
instability is just as important an imperialist tool.

This letter writer exaggerates the stability in the former 
Yugoslavia that existed before U.S. and German imperialist 
intervention. There has been no imperialist-free stability in 
Yugoslavia any time this century and Balkan capitalism is plenty 
unstable itself, like capitalism everywhere.

Many seek to overemphasize geopolitical aspects of conflict. They 
argue that if U.$. imperialism is attacking, the old Soviet Union 
must be socialist; China must be socialist if they needed to 
attack that embassy and Yugoslavia must have had stability. We 
Marxists need to keep our eyes on the mode of production, not just 
geopolitics. Yugoslavia cannot be stable under capitalism. 
Although oil is important, the comrade asks a question about 
Yugoslavia that should be asked about oil as well. Why Yugoslavia 
and not some other country?

There is oil all over the world. Much is under Russian or Chinese 
control. As explained elsewhere, when Russia sent oil to Belgrade 
via sea, NATO backed down from enforcing an embargo.

It cannot be a matter of dispute anymore that Bush and Clinton 
have both sought the "New World Order." Clinton sent troops to not 
just Bosnia, but also Haiti and Somalia. In the case of Somalia, 
the stated intention was again humanitarian. 

Now when the U.S. withdrew, we can say it was on account of a few 
soldiers killed, a true defeat. On the other hand, what does that 
say about the oil theory? Are we to judge that the sea lane on the 
Horn of Africa bordering the Arabian peninsula is dispensable 
since the troops withdrew? This would be a mistaken and overly 
narrow interpretation, just as there is no oil explanation for the 
Haiti intervention either. 

Clinton has made public apology to Rwanda's people for not 
intervening during the massacres of hundreds of thousands now and 
he points to that failure as a reason for Kosovo. In other words, 
we must accept that U.$. imperialism's strategy is to point to 
humyn rights abuses selectively to impose the "New World Order."

In fact, we agree with Chomsky, that the point is to make an 
aggravated situation worse so as to show to the whole world why 
U.N.-figleaf protected U.S. troops are necessary. If a region 
accepts U.$. penetration without major turmoil compared with 
Kosovo, the imperialists are happy. If not they are fully prepared 
to make things worse and then manipulate global opinion in the 
aftermath. Humanitarianism is an effective cover for generating a 
New World Order, and as such it is not restricted to areas where 
oil is in abundance. 

Bourgeois internationalists are motivated by oil, and since oil is 
to be found outside U.S. borders they take up internationalist 
concerns of their class. However, imperialism is not settling for 
anything less than global control. 

The question of the KLA being a NATO tool or not is secondary. In 
any nation's people there are those who will sell out to the 
imperialists--lackeys, traitors and puppets. If there are some 
Kosovo Albanians who have done so, that is nothing to be surprised 
by. It should be taken for granted.

As a matter of geopolitical opposition to U.$. imperialism, we are 
not going to deny that there is a national question in Kosovo. 
There has been a national question in Kosovo for some time in the 
opinion of communists. (See MIM Notes 184, April 15, 1999, for 
more on this topic.) There is no need to exaggerate the stability 
or ethnic tolerance of pre-imperialist capitalism.