Washington Wired for War:
Why Syria Could Spell World Catastrophe
By Finian Cunningham
Global Research, August 1, 2012
URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=32150
When
Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princip fatally shot the heir to the
Austro-Hungarian throne, archduke Franz Ferdinand, in Sarajevo on 28
June 1914, the assassination is seen as the event that ushered in the
First World War. Within a month, the Great Powers of Europe would become
embroiled in a four-year war owing to a web of alliances and treaties:
Russia, France, Britain on the one hand; Germany, Italy, and the
Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires on the other. The US would
eventually enter the maelstrom in April 1917 on the side of Britain and
the Entente allies against the Central Powers.
The eventual death toll was between 10 and 16
million, making it one of the biggest cataclysms in human history. The
war was, of course, not the consequence of a mere single act on that
fateful day in Sarajevo. It was the culmination over many years of
diplomatic and political skirmishing stemming from economic rivalry
between the European capitalist powers. Although some later historians
dispute the role of economics as the determinant, it is hard not to
conclude as many others have done that the First World War was the
classic outcome of imperialist rivalry.
In particular, the then top European power Britain
had long seen the rising star of Germany as its nemesis for the control
of markets and resources. For its part, the newly formed German Empire
arising from the unification of Prussia in 1871 felt that its economic
development was being unfairly thwarted by London.
This latent conflict over resources was underscored
by several concomitant trends at the turn of the 20th century: the
economic decline of Britain compared with the technological powerhouse
of Germany; the “scramble for African colonies”; the encroachment of
German industrialists upon newly discovered Persian oil fields; and the
perceived threat to the eastward trade routes with India – the jewel in
the crown of Britain’s Empire.
The First World War can thus be seen as proof of the
maxim conceived by military theorist Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831)
that “war is but the continuation of politics by other means”. The
political and economic rivalry between Britain and Germany was in that
way a powder keg that exploded into war upon a Serbian spark.
Turning to the present world situation and potential
for conflict, it is likewise incumbent to see the bigger picture beyond
immediate tensions and events. We need to see beyond the trees and
branches in order to survey the entire forest; and not only the forest,
but the historical road that leads up to the forest.
It is also critical for the appreciation of the scope
for war in the present day to accept the premise that the capitalist
economic system is at root “wired for war”. Or as Karl Marx put it: “War
is inherent in capitalism”.
This premise of war as an integral part of capitalism
holds because, under the iron law of the profit motive, nations will
always be driven by an intense demand for natural resources and markets
beyond national boundaries. As a result, nation states will always be
thrown into competition for the control of resources and dominance in
markets. This tendency towards conflict and eventually war may be held
off for some time under conditions of quasi “peace” by international
trade pacts and regulations, but eventually the do-or-die imperative of
securing economic advantage will over-ride all supposedly civilised
constraints.
The political and economic slide towards the headlong
collision of the First World War is proof of that dynamic. By way of
further proof, only 20 years after “the war to end all wars”, following
even deeper economic turmoil between nations, the world was plunged into
the even greater conflagration of the Second World War, which involved
for the first time the deployment of nuclear weapons and a death toll
exceeding 50 million.
Of utmost concern is that the contradiction between
national antagonisms in the realm of international relations as dictated
by capitalist economics is still far from resolved.
Granted, under the process of globalisation, nation
state capitalism has expanded over recent decades to take on,
increasingly, a transnational character and function. This has resulted
in networks of global capital in the form of multinational banks and
corporations. In that way, nation states can appear to be cooperating
seamlessly in the function of global capital. The US can be seen as the
executive power in the world capitalist system that also appears to
seamlessly benefit Britain, France, Germany, Japan, China among others.
Also because of historic institutional ties some nations are closer than
others in the functioning of the capitalist order. Washington and
London, for example, are closely aligned in the sphere of finance
capitalism and consequently share overlapping national interests.
Nevertheless, despite the global character of
capital, there is still a powerful demarcation of and competition
between national interests among the capitalist powers.
One constant factor in the source of rivalry between
nations is the control of oil, the lifeblood of the capitalist system.
Indeed, the control of oil has become an even greater determinant today
for international hegemony. This was well understood by US planners in
the aftermath of the Second World War. With less that five per cent of
the world’s population, but consuming more than 25 per cent of the
world’s oil production, US planners have long been aware of the crucial
importance of controlling global oil production for the preservation of
America’s economic power. This vital national interest far outweighs any
much-vaunted American ideals of democratic values.
With more than 60 per cent of the world’s proven oil
and gas reserves located in the Middle East, this region is the ultimate
key to continuing US global power. It was for this reason that the
former US secretary of state James Baker candidly revealed in an
interview on America’s PBS Frontline programme in mid-October 2001 that
Washington would always be ready and willing, as a matter of national
security, to go to war in order to protect its ally Saudi Arabia and the
other oil-rich Arab allies. The despotic, dictatorial nature of these
regimes is a virtue, not a vice, for guaranteed American oil supply and
the continued dominance of the US dollar as the world’s reserve
currency.
This is why today Washington remains silent on the
crackdown by the House of Saud against pro-democracy protests in Saudi
Arabia and Bahrain. It is also the reason why Washington is allied with
the Sunni dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Qatar in the covert campaign
for regime change against perceived recalcitrant governments in Syria
and Iran, as it did in Libya with the overthrow and murder of Muammar
Gaddafi.
At around the same time that Baker gave his interview
outlining the unconditional support by Washington for the oil
sheikhdoms, the Pentagon had then concocted a plan for redrawing the
political map of the Middle East region and beyond, as the former NATO
commander Wesley Clark was to later disclose. Over the ensuing years
from late 2001, the Pentagon had designated regime change for seven
countries: Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Sudan and Somalia.
Subsequent events and interventions by Washington and
its allies in these aforementioned countries – albeit under a guise of
defending democracy, human rights and international law – indicates that
the Pentagon’s plan is being implemented methodically. The plan
evidently holds whether the US president is a Republican or a Democrat,
which points up the secret elite nature of government in Washington for
which elections are mere window dressing.
These neo-imperialist interventions are not just
about securing reliable supplies of the world’s primary commodity for
the US and its capitalist allies. It is also equally about asserting
hegemony over potential rivals for this resource and other markets. As
with Britain at the turn of the 20th century, the economic decline of
the US in the 21st century is palpable; the rise of China is to America
today what Germany was to Britain one hundred years ago. Many analysts
believe that is only a matter of a few years before China overtakes the
US as the world’s largest economy, with far-reaching implications for
oil supply and demand.
The unveiling of new US military bases and
partnerships in Australia, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Myanmar, Philippines,
Thailand, Singapore, South Korea and Vietnam are the demonstration of
Washington’s increasing militarist agenda towards China. The calculated
confrontation with China is what lies behind Washington’s recent and
much-heralded “pivot to the Pacific”.
US-led military adventures in Afghanistan, Iraq,
Libya and across sub-Saharan Africa are aimed at thwarting China’s
economic expansion, especially because Chinese partnerships have been
welcomed in such countries. The NATO-induced regime change last year in
Libya alone is reckoned to have cost China billions of dollars in oil
and infrastructure investments. The same US game plan is unfolding
covertly in Syria and Iran, with the Western powers and their Arab, Turk
and Israeli allies waging a criminal war of state-sponsored terrorism
and destabilisation. That is the bigger picture of immediate
hostilities. How long China and its allies in Damascus, Tehran and
Moscow will tolerate this provocation before engaging in all-out war is
not clear. But one thing is clear: the repercussions of such an outcome
will be cataclysmic.
Furthermore, when the trigger is pulled in the form
of a downed fighter jet or a false flag terror attack on a tourist bus
or some other incident, it can be said – like the assassination of
archduke Ferdinand – that it was a long time in the making.
However, war is not inevitable. It is an ineluctable
outcome of capitalist power rivalry, which history has shown us time and
again. But it is not inevitable. The way to stop another world war is
for the mass of people to put an end to the capitalist system. That
means bringing governments, banks, industries and militaries under
public, democratic control on the basis of internationalist solidarity.
We got nothing to lose except our chains.
Finian Cunningham is Globalresearch’s Middle East and East Africa Correspondent