05.06.1997

Imperialism moves east

Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union - and the ‘socialist’ bloc as a whole - imperialism has been in a triumphalist mood. Sure, a few dark clouds here and there have blemished the golden ‘post-communist’ dawn - such as that nasty business in Bosnia, and the slightly embarrassing fiasco in Albania, where ‘popular capitalism’ became extremely unpopular overnight. But on the whole there appears to be no limit to imperialism’s forward march.

Centrally, the United States is now the only remaining superpower. It has unrivalled hegemony over world politics and is determined to act as the world’s policeman/chief negotiator/chief diplomat all rolled into one. A powerful symbol of US imperial supremacy occurred last week in Paris, when Nato and Russia pledged to work together to bury cold war ghosts and build a “Euro-Atlantic security system”. This was codified by the signing of the “Founding Act on mutual relations, co-operation and security between the Russian Federation and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation”, which commits the participants to a “fundamentally new relationship” in which they “no longer consider each other as rivals”. Translated, the Founding Act allows Nato to expand eastwards without hindrance.

Boris Yeltsin was forced to swallow the bitter pill and sign the act, despite stating right up to the eleventh hour, that “Russia still views the expansion plans of Nato negatively”. Clearly, many in Russia will view this as a humiliating moment in history, when ‘Great Russia’ - a superpower only a few years ago - sold its soul to the imperialist devil. Jacques Chirac, who hosted the summit, captured the mood of imperialist delight: “The Paris accord does not shift the divisions created in Yalta. It does away with them once and for all.” The cold war is now ‘officially’ over and the ‘good guys’ have won is the uncompromising message from Paris.

In a parallel move, Clinton has given his blessing at The Hague to the first stage of the EU’s eastward enlargement, due to start in two months, saying that integration was “good for Europe, for the US and therefore for the world”. More importantly, he used this opportunity to invoke the spirit of the Marshall Plan, which came into operation on June 5 1947. In a speech which brought tears to the eyes of Helmut Kohl, Clinton passionately declared: “We have a second chance to complete the job that Marshall and his generation began”.

Clinton’s emotive and misty-eyed references to the Marshall Plan have unleashed a torrent of nostalgia from conservatives and liberals alike, united in their love for the late General George Marshall and his plan to ‘save Europe’. The most crass expression of this uncritical adulation was penned by Rupert Cornwell of The Independent:

“By any standard the Marshall Plan is remarkable. It was an act of enlightened self-interest rare in human history. It set in motion the rebuilding of post-war Europe and thus helped shape the modern Western world” (May 28).

Of course, there is some truth to Cornwell’s fulsome praise - the “modern Western world” is to a large degree the creation of the Marshall Plan, which pumped £13.3 billion (which amounted to two per cent of the United States’ GDP) into the European economy between 1948-52. The explicit aim of the Marshall Plan though, and you would be hard pressed to find this mentioned in any of the accounts which have appeared in the liberal press, was to “save” Western Europe from revolution and socialism.

Specific worries were Italy and France, which had mass Communist Parties - whose members had fought the Nazis and were well armed and disciplined. Large amounts were syphoned off from the Marshall Plan and - in the case of Italy - into the hands of the mafia and gangsters, so they could intimidate the communist movement. Marshall money was also spent by the OSS - the CIA’s precursors - on setting up yellow trade unions, in a bid to sideline and marginalise the communist forces. Many of the mass trade unions which exist now in western Europe were originally the creations of US imperialism. The fact that Clinton is now talking of a Marshall Plan mark II demonstrates the confidence and arrogance of US imperialism - even if there is no cash this time round.

Imperialism is attempting to stabilise central and eastern Europe, which it plans to bring into its orbit. Inevitably these grandiose schemes will start to tear and tatter round the edges, and the imperialist smiles will turn to scowls and animosity.

‘Peace in our children’s times’ was the headline of The Independent (May 28). Given the nature of imperialism, the constant economic and political rivalries, it continually delivers the exact opposite.

Paul Greenaway