Among all the NATO states, Germany has been the most outspoke critic of
the planned Episode II Clone of the Attack on Iraq. Chancellor Schroeder and
his foreign minister Fischer are publicly raising their voice for peace like a
bunch of old Hippies. All well and good, one might think, finally some politicians
are starting to use their head for its natural purpose, thinking, instead of for
smiling into TV cameras.

On the other hand, one might be forgiven for being
suspicious: In terms of the number of soldiers deployed out of area, Germany
comes second only to the US of A. Germany is taking over the command of
the Allied Troups in Afghanistan, thousands of German soldiers are occupying
the NATO protectorate in Kosovo, German war ships are cruising off the coast
of the Horn of Africa, and so on and so on.... So the picture one gets is not so
much that of a government opposed to war, as rather opposed to one specific
war, the one that is being prepared by president Cheney, excuse me: president
Bush, against "the guy that tried to killed my daddy".

So what, from the point of view of a faithful NATO member state, is wrong with
this particular war? First, let´s listen to Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of
Economics in Ottawa, and editor of the journal "Global Outlook". He was
interviewed by the Swiss weekly newspaper WoZ:

WoZ: What would have to happen in order to prevent the war on Iraq?

M.C.: First, we have to understand the reasons and consequences of a war.
This is a war of conquest that is just about to start. The government of
George W. Bush has made one thing clear: first Iraq, then Iran. It is a war
that will lead to the militarisation of a large region: from the Eastern shore
of the Mediterranean to the Western border of China. and it is not just a war
that is directed against Iraq or Iran, but also against the oil interests of
European states. There is an enormous rivalry between oil companies, in
particular between the Anglo-American companies BP, Chevron-Texaco,
and Exxon, and European companies such as Total-Fina-Elf and the
Italian ENI. What we´ve got here is dispute between the block USA-Great
Britain and France-Germany. This not only regards the oil, but also the
defense industry.

WoZ: Is it necessary to lead a war against Iraq because of this rivalry?

M.C.:It is about the military occupation of the oil fields. That is the most
important aim. The Europeans are faced with the question, whether they
should participate in order gain a military presence in the Mid East -
similarly to Yugoslavia. But the strong rivalry between the powers makes
a common military action at the present moment difficult.

WoZ: Does the Bush administration have any other reasons for leading
a war?

M.C.: The US-hegemony over the currency systems is probably going
to be reinforced by the planned conquest. With the introduction of the
Euro, the Dollar has got a competitor. In some states of the former
Eastern Block, so for example in the ex-Soviet Republics of central
Asia, the Dollar is in the stronger position. In Eastern Europe,
Yugoslavia, and in some states of the former Soviet Union, the Euro
is ahead.

(WoZ Nr. 6, 6th February 2003)

So, is this the reason for the German government´s "pacifism"? Is it
all just about a rivalry between European and American oil and defense
companies and currencies? It is sad, but it does look like it. Of course,
there are other reasons, such as the wish of certain European countries
to gain more independence from the US in their own imperialistic
strategies. Peace is a very useful word for making war sound better to
the voters.

This also explains the weird behaviour of the mayor of Munich, Ude,
towards the anti-NATO demonstrations this weekend. Ude, from the
same social-democratic party as Schroeder, organised his own
demonstration against the war in Iraq, separate from the demonstration
that spoke out against _any_ war. Luckily, the attempt to split the
movement was not successful: Estimates of the size of the anti-NATO
demonstrations go up to 30,000!