A Spate Of Summits In Europe

The month of June has radiated much heat in the capitals of Europe amid concerns about global warming and global peace. Ever since the Bush administration has embarked on a campaign to convince the world of the necessity for rewriting the constitution of nuclear deterrence in the post "Cold War" era, a whirlwind of diplomatic tours, negotiations and summits, pro and against, has gripped the world. A series of summits took place in Europe in a span of five days involving the EU, US, NATO, Germany, France, Russia, Spain and Poland. A total of seven summits and nearly an equal number of militant demonstrations against the emerging world scenario made Europe the center of welling up rivalries and confrontations midst efforts of ‘confidence building measures’. Two more almost related summits were held among the Eurasian and Asian countries just before the European playhouse were to give off smoke. One in Yalta and the other in Beijing. The run-up to the Russian-US meet was very hectic and ridden with overlapping and conflicting interests.

After the May 1st announcement of the NMD programme at the National Defence University by Bush the US has encountered hostility and scepticism of many countries across the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans. Even the long standing European "friends and allies" of the US remained mum on this ambitious plan. They feared that its execution would not only trigger a new nuclear arms race in the world but also force them to play second fiddle to the US for a long time to come thwarting their own schemes for world domination. Panicky over the cold response of the world, except India, the US rushed its Assistant Secretary of State Armitage and assistant secretary for East Asian Affairs James Kelley to allay fears and explain the US position to Asian and Pacific countries. As for Europe the US president chose to go there himself to again win over old "friends". A summit with the Russian president was also planned to convince, bribe or force Russia to let the US plan go through without much opposition.

The principal opposition to the NMD comes from Russia, and also China. In the reckoning of the Bush administration though China is a potential competitor, yet it is Russia with whom it must settle the ABM issue, as Russia is the main possessor of nuclear arms and has the technological potential to embark on a parallel missile defense system if it manages to get the required financial support. Ten years after the collapse of the Warsaw pact countries the West European powers no longer feel as indebted to the US for defence as they were in the times of the "Cold War". Europe’s new reality is increasingly making these countries bold vis-à-vis the US in terms of economic leverage thereby giving rise to the necessity of asserting independently in the military sphere also. The European Union has created a sixty thousand strong force to intervene in Europe and the world over wherever it’s "economic interests demand". The US first performed the formality of "welcoming" the establishment of this force then rued over it and lastly had to swallow the bitter pill of the inevitability of the European assertion.

Russia with its stockpiles of nuclear arms sees a powerful potential ally in the EU (or some of its major powers) given the latter’s increasing distancing from the US and its own geographic proximity to the European continent. When the European nations showed their scepticism and a bit of opposition to the American NMD plan (as they thought that the US no longer feels committed to the security of Europe and visualise; the necessity of, and has plans for, going it alone and continuing its domination over them), the Russians diplomatically "offered" to build a collective missile security shield for Europe.

The US is convinced that its domination over Europe won’t remain as before (as Europe is emerging as a great economic power unitedly), and a new balance of power in Europe, and in the world, is bound to emerge sooner or later (as the "Cold War" power equation has collapsed). The European response to its NMD plan had not surprised it. Yet the US felt the need to convince its European allies that it did ‘not’ believe in unilateralism, that it was still a ‘friend’ of Europe bound up with a common bond of a Western value system about neo-liberal democracy, free market economy, human rights and shared economic interests at the global level. So the American chieftain Bush proceeded to Europe, to win whosoever could be won to his plans, before proceeding to meet Putin,. He announced that the American NMD was not national. "It is not NMD, it is Missile Defence (MD)," he said. He invited every country to participate in it, including Russia and China, as it was only against the ‘rogue states’ of the world. But the outcome of the summit(s) in Europe suggests that there was no enthusiasm for the MD. Even those who supported the US did not look at it as a mere MD.

To set a unified tone of the EU as a whole France and Germany held a summit meeting on 12th June, just a day before Bush was to commence upon his EU tour. Both countries declared the ABM treaty as a "cornerstone" for maintaining peace in the world thus buttressing the Russian position and sounding their opposition to the US. They appealed for European unity on this score and called for "an international conference to fight the threatened spread of ballistic missiles and technology." A clear reference to their concerns for the combined dangers of the US missile defence programme and the reciprocal Russian response.

Calling the ABM treaty as the cornerstone for peace was more than the previous "the NMD will give rise to a new arms race and proliferation of nuclear arms" position. As both wanted all the European countries to take the same position, France would have tried its best to convince the NATO countries to oppose the US plan in the NATO-US summit which was held on the 13th of June in Brussels. But the US "succeeded" in thwarting the Franco-German attempt. Britain has all along been on the side of the US though "wavering" on the prudence of the NMD project in the face of European scepticism and opposition. Bush had secured the support of Spain on the very first day of his European tour. Italy along with Hungary and Poland (the latter two are new members of NATO) also supported him in the NATO-US summit. Thus many European nations’ "scepticism" got removed and the US came out of the NATO "test" with "important" initial successes. It was here that Bush stressed NMD as MD. Yet the French, and the German (Germany is not a member of the NATO alliance officially), attempt shows that traditional consensus of the western countries and NATO is beginning to show cracks and the trend may gather momentum in the coming years. Of a total membership of 19 only five have come to support the US with the remaining 14 still "sceptical", wavering or opposed. It is perhaps for the first time such an eventuality has occurred within the NATO vis-a-vis Russia. Already, the NATO alliance does not support the routine bombing of Iraq by the US-Britain combine although all had actively supported the US in 1991. The US had to plead in the summit that Europe and the United States, though having "different approaches", are "united by a single set of fundamental values", and with that unity they can accomplish "much more." He forgot to state that presently Russia too was having that same set of values yet they were not having"unity" with her. And now cracks appear among the states ‘having the same set of values’.

Even the US officials admit that the US message on missile defence has been "well received by many of the NATO allies — not all, but many." He has failed to secure the unanimous or overwhelming support of NATO. It is a fair beating Mr. Bush has received. May be, bigger things are in store for the US in Europe given the rising graph of difference of opinions on various economic and political issues.

After winning over a few of his "friends" for his NMD, Bush proceeded on to Gothenburg, Sweden, to attend the EU-US summit on the 14th. Here he continued with his stubbornness on the Kyoto protocol despite a strong opposition from the European nations.

The 15 member EU also had its separate summit for two days on 14th and 15th June in Sweden to debate over issues it is facing and the US stand on environment and other social and political problems. In-between, the EU summit was turned into an EU-US summit and then again continued as before.

Here he faced a relatively more united opposition from Europe, albeit a "common understanding" on many political issues at the international level. The language and the thrashing the US received at the hands of the EU concerning the Kyoto Treaty indicated the EU "determination" to go without waiting for the US. The US wants either to change the treaty according to its own needs or declare it dead. (See Box)

Among the EU only Britain made some attempt to appease the US and tried to narrow down the differences on Kyoto. Everyone in the EU ‘committed’ itself to making an eight percent cut in the emission of the greenhouse gases till 2012.

Although, the US was isolated on the Kyoto issue it garnered support for its West Asia policy on the Palestinian question. The EU endorsed the new peace deal brokered by the CIA chief Tenet between the Palestinian Authority and Zionist Israel. The EU, in fact, has little influence on Israel and the PA and has no option than to support the US. But on the question of Iraq the situation is quite different.

The EU and US also agreed on joint peace efforts in the Balkans. The US also convinced the EU that still there is the need to help Russia economically to effect complete transition to "democracy and free-market". At the EU summit he described Russia as a "friend" with whom he would be prepared to carry on negotiations for a long time to convince it to change its position on the ABM. (This had also been suggested by many in the EU and NATO in order to delay the US plans till Russia agrees to negotiate a new paradigm for nuclear deterrence.) The US president had to show to the Russians that in spite of differences on the missile defence issue, the EU stood with, or behind, him.

THE S-FIVE LAUNCH SHANGHAI COOPERATIVE ORGANISATION

On June 14, the Shanghai-5 group launched an organisation, the Shanghai Cooperative Organisation (SCO) "to combat terrorism, separatism and extremism." The Shanghai-Five group has been working for the last five years with Russia and China as its two major members along with Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. With the entry of Uzbekistan in June 2001 it became the SCO.

The Peoples’ Daily of China has declared, "The new model of regional cooperation represented by the Shanghai Spirit is a partnership, but not an alliance. It is an open mechanism not targeted at any third party. In dealing with state-to-state relations, it demands due respect to the interests of the other side while seeking one’s own strategic interests."

According to the declaration of the SCO an international anti-terrorism and separatism coordination command will be set up in Bishkek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan, to fight against local guerrilla forces. The local guerrilla forces operating in central Asia are Chechen rebels who are fighting for their independence from Russia; Xinjiang province’s pro-independence Uighuir militants in western China and various muslim organisations active in Uzbekistan and other Central Asian republics of the ex-Soviet Union. The organisation is mainly addressed to everyone of these country’s "own strategic interests", i.e., a collective defense of the present prevailing system. Russia and China are the main players in this region and they will be active in defending these states from internal movements in the name of curbing terrorism.

The SCO has sent signals to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) and emphasised their willingness to receive new members. It is also set to challenge the TRACECA program — a project backed by the West to develop a transport corridor from Europe, across the Black Sea, through the Caucasus and the Caspian Sea to Central Asia. TRACECA was designed to outwit Russian influence in its own backyard. The initial attempt of Russia to organise former republics of the Union had failed miserably with Eurasian states like Georgia and Ukraine directly allying with the US and Europe. Now Muslim resurgence threatens the Central Asian ones. The SCO is an answer to this challenge. It intends to develop a "Silk Road" in Central Asia and may try wooing even Iran and Turkey in future. A bourgeois newspaper has commented on it in the words, "This is in fact an interference, commonly agreed, into another’s internal affairs but it is aimed at the maintenance of the status quo, not at its subversion." Its other purpose is to counter the growing American influence in the region.

The next day, a day before the Russian-US Summit, he went to Poland, the new zealot baptized into the NATO. The Russians have been very critical of the eastward expansion of NATO but to little effect. With Poland, Hungary and the Czech republic completely out of the Russian sphere of influence the Russian breakaway republics of Ukraine, Georgia and some others are also asking to join NATO. The US may be having some problems in Europe but it has ceratianly won new "friends" in Easternn Europe and Eurasia. In early June the GUUAM [Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldova] summit of Eurasian countries held in Yalta decided to revive the European silk rout to bring these countries closer to the US and EU. GUUAM was created with Western support in 1997 "to challenge Russia’s perceived domination" at the 50th anniversary summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Men like Shevardznadze (Soviet foreign minister during Gorbachev, now president of Georgia) are important vehicles of the western influence in Eurasia. The proposed silk route is now to exploit the oil of the Caspian Sea and the Central Asian countries and the US is a major player in this endeavour with Turkey working as its conduit.

In order to garner support for the Russian—US Summit the Russians too have not remained indolent. With the Western alliance showing up initial cracks and signs of a greater opportunity opening up in potentially rich Europe the Russians are presently harping mainly on the Chinese support to oppose the US moves on [national] missile defence. Although the best thing for Russia’s future strategic calculations lies with the cracking up of NATO yet the Chinese support is indispensable for it in the present circumstances. China, due to its own reasons, is the second ardent critic of the US missile defence programme after Russia. The Chinese resent the US plans for the Theater Missile Defence which the US wants to build in East Asia for its interests in South Korea and Japan. In this way both Russia and China have come closer in opposing the NMD. Russia is the biggest supplier of arms to China and has announced that it will supply Beijing its most modern missiles (in case the US goes ahead with its NMD). Just before the Russian-US Summit State heads of Russia, China and four other Central Asian countries launched the Shanghai Cooperative Oraganisation (SCO) to carry on joint military operations to curb internal and external threats to the member countries (See Box). Simultaneously the SCO defence ministers adopted a resolution to voice support for the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty between Russia and the United States. It was a move to tell the US that they were opposed to the US missile defense system. The SCO Summit bolstered the Russian position. At the end of the two-day Beijing Summit of these six countries the Russian president Putin and the Chinese president Jiang Zemin, in a joint press conference, reiterated their support for the ABM and condemned the NMD. Both the leaders announced that they would have a new defence and friendship treaty to enhance collaboration in military and political matters. They will meet again in July for this purpose.

Ever since the announcement of the NMD the Russians have been on a hectic diplomatic spree in Asia and Europe. In initial successes the Russians made the Indians sway from their previous position of complete endorsement of the NMD and made them reiterate that they supported the ABM treaty. The Indian vacillation was accompanied with new defence deals with Russia and joint ventures in missile testing, making, and possibly, marketing. Russia even suggested to build a missile defence shield for India to veer it away from the NMD support though India has not committed itself to this Russian offer.

Nothing sensational came out of the June 16 US-Russian meet at the Slovenian capital of Ljubljana (Lyublyana). No formal declaration came out of the much talked about summit. Both the countries stuck to their previous positions. Time was bought by both the parties for a future summit on the controversial question.

The situation remains complex and in a flux with new forces asserting and new factors appearing on the scene. Bush stuck to his position on the ABM treaty and Putin told him that the treaty was the best thing to ensure peace in the world. For the present, both the nuclear warriors declare that they are for "world peace." Nobody stops them from destroying their nuclear arsenals if they are so interested in peace. But they are fighting over how to further develop their armaments and attack and defence capabilities. The real climax is yet to shape up. Till then the talks will go on, and new alignments will occur in inter-imperialist relations.

THE KYOTO TREATY ON ENVIRONMENT AND the US IMPERIALISTS

Global warming is a problem created by the ruthless exploitation and burning of the earth’s fuel resources to continue as ruthlessly the exploitation of human beings. The capitalist and rich nations have no regard for both humans and animals and also for other forms of life on the planet. In a quenchless drive for profits they are cruelly destroying the life generating reservoirs of nature in the name of securing more for humankind, rejecting alternative models of development which guarantee equitable progress and a rational use of natural resources. The problems the rich countries have created for the planet and its people and other life forms cannot be solved by just pressurizing them to change their ways. Whatever the people demand and fight for, faces a callous and criminal response from the imperialists. The growing world concern for the rape of nature forced the governments over the world to address the problems of deteriorating climate. The 1992 Rio de Janeiro summit on climate gave birth to a treaty named as Framework Convention on Climate Change. This treaty was the precursor of the Koyoto Treaty of 1997 calling for the industrial nations to reduce the green house gases, first as it were their industrial activities that were responsible for the greenhouse effect. The poor and developing countries were only to join later to apply the specifications. All the major industrial powers of the world were a signatory to both the treaties including the US. The Kyoto Protocol called for a 5.2% reduction of greenhouse gases over 1990 levels.

Even after the lapse of four years most of the industrial nations are yet to ratify the treaty in their respective parliaments. But the US has refused to ratify it and unless countries constituting fifty-five percent of the total gas emissions ratify it the Kyoto treaty cannot become an international law. The US alone accounts for almost 25% of the total emissions in the world. The US Senate had unanimously ratified the 1992 Rio treaty but then there were no concrete specifications and a time frame to implement the treaty. There was only a general understanding of the problem in principle. Now most of the European nations are pressed hard to ratify the Kyoto protocol and adopt measures as agreed. Though they themselves have criticized the US opposition it is unlikely that they will honestly carry out their own commitment. Yet they have accused the US for walking away from honouring the treaty.

Scientific analyses done by many scientists have warned the world that if the present trend of greenhouse gas emission continues the very existence of plant and animal life on the planet may be threatened. They have calculated that a 2.6 degree to 4.6 degrees rise in global temperatures is expected in the next century. That means death for most species. The widespread opposition and agitation prevalent among the people of Europe to greenhouse gas emissions is a powerful factor to force the imperialist capitalist governments to commit themselves to the treaty. However, the US refuses to yield to the peoples’ pressure as yet.

The arguments the US offers are flimsy. During Clinton’s presidency the US argued that the Kyoto Protocol was unfair to the United States and to other industrialized nations "because it exempts 80% of the world (particularly India and China) from compliance." And the United States Senate voted 95-0, "to warn against sending the Senate a treaty that could damage the economy." The US Senate and the US administration, representing "high democratic values" want to be placed at par with the eighty percent poor countries of the world whose total contribution to greenhouse gases constitute barely that of the US alone.

Now, the Bush administration talks of the alleged uncertainties of scientific knowledge regarding climate, which, according to the US is not sufficiently developed that the predictions of the scientists, concerning the green house gas effect, could be taken as guaranteed. So, instead of working on measures to reduce such gases he promises to spend "money and time on scientific solutions of the problem." This is a blatant denial of the need to agree to world opinion, which is mainly based on investigations by US research institutions. Again, this is the logic of a cruel exploiter of nature who works without regret for its destruction. Mr. Bush is also a staunch supporter of the idea that the Biblical gospel of Creation should be taught in the universities and Darwin’s theory of evolution should be discarded. Now he disbelieves the scientists on climate just to serve the imperialist interests of America.

The point is the US does not want to abide by the Kyoto protocol. The biggest polluter of the world is the biggest destroyer of the planet’s ecology and the biggest enemy of man and nature. It never cares for international agreements whether it be disarmament, the ABM, the CTBT, the treaties on climate, sea, space … All are trampled under foot by this imperialist monster.

Recently the US also pulled out of a 56-country group seeking to enforce a global ban on germ warefare. Ford, BP and Royal Dutch/Shell, all opposed the Kyoto Protocol and its specific targets. Imperialist governments represent the interests of such capitalist corporations the world over. They "cannot damage" the economic interests of these sharks, who have no intention to abandon their lust for profits.

Sure enough, what has been finally passed, has turned the Kyoto Protocal into a joke. Bowing to the demands of big business, the emphasis is now not on cutting emission of greenhouse gases (which would effect profits) but the absorption of the carbon emitteed, through forestry, etc. Besides, the final agreement lacks teeth, with the enforcement/penalty clause removed.