SENZA CENSURA n.6
Italy, october 2001
 

NOTHING WILL BE THE SAME !!
NATO'S EXPANSION TOWARDS EAST, AND WAR

Nothing will be the same!! After the attempt against Twin Towers and the Pentagon this sentence has been said everywhere. But in fact we could say that not much has changed. Not much changes than previous humanitarian wars against the famous criminals against mankind.
We say this in the light of a first difficulty on facing the problem of NATO's expansion in front of the "international anti-terrorism alliance" and in the light of the war that imperialism is fighting against an enemy who, beyond Bin
Laden or others, is objectively represented by who discusses its interests.
At first the great alliance against terrorism could wrongfoot those who, during these years, tried to understand NATO expansion policy's developments, what is its role inside the fight between imperialistic middle class and international proletariat,because (with a good mass media's support) it seems to have an indipendent development than middle class.
But, as we are going to analyse, it is its natural development.
The emerging situation cannot be considered indipendent by the process of penetration into Caucasian area to control ,or better to appropriate of its energetic sources, to allow USA's capital (the part less "globalized ") to rule inside an area that first was under soviet influence and today russian and chinese; this is happening with a clear international legitimation. This rule is allowed by military presence that is also functional to define a new hierarchy in comparison with Russia and China.
This rule cannot be considered indipendent by Partners for Peace's process, that includes many countries born from URSS ' breaking up (that is their first step to conform politic and military structures to NATO's dictates and to show their attachment to imperialistic middle class ' interests).
The "great anti-terrorism alliance cannot be considered indipendent by cooperation agreements with mediterranean countries (in its extension from Gibraltar to Mashrek) and by connected manoeuvres that are succeding very often since years. Certainly this is the front that will be the most influenced by the new politic situation , and even USA and other international leader countries (GB, EU, Russia, China, etc.) know it very well.
Arab-mediterranean countries' internal picture is influenced in a strong way by antimperialistic and antiamerican forces that , during these years, have taken root inside the local proletariat. As we wrote in other numbers of Senza Censura, this is the reason why they use caution in taking part to the Atlantic Alliance (by this time an obsolete definition).
Since time military american forces' moving from Europe towards Caucasian area was prepared inside a picture of change of politic -military USA's strategy, and in particular inside a picture of new definition of Europe's role inside NATO. USA could have a ruling position than E.U.,China and Russia transferring military policy towards those areas full of energetic sources and assuming a direct control on them, even with the problem of fighting against developing contradictions.
The so called anti-terrorism measures were yet existing in particular between all those countries having a relationship with NATO (as internal, Partners or cooperating countries), in other words between those countries that opened ,in different moods, their borders to imperialistic middle class' interest. It is enough to remember last agreements imposed to Greece after the attempts against american and english employees during and after Jugoslavian war, or to remember Magreb countries' numerous bilateral agreements, or G8 countries' agreements (G7 + 1 not for long time), or the last G8's italian meeting.
It's clear that NATO's existence and its expansion are not influenced by the need of defense against an assailant country.
Often in official documents it has been said that the expansion policy has got the clear aim to warrant stability and safety in those countries aiming at becoming part of the great international capital. A stability requested not by proletarians, not by workers, but necessary to undertake economic penetration's process. In reality, stability's meaning is the whole of counter-revolutionary policies aiming to warrant middle class' economic interests and attending directly their application.
According to the Atlantic Alliance's New Strategic Concept, NATO puts itself as a great anti-terrorist coalition,in connection with its sovietic enemy's end. A terrorism with the meaning of every action discussing the present imperialistic middle class' rule by proletariat ( who's aim is to organize itself into an international level ) or by some middle class' factions.
The current generic "counter-terrorist" positions are misleading, because the future counter-revolutionary policy is hidden inside this slogan;it will be a policy against international proletariat who's aim is to be indipendent by current imperialistic middle class' factions both in the world's north and south. Before we have to be shocked by the cynicism with Twin Towers' dead (and not those of the Pentagon) are used.The use done ,directed to speed up every process of global middle class' rule ,is the real shock, and the division into whom international proletariat could fall has to be fought. It would be too much simple to ask ourselves who's the use of what has happened, because middle class' rule imposes a reading that hides its rule and its counter-revolutionary policies into the current period's interpretation. Inside capital/proletariat clash it is not negative if an enemy thought to be invincible doesn't show itself such,despite of its military and technological apparatus.
At the same time it is clear that the clash between some middle class' factions,inside the current situation, will produce wars and destructions that will fall on international proletariat 's life, who everyday lives the weight of any contradiction this system produces.
What has changed is the rapidity with whom the expansion process of rule through the new NATO and its strategy. The started up process is going to speed up not without discrepancies between some factions of the middle class and inside its clash with proletariat,whose value will be increased only by a ripening of the international revolutionary perspective.
What has been stated allows us to face what has happened and what is happening inside NATO's expansion towards east,without being conditioned by current facts and by the reading imposed by middle class.

A LOOK BEHIND

In front of an international situation of general new definition, it has developed the necessity to change NATO's politic military strategy to make it functional to
the expansion policyof USA and EU's capital towards east.
Many hotbeds of unsteadiness,often produced by a dirty war carried by imperialistic middle class from an antisovietic viewpoint,begun to be dangerous for the possibility to increase the value of capital inside those countries.
For many people it would be more clear synthesizing that this passage happens with the perspective to globalize capitalism in its generalization, and to do this it was necessary to have a suitable system of economic - politic-military control supporting in particular USA's interest.
In 1991 it has been created the North Atlantic Cooperating Council (that will be formed by 16 countries belonging to NATO, 6 to the ex-Warsaw and ex-sovietic republics except Georgia) with the aim to "bring near" countries before enemies (at least on paper) through relationships, economic support and common military training. Since its first meeting it tried to face the problem of NATO's expansion in front of the adhesion demand by Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia (December 1991) , but even by Russia, thought to be "clearly" early.
But involving countries born from URRS' fragmentation was creating a very particular situation for what remained of the sovietic republic, who was directly threatened by a probable acceleration of that expansion policy. The opening clash, even remaining inside diplomatic seats, continued until 1995 and more.
But NATO's expansion policy's development, even with many internal discrepancies, goes on side by side with the development of an idea of a Defense European Identity as mainstay; or, according to many european analysts' desire, the idea of a new balancing process with USA's politic-military ability.
NATO's countries had different opinions about the possibility to speed up the process of integration of new candidates in particular regarding to the possible unsteadiness that could emerge because of increasing contradictions inside those countries, included Russia (showing again a east/west division recently overcame); because of a slowing down of NATO's power to decide and because of their unsuited military structure in technologic terms, compatibility and efficacy of equipments. On the other side it was thought to be good the possibility to take off a Russia's possible veto towards the choice of those countries under its influence; the possibility to institute observation periods for those candidate countries into whom conforming to NATO's "democracies" the military operative and the politic and economic structures. Many thought that EU could press for a greatest care to mantain safety and steadiness in the area, even considering the Alliance's expansion.
By those differences, it is clear a european unwillingness to speed up a process suggesting a great effort of acceleration of european politic and military union process ( now still full of discrepancies) acknowledgeing at the same time the clear inferiority than USA, from a politic and military point of view. At the same time Russia was afraid of a military presence on its borders, and it feared that its military industry could pass through a crisis because of its relationship with USA and EU.

-----------
NATO'MEMBER COUNTRIES: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Island, Italy, Luxemburg, Norway, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, UK, Czecha Republic, Spain, USA, Turkey, Hungary.
-----------
EURO-ATLANTIC PARTNERSHIP'S COUNTRIES: Albania, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaigian, Bielorussia, Bulgaria, Croatia,Esthonia, Finland, Georgia, Ireland, Kazakistan, Kirghizistan, Latvia, Lithuania, ex Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia, Moldavian Republic, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, Tagikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan.
-----------

The syntesis of internal contradictions has been represented by NATO's initiative in 1994, called "Partners for Peace". That institution (or cooperation) does not find its meaning in its Italian translation "Partnership for Peace". It would be better to call it "Partnership for steadiness and safety". It was born with the aim of its members to develop a military cooperation relationship through common training , to acquire ability and inter-operability for common actions out of area, and to develop a "transparent" direction of defence
sector. Those objectives were located by NATO's defence ministers in 1993 in Germany. Ex-Warsaw countries (Visegrad group- Poland , Czecha Republic, Slovakia, Hungary) thought that this passage was the manifestation of the willing to protract their admission to NATO .
Russia's fear was temporarily silenced in Moscowduring a meeting between Eltsin and Clinton in 1995; they assured that Visegrad group's admission would not happen before 3 years since Russia's elections in 1996. So Partners for Peace had got Russia's adhesion, even if it continued to say that expansion process' acceleration wasn't coherent with its safety's interest.
According to some russian newspapers from 1995, beyond the recommendation to create a politic military union with Bielorussia with the aim to marshal armoured corps near Poland and Lithuania the major stateproposed to Eltsin a program of reposition of strategic missiles against Poland and Czecha Republic , after their availability to have nuclear NATO's weapons.
During the same year they are continuing training in the poligon of Celluna-Meduna (Italy) by czecha, hungarian, poland, albanian, rumenian, slovakian, french, spanish and portuguese soldiers.
The 1997 meeting in Madrid ratifies the formal invitation to three sure countries (Poland, Hungary, Czecha Republic) and the opening of negotiations for their adhesion. It is also presented the request of Slovenia's candidature supported by Italy.
Mrs. Albright, only just named Secretary of State, defines NATO's expansion an instrument for the steadiness of an area who has seen the birth of two world wars.
North NATO's countries , which tried to keep unchanged the conceiving of low importance of the southern side, showed their opposition to the Alliance barycentre's moving towards south.
During the following months Solana, at that time NATO's secretary and executioner of jugoslavian war, tries to create an agreement with Moscow government for a bilateral cooperation, including realization of a mechanism of consultations regarding to international safety and steadiness, without awarding Russia the right of veto for new adhesions to NATO; instead it was a right awarded to analyse again the treaty on strategic weapons, so allowing a new displacement of russian missiles towards caucasian area. But the secondary role given to Russia doesn't satisfy many of its Major State.
In actual facts Eltsin will allow the entry of Hungary, Czecha Republic, and Poland into NATO, granting them that into their territories will not be displaced nuclear weapons; and another promise by Clinton to favour the entry of Russia into the WTO and the increase of its role inside the G8, together with an economic help.
In a 1997 russian study it is defined the development of narrow relations with USA and NATO as a necessity to keep Russia's role inside european area and not only, at the same time opening its markets to american and european capital, also protecting important sectors like that of defense production.
It is clear that NATO's expansion choice about times and moods, takes place under Washington's dictates, and it carries into effect through the opposition to candidacy proposals presented by EU or by France and Italy separatly (or by Slovakia, Bulgary and Romania,Slovenia) taking care not to unbalance USA and GB predominance towards "european allies".
With Washington meeting on 23th april, during the war against Jugoslavia, 1999 shows itself as key-year of NATO's expansion towards East: the NEW ATLANTIC ALLIANCE STRATEGIC CONCEPT is defined. An alliance less atlantic and more projected towards ex-sovietic areas, expanding its action range towards caucasian peninsula.
Washington meeting ratifies the formal entry of the three candidate countries Poland, Hungary, Czecha Republic happened on 12th march at Indipendence (Missouri), with Albright's welcome, who stated that "they will not be the last to become part of NATO".
At the same meeting Javier Solana, General NATO Secretary, observed that "expanding to these three democracies we help to keep steady an area which, historically is linked with many disasters of this century".
With their entry into NATO, those countries will enjoy the nuclear american umbrella protection, and they will be linked to the Alliance anti-aircraft defense system.
They undertake to apply NATO's basic principle ,relative to common defense in
case of attack against a member of them.
Military and logistic support to the attack against ex-jugoslavia shows clearly the certain usefulness of that shift for the politic military control of south-east area, affirming again that other european eastern countries' integration will allow a greatest capacity of intervention inside those crisis "out of the area".
Another important step is the confirmation and intensification of partnership relations with Ukraine (NATO-Ukraine Commission) yet formalised on 24th april 1999 , renforced for the occasion of Florence meeting in 2000.
In 2000 nine countries of central and eastern Europe ( Lithuania, Latvia, Esthonia, Bulgary, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Albania, and Macedonia) prepared a common project to face, with a common strategy, tne next phaseof NATO's expansion, which should expand the number of members to 28.
These countries' foreign ministers signed a paper at Vilnius, Lithuanian chief town,affirming that they put aside national rivalries to adopt a common policy with the aim to persuade NATO to invite them in becoming part of the western military alliance in the next summit in 2002.
As some analysts think, NATO's problem is to accept adhesion requests without stopping a military alliance's institutions,which operates on a unanimous agreement . There are also some adaptation problems of the military NATO's
integrated command and decision process to an expanded group. The future expansion puts in a serious risk relations with Russia,, which accepted only with a great unwillingness Poland, Hungary, and Czecha Republic incorporation.
Often Moscow informed that Esthonia, Latvia and Lithuania's inclusion won't be tolerated. And the new defense policy put in law by President Putin describes the expansion of military alliances towards russian borders as a threat for the nation's safety interest.
In accordance with sources of military experts, confirmed by NATO's general secretary George Robertson, who replaces Solana , the experience ripened from NATO's meetings with other countries yet became part of it in 1999 (Poland, Hungary and Czecha Republic) had prejudiced the speedy entry of those countries into the safety organization.
Problems regarding the safety of informations and above all the high cost of integration of these countries' armed forces, that now is not economically supportable even with specific aids by NATO's founder countries. Beyond a politic side, ex communist countries' integration into the Alliance requests the total standardization of equipments and procedures as the western; this will request capital outlays for tens of milliard dollars.
The New Alliance Strategic Concept represents the politic instrument to renforce NATO's identity, as military instrument of the expansion process (globalization) of imperialism interest to a worldwide level, which includes also many contradictions,still alive, between its members.
It's clear that for EU's countries it is necessary, to grant their middle class' interest, continuing the natural expansion towards East, the presence, safety's control, and the area's steadiness, thought to be possible by this time,only through a near cooperation under NATO's umbrella (in accordance with the whole of politic military analysts).
With Bush the process defined through the Strategic Concept has been accelerated, and in particular the need to build a european identity of safety able to take its responsibility for safety and steadiness of Europe and of its area of influence and natural expansion.
In accordance with what has been related into "Revolution in military affairs" papers, emerges a USA decision to mantain a more defilated position inside problems not directly regarding their safety and that of their interest worldwide, and so asking EU a greatest care in terms of sources, regarding to european steadiness and possible area crisis.
This does not clean, but shows,the contradiction between USA and Europe.

USA INTEREST MOVING TOWARDS EAST, AND WAR

It's undeniable that american interest moved towards the ex sovietic area and in particular towards Caucasian area and Eastern Asia.
They passed from Clinton's policy,prudent towards Taiwan and the Pacific area, to a belligerent policy towards China, coming to sell advanced weapons to Taipei, reaffirming USA's predominance inside that area, against a chinese expansion attempt to Spratlys islands, claimed by all coastal countries of asiatic south-east, and against reuniting attempts with Taiwan.
China never hid its willing to become a superpower and during these last years it is producing its greatest effort to keep the role that Russia had got.
China has increased its defence balance selling russian airs and developing missile research , but also it has become more aggressive to a diplomatic level
(as it has been shown by the recent case of the american spy-air EP-3E, forced to to land to Hainan).
On the edges of the official confrontation, between threats and reconciliations, the battle is played on other battlefields, where China tries to hit not directly USA: since the last february, CIA revealed, Peking begun to support Pakistan missile program, while Chinese weapons' selling recently has increased with great supplyings to Iran, North Korea and Libya. USA, after one month since EP-E3 incident, begun again spy-flyings on China.
NATO's expansion project towards East is confirming as the building of politic military support to USA expansion policy, in the name of a crusade against international terrorism.
The cynicism with USA and GB bomb during these days afghan people in the name of the fight against international terrorism is over any war act. It was yet prepared and , before or after, there would be the occasion or it would be created.
In an article drawn up this year by some military experts ther was written:"there's not anymore the Cold War and the communist threat has been substitued in part by the terrorist one, but there's no doubt that Bush foreign policy' impudent unscrupulousness soon could keep new surprises even inside other cool areas confirming what declared since the electoral campaign , that is the willing to reduce engagements in long and sometimes inconclusive peace missions, in way to concentrate politic and military efforts in initiatives of strategic interest for USA".
Yet since this summer some military experts said that the strategic priority granted by Bush Administration to the Pacific area and to the Anti-missile Defence System,the withdrawal of some troops from Bosnia and Washington
refuse to send operative troops in Macedonia (but only logistic support unities), were renforcing the hypothesis of a progressive withdrawal of the 100,000 american soldiers still in Europe.
From an economic point of view, it has got no sense to marshal an army for long time to make the guardian of crossroads or to be half-policemen or wet-nurse in Bosnia or in other theaters of Peace Support Operations. These missions will be more often given to european armed forces which, even with some exceptions, are clearly dedicated to peace operations for military capabilities and culture.
Calling to military responsibility EU in the balkan area does not mean to leave it the control of the future passages for energetic sources towards the Mediterranean Sea, but it represents USA's clear desire to impose its politic military strategy, without any way to put it in discussion by part of the imperialistic european pole.
Compelling Europe to support the effort to have directly a military role in the balkans and keeping it occupied on that front,which is difficult to be totally ripped to imperialistic europea middle class because of its geographic position,means that USA can reaffirm their supremacy on the world. And Turkey's presence and the current governative position of Italy regarding to USA's policy grants the pursuit of italian politic economic interest.
The moving of troops towards the war area allows to marshal again USA and GB troops towards new, or better old, areas of politic military interest.
Fearing to be obliged to be the poor relative of NATO, inside this redefinition of USA strategic interests, in particular in relation with the developments of "Balkans syndrome", many Bulgary sources supposed that the West is preparing for the possibility to substitute , totally or in part, KFOR contingent in Kosovo with soldiers coming from other poorest countries, as Bulgary or Romania, which "pollution" or kill in probable fightings would be less "awkward".
Surely they don't understand the key-reason of the moving, but Bulgary's fears totally reflect what role has been given to partner countries.
Military Bulgary's unities have yet conduced trainings in western theater. On October 2001 there should be "Autumn 2001"training , where is going to be worked out the southern thater, as general Mihov said.
Some analysts think that Bulgary is going to have more importance into NATO's and western area expansion towards east both for economic and military reasons.
Because of provisioning of energetic sources Bulgary is a possible alternative to Passage n°8 because it is linked ,from a geographic point of view, to the Caspian area countries. From a military point of view, they think that Bulgary is nearest than Italy to Balkan operative theater;but it could also give less politic problems in the case of allied war actions , and it has got modern and great air bases to take in jets to use into NATO's attack.
Bulgary aims at becoming part of NATO and at hold a role of great logistic bases into an Atlantic Alliance expanded towards east, even for the important economic spin-off. Italy and France yet signed a rent agreement for the use respectively of a training area near Kaskovo and the firing ground at Novo Selo.
The anti-terrorist coalition and many countries' availability which marshalled for the intervention must not amaze anyone because,as we said many times,, NATO exists to grant middle class' interest to a worldwide level. Whoever violates imperialistic middle class' interest is a terrorist, every people resisting to penetration and to capitalistic power is a terrorist.
Some information sources report an anglo-czecha training (november 2000) at Kolin, in Central Boemia, which simulated an incursion inside GB's ambassy in Praga to free it from a terroristic group. During the training it has been tested the capability of cooperation between internal ministers and special squads of those two countries, and this allowed to improve procedures, tactics and common techniques.
Regarding to some official sources, it has been a training of humanitarian assistance and peace keeping, but many think that "CENTRASBAT 2000" conduced in kazakian territory the last year by 300 paratroopers from the 82nd american division, represents Washington's willing to cooperate with ex sovietic republics of central Asia and with Russia and China to fight islamic afghan terrorism in this region. The training saw the presence of 2000militars from Kazakistan, Kirghizistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey,
Mongolia and Russia, while France, Ukraine and Great Britain sent some observers .
USA's participation has been organized by the Central Command which has got competence on the operative area extending from Eastern Africa to Middle East, from Indian Ocean to Central Asia. Some analysts think that unlike the Gulf war, mass-media conflict par excellence, the military operation conduced by USA and GB against "integralist terrorism" has been carried into effect ,till now, with the more severe mass-media's silence. Few news leaked out every day have deniedevery time the situation before described, not allowing to identify clearly enemies and allies of the powerful coalition.
Some apparently skizophrenic attitudes belonging to countries like Saudi Arabia or Uzbekhistan and Tadjikisthan,for islamic presence, must not to be amazing fo us.
We have not to forgot that Pakistan is a USA's ally in the area, and its current attitude is not amazing because crushed by the danger of an internal war without end which could prevent the possibility to keep part of its interest in the area.
Egypt and other countries' difficulties to give availability to NATO forces' presence to attack Afghanisthan depends not on moral delaystowards afghan people, but on a clear fear ,by the rulers,of popular revolts which could compromise imperialistic middle class' interest there, and which could unite to proletarian instances born from ever worse economic conditions, because of many restucturings and privatization imposed by capitaliam development in the area through IMF or Mondial Bank dictates.
Since time Egypt, Morocco, Jordan are involved into NATO's trainings with some european countries (Italy too) and they have got a USA military presence like Egypt and Morocco. Even for Algeria the situation is not simple because of its internal unsteadiness, Berber and islamist problem, together with a constant economic crisis, despite its increased role of american military partner in the area.
regarding some analysts the campaign begun by Washington and London is a epochal challenge for asiatic ex sovietic republics: Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tagikistan, Kyrghizystan. These countries have only one occasion to obtain economic and politic compensations useful to strenghten the transition from the sovietic age still current and, in the last years, penalized by russian economic difficulties.
In the current crisis with Afghanistan, Moscow offered convincing warrants of safety in the area, with 25,000 men in Tagikistan and military bases in Uzbekistan (foreseen by the Indipendent States Community's agrrements)given at anglo-americans' disposal. These warrants have been strenghten not only by USA's military presence but also by the development of its relations with NATO, yet existing after the integration of asiatic republics into Partners for Peace with the aim to strenghten cooperation in safety and defence sectors.
Russia could not be involved in the area's war operation and for the western willing both not to render worse tensions which could bring it near to China
and for the "cooperatio" into western expansion process. Probably Russia will have to close its relations with its internal islamic instances, which are also present in some areas of economic, politic and military interest.
Ten countries belonging to the ex-sovietic block, candidate to enterNATO, assured to the Alliance their "unconditioned" support in the fight against terrorism asking Washington to mantain its promise of "epochal" changes about NATO's expansion to discuss in Praga in 2002. Our governments will support war against terrorism totally.
"Euro-atlantic community has got to be the basis of a wide coalition destined to fight it", has been adfirmed , in a bulletin published at the end of Sophia's meeting, by presidents of Bulgary, Lithuania, Latvia, Esthonia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, Macedonia, Albania and Croatia (Afp-International).
Today the availability to war is the discriminant for those countries who want to become part of NATO and ,by this way, into the process of transnational capital's improvement, and their engagementto grant USA's middle class interest is the better way to show their trustworthiness.
The crisis situation with Afghanistan and the cooperation of all ex sovietic republics of this region with USA puts the risk of new revolts and islamic "terrorist acts" which have the aim to give unsteadiness to advanced russian-american bases. For this reason USA military presence which is taking shapein Uzbekistan and Tagikistan will have to be confirmed even after the end of afghan crisis like Washington's economic support will have to favour the starting of important economic and politic reforms necessary to favour development.
So it is going to be a war which will unfold against arab and islamic proletariat, not again ready to be below imperialist rule. A proletariat which risks to be hidden between imperialist middle class and islamic reactionary middle classes,the only front,in this moment, which had developed the capability to direct liberation instances.
It is going to be a war internal to imperialistic metropolis where it will be necessary to hit revolutionary proletarian instances, carrying into effect all the repressive and counter-revolutionary system that we yet saw in its development during ex-Jugoslavia's war.
So it is important not to stop at simple answers favouring, by this way, who wants to separate international proletariat through religion or other, imposing to marshal behind middle class' factionswhich have the same aim, beyond some divisions.
The war they try to develop inside proletariat has to be fought with war against our enemy,imperialistic middle class.
The war they want to create between the various palestinian souls, is part of the war that middle class brings,through its zionist servant, against palestinian people, arabs and islamic people , against metropolis' proletariat both in suburbs and in centre.The historical effect of palestinian fight for arab and islamic people must never fade away or fall into middle class' hands in a counter-revolutionary key.
And only war to the current war can grant the development of a revolutionary perspective.
The peace they want to impose to palestinian people is part of the war carried against afghan people and it will possible to speak about peace in the world only when proletariat will win the war against imperialism and its instruments of rule, NATO above all. So we have got to grant support to all those which will not yield to imperialist interest. It is necessary that a new front enters the game ,granting the development of an autonomy by international proletariat against imperialistic middle class, finding again the way of a revolutionary fight to an international level, with the capability to show what is hidden inside current war policies,into NATO's development, able to identify the enemy, to weaken it and show its real essence.


SOURCES:

- High studies for defence, seminars academic years 1998/1999, 1999/2000 www.casd.it
- Istrid www.istrid.it
- Defence Analysis www.analisidifesa.it
- NATO www.nato.int
- Nato expansions www.fas.org/man/nato/index.html
- Bulgary Italy www.bulgaria-italia.com
- Hungary Italy www.ungheria-italia.com