World War III is Planned - And it Has Already Begun

'Security Conference' in Munich

by Karl Müller, Germany

cc. The media are full of rhetoric with which the political elites are trying to sell their ideas for a new world order that will take shape in the 21st century. Americans seek to create what has been called, among others, 'The New American Century', 'The Empire of Democracy', or an international order friendly to their (i.e. American) security, their prosperity, and their principles.

After the horrific attacks against New York and the Pentagon it is much easier to make people understand the need for international stability and security. In order to safeguard and expand these principles, we are told it is necessary to wage war world-wide, as well as subjugate all the unstable Muslim nations to a global economy. These elements, i.e. military campaigns, the aggressive opening of markets in the interest of a few Western transnational corporations, and the establishment of proxy regimes or protectorates, are sold as necessary means to create international peace, security, democracy and prosperity.

Both the EU's long-term strategy (global governance through UN institutions) as well as America's striving for hegemony have little to do with the complex regulatory principles that humanity has developed in its struggle to safeguard and protect freedom, peace and human dignity: democracy, self-determination, social justice and the peaceful settlement of conflicts.

The rhetoric employed by the speakers at this year's 'Security Conference' in Munich, which took place on 2/3 February, cannot conceal that these terms are redefined to serve this imperialistic ideology and that facts speak a different language. The conference was dominated by speakers from the US: Senators Joseph Lieberman (Democrat, Connecticut) and John McCain (Republican, Arizona) as well as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. Their mission was, obviously, to get the audience attuned to the coming world war.

The following article summarises and comments on key themes in the most important speeches made at this year's annual conference, which was not open to the public and during which all anti-war demonstrations were banned. (The speeches can be found at www.securityconference.de)

US politicians want to 'create a new world'

The US claims leadership in the coming world war. It is not prepared to enter stable coalitions; rather, it will form alliances as it sees fit in each phase of the war. The international community was told, once again, that in this war neutrality was no option. States world-wide could only fight alongside the US, otherwise they would be considered America's enemy. Senator Joseph Lieberman explicitly referred to a world war: 'The Cold War ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. The Post-Cold War world ended on September 11th, 2001. On that date we began a world war against terrorism which directly responds to the newest global challenge to the swift spread of freedom-extremist Islamic terrorism.' Lieberman described the coming war by drawing parallels to World War II.

Senator John McCain spoke of the 'exist-ence of Al-Qaida cells in ... over 60 nations around the world...'. He made clear that when the US declared war against its enemies, this was no rhetoric. 'Ask the Taliban,' he said. According to Senator McCain, the US has 'a mandate' to wage this war which will not only target the 'global terrorist network' but also any state that makes possible terrorist operations, as well as 'rogue regimes' possessing or developing weapons of mass destruction. Americans have 'internalised the mantra that Afghanistan represents only the first front' of the war to be fought as a world war, McCain said.

The speeches made one thing crystal clear: as after World War II, but now through a world war, America's elite -in ever more aggressive statements with an ever thinner veneer of liberal values- claims the right to create a new world order. This time round it does so as the world's only superpower who can afford to make true its claim by deploy-ing military means beyond all regulations of international law and by installing oppor-tunist political regimes world-wide. Never before, McCain argued, were the US and its European allies in a better position to 'forge a world order ... backed by our collective military might ... Central to this task is a new American internationalism.'

The reference to the need to tackle the problem of hunger and poverty in the world-as an essential element in the fight against international terrorism-serves as a justification to subjugate all nations to the dictate of globalisation. Lieberman spelled it out: 'That means aggressively encourage Muslim nations to open their economies to a freer flow of goods and services ... their cultures to a livelier flow of information ...their societies to greater human rights ... and their politics to the institutions on which a civil society and democratic governments are based.' In other words, a forced Americanisation of indigenous cultures and the engineering of political regimes according to Western or, rather, American designs and pliable to American political influence.

Turkey as a model for the Islamic world

Although the representatives of the US maintained that the coming war was not directed against the Islamic world as such, the threat was blunt: the only way for Muslim countries to escape military intervention was to develop in the direction of Turkey, 'a loyal friend and ally.'

Turkey, it was argued, was a democracy choosing its leaders in elections, a secular state granting religious tolerance and a coun-try that had been on the right side during the Cold War. Any criticism of Turkey was dismissed. What the speakers did not mention, however, was that Turkey had been systematically driven into financial ruin so that the country is now being drip-fed by the American dominated International Monetary Fund and that Turkey's ruling elite is so corrupt that they have lost all touch with the population's needs, not to mention the country's dire human rights record.

Senator Lieberman urged the Europeans to give up their reservations against Turkey. An ever closer co-operation between the EU and Turkey was in the interest of stabilising Europe's southern flank, the Western Bal-kans (i.e. the protectorates that have been established in that region) and Central Asia. Turkey would, in geo-strategic terms, continue to be an important partner in the coming wars, in particular the war against Iraq which is imminent.

No criticism of Putin's policy

There was not a single critical remark about the political situation in Russia. Instead, it was emphasised how important it was to bring Russia into closer co-operation with NATO and the EU. Since September 11th, the partnership or, perhaps more aptly, the chumminess with Russia has deepened. No mention was made of human rights violations in Russia, the de-facto end to the freedom of the press, the brutal oppression of Chechnia or the increasingly miserable conditions in which the majority of Russians have to lead their lives.

Re-interpretation of the North-Atlantic Treaty

On a verbal level, American unilateralism was dismissed. The transatlantic partnership, how-ever, is clearly asymmetric. More than ever before, the US insists on its role as leader. The so-called 'partners', for instance in NATO, are to carry out the tasks assigned to them by the US, such as providing occupation troops ('peacekeeping troops') or bankrolling the reconstruction of countries after they have been destroyed by the US. In accordance with the plan to wage a global war, Article 5 of the North-Atlantic Treaty is being redefined: collective defence from now on means military intervention across the globe. The interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo heralded this new international policy. Now, with the war in Afghanistan, 'half a world away from the US', it has become even more manifest. McCain, for instance, explained why Aghanistan provides a model for the coming wars: 'the success of air power, combined with Special Operations forces working together with indigenous opposition forces in waging modern war' - although, he conceded, 'more American boots on the ground may be required ... in the future, ... and such commit-ment might entail higher casualties than we have suffered in Afghanistan.' Or, as Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz put it: 'the best defense is a good offense.'

Blank cheque for Russia and China to persecute ethnic minorities?

The Russian defense secretary, Sergey Ivanov, and China's Vice Foreign Minister Yi Wang used the forum to justify what they tried to sell as their own 'fight against ter-rorism': the relentless persecution of ethnic groups striving for independence. China's representative set accents which implied some criticism of American foreign policy, but did not offer an alternative to war and power politics. He argued that the UN, above all the Security Council, should be the prime mover in the fight against terrorism. This does not come as a surprise as China is one of the Security Council's Permanent Members and seeks to exert influence on international politics through this body. To preempt any criticism of China's dictatorial regime, the Chinese Vice Foreign Minister pointed to the importance of the co-existence of different social models. Perhaps with the American debate in mind-Huntington and his theory of the clash of civilisations-, he empha-sised that the Chinese fight against terrorism was not a struggle between different ethnic groups, religions or cultures.

Europe to increase arms spending

British NATO Secretary General George Robertson pointed out the vital role NATO has as 'the world's most effective military organisation'. 'NATO is not only a part of the campaign against terrorism-it is an essen-tial part'. He added that 'American critics of Europe's military incapability are right.' Apart from spending more on arms, European NATO members would have to modernise their defence, and America ought to facilitate this process 'by easing unnecessary restric-tions on technology transfer and industrial cooperation.' Otherwise 'the gap between American forces on the one hand and European and Canadian forces on the other will be unbridgeable. For Washington, the choice could become: act alone or not at all.'

Wage war and limit civil rights

The German hosts, CDU leader Angela Merkel, CSU leader Edmund Stoiber and SPD defence minister Rudolf Scharping agreed that Germany ought to get more involved in future wars and that the EU rapid deployment force should be ready for action as soon as possible. Above all, it was pointed out that more money was needed for the army because it was not enough to prevent wars, it was also essential to be in a position to wage wars. The party leaders of the CDU and CSU demanded that military decisions be transferred from the individual countries to the EU. What would that mean?-That the last vestiges of democratic control would be lost. Merkel indeed complained that the German parliament has the right to decide on any deployment of the German army abroad. She suggested passing a new law that would enable the government to decide on military operations swiftly without asking parliament, a growing necessity in the future. Her statement concerning constitutional rights, questioning a more than 200 year-old achievement, was revealing. According to the CDU politician this was about 'finding a new bal-ance between liberal, civil rights on the one hand, and protective and security measures for the citizens on the other hand.'

nr. 200 years ago Francisco Goya painted a picture with the title: 'The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters'. Goya had witnessed the wars and the oppression that Napoleon had spread throughout Europe. Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, there are again plans to plunge mankind into the abyss of a world war. That this is not mere fantasy was proved by this year's 'Security Conference' in Munich.

If what has been alleged is true, nineteen terrorists, armed with simple knives, brought about the catastrophe of September 11 in New York and Washington. US President Bush, who shortly after the attacks increased the defence budget by billions of dollars, has now announced that attacks like those of September 11 will be countered by increasing next year's defence budget by another 48 billion dollars. This means that the USA is going to spend $1 billion per day on its army. And if the politicians in Europe have their will, European taxpayers will be faced with a similar development.

What is certain is that attacks like those of September 11 cannot be prevented by such measures. So what is the ultimate aim? Why plunge the world in a dreadful war?

A world to the liking of the 'sole remaining world power'?

American politicians justify the wars using terms like fighting for 'freedom', 'human rights' and 'democracy'. What they actually mean is shaping the world to the liking of the 'sole remaining world power' and exploiting the rest of the world more or less unscrupu-lously, according to their status in the hierar-chy of their vassals.

Do not let yourself be deceived when it is said that the war against terror includes the fight against hunger and poverty. As was made clear by US Senator Lieberman: Fighting against poverty means opening all coun-tries' economies to globalization. Even in the US itself, people are starving, and millions of Americans no longer know how to make a living. More and more people in the US are forced to have two or more jobs and to work 15 hours or more per day, often under degrading circumstances. Is this war really being waged for their freedom, their human rights, and their democratic rights?

And what about aid for those peoples of the world that are kept in poverty? In spite of all the rhetoric development aid has been reduced continually in the past decade. The planned increase in US defence spending equals the development aid spent annually world-wide. A current event illustrates the sincerity of offers of help, regardless of whether they have been made by right- or left-wing war-mongers: British Prime Minister Tony Blair, with his Trotskyite background, described the current state of poverty in Africa at the onset of the Afghanistan campaign as 'a scar on our consciences'. Shortly after that, Britain sold far too large a military air surveillance system to poverty-stricken Tanzania, when the country would have required a civil air surveillance system instead. The reason Mr Blair gave for this controversial deal was 'to secure jobs in the UK'.

On the evening of 1 February we asked people in Munich's Marienplatz what they thought about the ban on demonstrations and the aggressive appearance of the police. Many German citizens were outraged. One of them said: 'It is a shame that our constitutional rights are being diminished more and more.'-There is still time to resist and to stand up to this war.