| |
| |
You are here: Frontpage > Issues > 2442 >
|
|
Economies of militarism: making the links
Ippy D
When we made the decision to put this issue of Peace News together we did so
because we knew that many of the issues being tackled by the so-called new breed
of anti-globalisation activists are directly and undeniably linked with militarism.
But that in many ways the international peace movement has been quite slow and
ineffective at making those links visible. This issue of Peace News is one attempt to
further expose and highlight those links.
We spent time attempting to pin down exactly what we would focus on, and in the
end rejected creating an issue which focuses on globalisationhowever topical.
Instead, while acknowledging the context provided by the ease with which capital,
goods and services have been enabled to flow around the world, we decided that
what we were really doing was creating an issue which would look at the economies
of militarism.
To this end, PN 2442 has tried to focus on four distinct areas:
- The protection and development of economic interests by state militaries,
paramilitaries and private armies;
- The relationship between big business and government spending on defence
contracts;
- The economies developed by military occupation and intervention;
- The impact capitalism has on post-war economies.
Whats inside?
As an introduction to the theme, Chris Ney provides us with some excellent
background on the evolution of the dominant economic system and of the role of the
movement for economic justice. He goes on to argue that the traditions of
nonviolence may also be the source of some of the solutions to the current problem
of global greed and exploitation..
The arms trade is perhaps the most obvious economy of militarism, and in an
investigation into South Africas murky arms for oil deal, Terry Crawford-Browne
has unearthed a devilishly complex scandal which threatens to tarnish the SA
governments image as the peaceful rainbow nation. Browne exposes the links
between governments and big business, perhaps confirming Steve Staples (Chair of
International Network on Disarmament and Globalization) assertion that
governments are being encouraged into military spending by the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade (GATTthe agreement which is the rulebook of the World
Trade Organisation (WTO)) which makes trade relating to national security exempt
from the free-market rules. This exemption allows states to behave in a protectionist
manner in relation to military spending and makes the arms trade a reliable source of
job creation.
The earth is not for sale!
Bolivian activist Oscar Olivera talks about the impact of people power at street level,
fighting IMF-inspired water privatisation plans; confronting political and economic
realities under martial law. His presence at the Seattle protests inspired and
encouraged many activists, though according to Sara Grusky, from the Globalization
Challenge Initiative (email sgrusky@igc.org), A random review of IMF loan policies
in forty countries reveals that, during 2000, IMF loan agreements in 12 countries
included conditions imposing water privatisation.[...] Ironically, the majority of these
loans were negotiated under the IMF's new Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility
(PRGF)."
And its not just water. In the modern world everything can be bought and sold. This
has always been true of the one thing we all haveour bodies. In her article on the
commodification of women in military intervention/occupation scenarios, Sian Jones
looks at the economic realities for women in their relationships with peacekeepers
and aid workers.
But what happens after war, intervention, or occupation? The IMF and World Bank
are both keen to jump in and help construct post-war economies (both being part
of the three-way post-WWII economic control system devised at Bretton Woods) and
have been doing so since their inception. However, the issue of economic reform,
dressed up as economic justice, has become an overt component of recent peace
deals. In his article examining post-war Croatia, Drazen Simlesa reveals how state
utilities companies have been sold off in exchange for the hope of political leverage.
And how the inequalities which are developing in the economically liberated state
combined with resentment towards the occupation by foreign companies, is
threatening to polarise a population which knows only too well the momentum of
mass nationalism and hatred.
Re-inventing the wheel?
We know that war, and fear of war, are good for business, that government and
industry is corrupt, and that the accumulation of capital can only be achieved by
paying workers less than their labour is worth. These are hardly new ideas though
they may be presented as such.
Many activists and campaigners who identify as being part of the international
peace movement are highly cognisant of these ideas and are as cynical as the next
masked-up cliché chucking rocks at NikeTown. So why is the peace movementat
least in Europefailing to ride the current wave of energy and action? Is it a
reflection of a tired movement, or are we shy of coming out and finding space
for dialogue and action with anti-capitalist activists? The peace movement has a long
and generally honourable record of fighting imperialism and economic injustice
and we should be confident of placing ourselves and our concerns within the overall
grassroots response to the perception that capitalism is out of control. In the same
way that many identifiably Socialist groups must be inwardly saying we have been
going on about this for years, the peace movement, perhaps for different reasons,
should not just be thinking thisbut acting on it.
We have been particularly pleased to work on this issue with the War Resisters
League in the US who have recently published a booklet on militarism and
globalisation, and gratefully acknowledge use of portions of their material in this
issue of Peace News. Thanks also go to Steve Staples from the International Network
on Disarmament and Globalisation (see p32-33) for all his advice and input to this
issue.
|
|
|
|
