[PEN-L:6250] Re: Why Nato needs to destroy Serbia

[Ken Hanly <khanly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Why is  it that with the West locked in an intractable economic crisis, stock
markets set new records from day to day? For countries such as the US and
Canada there doesn't seem to
be any huge economic crisis. Shouldn't it be the Asian tigers expanding into
Eastern Europe )
I really don't think expansion of NATO is an
out of desperation so much as simply the standard tendency to seek new areas
for investment and
ensure that socialism cannot rear its ugly head again in former communist
states and of course for NATO to find a new role for itself before someone
suggests it be disbanded. Enter the lead Global Cowboy
Clinton ready to ride herd on all the restive cattle in the Balkans with eager
little doggy Blair running around
yapping and the whole NATO gang nipping at the heels of any of the restive herd
who should balk at being forced into the great corral run by the IMF and World
Bank,.
   Cheers, Ken Hanly

> >I don't quite get the connection here between economic stagnation in
> >Western Europe and bombing Belgrade. What do you think it is?
> >
> >Doug
>
> Final paragraphs of Sean Gervasi's "Why Nato is in Yugoslavia", at:
> http://www.mclink.it/assoc/fondpasti/nato/gerv-e.htm
>
> When closely considered, the proposal to extend NATO eastward is not just
> dangerous. It also seems something of a desperate act. It is obviously
> irrational, for it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. It can lead to a
> second Cold War between the NATO powers and Russia, and possibly to nuclear
> war. It must be assumed that no one really wants that.
>
> Why, then, would the NATO countries propose such a course of action? Why
> would they be unable to weigh the dangers of their decision objectively?
>
> Part of the answer is that those who have made this decision have looked at
> it in very narrow terms, without seeing the larger context in which NATO
> expansion would take place. When one does look at the larger context, the
> proposal to expand NATO is obviously irrational.
>
> Consider the larger context. NATO proposes to admit certain countries in
> Central Europe as full members of the alliance in the near future. Other
> East European countries are being considered for later admission. This
> extension has two possible purposes. The first is to prevent "the failure
> of Russian democracy", that is, to ensure the continuation of the present
> regime, or something like it, in Russia. The second is to place NATO in a
> favorable position if a war should ever break out between Russia and the
> West.
>
> In an age of nuclear weapons, pursuing the second purpose is perhaps even
> more dangerous than it was during the years of the Cold War, since there
> are now several countries with nuclear weapons which would potentially be
> ranged against NATO. The argument that NATO should be expanded eastward in
> order to ensure the West an advantage in the event of a nuclear war is not
> a very convincing one. And it would certainly not be convincing to Central
> European countries if it were openly spoke of. Those would be the countries
> most likely to suffer in the first stages of such a war. Their situation
> would be similar to that of Germany during the Cold War, as the German
> antiwar movement began to understand in the 1980s.
>
> The main purpose of expanding NATO, as almost everyone has acknowledged, is
> to make sure that there is no reversal of the changes which have taken
> place in Russia during the last five years. That would end the dream of a
> three-part Europe united under the capitalist banner and close a very large
> new space for the operation of Western capital. A NATO presence in Central
> and Eastern Europe is simply a means of maintaining new pressure on those
> who would wish to attempt to change the present situation in Russia.
>
> However, as has been seen, this also means locking Russia, and other
> countries of the CIS, into a state of underdevelopment and continuous
> economic and social crisis in which millions of people will suffer
> terribly, and in which there is no possibility of society seeking a path of
> economic and social development in which human needs determine economic
> priorities.
>
> What is horribly ironic about this situation is the Western countries are
> offering their model of economic organization as the solution to Russia's
> problems. The realist analysts, of course, know perfectly well that it is
> no such thing. They are interested only in extending Western domination
> further eastward. And they offer their experience as a model for others
> only to beguile. But the idea that "the transition to democracy", as the
> installation of market rules is often called, is important in the world
> battle for public opinion. It has helped to justify and sustain the
> policies which the West has been pursuing toward the countries of the CIS.
>
> The Western countries themselves, however, are locked in an intractable
> economic crisis. Beginning in the early 1970s, profits fell, production
> faltered, long-term unemployment began to rise and standards of living
> began to fall. There were, of course, the ups and downs of the business
> cycle. But what was important was the trend. The trend of GDP growth in the
> major Western countries has been downward since the major recession of
> 1973-1975. In the United States, for instance, the rate of growth fell from
> about 4 per cent per year in the 1950s and the 1960s, to 2.9 per cent in
> the 1970s and then to about 2.4 per cent in the 1980s. Current projections
> for growth are even lower.
>
> The situation was not very different in other Western countries. Growth was
> somewhat faster, but unemployment was significantly higher. The current
> rates of unemployment in Western Europe average about 11 per cent, and
> there is more unemployment hidden in the statistics as a result of various
> government pseudoemployment plans.
>
> Both Western Europe and North America have experienced a prolonged economic
> stagnation. And capitalist economies cannot sustain employment and living
> standards without relatively rapid growth. In the 25 years after the second
> world war, most Western countries experienced rapid growth, on the order of
> 4 and 5 per cent per year. It was that growth which made it possible to
> maintain high levels of employment, the rise in wages and the advance of
> living standards. And there is no doubt that, in the postwar period, the
> Western countries made great advances. Large numbers of working class
> people were able to achieve decent living standards. The middle and upper
> classes prospered, indeed, many of them reached a standard of living which
> can only be called luxurious.
>
> The postwar honeymoon, however, is clearly over. The great "capitalist
> revolution" touted by the Rockefellers is no more. "Humanized capitalism"
> is no more. Declining growth has now returned us to the age of "le
> capitalisme sauvage". It has triggered economic and socil crisis in every
> Western country. It is undermining the principal achievements of the
> postwar period. In Europe, the Welfare state has been under attack for
> fifteen years by those who would shift the burden of crisis onto the
> shoulders of the less fortunate. In the United States, a relatively meagre
> "social net" to protect the poor is now being shredded by the aggressive
> and ignorant defenders of corporate interests, whò also want to be sure
> that those who can least afford it bear the brunt of the system's crisis of
> stagnation.
>
> The West, then, is itself locked in crisis. This is not a transient crisis
> or a "long cycle", as academic apologists would have it. It is a systemic
> crisis. The market system can no longer produce anything like prosperity.
> The markets which drove the capitalist economy in the postwar period,
> automobiles, consumer durables, construction, etc. are all saturated, as
> sheaves of government statistics in every country demonstrate. The system
> has not found new markets which could create an equivalent wave of
> prosperity. Moreover, the acceleration of technical progress in recent
> years has begun to eliminate jobs everywhere at a staggering rate. There is
> no possible way of compensating for its effect, for creating new employment
> in sufficient quantity and at high wage levels.
>
> Government and industry leaders in the West are fully aware of the
> situation in one sense. They know what the statistics are. They know what
> the problems are. But they are not able to see that the source of the
> problem is the fact that, having achieved very high levels of production,
> income and wealth, the present capitalist system has nowhere to go.
> Half-way solutions could be found, but Western leaders are unwilling to
> make the political concessions which they would require. In particular, the
> large concentrations of capital in Western countries are led by people who
> are constitutionally incapable of seeing that something fundamental is
> wrong. That would require them to agree to the curtailing of their power.
>
> Therefore, the leaders of government and industry drive blindly on, not
> wishing to see, not prepared to accept policies that might set the present
> system on a path of transition to some more rational and more human way of
> organizing economic life. It is this blindness, grounded in confusion and
> fear, which has clouded the ability of Western leaders to think clearly
> about the risks of extending NATO into Eastern Europe. The Western system
> is experiencing a profound economic, social and political crisis. And
> Western leaders apparently see the exploitation of the East as the only
> large-scale project available which might stimulate growth, especially in
> Western Europe.
>
> They are therefore prepared to risk a great deal for it. The question is:
> will the world accept the risks of East-West conflict and nuclear war in
> order to lock into one region economic arrangements which are already
> collapsing elsewhere?
>
> Louis Proyect
>
> (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)