WAR as Trade Policy:
Bushs National Security Strategy
by Diane R. Swords
Diane is a long-time anti-nuclear activist and a PhD candidate in Social Science and Program On Analysis and Resolution of Conflict, Syracuse University.
If we wish to dismantle corporate globalization in favor of just and democratic
structures, we must understand how it is held in place. The Security Exception
of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and GW Bushs 2002
National Security Strategy Document (NSS) strengthen the links between globalization
and militarism.
The question I raise is: shouldnt we view militarism on the same level
as capitalism in terms of its importance in the process of globalization? Is
increasing militarism just a side effect or tool of capitalism, or do these
two processes mutually reinforce each other? Will militarism disappear when
global capitalism is dismantled? Is it possible to dismantle capitalism without
addressing the military system that supports it?
Neo-liberals, those who claim that free trade is a basic democratic principle
and favor corporate power unencumbered by government regulation, want us to
believe that economics is somehow separate from politics, that market forces
are determined by an invisible hand, free of political decisions.
Viewing capitalism separately from militarism plays into this distortion. These
arent just academic issues. The answers determine how we resist the growing
oppression of most of the worlds people. Below I explain the tightening
bonds between militarism and capitalism.
Militarism and Capitalism
Militarism and capitalism, or war and acquisition, have always been connected.
Whenever nations and oligarchies wanted what others had, they formed armies
to take it. To have a strong army you had to have wealth. But politicians, influenced
by corporate interests, have constructed systems in which these links are tightening.
Thus, the extent of mutual reinforcement is neither natural nor inevitable.
The institutions of globalization set up at Bretton Woods in 1944, starting
with the GATT together with the strategy of containment of the USSR, built in
a mechanism for military advantage described below. The founding of the World
Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995 represents a further development of this process.
GW Bushs NSS goes further yet, setting a policy by which military pre-emption
in effect becomes a means of trade regulation.
The Security Exception (Article XXI of the GATT) bypasses the cornerstone of
all the neo-liberal trade agreements: removal of all barriers to trade. Tariffs
are one kind of barrier by which governments have protected particular markets.
There are also non-tariff barriers, such as subsidies to help new industries
or industries struggling for survival. Free trade proponents say subsidies give
unfair advantages. The WTO and other international financial institutions seek
to remove them. But starting with GATT, every trade accord has a security exception
allowing states to subsidize production, promote sales and impose trade embargoes
that are necessary to protect essential security interests. Countries
can protect industries only by couching them in these terms.
This means that government military spending increases as a way to promote jobs
and support new industries thereby militarizing societies all over the
world. All this happens while the WTO is striking down laws that protect workers,
food, water and air, or support any other sector of economic development. This
also carries through in International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank loans,
which are conditioned on minimizing government programs that serve social purposes.
While these programs are cut, increased military spending is encouraged by global
economic institutions.
At the same time, consider the result when trade cannot be regulated by government.
Unless we believe in an invisible hand magically steering market
forces, it is obvious that some other power will control trade in the
absence of government regulation. Currently that power is the US military. This
contradiction of the neo-liberal project is spelled out by Thomas Friedman in
his The Lexus and the Olive Tree. Friedman, New York Times columnist and cheerleader
for the Washington Consensus, celebrates the triumph of liberalism
and free-market capitalism as the most effective way to organize a society(xxi).
What does he mean by free market? Later in the book, he asserts
that markets must be backed by military power: The hidden hand of the
market will never work without a hidden fist
McDonalds cannot flourish
without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the US Air Force F-15
(464). This famous comment acknowledges that militarism and economics reinforce
each other. What is free about markets controlled by force? Friedmans
statement implies that trade can be regulated by the fist, but not by the rule
of law and of democratic oversight. He praises the fact that centuries of progress
towards democratic governance is being eroded and replaced by military-backed
corporate oligarchy.
Pre-emption as Trade Policy
GW Bush spells out the preference for the rule of force in his NSS, making clear
that military power will be used to enforce economic freedom. Everyone
should read this 33-page policy statement (<www.whitehouse.gov>). The
document articulates what has been happening for years but was never admitted
let alone declared as policy.
In its first sentence, Bush claims that there is a single sustainable
model for national success and that is freedom, democracy, and free
enterprise (emphasis added)(i). He claims that property ownership is a
human right (i;3), but when he later calls for tax policies such that the wealthy
and corporations should pay no more than low-wage workers, it is clear that
he is focusing on property ownership of the wealthy. He equates democracy with
capitalism and freedom with free markets (ii;17;18;27;28). Economic freedom,
by which he actually means allowing corporations access to resources in developing
countries, is set as the criterion for development assistance (iii; 10; 11;22).
In the past, the US has refused to denounce striking first, but this document
makes first strike, or pre-emption, an official policy. The reason
for pre-emption is not just the expected threat to the physical safety of the
nations security, but also resistance to free enterprise.
The document implies that any nation that plans to set boundaries on its penetration
by international trade threatens US national security. The subtle phrase about
lower marginal tax rates (17) is likely to be passed over by anyone
not well versed in the coded language of corporate power, but it is key to understanding
the document. Any country that uses its tax system to redistribute wealth from
the rich to the poor will be considered threatening to the US. The NSS call
for missile defense is not for protecting territory or people, but to support
the corporate agenda by protecting US forces wherever they intervene around
the world.
It is striking that this text emphasizes free trade more than safety
of US people or territory. A simple word count confirms this observation (see
Gowans, 2002). The strategy mentions rogue, terrorism,
terror, enemy and defense 76 times. But
terms such as free trade, free markets, private
property, economic freedom and free enterprise
appear 78 times. This emphasis suggests a belief that the security of the US
lies as much in maintaining low corporate taxation, as in preventing terrorism.
This kind of intertwining of foreign affairs, military strategy and corporate
interests has never before been made official policy.
War and Globalization
Framing US wars since September 11, 2001 as part of a war on terrorism
obscures their relationship to globalization. Perhaps we would be more likely
to see the relationship between war and globalization if we recognized the history
of the policies behind these wars. Some assert that the government knew before
9/11 of plans to use airplanes to strike targets within the US (see Michael
Meachems article, The Guardian, 9-6-03). But we need not be convinced
that there was intent to allow this horror to occur to see that 9/11 has been
taken as the pretext for carrying out plans that were long in the making. These
plans have very little to do with the security of US citizens, but everything
to do with the security of transnational corporations and their profits.
Recognition of this bond between militarism and globalization has been slow
in coming. Steven Staples, now with Canadas Polaris Institute, was a lone
voice when he made this connection in a brilliant article written just after
the Seattle demonstrations against the WTO. But more voices and organizations
are exploring this important nexus. Many leaders in the global justice movement
now address militarism systematically. Global Exchange and the Institute for
Policy Studies worked together to establish the anti-war coalition United for
Peace and Justice. Groups known for their corporate analysis such as Corpwatch,
US Labor Against the War, Public Citizen and United for a Fair Economy are exposing
connections between the Bush administration and companies that benefit from
war such as Boeing, Bechtel and Halliburton. Outside the US, the Canadian Polaris
Institute, Europes Transnational Institute, and South East Asias
Focus on the Global South are researching these connections.
Groups based in Latin America where militaries have been defending US corporate
interests for generations have long brought out the role militarism plays in
globalization. But the first major international action linking militarism and
globalization came when The Hemispheric and Global Assembly Against the FTAA
and the WTO called for a week of actions in Cancun, Mexico protesting globalization
and war during the WTOs fifth ministerial in September of 2003.
According to Gowans, If globalization is to be opposed, in favor of something
that doesnt put profits ahead of economic security for all, health care,
education and freedom from exploitation, the means by which it is promoted must
be understood, and the National Security Strategy is one of the principle means.
More people now agree that realizing links between globalization and militarism
will strengthen the anti-globalization movement.
Bibliography
Gowans, Stephen (2002). Bushs National Security Strategy: Protecting
Americans at Home or Promoting the Interests of American Corporations
Abroad? Whats Left? September 24, 2002.
Friedman, Thomas L. (2000). The Lexus and the Olive Tree. NY, Anchor Books.
Staples, Steven (1999). Report on the WTO and the Global War System.
<www.indg.org>.
Staples, Steven (2003). From Sea Turtles to Smart Bombs: How the Anti-Globalization
Movement is Taking on the Global War Machine. <www.focusweb.org>.