Following the recent fearful attacks on the USA, our sympathies go out to the people involved, for the loss of life and the suffering, inflicted not only on US citizens but people from over 40 other nations who worked in the World Trade Center. Not only those who lived and worked near the sites, but many more people throughout the States, will be affected long term by imagining the nightmare of being trapped in a burning, collapsing skyscraper.
At the forefront of minds will be the thought of how to stop this happening again. To do that we must try to understand this form of 'terrorism' because, unless we do, it will be impossible to stop. In our grief and horror, we must remember the millions of people around the globe who have died, or are dying, in other wars and conflicts. Many of these are supported or not acknowledged by the US and the UK. In Iraq, 5,000 children a month are dying as a result of sanctions imposed since the Gulf War. In Palestine, people live permanently in poverty stricken refugee camps; are denied healthcare and education, have seen their houses bulldozed before them and are in constant fear of bombardment.
In the last decade the gap between the rich and poor, both within the US and the UK, and across the world has grown. In the USA itself one in five children is estimated to live in poverty. In Africa, this year, 17 countries face food emergencies, according to an official United Nations report. This means not just where people will be hungry, but that they will die from starvation.
What have the rich countries of the US and the UK been doing in those years where the gap between the rich and the poor in the world has widened? They have been building up weapon systems, nuclear arsenals and the NATO military alliance. One example, would be the Trident nuclear-armed submarines, integrated into NATO, of which the US has a fleet of 18 and the UK has 4, circling the globe Each sub can carry up to 48 warheads, each warhead is 100 kilotons of killing power. The bomb at Hiroshima was 15 kilotons and killed and maimed a quarter of a million people has at least 4,000 times the killing power of the Hiroshima bomb. Britain pays over £1.5 billion pounds annually of public money to pay for this US nuclear system (the missiles are totally US, the warheads are made in Britain); while our social services scrabble for funds. NATO, dominated by the US, still has a policy of nuclear deterrence and maintains seven nuclear armed US bases across western Europe. The total military budget of all 19 countries is over $300 billion. In the fiscal year 2002, the US military budget is likely to reach the, almost unbelievable, figure of $375 billion. What security does any of this gross expenditure bring?
The USA, not satisfied with trying to dominate land, sea and air, now wants to develop the militarisation of space. They have started with National Missile Defense, dubbed the 'Son of Star Wars'. This is the system in which, supposedly, the USA, can knock out incoming missiles from the 'rogue'states, which were recently re-named the 'states of concern', that is North Korea, Iraq, Iran and Libya. In addition, with less publicity, Theatre Missile Defense, that is regional missile defense, say for Europe or South Asia, is being pursued. All these developments of the multi-layered ballistic missile defense systems will lead ultimately to weapons in space. If the US and its allies share tracking systems, it would form a global system - not for defense but to impose US power from anywhere around the planet.
The determined US government pursuit of NMD contradicts the statements of the US and the UK and the western states who hold nuclear weapons - and vast nuclear arsenals - that they want to prevent nuclear proliferation. In fact, their continued development of nuclear weapon systems has contributed to other states boasting of their own nuclear weapons capability. Ballistic missile defense also means that the nuclear weapon states own theory of 'nuclear deterrence' has now evaporated. But what the US government refuses to acknowledge is that by trying to establish complete global military power over land, sea, air and now space, it is massively causing world de-stabilisation. China has now been provoked into more missile development; Russia too has given up its no first strike policy.
Now after the events of September 11th even calling this system, National Missile Defense, seems to define military absurdity. As peace activists have so often warned recently NMD would save no-one from the determined terrorist. And so, alas, it has proved.
WHY?
Why is the US seeking to push deploying these massive expensive systems? One reason must be for global power and power over resource. As George Kennan said in 1950, "We should cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratisation. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better." Fifty years later, they ride on, undeterred in their arrogance. The US Space Command Vision for 2020 states clearly, it is for "dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment".
WHO IS BEHIND ALL OF THIS?
For many years the power of the defense contractors has been growing. Back in 1986, in a book entitled Space Weapons, Rip Bulkely and Graham Spinardi forecast that, "the SDI (SDI Strategic Defense Initiative, the forerunner of NMD launched under President Reagan) would be a "growth market". They stated, "At the start of 1986 one investment consultant estimated SDI expenditure to 1989 at $17 billion, but also pointed out that 'SDI is one of the handful of space -related business opportunities that holds pay-off in the short term.' " "All current estimates", the authors continued, "apply only to initial research and development. The 'real' money or 'gigabucks' as corporation strategists call it, would come with any decision to seek deployment'" As TRW, a major defense contractor then, and now, stated in 1986, "We're standing on the rung of a defense development that will last for the next 20 years." And if President Bush and his Defense Contracting Government get their way, 20 years later, the predictiion will have come true.
The phrase, 'the power behind the throne' would seem to apply to the military industrial complex in the USA. But the phrase would now seem to be superseded. The large defense contractors - Boeing, Lockheed Martin, TRW, Raytheon, are not just working 'hand in glove' with the administration; they are the government.
To explain, let us look at one or two senior members of government. Take Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State for Defense. He has intertwined through his career government service, investment banking and corporate management. In 1997 he became Chair of the Commission on the Ballistic Missile Threat to the US of A. They concluded a year later that the threat was "broader and is evolving more rapidly than has been reported by the intelligence community" (whoops what were the CI?A doing?!). At a later stage they concluded that "war in space in inevitable" and that the "US must not sign any treaties which prevent weapons in space". The Rumsfeld Commission, as it is known, however, is larded with directors of defense contracting companies. For example, there is Admiral Jeremiah (sic) USN Retired. He has directorships galore: the military manufacturers Grumman, Northrop Alliant Technologies and including the defense research centres such as the Mitre Corporation which actually authored the US weapons in space document, 'Vision 2020'. As they say Stateside, 'neat.'
Take Bruce Jackson. He is a Vice president of Lockheed Martin, and was also Chair of the Committee to Expand NATO. One of his most famous quotes was "I wrote the Republican Foreign Policy Platform". Lockheed Martin have given $391,000 to the Republican Party since 1998.
Take Stephen Hadley, He is Deputy National Security Adviser and a former partner in Shea and Gardner whose main client was Lockheed Martin. He has been pushing Star Wars for more than a decade.
COSTS
The whole Star Wars system would cost the US dear; more accurately, it will cost its people dear. $100 billion dollars for NMD is one estimate just as a beginning.. No country who joins in will be spared expense. If Britain joins in this farce called 'defense', it would have to pay out too. If a country decided on a land-based battery of 20 missile launchers it would be likely to cost £17.8 billion. Then of course there is the cost of protecting the US bases from protesters - but more importantly, terrorists.
The Europeans militarists are also driving for their own part in 'Star Wars' and the militarisation of space. The European Union wants to take over the European Space Agency, previously an autonomous agency, so that it too can take on work for the military as well as the civil sector.
MILITARY ACADEMIC/INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
Then there is the insidious involvement of what has been called the military academic complex. In Yorkshire, in Britain, in a town which has lost a massive number of jobs since the closure of the coal pits, Rotherham, there has been opened the Aerospace Manufacturing Research Centre, a joint scheme between Sheffield University and Boeing Corporation- with £15million put in initially from Boeing. Boeing will be the largest recipient of money from the whole NMD programme. The Vice Chancellor of Sheffield University said at the launch, "We are delighted to sign up with Boeing". The press release said that the centre will being looking at the development of materials technology to improve the efficiency of defense aircraft. Boeing will be the largest recipient of money from the whole NMD programme.
WHAT HAS CHANGED FOLLOWING SEPTEMBER 11TH?
William Hartung of the World Policy Institute wrote, "Within days of the Sep 11 Attacks, congress passed a $40 billion emergency spending package - half for reconstruction, half for combatting terrorism. But the biggest beneficiaries of this generosity will not be the families of the victims of the communities that bore the brunt of the attacks: they will be the giant weapon contractors like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace writing in the Boston Globe said, "some are using the tragedy to justify their existing programs, slapping an 'anti-terrorism' label on missile defense and across-the board-budget increases." William Hartung stated, "In the short term, the Bush administrations's misguided missile defense scheme stands to gain most from the new pro-military mood on Capitol Hill. Although the Sep 11 attack underscored one of the central arguments made by missile defense critics -that the US faces a more immediate threat from comparatively low-tech terrorist attacks than it does from long-range ballistic missiles - an initial $1.3 billion allocation sailed through Congress last week."
Another area, and region, where, plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. Weapons sales will be accelerated to the Middle East and South Asia. For example, Lockheed Martin F-16s will be on their way to Oman and the UAE and a Lockheed multiple Launch Rocket System to Egypt.
As William Hartung says, "If runaway Pentagon spending isn't headed off soon, the funds, energy and attention needed for a more intelligent approach to preventing terrorism will be siphoned off into a narrowly focused military effort that is likely to do far more harm than good".
THE LESSONS WHICH SHOULD BE LEARNED
If the US is truly serious about wanting to stop 'terrorism', then it must look to its priorities in foreign policy. Just as in some areas it is now urging a ceasefire in the Middle East, just for once it should change its policy of 'Do as I say and not as I do'. A start could be made by stopping the (unauthorised by the UN) the regular almost daily bombings of Iraq which have continued through September 01, despite the US calling for a Middle East ceasefire between Israel and Palestine.
The US should start to respect the views of the United Nations and not seek to dominate it for its own ends. The US government should be concerned to show even-handedness in supporting UN Resolutions and respect International Humanitarian Law. A further move could be to start in earnest negotiations for work at the UN Conference on Disarmament for positive moves to bring about a global ban on nuclear weapons.
There should be an absolute cease-development on Ballistic Missile Defense and weapons on space.
There should be a massive shift of money and resource to welfare not warfare. One and a half billion people do not have access to safe drinking water. But there is the technology ready and available for that provision. It does not need billions of dollars or pounds for research or development. It could be done - the governments should listen to the United Nations and voluntary agencies act on the recommendations on debt relief.. That is where people's security lies. We need welfare before warfare.
Globalisation - the spread internationally of power of the multinationals -is as strong in the defense industry as in the food and clothing or oil industries. It is deadly dangerous, because it provides the military backing for US global power. Moreover at the same time the world's resources are increasingly being appropriated by the rich nations of the 'north', while the peoples of the 'south' grow poorer and more desperate. In the end this will not mean safety and security for the rich; they will not be able to live in tranquillity. Desperate people will turn to those who appear to be breaking a hated system of oppression. The US Empire cannot continue. Peace and social justice are indivisible
Rae Street, October 2001