Home > APISC 2002 |
Militarism Underpins 'Globalization'
By Frank Pascual
The following presentation opened the plenary, "Globalisation and militarism in Asia". Frank Pascual is the Executive Director of the Philippines Resource Centre for People's Development and Member, International Coordinating Committee and Coordinator of the International Secretariat, International South Group Network (ISGN).
"Is there a military aspect of ‘globalization’?" The answer of course is yes, there is.
In the current discourse, "globalization" is not usually linked to a politico-military aspect; it is often referred to an economic phenomenon impelled by purely "economic forces" and is independent of politico-military forces. The driving forces to this phenomenon are allegedly the market and high technology among others. Moreover, the end of the cold war paves the way for the process of "globalization" to go on unhampered through the simple operation of some obviously mythical "economic laws."
"Globalization" – the so called "inevitable integration of the world economy" – is underpinned by force without which it would stop dead on its track. This is not usually recognized and, in fact, deliberately left out in the discourse because the "theory of globalization" deliberately excludes the political and military contexts; and abstracts economic phenomena from the existing international power relations.
Globalization as an economic process
In the sense that there is a historical process of "integration" of the world economy under the dominant economic system, "globalization" is not new. In the past 500 years, colonial conquest brought the distant countries into the orbit of the expanding world economy not to mention of earlier epochs of the conquest of backward by the more advanced civilizations.
Colonial conquest was driven by economic imperatives of the dominant order. Plunder of distant lands is clearly the result of the insatiable greed for wealth of the feudal nobility. Under capitalism the control of raw materials and of distant markets fueled the conquest of colonies. We are of course aware of the nature of capitalism, which conquers the globe in search of profits.
Colonial conquest was driven by economic imperatives and accomplished by military means. Likewise, neo-colonialism is underpinned by force notwithstanding its benevolent facade of granting political independence to the former colonies.
In contrast, the proponents of the "theory of globalization" insist that its imperatives and driving force are purely "economic" and is the inevitable result of certain "economic laws." The era of "globalization" is made to be a qualitatively different era from earlier periods of colonialism and neo-colonialism. History has ended, so they say. The market and the high degree of development of technology among other economic forces supposedly impel "globalization" in a way that it becomes inevitable.
Of course we know that the so-called "free market" and the "level playing field" are myths, that at the international level markets are neither free nor fair. It is controlled by monopolies. Witness the rise of gigantic mergers in every major line of industry while markets are forced open and national boundaries are brought down.
What about technology, is it the driving force behind the economic integration? Has the high level of development technology made "globalization" possible if not inevitable? Technology by any reckoning is not the driving force behind "globalization" although it facilitates the latter. The application of high technology in the processes of production enables corporations to automate production, lay off workers, transfer labor intensive processes to the low-waged economies of the third world while keeping their monopoly of core industrial processes in their home countries. Of course the application of high technology in production and the modern means of communication facilitate this division of the production process.
The fact is that globalization is driven by the profit motive. In the latter part of the 18th century and the early part of the 19th century, investment of surplus capital in foreign countries from the industrial countries was even larger as a percentage of GDP than it is today. This surge was the result of high returns on foreign investments during that period. Today foreign investments go to third world countries to take advantage of cheap labor, favorable investment climate (e.g., tax holidays, suppression of core workers rights), and to penetrate the local market. In short, foreign direct investment, a key aspect of "globalization" is driven by high rates of returns.
This is not to say that "globalization" has no specific features. "Globalization" while being driven by the basically unchanged unequal relations in the world economy, has specific characteristics on account of the specific needs of capital in the present period. The process of production is certainly socialized to a very degree higher than at anytime in the past periods of history. Production processes are dispersed throughout the globe. High technology is applied extensively. Informatics and genetic engineering are at the cutting edge of the development of the process of production. There is increased mobility of capital, which exploits the limited labor mobility and the cheap labor of national markets.
But the fundamental processes underlying the international capitalist economy remain the same. "Globalization" is not a qualitatively different process from 19th and 20th century capitalism; the same imperatives of profit accumulation, ever expanding markets for an ever growing accumulation drives the "globalization" of the international economy.
In essence "globalization" is the process of further penetration of capital into the economies of the South. This imperative stems from the unprecedented accumulation of capital on the one hand and the shrinking markets on the other hand. The forcible opening of the national markets of the third world countries must therefore be seen in the light of this crisis of capital. Globalization is a smokescreen for opening up markets for both goods and capital in an attempt to avert this crisis.
The Ideological Blinders
Clearly "globalization" is a process that is driven by class forces. As it was in all other systems of economic exploitation in the past, the "globalization" scheme has its own ideological justification. Moreover, it is underpinned by political mechanisms of control in which the modern state is the key element. It is underpinned by force. More of the political and military aspects as we go on but first let us just go over briefly the ideological means of control.
The first of the ideological blinders is the concept of "globalization." In a clever manipulation of economic reality, "globalization" is presented as if it was a process independent of vested economic interests and class forces. It is allegedly the result of independent forces in the economy, of the development of technology, of the invisible hand of the market, which punishes the inefficient and rewards the efficient. This theory does not help us understand the internal workings of the economy. Rather than clarify, it actually blurs the internal contradictions that cause its periodic crisis. "Free market," and " free trade," etc., are treated as dogmas that are inherently good for everyone. Hence, they become ends in themselves.
Take the assumption of many including those who oppose "globalization" that there is an absolute need for "international rules of trade" and what only needs to be done is to ensure that these are not only "free" but "fair." But world trade has been growing in spite even the WTO was established in 1994. Moreover, these rules cannot exist outside of, and must be seen in the context of present power relations. In the context of the present world economy "free markets" means just the opposite – markets controlled by monopolies.
Another blinder is the concept of democracy and good governance. Elite democracy and especially the American type is considered the appropriate political shell for "free markets" and "free trade." The restoration of formal democratic rights in third world countries paves the creation of and the conditions for the development of "free markets." But the formal democratic processes provide a smoke screen for the essential lack of it by the majority of citizens. Within the bounds of these formal democratic processes, protests are canalized into safe channels, contained within safe bounds so that the system is not imperiled.
Ideological control is effected among other things by control of the mass media and facilitated by modern means of communication. Consider how the whole world is being treated everyday, hour by hour, to the spectacle of the mighty American war machine pounding and routing the "evil forces" of the Taliban portraying civilian casualties and massive displacement of whole populations as necessary consequence of the war against "evil." We are seeing the war and the world the way George W. Bush and Tony Blair want us to see them -- courtesy of the "free press" of the USA and UK.
The ideological justification serves the political and military forms of control. The structures of "globalization" are far more developed today than in earlier periods of history. There has evolved very powerful regulatory bodies of globalization exercising unprecedented level of control over the world economy. But on top of this, the military forces of the US are even more spread out at present than during the years of the cold war to preempt any challenge to the international order.
The G7 States and the Regulatory Mechanisms of 'Globalization'
As regulatory bodies in the service of "globalization" the WTO and the IMF/WB have evolved into very powerful bodies to serve the needs of transnational capital. These institutions have arrogated unto them unprecedented power over the world economy. These powers that are directed against the sovereign states of the Third World, forcing these to implement Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) that wreak havoc on whole economies. They bring economic hardships to practically whole populations but especially peasants, workers and women who are doubly oppressed.
Today the IMF/WB and the WTO are the symbols of the predatory and destructive neo-liberal policies the world over. Hence, they present themselves as the most visible targets of the international movement against "globalization." Together with the regular meetings of the G7, the activities of the IMF/WB and the WTO have become occasions for massive protest actions against "globalization" and its major components.
The IMF/WB were initially built upon a specific mandate limited to providing financial assistance to countries experiencing temporary balance of payment deficits. But through five decades of their existence these multilateral finance institutions have evolved into powerful regulatory bodies that do not only dictate macro-economic policies but also micro-manage the third world countries. Even before the WTO put into place the trade rules the IMF structural adjustment programs had forced opened the economies of the third world to the further incursion of "transnational" capital.
The WTO further consolidates this control by raising structural adjustments to the level of international law. Unlike the earlier generation of international bodies (e.g. UNCTAD), the WTO is vested with "police powers" and has the power to impose sanctions and other punitive actions against states considered to have violated its trade rules.
But the IMF/WB and the WTO, however much the powers they have acquired, are only regulatory bodies acting for and in behalf of transnational capital and their states. Actual power resides in the imperialist states. We are all familiar with the internal workings of the IMF/WB and the WTO and this does not need elaboration. The US is the biggest stockholders in the IMF and WB and together with the other G7 nations have absolute control over these. The agreements in the WTO are actually dictated by the US, EU, Japan and a few other countries. In short, these institutions are not independent of the US and the G7 states. In fact they (IMF/WB) are at the beck and call of the G7 and US.
In the days of the Asian economic bubble, there were those in the Philippines and elsewhere, who, taken for a ride on the newly industrializing country illusion, put forward the idea that the state is fading away or rendered superfluous by "globalization." They foisted the so-called "institutions of international governance" which actually are instruments of the G7 states, as eroding the powers of the state. They also point to the neo-liberal policies of deregulation, privatization, and liberalization (in short the "withdrawal" of the state from economic intervention) as a proof of the weakening of the state.
This notion of a weakening state is without any basis at all. The state remains most decisive instrument for protecting economic groups and for the implementation of economic program including "globalization. For example, in the economic sphere the state comes to the rescue of big capital when bankruptcy is imminent and as a matter of routine. There is no dearth of examples we can cite from the rescue of Long Term Capital to the airline industry after the September 11 attack or even the growing subsidies to agriculture that is being gobbled up by multi-national corporations in their destructive competition against rival capitals. In the South states nationalize the bad debts of big corporation as a matter of routine to save the profits of the multi-national commercial banks.
The states also fight for their respective capitals in the multilateral trading bodies like the WTO and the regional trade blocs – NAFTA, AFTA, APEC, etc. The US, EU and Japan fight for their own capitals within the WTO as demonstrated by some of the highlighted disputes within the WTO since its establishments – banana, textiles and so on. But they come to a consensus and band together with regards to their conflicts with the South. As far as the South is concerned the economies must be pried wide open for multi-national capital to exploit.
The most important thing, however, is the military power of these states. The military might of the US and its allies is the most important factor that underpin "globalization. Today in spite of the end of the cold war, US military forces are more spread out internationally, employ more sophisticated weaponry, brazenly threaten sovereign countries, and unilaterally wages wars of aggression under various pretexts. This deployment is linked definitely to "globalization" – to the opening up of markets and the protection of American and other investments overseas.
The Deployment of US and Allied Military Forces
One would think that the end of the cold war would logically bring down the level of deployment of US military forces around the world. The fact is that, the US military forces are more spread out today than in the past; that despite the absence of any imminent threat to its security, the US is developing a new generation of weapons including fighter planes and missile "defense" system.
US forces are deployed strategically in various military bases, as well as in the oceans through mobile aircraft carriers and submarines around the world. The US also maintains an arsenal of strategic intercontinental ballistic missiles pre-aimed at targets around the world and maintains a high level of alertness that enables its airforce to strike at targets anywhere in the world within short notice.
In Asia and the Pacific, the US maintains troops in Okinawa, Korea, Guam, Marianas and Diego Garcia. It has military treaties with the Philippines, Taiwan, Indonesia and Pakistan. In spite of the termination of the basing agreement and the pull out of military forces from Clark Air Base and Subic Naval base in the Philippines, US forces have access to Philippine territory through the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). In Europe, US forces form the bulk of the NATO forces and maintain bases in Germany, Turkey etc.
These forward deployments of military forces must be viewed in the context of the stated imperatives of US foreign policy, which remains the same even in the post cold war era. According to the US Department of Defense, "The US National Security Strategy … is based on enlarging the community of market democracies while deterring and containing a range of threat to our nation, our allies and our interests. Focusing on new threats and new opportunities, its central goals are to enhance security by maintaining a strong defense capability and promoting cooperative security measures; to open foreign markets and spur global economic growth and promote democracy abroad." In short, US security strategy is to maintain "defense capability", "to open foreign markets" and "promote democracy."
In the jargon of the US Department of Defense, these are justified in terms of protecting US strategic national interests. Specifically it means providing the security and stability for economic "development," protecting US investments and markets and securing sea lanes and lines of communications that are essential for the transport of critical materials like oil.
Brought down to specific regions of the world this is how deployment in the Asia-Pacific region justified: "The Asia –Pacific region is currently the most economically dynamic region in the world and on that basis alone its security would be critical to America’s future. The prosperity of Asia is, in part, a result of successful American policies that have underwritten Asian security and have underpinned Asia’s economic development. … Asia’s prosperous stability is in turn vital to America’s health and to the world’s security." So the US defense department credits the "success" of the Asian economies to American military hegemony in the region.
At the core of US military strategy in the post cold war era is the projection of its military might. This is achieved through basing agreements with other countries, security agreements that even without bases allow for American access to foreign territories (e.g. VFA) and the forcible deployment of military forces in regions of the world (e.g. Kosovo). This is made clear in the case of Iraq where US forces still control the airspace of Iraq and gained basing rights in Saudi Arabia and in Kosovo where NATO forces remain and intervene in the affairs of the Balkan states even after the avowed military objectives have been achieved. In Afghanistan, US forces are already on the ground setting the stage for the long-term intervention in Central Asia.
Clearly the strategic aim is complete control not only at the world strategic level but also superiority in every possible specific theater of engagement. It is in this light that the build up rather than scaling down of forward military deployment must be understood. The wars in Iraq, Kosovo and now Afghanistan are also conducted not only to achieve the avowed objectives ("stop ethnic cleansing," "destroy weapons of mass destruction", or "fight terrorism") but rather the broader politico-military objective of military superiority in specific regions of the world.
The US 'War against Terrorism'
In the light of US overall objectives it would certainly be naïve to take the US government’s response to the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington at face value. The "war on terrorism" certainly goes far beyond the label the US has put on its latest offensive. It is in fact a politico-military offensive that serves US hegemonic design especially "globalization." It is, therefore, of major importance to the international situation and particularly to the struggle against "globalization."
The Sept 11 attack was far bigger scale than any other single terrorist act committed in recent years, including those that were perpetrated by the CIA, Zionist and other right wing forces. Hence it generated widespread anger on an international scale as well as created political divisions and open political conflicts in many countries.
Capitalizing on the widespread outrage against these terrorist acts, Bush wants to turn the situation into a political bonanza for his administration. He is playing the anti-terrorist paranoia and false "patriotism" to cover up the deepening crisis of the US and the world economy; launch an international "war against terrorism" attack the people and sovereign state of Afghanistan and threaten other countries that are opposed to US designs.
The specific geo-political objective of the war on Afghanistan is the defeat of the Taliban and the installation of a pro-US regime, the projection of US military might and the possible deployment of military forces in the region where American influence is traditionally weak or absent.
The US is now conditioning the minds of the American and other people’s of the world to a long drawn out military intervention in Afghanistan and the region. The war according to Bush is allegedly "not easy and the American people must be patient."
But this offensive is not only about terrorism; it is a façade for forcing the whole US agenda on the peoples of the world including the American people. It includes justifying and putting into place the worst hegemonic designs - from a massive build up of the US war machine to the curtailment of civil liberties of ordinary citizens including the legalization of assassinations by the CIA under the pretext of combating terrorism. Bush claims he has "public support" to push for the worst programs that otherwise would have been opposed by a wide spectrum of the American public and the international community.
Now even with the end of the cold war and the obvious absence of any external threat to the US, Bush wants more military spending. This includes the controversial star wars program originally proposed by Reagan and directed against the then Soviet Union. The biggest defense contract ever (200 billion US$) has been signed by the US government to build a new generation of warplanes. The imperatives of the massive spending have more to do with the reviving the US economy and developing more sophisticated military hardware for US wars of aggression than defense of the US homeland.
New security measures that have been put into place supposedly as a reaction to the Sept 11 attacks and to combat terrorism. But they threaten the civil liberties of American citizens more than it curbs terrorism. This assault on civil liberties and the attendant witch-hunt is directed on a wide range of individuals, groups and organizations that oppose US policies. The US congress has approved the setting up of a new Department of Home Defense with an appropriation of 20 billion US$. A new law allows for the wire-tapping of the telephones of suspected "terrorists." The CIA is pushing that it be explicitly allowed to use some of the most atrocious tricks it has used or is using, like assassinations and torture. It is also pushing for a policy that would allow it to employ criminals in the name of the anti-terrorist campaign.
Even the free trade agenda is taken on board the anti-terrorism bandwagon. The US secretary of trade calls on the international community to use "free trade" to combat terrorism! The new round of WTO negotiations are being justified in the same vein.
More of free trade is allegedly needed to eradicate terrorism! It is obvious that the Sept 11 incidents are being used in every conceivable agenda of US – from the war of aggression to the curtailment of civil liberties to the expansion of the markets for US corporations.
Once more the crisis of the international economy
The Sept 11 attacks and the "war on terrorism" has for sometime now overshadowed the crisis of the economy that was already advanced even before September 11. George Bush and Tony Blair have not only been spared temporarily from a growing criticism for their responsibility for the economic crisis and the negative impact of their neo-liberal policies. They also attempt to undercut the opposition to "globalization" by hollow moves like the restructuring of Pakistan debt to reward for the latter’s subservience to the US and the fantastic claim of "liberation" of Afghan women.
The economic crisis is recoiling on the centers of the world economy. Unlike the last crisis dubbed the Asian crisis, which broke out in the so-called growth areas of Asia before spreading to the former Soviet Union then to South America, the present crisis broke out at the very center of the capitalist system. Japan’s economy has been stagnating for the last decade. Now the US economy is constricting and the most optimistic forecast is that recovery will only come by the end of next year. Indicators show that Germany, the third biggest economy, is also headed for a recession.
There is a crisis of over production in every major line of industry – steel, car manufacturing, computers and electronics, shipbuilding, telecommunications etc. The markets are saturated with goods, there is "weak demand" and prices are falling. Even the biggest corporations are not spared from the crisis. These include the biggest corporations in the major industry lines – computers, steel, airlines car manufacturing etc. "Globalization" cannot prevent the crisis in fact, it aggravates it.
Now government must come to rescue of big capital. 20 billion US$ is needed to save the US airline industry alone. The aeronautics industry is handed over a 200 billion US$ contract (the biggest contract ever) for the next ten years to build a new generation of warplanes. Even agriculture is allocated over 70 billion US$ in fresh money in the next ten years. So much for all the talks about private capital as the engine of the economy, less government intervention and all the neo-liberal crap!
The stock markets are collapsing. The financial bloat and the abuse of financial instruments are hitting the capitalists through this crash. The frenzy for mega-mergers preceding the explosion of the crisis and for control of the global markets could not avert nor mitigate the crisis. In fact these mergers are in a significant way responsible for the bloat that is now bursting. The so-called "cutting edge" of the international economy - the fashionable "dot coms"- proved to be the most vulnerable and the first to fall. This only goes to show that there are limits to the generation of paper profits that bears no relation to the development of production in the physical economy.
As is the standard solution to a crisis, corporations are resorting to massive retrenchments and roll back in the level of production. Workers are being fired from their jobs by the thousands. Wages are cut and welfare benefits are withdrawn as a way of preserving the profits of the capitalist class.
The means of production are left idle on a large scale as corporations reduce production to reduce inventories that have piled up. Today only 70 percent of the productive capacity of the international economy is being utilized. This massive destruction of the means of production is ironically being done in the context of increasing unemployment in the first world countries, the widespread poverty and deepening underdevelopment in the third world and the former socialist countries.
The massive retrenchment of workers, the cut in wages and welfare benefits and in general the cost-cutting schemes of the capitalist only serve to deepen the crisis. They constrict the market further.
The crisis directly impacts and is immediately brought into the economies of the third world and spreads worldwide. The inherent disadvantage of the third world is that of being assigned the specific role as producers of a few agricultural products, production base for labor intensive and low technology processes, and as markets for the surpluses of the industrial economies. Hence, the crisis of the third world economy takes a plunge as demand for their few exports fall, as the transnational corporations cut production due to the crisis in their home markets, and as the latter dump their surpluses in the underdeveloped countries.
Many third world economies are in danger of defaulting on their massive debts – Argentina, Indonesia and Philippines because of falling demand for their exports as well as deteriorating terms of trade. Argentina, now in its third year of a deep recession, is most likely to default. Others may follow. The multilateral as well as commercial banks are worried that this could lead to unilateral declaration of non-payment because of the deteriorating economic condition and thus, undermine the "legitimacy" of the third world debt and the conditions under which they were contracted.
The crisis engenders intense rivalries and trade wars among the various national capitals. They fight over control of the world markets. Bigger and bigger mergers are formed as the competing capitals outmaneuver each other to capture markets, increase the size of capital and monopolize production. In the multilateral trade bodies like the WTO, ASEAN, NAFTA, etc., the few industrial nations exert pressure and resort to arm twisting to influence or force their will in the direction or outcome of the negotiations. While they are one in pushing for further liberalization of the economies of the third world they also fiercely compete against each other.
Once more, the inherent contradictions of capitalism are rudely showing especially the ideologues that "globalization" is a farce. It is not an integration of the world economy neither is its development driven by this integration. It is the penetration of the world economy by monopoly capital to expand and control the markets. But even this unhampered access to the markets of goods and capital cannot avert the inherent crisis of capitalism. As "globalization" intensifies so does the crisis of the global capitalist system.
The Opposition to Globalization
The rational for the "war on terrorism" is wearing thin and the political bonanza is rapidly being spent as the falsity of the US view of terrorism is exposed and as it becomes evident that the "war on terrorism" is a disguise for US hegemonic designs. As the crisis of the economy worsen it will become increasingly difficult for the US every G7 government to hide behind the so-called "war against terrorism" to escape responsibility for the crisis of the "globalizing" world economy.
The Sept 11 attacks and "war against terrorism" only accelerated the economic crisis, which is bound to engender massive protest. There is widespread protest against the US war in Afghanistan despite the seeming advantage of the US in terms of political and military initiative. There are also cracks in the anti-terrorist alliance.
In past several years, the IMF/World Bank, WTO as well as the G7/G8 summit of the heads of states, has been the object of massive and intense protest for their principal responsibility for all the evils of "globalization."
Many third world governments also resent the bullying of the industrial powers. They resent the fact that they are, in fact, excluded from the WTO and other multilateral negotiations. They know that in the new round of negotiations the industrial powers countries are going to force and in the end extract more favorable trade rules for themselves.
It is important for the movement against imperialist globalization to expose US militarism as the main threat to world peace and for underpinning "globalization." US militarism should not be spared the just wrath of the peoples of the world.
The women’s movement is an integral part of the movement against imperialist globalization. Women are oppressed as women, through gender, race and class. Under "globalization" they are even more exploited and oppressed on account of their secondary status. The women’s movement must link up with the movement against imperialist globalization.