SENZA CENSURA N.16
march - june 2005
EDITORIAL
"The USA want a strong Europe, because we need a solid partner in the hard
task of spreading freedom in the world"
(G. W. Bush, Statement at the Club Concert Noble in Bruxelles, 21.02.2005)
The show of global capitalist rule started 2005 with appointments expected to
be "solving", filling all the medias with propaganda. In January there were
the contested presidential and municipal elections in Palestine, the Social
Forum in Porto Alegre and the farce elections in Iraq; on 20th February the
farce consultative referendum in Spain to ratify the so-called European
Constitution and, after some days, Bush's visit to EU and Russia's rulers,
prepared by Condoleeza Rice, the new Undersecretary of State.
All the medias confirmed that, if not everything is ok, certainly it's all for
the best. This in spite of what the local Italian Left tells about "potential
inter-imperialist conflicts" between the two banks of the Atlantic.
Instead, the whole of these "pacific" events hide a process (unprecedented for
extension and deepness) of international crisis of the capitalistic way of
production which the editing of Senza Censura since years indicates to be a
central element in the development of class struggle for the international
proletariat.
In this historical process they are emerging and will emerge the real system's
hierarchies into the whole of superstructures of imperialist bourgeoisie's
global rule. And in these circumstances the international proletariat has got
the alternative to elaborate, express and practice when and how possible an
autonomous initiative of class about the matter, or to reach an agreement with
the "claims" of some part of imperialist bourgeoisie (maybe demanding "social
provisions" of safeguard for market's conditions by this last decided).
At the same time we often underlined how the opening of new confrontations
between bourgeoisie and proletariat like counter-meetings, beyond various
attempts to make them spectacular, should have led to unwanted (even by
bourgeoisie) results in case of massive participation by the whole proletariat
(the metropolitan one included).
From this point of view, significant is the example of the so-called "movement
of movements". It's leaders, unable to lead autonomous mass mobilizations of
metropolitan proletariat, clearly disconcerted by backward political positions
emerged during the World Social Forums in Asia and South America, mortified in
the aspiration of becoming "global leaders" of an international movement
against globalization, recently they declared exhausted the "propulsive
incentive" deferring to an activity of "struggle to Aids, for fair and solidly
trade, for the cancelling of poor countries' debt" (Vittorio Agnoletto,
21.01.05).
Lost a movement which wanted and wants to put on discussion the capitalistic
way of production and its local and "global" political structures, they are
trying now to participate in the building of an improbable "Social Europe",
benevolent regulator of "unequal and warlike" international relationships
among rich and poor countries.
But this aspiration too is destined to be unsatisfied or to take the form of a
"pacific activism" of metropolitan proletariat under someone else's flag.
The "contested" Bush's doctrine, with its military interventions in terms of
"preventive defence" and "global war to terrorism", was and is a mere concrete
application of NATO's "new strategic concept" elaborated during the Washington
meeting in April 1999. Naturally, the present conditions of relationships
between social classes all over the world and the oscillation of power among
old and new imperialist powers, have led the leading imperialist country to
take the political and military initiative, with the aim to lead the general
process of re-alignment of imperialist hierarchies.
But, beyond some media clashes like the failed Conference of Donor Countries
to re-build Iraq (Madrid, 23-24 October 2003), the so-called "transatlantic
family" knew and know perfectly that it's necessary an alliance based on two
economic and political-military pillars to counterbalance two emerging
continental powers (China and India). As we underlined yet in November 2003,
if this implies the acceptance by EU of the global role of NATO (yet
sanctioned in Prague's meeting), it implies also a more concrete definition of
the political-military potential and of the decisional autonomy of the
European imperialist pole: "With the NATO war in Kosovo the leading
imperialist country re-affirmed its decisional autonomy into the Euro-Atlantic
Alliance; with the Iraqi war it's the constituting European imperialist pole
to look for its own common foreign policy and its own "Monroe doctrine". Doing
this it looks for allies everywhere: among the USA or among new emerging
powers, as among its own classes and oppressed peoples" (Senza Censura n. 12).
On the other hand, the principal actors of bourgeoisie's global show directly
try to confirm these expectations.
In the press conference at the end of the NATO meeting in Bruxelles
(22.02.05), confirming the intention to give a greater political importance to
the Alliance like "consulting and coordinating forum" between USA and Europe
about safety, Bush assured that "the relationship between USA and Europe is
necessary and important and NATO is the basis of this relationship", while
Chirac said that "European defence is increasing and this means an opportunity
for NATO, because a stronger and more united Europe means a stronger and more
efficient Alliance".
Besides, being clear since the beginning that every short-term investment in
the Iraqi area could not be led directly by the USA military administration
and, in the short-term perspective by the future puppet government , they
assured the next "democratic development" of Iraq substituting the improbable
solving action of the "Quartet" (USA, Russia, EU, UNO) with the proposal to
realize a joined conference USA-EU about Iraq because, like observed the
German chancellor Schroeder during the joined press conference with Bush at
the end of the meeting hold at the Magonza Castle on 23rd February, "we can
think about a solution of the Middle East crisis only with a strong
involvement of USA".
In any case, to realize these aims it's necessary to accelerate the
constitution of EU and its autonomous warlike potential inside NATO (the
so-called ESDI) and an extended search of approval among European and Middle
Eastern masses about these projects of "democratic re-building" of Europe,
Iraq, and the whole Great Middle East. The electoral colleges put on by
imperialist bourgeoisie in European and Middle Eastern countries have a common
formal aim : to give constituting feature to the approval of small minorities
(it's enough to think about the percentages of participation to vote in Iraq
and Spain and the exclusion of Diaspora Palestinians).
But the war is going on and relatively wide sectors of the European
proletariat yet express strong movements against masters' Europe: it was
significant, among mobilizations against the abrogation of the 35 hours law,
the recent position took by the great majority of the National confederal
Council of the French CGT for a "no" campaign for the referendum about the
European constitution which will take place in France within June 2005.
So, once more in front of dramatic developments of daily events in the near
European abroad it's maybe important to confirm that militarism and wars, in
the field of a process of concentration and centralization of capitals proper
of the monopolist and imperialist phase of capitalism, are like the rain
gushing from the cloud of the capitalistic way of production; and that still
today the NATO military intervention in Iraq has got an immediate political
weight relative to imperialist metropolis and it should be opportune, in the
effort to re-constitute the class political autonomy all over the world, to
oppose the consequence of this historical process in the "internal front" and
in terms of worsening of formal and material conditions that more and more
wide sectors are facing.