The case for the defence: militarisation and capitalism

In the post Cold War years it looked for a brief moment like we had entered a new era under the so-called ‘peace dividend’. With no clear or significant ideological enemy on the landscape, growth in military expenditure began to recede from frontline political discussion. This brief interlude has of course long since been shattered, and defence spending is well and truly back in the headlines and in the public mind. Russian aggression has been the most recent and immediate cause for concern in western defence departments but this is just the latest in a sequence of security issues going back to before the ‘war on terror’ even kicked off.

4268805934_29d8fe24e5

As millions of people suffer due to reduced state spending throughout Europe, it may be useful to ask why increased military spending has become such an important issue at a time when so many other areas of the economy are underfunded. Luckily, there has been no shortage of neo-conservative fanatics and defence lackeys running to the press in recent days to help us understand why military spending is top priority. Former Conservative defence minister, Gerald Howarth, said last week that reduced defence spending would “diminish us in the eyes of our closest allies, the United States of America.” A serious matter indeed! Former MI6 boss, John Sawers, has at least tried to be a little more specific in pointing out that increased Russian aggression requires increased military spending. In other words, “we’re going to have to spend more on our defence and our security because the threats are greater.” It is easy to believe that establishment figures would rather ramp up the tension of this situation rather than consider the diplomatic and strategic mismatch between the west and Russia which has brought us to this juncture. What is less easy to comprehend, however, is how someone like Sawers could realistically believe that embarking on a new arms race could be to anyone’s benefit.

But we can glimpse the true rationale behind this mentality in the words of the US army chief of staff, General Raymond Odierno, quoted in the Guardian this weekend as being “very concerned” about reports of Britain’s falling military expenditure as % of GDP. In particular, Odierno states that the spending concerns are about “having a partner that has very close values and the same goals as we do.” Herein lies the truth of the matter. Having the predominant military position on the world stage is essential to neoliberal capitalism, and the burden of this position should be shared by ideological allies. As western capital goes in search of new markets, inputs of production and investments, corporations are required to operate in regions which can be hostile to their interests. The growth of globalisations and the spread of the multinational corporation therefore rely on the support of the state to open foreign markets and demand that the rights of western investors are upheld. Since the early days of the British Empire it has been hard to see the spread of western capitalism and increasing military intimidation as being anything other than inextricably linked.

Continue reading

Advertisements

Focus on Putin masks roots of Ukraine conflict

“Here’s my strategy on the Cold War: We win; they lose.”

 Ronald Reagan

2014-03-01._Митинг_в_Донецке_0015

As the 20th century drew to a close there was hope that the tension of the cold war was well and truly over, with both the USA and Russia ready to stand together as self-styled leaders in the international community. NATO’s bombing of Serbia in 1999 may have put a strain on the new relationship but with the election of George W. Bush the following year it seemed that the new personal relationship between Presidents could cement ties. Indeed, in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks the first call of solidarity to President Bush came from Vladimir Putin. The two superpowers looked ready to fight the war on terror together.

But public vows of friendship merely masked underlying tensions which had been building since the mid-90’s. As the Cold War drew to a close, the first President Bush had made a deal with Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand eastwards into the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence. In return Gorbachev agreed to withdraw Soviet troops from the occupied eastern European states, beginning a de-escalation of the military aspects of the conflict. But by the Madrid NATO summit of 1994 it became clear that the rules of the game had changed, and that that new members would be welcomed into the NATO alliance. The Bush-Gorbachev agreement was finally wiped off the diplomatic map in 2008 when Georgia and Ukraine were lined up to join NATO.

Continue reading