november 2006




"In The critic of the hegelian philosophy of the Marxian law the State is radically removed from its position of first requirement for every comprehension of the historical phenomena and their development, and in that consists the most important revolutionary progress of the new materialistic-dialectics conception about the middle-class philosophy". (K. Korsh, The historical materialism. AntiKautsky, 1929)

The recent war in Lebanon and the consequent military intervention of the European powers on the base of the resolution UN n. 1701 rekindled the discussion and initiative in our country. The resolution formally provides for a reinforcement of the "mission UNIFIL" (present in Lebanon from 1978) requalifying it like mission of peace-keeping "of strong mandate" : in the substance, also for what concerns the Italian contingent and despite the law n. 253 of 28 August 2006 provided the application of the peace military penal code to the soldiers engaged in the mission, by one side, the foreigner armed forces employed will have to " assist the lebanese armed forces in the adoption of the necessary measures" in the activity of control and disarm in the band included between the Israeli boundary and the river Litani (paragraph 11, lett. E of the resolution 1701), on the other side these same troops of occupation are "authorized" to adopt "whatever necessary action... to ensure that the area in which is the Force is not used for hostile actions of any nature, to react against violent attempts to hinder them to achieve the mandate, to protect goods, settlements and staff of the UN as well as the humanitarian operators and to protect the civilians that find themselves in a situation of imminent physical threat of violence" (art. 12, ris. 1701).
A reaffirmation of principle of the so-called law of "preventive self-defense" of the imperialist troops pledged to "restore the peace" that does not consider the present situation.
In fact it's known how such resolution has been a result of the theatrical failure of the war operations of Tsahal (the Israeli army) towards the Lebanese resistance and how, in "removing the chestnuts from the fire" to the policeman of' USA imperialism in the middle east, they run up in big hustle its worthy companions of the European bank of the Atlantic.
This situation risk however to feed, in the discussion of our local political left ("antagonist" and not), two frequent, wrong (but still dominating) "superstitions" about the evolution and the effects of what for some time we defined like the main aspect of our historical period: the process of global realignment of the imperialist hierarchy and of operative redefinition of the functions and spheres of influence of the imperialist poles.
Some tend to point out in these events a process of "detachment" of the euro-Atlantic interests that would have been carried out in the contrast between the project of "Unique Euro-Mediterranean Market" and that of the "Great Middle East" which would bring, immediately, the benefit of a containment of USA aggressiveness in the area by the "raising" European imperialist pole.
Other continue to underline the lack of "reliable referents" in the movements of resistance to the World War to Terrorism incited by the USA present in that area and to put before the present prevailing political representation of these movements (islamism) to the most general movement of resistance of the Arabic masses for the necessity of a position of "equidistance and/or extraneousness" towards both the opponents of the conflict. Both the positions, beyond the respective petitions of principle, succeed in that shape of pacifism "humanitarian and hairy" that enlivens in predominant manner the so-called movements against the war in the European continent since the times of the wars in the Balkans.
And both these positions develop the precious role of "useful idiot", from a side, obscurating the real interest and possible common plans of intervention between the European metropolitan proletariat and that of the countries object of the world war to terrorism and, on the other side, diverting the discussion that it is developed in those movements from what, constitutes - here and in this historical moment - the main aspect of the class conflict in the European continent: the necessity of the war protagonism and of an effective and real political capacity of political-military projection in the neighbor abroad by the European Imperialist Bourgeoisie in the situation of a cooperation strengthened between the two banks of the Atlantic. Yet at the times of the attack to Yugoslavia, the Italian Premier D'Alema showed off publically to have favored - in the fire of a campaign that saw the coordinated employment of aerial forces of 14 countries operating from quite 47 different bases - the assertion of a unitary political-military direction of the war operations through the Quint (a permanent system of consultation among the five greater countries of NATO) underlining the strategic need of an operative new definition of the command structures of the imperialist poles and their functions and spheres of influence.
In April 1999, the meeting to Washington of the North Atlantic Council in occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Alliance confirmed, in the final document, the functional interest for a common organization, given the "multiplicity of risks, military and not", of "instability within and around the euroatlantic area " (The Alliance' s Strategic Concept, 23-24/04/1999) and the necessity of a "burden sharing" by Europe for the building of a second pillar in the Alliance: the European Security and Defense Identity (ESDI).
Immediately after, the European Council of Colony (June 1999) established a calendar that expected for 2003 the full effectiveness of a European army and major state, and the following summit of the EU heads of state and government of Helsinki formalized the future constitution of the first European body of army with autonomous capacity of transportation and of intervention, also of medium last, as founding pillar of a European Defence Entity with an European Command separate even if coordinated with that of the NATO.
This determination, beyond the apparent skirmishes offers from the political show of the different countries of Europe, was confirmed by the same Berlusconi at the closing of the summit of the European heads of state and of government held in Brussels on 16th october 2003 as well as by the Minister of the Italian Defence and by the High EU representative for the foreign politics and of common security, Javer Solana in Rome on 3rd october 2003 during the "celebrations" for the approval of the definitive text of the European Constitution.
Immediately after, the same Europarliament, with the decision of 24th october 2003, recommended to the government of the Union the effective application within 2004 of the "EU rapid Reaction Force" (with endowment of 5.000 men and "for humanitarian operations") and the effective application within 2009 of an European army in a position to lead "an operation of level and same intensity to those carried out in cooperation with NATO either in autonomous manner" in the European field or outside Europe. This rapid process of constitution of the political-military potential of projection in the neighbor abroad by the EU underwent a partial and temporary slowing because of the "unforeseen" popular disapproval of the project of European Constitution (mainly in France) and because of successive episodes of rebellion among the youthful European proletariat (mainly the casseur - "French" and "immigrated" - of the Parisian banlieues). Nevertheless, like already we underlined and contrary to the opinion of many of our local pacifist movement, it has just been the apparent "diplomatic disruption" between the two banks of the Atlantic in the moment of the second imperialist aggression to Iraq to "replace in game" (revealing the the reciprocal connection) both the muddied process of political constitution of the EU and that of constitution of the ESDI: "The times of the drawing up of the "European Card" trace the times of the constitution of the ESDI. Almost fifty years since the "forcing of Suez" the "forcing of the Gulf" can help it to come back like "co-star" in the tragic middle east show" (European Power and Europe Power, in Senza Censura n. 11, June 2003). With the mission in Lebanon,the"historical" recall of European diplomacy to the decision-making supremacy of the UN's Security Council for NATO's interventions worldwide converted itself in the first concrete accomplishment of the aspiration of the "favorable" European imperialism to constitute itself like regional power with decision-making autonomy and autonomous political-military capacity of projection into its own "garden".
At the moment, and like known, the situation on the field is the following one: Italy is present with about 3.000 unities (mainly of land), France with about 3.700 (2.000 of land and the others on ships), Germany with 2.400 unities (in big predominance sailors); the general command of the mission is expected (like the EU presidency) for the first half-year to be headed by Italy, for a second half-year by France (the command of the navy, at the beginning headed by Italy, is at the present, after the employment of its unities of navy, entrusted to Germany) : more or less asit had been "recommended" by the Europarliament like objective to be reached within 2009!
And in fact (retracing shortly the"diplomatic" stages of this event), already 1st August 2006 the extraordinary Summit of the European Foreign Ministers clearly asked, in the final document, the immediate suspension of hostilities and the rapid employment of an international force. Despite the delays and diplomatic obstacles interposed in the badly-concealed (and useless) intent to allow to Tsahal (the Israeli army) "to refine the area" from the Lebanese resistance, the folowing 11th the UN's Security Council voted the resolution n. 1701 with unanimity and 18th August they were defined times and rules of "hiring". But it is the Summit of the European Foreign Ministers on 25th August to state the operating formal procedure of the mission (entity of the quotas, displacement, command structures...) and the "opportunities" of political management of the operation (request of participation to Turkey, Russia and China). The fact is that the militarist protagonism of the EU is not exhausted (and does not find foundation) in the apparent (and propagandized) necessity of security and political-military control of its own periphery, but in the present conditions of the unequal development of the capitalist way of production in the planet which impose to the European Imperialist Bourgeoisie (and to limit its decline) shapes of structural control of its neighbor abroad as instrument to enlarge its economic "clash base" in the economical world comparison world the new economical and demographic powers emerging with continental dimension. A lot schematically and reporting to the data recently supplied from two fundamental supernational institutions of the world capitalist system (WTO and FMI), we could illustrate those conditions in the following terms: in the period 2001-2005, according to the WTO, for what regards the distribution of the "contributions of control" of the world market of goods and services the USA passed from 16,1% to11,7%, the EU from 18% to 17% and China from 5,9% to 9,9%. Nevertheless, according to the FMI (World economic outlook of September 2006), the Countries of East Europe of recent or next entrance in the EU recorded a middle growth of the GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT in 2005 of 7,4% and a prediction of growth of 5% in 2006; Turkey recorded a growth of 4,6% in 2005 and should attest itself to 5% in 2006; Maghreb should attest to 5,8% in 2006 and Mashrek (Iraq excluded) should attest itself on average to 5%. So the demographic base and the medium rhythm of growth of the EU and of its "neighbor abroad" would have been attested to levels of growth rebalanced with respect to those of the demographic asian giants (China and India).
Besides, how it has recently and sincerely declared the Undersecretary to the Italian Defence annotating the "humanitarian" European intervention in Lebanon, "we need a little pragmatism; I do not say to move like those nations in which the enterprises follow the generals and vice versa, but our military missions can improve the commercial exchange and carry contracts, then there has to be a system-country ready to pick the occasion" (G.L.Forcieri, Undersecretary to the Defence, already vice President of the parliamentary Assembly of NATO from 2002 to 2006, 28th September 2006). It appears therefore more obvious how it is necessary as introduction to the renewal of an autonomous political action by the European and also Italian proletariat the assertion and generalization of its autonomous critic to the present conditions of life and domination, and in this sense, also this time, is directed the work of Senza Censura. Finally, a general notation - at the margins of the events before reported - and in connection to the type of war today carried on by the Imperialis Bourgeoisie: it's known how the acute phase of senescence of the feudal manner of production (and like "natural" result of its original social stratification - in which the military art was "noble" for excellence and therefore "specialized" in small minorities) the final purpose of the war was invasion (and plunder) of the hostile territory and, if necessary, in its successive permanent control. With the French revolution and the transformation of the war in social phenomenon of mass (just for the weight of the same mobilization of mass) it changes, for the middle-class period, not only the nature, but the same purpose of war - now identified in reducing the enemy to weakness, in the sense that "it is necessary that for the enemy it is impossible to defend itself; and this is, for definition, the true objective of the war action; it represents the purpose" (Karl Von Clausewitz," About war", pag. 20). The present political global show, in the war for bands and in the feuds between old and new imperialist powers, performs the putrescence of the bourgeois Middle Age and also the war, from war of masses' movement, is transformed into war of position of "professional warriors " which terrorize whole countries and peoples. But, how loved to repeat the Russian general Suvorov, criticizing in 1799 the type of war intended by the "old regimes" : "The bullet is stupid, the bayonet is wise".