But since a few years there exists a rising resistance against the war meeting. At the last meeting in February 2003, just two months before the war against Iraq started, 20.000 people joined the leftwing demonstration against the meeting. In the meantime there were just a few thousand participating in the manifestation the governing mayor of Munich had called for and which represented the interests of state. There is a great number of groups and initiatives, covering a range from left radicals to liberals, which is now calling for resistance against the fortieth security meeting, which shall take place from the 6th until the 8th of February. Numerous actions are planed on Friday the 6th , the day the warmongers are going to arrive. On Saturday the joint protest wants to show itself in a big demonstration.

Government piss off!

Two years ago the security meeting was confronted with a resistance reaching over the Bavarian and even the German border for the first time. With the "anti-global" protests a new movement, which even criticized capitalism, had turned up. And the called up worldwide state of war after September 11th had brought resistance on the scene. Despite a total ban of all demonstrations, thousands marched onto the streets to show their anger against the meeting.
A different situation was to be seen at the last security meeting. The US-attack against Iraq was ahead. This was without doubt an influential reason that ten thousands protested against the security meeting. Unfortunately it is to question if it were so many people with the German government would having any interest in the war. Following this the German foreign policy found its expression in the local policy of Munich. Instead of banning demonstrations the social democratic mayor of Munich tried to monopolize the protests. Fortunately that wasn't that successful. Most of the demonstrators preferred to join the leftwing demonstration and gave a clear statement against the government and its policy. Nevertheless the media gave the picture of a demonstration in favor of the red-green government.

Many of the developments, that became apparent in the last two years, are now reality. That the "location Germany" needs to be defended in Afghanistan as well as in other places in the world has become a matter of course even before the normality of worldwide German intervention policy was poured into the new guidelines of defence policy. And on the question of participating in the war coalition against Iraq the smouldering transatlantic conflict of interests showed up openly.

Two levels have to be distinguished in this process of world order, which did not just begin with 11th of September. In the western nations on both sides of the Atlantic there is a joined interest to control the former colonies - in other words the greatest part of the rest of the planet. If it's about the exploitation of raw materials or rather conducting it through pipelines or if the industry needs cheap "human resources" in order to exploit them, 'stable conditions' are needed. To bring about these conditions it's not always necessary to wage a war, but it is done more often and even more carefree. That's why in the past century - sometimes within the framework of NATO, sometimes at least with the approbation of its members - the device "war is possible" was pushed through. In doing so there is an eye-catching tendency towards military administration and occupation of different nations and regions, e.g. former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. The only difference is that Iraq wasn't attacked from NATO, but from a US-lead coalition.

That's where the second gets involved. After all Germany as a leading nation of Europe became able to wage wars again throughout this development. Within this process the European Union is starting to become a military power after becoming an economic power. This contains the fact that European interests are also realized against other allies, specially the USA. After all capitalism means imperialist competition and if it's about interests and security of economic goals friendship is dropped.

The fact that the serious struggle within the western war coalition did erupt on the question of attacking Iraq is not surprising. While the USA aimed on more impact in the whole region and a control of the Iraqi oil, the self-proclaimed leading axis of Europe, Germany and France had a lot to lose: not only the prospect of lucrative trade agreements with the Iraqi regime was lost. If they would have joined the war coalition against Iraq the good diplomatic and economic relations "Old Europe" is cultivating with neighbored states like Iran would have been endangered.
The increasing competition between USA and "Old Europe", which are manifesting in the European plan of building its own army, is a worrying development. Even if in foreseeable times a direct military confrontation of the two parties is not a realistic scene, the confrontation leads two worldwide economic, diplomatic and in consequence military segmentation struggles. So it is to be expected that "Old Europe" is going to start one's own initiative in future times. Consequentially the building of a European command center for an European intervention army is one of the topics that is going to be discussed during the security meeting in 2004. Just recently the European Union had to tone down plans about an independent army assuring the USA that the north Atlantic organization still has importance. But anyhow the tensed transatlantic relations are going to be a subject at the security meeting.

With this constellation of interests the German radical left, still troubled with the New World Order, is confronted with concrete problems. In order not to play the role of a supernumerary within the German government advertisement campaign called "We are against the war" the anti-capitalist and internationalist resistance had to be quite creative. On a local scene that was successful, at least there where the extra parliamentary left is still playing a role - for example in Göttingen where the resistance was dominated through the slogan "Government piss off!" and where the office of the governing social democratic party (SPD) was squatted. In Nürnberg the radical left ignored secretary of state Fischer and his hawky friends, too. Rather bad is the balance of activities against the security meeting 2003: The left did not only fail in setting own focuses in the media. The lack of understanding of criticizing the government sometimes even resulted in pacifist demands on euro chauvinist exponents. At the central governmental backed demonstrations in Berlin, where thousands acclaimed Schröder and Fischer, left critic drowned.

But this year it is not to reckon on a plentiful appearance of pro-governmental demonstrators at the protests in Munich. After all to organize the meeting Mr. Teltschick gets the greatest amount of money from the federal public relation office. There the European product "the freedom-fighting EU-intervention force" shall be praised. And this is one of the main points of the protesters attacking the meeting.

Old Europe piss off!

Even if the EU-army does not arouse enthusiasm among the liberal groups and initiatives of the protesters alliance many of them are not deterred of demanding a 'better' Europe as an opposite model to the USA. Here one can see the origin of groups like "Attac", coming from the "anti-global"-movement. In these circles exists a widespread misapprehension analyzing capitalism as a phenomenon which would be independent from the bourgeois state. According to this the reason for the existence of a state and its tasks are balancing the different single interests. Hence there follows the next error in reasoning: Governments would be more or less 'corrupted' by global players and the capital itself. In this view the USA are normally seen as "bad guy" and palladium of unleashed capitalism. In contrast the own European governments and international institutions like UNO are taken for adequate addressees in order to proposal suggestions to contain hunger, war and other supposed collateral damages of capitalism.

But the bourgeois state is not an electric appliance which can be regulated infinitely between zero capitalism and neo-liberalism. In fact it is one of the main functions of the bourgeois state to bear up capitalist exploitation. Depending on the economic and political situation the state-run methods vary. Even Bismarck can get ideas of social insurance, if there is danger from starvation of the needed 'human capital', or even worse, the 'human capital' tends to revolt.
At present such 'social junk' is not needed. Throughout the technological progress many people are simply made redundant. It is not to reckon on a revolution made by the more and more precarious living people in the metropolises. For chauvinist national collective always a few crumbs of the imperialist looting fall off from the table after all. The people are easy fobbed off with the rhetoric of 'higher values'. Just in the recent days Gerhard Schröder, the chancellor, in his new year speech has announced that the international responsibility of Germany only will be effective, if 'all' tighten their belts.
That way the European nations can turn undisturbed toward what can be called their very own role: to create best conditions for the European capital. That includes cuts in social services and war. Access to worldwide raw material markets is one of the main points both in the German defense policy guidelines and in the concepts of an European security- and defense policy. Therefore liberal and orthodox socialist groups are not wrong, when they identify a connection between cuts in social services and increasing military spending. The problem is, that they analyze it as wrong set priorities, which could be corrected by an intelligent government. They would like to see the EU contrasting the USA with a model of "just capitalism" and export it all over the world. Neither they notice that capitalist competition does not function like a contest for a better life, nor is there any criticism on the assumption that the western nations are called to enjoin their rules on the rest of the world.

Yet a hundred years ago, when the reformist social-democratic left had similar illusions about a peaceful and social Europe, a small Russian man, living in Swiss exile, warned: "The United States of Europe will be reactionary or they won't exist."
Lenin was right. But in fact it is correct that the greatest military power of the world today is the USA and that they - despite the unscheduled process in Iraq - demonstrate this consistently all around the world. But the reason for this is not the especial warlike character of the north-Americans or that president Bush is Texan, but simply the fact that the USA are the biggest economic power in the world: property obliges, especially to secure and increase it, if necessary by waging wars. Therefore the world wouldn't be better if the EU tries to draw level with the USA. What "Old Europe" has to offer for the world is not Goethe or Sartre but capital investments in sweat shops, arms exports, "humanitarian" wars and hardly to overcome borders against those who are made refugees by war and economic crackups.

Following this it is not just wrong, but quite dangerous to put emphasize on a model of Europe, which only would have to be organized in a more just way - and this only on purpose to keep up in the rivalry of world-segmentation. The resistance in Munich - and not only there - rather has to be directed against the EU and should not be limited with the European military and foreign policy. Because this policy is only understandable in connection with all the other steps, that shall promote Europe for the capitalist competition. The war against the poor, armament inside society, "Fortress Europe" and state-run racism are only a few catchwords for the 'Program Europe'. Fighting the development to a low intensity world war must be fighting state and capitalism.

The Munich war-meeting is an ideal occasion to get the resistance against current military interventions and military armament out onto the streets and present it to an international media publicity. And maybe it is even possible to disturb the bourgeois menu of governmental, military and economic agents. Furthermore the radical left should use the opportunity to carry its criticism and arguments, who drowned during the war against Iraq, into the no-global movement. While last year the left-wing forces only countable have been in a majority they should use this year to bring their position highly visible into publicity. The opportunity is given both on February 6th, the day of protests, and on the following day, by participating numerously in the radical left block at the big demonstration.

Fight New World Order!
No Pasarán!


Autonome Antifa [M], January 2004