Resolution of the CC of KKE on Aspects of the International Developments
The CC of KKE met on 19th of May to discuss the developments linked to the visits of US Secretary of State C. Rice in the region, the NATO summit in Sofia and the Iran issue. It decided to issue the following resolution which mainly focus on developments related to these issues.
The calling of a session of the CC of the KKE and a statement on this specific issue was considered essential, in light of the international developments in the recent period, most notably the serious crisis in relation to Iran. These made the collective discussion and study of the situation by the whole Party necessary. Our basic assessments concerning these issues which are contained in the decisions of the 17th Congress have been confirmed as correct, meanwhile some aspects of them have come to the surface in a more obvious manner.
The factors which have come to prominence in this period in the international developments have their roots in the intensity of the struggle and contradictions between the leading imperialist powers for the division of spheres of influence, the control of energy sources and routes, as well as the control of the markets in the various regions of the world, most crucially the region known as Eurasia. As Brezwinski outlined; "the total domination in Eurasia would be equivalent with world pre-eminence". The geo-strategic competition is in full development and every imperialist power takes part according to its strength within the imperialist "pyramid", its position within the imperialist system, and also its geographic-strategic position.
The USA, mainly, but also the EU are concerned about the developments in the near future, as well as their interests in the long term. They see - in addition to the rivalry between them- rivals in China and Russia. They are thus taking precautions, and are concerned about the regional powers which are developing, such as India, Pakistan, and Iran etc. They are particularly worried about the developments and alliances forming in Latin America, and also between Latin American countries and the EU, China, Russia etc.
It is clear through the study of recent developments that both the USA and the EU due to their heightened rivalry seek to speed up the consolidation of their positions in Eurasia. The contradictions and problems there are intensifying and will be sharpened even more in the future. Undoubtedly they do not underestimate the fact that Russia and China constitute a potential threat to their interests.
1. The Basic Goals of The Imperialist Centres
The economic, political and military interests of the USA require a readjustment of their basic goals in this period which, if we can outline them somewhat schematically, seem to be moving in the following direction;
A) An attempt widening their alliance with the aim of there becoming more “willing” partners in every continent of the globe. “A new NATO” is the basic tool they want to use for this end, with the enlarged role which it now has. The proceedings of the summit of foreign ministers in Sofia, Bulgaria moved in this direction, and the others which will follow this template.
B) They have the ambition that the cooperation of China-Russia-India (the Shanghai Group) will not move forward and hopefully in the end breakup, as well as the approaches of the EU towards Russia, China etc.
C) The widening of alternative sources of petrol and Natural gas, in the framework of the so-called “energy security” of the USA and the “independence” of states from Russia, and also as a block to the “expansion” of China by means of energy links, to Russia, or towards Africa
D) They seek the defeat of the forces that resist, the revolutionary movement and communist parties with every method available. A political-ideological assault as well as with military methods, including assassination attempts, using the new dogma “Strategy for National Security” of the USA. This concerns all the regions of the world, but a special priority seems to be given to Latin America and Eurasia, along with the various “Death Squads” which are sent to their embassies in “unstable regions” to carry out murders, kidnappings of political figures and other attacks.
Naturally all of this comes as a “logical” consequence of the dogma of the “international threat of terrorism” a shadowy enemy which is everywhere and must be attacked “preemptively”. With this justification the USA and its allies reserve the right to intervene, blackmail and threaten countries and governments, who while friendly towards them, they consider are not entirely compliant with their desires they often seek to replace. There are many examples of this especially after 2001.
The USA is not the only power which uses military, political and economic threats which seeks to increase its hegemony over the peoples and other rival imperialist powers. Most capitalist states follow the so-called “anti-terrorist policy”, despite the contradictions and competition between the imperialist centers such as the USA, EU and Russia.
The unified character of the strategy of the international imperialist system against the peoples becomes apparent from the decisions of NATO. It is revealed in the simultaneous enlargement of the both the EU and NATO. Of course, their simultaneous enlargement does not negate inter-imperialist contradictions, but it reproduces and strengthens them, just as it intensifies the contradictions between the leading member-states of the imperialist centers.
At the same time with advance of the unified imperialist strategy, the relations between the two strongest imperialist centers, the USA and the EU, and other forces, become more antagonistic and complex. The contradictions within the ranks of the EU are sharpening concerning the nature of relations with the USA. Above the unified strategy of imperialism the contradictions and competition for hegemony are developing for the control of markets and spheres of influence in Asia, the Middle East and Africa and for the control of sources of wealth production. In the course of this competition, apart from the imperialist centers and major imperialist powers, some developing capitalist countries take part.
Developments are building up which may have the tendency to shake up the balance of forces in the international imperialist system. Without doubt their needs to be a more systematic study of the “groups” of contradictions which are present in the international scene, as well as a more systematic assessment of the internal situation, contradictions (above all socio-economic, the manifestation of capitalist economic crisis) which are present in each capitalist country, especially the USA and the stronger member-states of the EU.
Of course, on their own, these developments i.e. the intensification of inter-imperialist contradictions and of the capitalist system, do not lead to positive developments for the peoples. For there to be an overall change in the balance of forces the peoples must be found at the forefront of these developments.
Decisive here is the role of the peoples’ movements, and most importantly the Labor movement. Every day the assessment of the 17th Congress of the KKE is confirmed that in recent years a more clear opposition to the policies of the EU, NATO and other imperialist centers is apparent, and that slogans against this “one-way road” and demands for general social change are being put forward.
The decline of “anti-globalization movements”, of the “Social Forums” of Social-democrats and fringe “activists”, shows that a radical class orientated line of anti-imperialist struggle is gaining ground amongst the popular forces. These forces and the capabilities they have must not however be underestimated such as economic support from strong centers and international monopolies. The World Social Forum and its offshoots aim to trap and incorporate radical forces.
The slogan “another world is possible” goes hand in hand with a program of “self-restriction” with regards to the demands of the workers. We must continue our ideological-political opposition and at the same time put forward the position for a broad anti-imperialist and anti-monopoly alliance. This will happen through intensifying mobilizations and watchfulness of the people’s movement against the dangers which lurk in this region and more widely. Mass popular mobilization and action against imperialist war against the participation of Greece in whatever way in the aggressive military operations and imperialist wars, must today be one of our priorities of struggle.
As was assessed at the 17th Congress of the Party objectively the anti-imperialist anti-monopoly struggle is linked organically in the struggle for the overthrow of capitalism. It flows from the nature of such a break, which would undermine the foundations of capitalist domination. It would create the conditions for the winning of political power by the working class and its allies.
The basic precondition for the above however is the role of the communist parties. The overcoming of weaknesses and setbacks in countries where communist parties are active, and the re-establishment of the Communist movement in other countries, where the existing CPs have degenerated and have been corrupted by opportunistic and bourgeois forces and do not play a revolutionary role, is a basic duty of communists in every country and of the international communist movement. The ideological counterattack of the communist parties that believe in the necessity and possibility of the struggle for the overthrow of capitalism and for socialism today is of vital importance.
The internationalization of the struggle against imperialism cannot acquire a mass and stable character if it is not supported by a broad, strong anti-imperialist popular alliance with a discrete and strong communist presence which can act as a lever for the positive influence of the peoples on international developments. The steps we have taken in preceding period have been positive, but fall very short of what is needed today.
2. The Role of Greece
In the advancement of the above list of goals and plans there has been much activity in our region recently, which came to a peak with the lightning visit of the US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice to Athens, Ankara, Baghdad, and Sofia.
The visit of the US secretary of state to our country must not be underestimated in its importance which was not only symbolic but had concrete results.
Greece-despite its limited strength as state- finds itself in a very strategic position at the crossroads of 3 continents: Europe-Asia-Africa, in a region of massive interest for the geopolitical-military goals of the USA and other leading powers of the international imperialist system
At this present juncture when the USA is concerned with the Middle East, Iran, the Balkans, the countries of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, as well as in Africa, the strategic importance of Greece is clear.
Apart from anything else, Greece today is a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, a member of the EU and NATO, facts which increase Greece’s importance amongst the “coalition of the willing”. It is natural that the pressures on Greece are increasing for it to participate actively in imperialist wars, in the “fight against terrorism”, dating from the period of the PASOK governments. The use of the base at Suda bay, a base of massive importance in the Eastern Mediterranean for the interests of the USA, it explains the heightened role which they reserve for Greece in military operations and imperialist wars.
The responsibilities of the present New Democracy government are huge. So are those of the previous PASOK governments, for which the Greek people have the experience of their active participation in the EU and NATO, most blatantly with their active participation and help provided to their “allies”, during the wars against Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan. Although now in opposition PASOK has repeatedly declared its agreement with the strategy which is followed in the external policies of our country that it respects all the treaty obligations, and that it agrees with basic handling of these issues, criticizing occasionally some aspects of certain statements and unimportant maneuvering in the procedures for the advancement of the same policies.
The Policy of ND move in the same direction as the previous PASOK governments, adjusted today’s conditions.
The role of Synaspismos and the use of its political positions by ND-PASOK as an alibi for their decisions, especially its positions concerning the EU, for the strategy of the movement and also its dirty and provocative anticommunism which has been expressed recently in its political statements. Karatzeferis (of the LAOS party) should not be underestimated, because he covers his nationalism with a simplistic anti-Americanism, which in combination with his populism can find a resonance amongst petit-bourgeois forces and the more deprived sections of the working class as well as amongst young people.
3. Detailed Aspects of These Developments
1. The “New NATO”
At the Summit of Foreign Ministers which took place on the 27 and 28 of April in Sofia, concrete measures were agreed to for the organizational and political strengthening of NATO so that it can fulfil its new mission as world policeman.
In parallel with the time-tabling of these measures which will be set at the Summit of NATO in Riga in Lithuania, this coming November, the foreign ministers of the member-states of NATO took decisions for the strengthening of military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan. The continuing of the military presence in Kosovo was reaffirmed.
The basic goal is that NATO be used more-and not only or even mainly with US forces- in military interventions in the middle east and the Caspian, taking on a more energetic role in the plans for the control of oil fields and natural gas of strategic importance and their supply routes. According to the representative of the ministry of the exterior, G. Koumoutsakou, on the 26th of April of this year, it has not been ruled out that NATO will take on the “security of the supplies and sources of energy”.
The new role of NATO is strengthened by “strategic alliances” with far-off countries such as New Zealand, Australia, Japan, as a prototype the relations with the countries of central Europe, which led in the end to their assimilation to this once “Atlantic Alliance”. The ambassadors of the member states of NATO in Brussels have already agreed to the creation “of coalition on a global scale”. The spokesman of NATO stated recently that “we need as many new countries as possible which share the same values as us and have military forces capable of facing challenges such as those in Afghanistan”.
At the same time reforms are being put forward which make this machine of death more flexible and effective, such as the abolition of the veto so that NATO can intervene in less than 24 hours anywhere in the planet. In addition, at the Summit of foreign ministers of NATO countries C. Rice continued her campaign for the creation of a “coalition of the willing” for military intervention in Iran.
In Sofia, Issues of the military reform of NATO were discussed, the policy of “open gates”, and the relations of the alliance with Ukraine and Georgia. A military agreement between the USA and Bulgaria was signed which approved the installation of 3 US military bases and access to the pot of Bourgas for at least 10 years. This bilateral agreement came as an addition to the equivalent bilateral agreement between the USA and Romania which was signed on the 6th of December 2005 in Bucharest. The related agreements are bilateral-state level ones but of importance to the other NATO alliance partners.
The increase of NATO forces in Afghanistan from 9,000 which is today to 15,000 in 2006 with the possibility of it reaching 19,000 in 2007 was also decided. The participation of Australia and New Zealand in the operations of NATO was announced officially for the first time at this summit. The General Secretary of NATO claimed that “NATO is becoming an alliance with global partners –such as these two countries- as the threats and challenges are of a global nature”. On the 4th of May the foreign minister of Japan met with the North Atlantic Council in Brussels, and a similar meeting followed with South Korea.
Various reports have suggested that some Latin American States have the possibility of joining NATO either as members or “partners” such as Brazil and Colombia. The Colombian CP made a statement on this issue which was published in Rizospastis.
These are very serious developments in relation to the role of NATO globally and especially in our region.
In the Greek Parliament a vote on a collaboration protocol (protocol of “common understanding”) between Greece and NATO was put forward. It was placed before the permanent committee of the parliament on the 14th of February 2006. New Democracy voted in favour, the other parties against. However, PASOK when in government negotiated, took part in and pushed forward the preparation of this motion. Amongst the various provocative concessions to NATO, the protocol allows for:
In addition to this, on 3-4 of May the Balkan Summit was held in Thessalonica. The triumphalist statements which followed from the Greek Government and from the other governments of Balkan States can only cause anxiety for the working class and the peoples of the Balkans.
The achievement of a Unified Balkan Market (free market zone) with the essential infrastructure which will secure the unhindered activity of capital such as the process of the full incorporation of the states in the region into the structures of NATO and EU, means intense exploitation, a further corrosion of rights, new interventions and threat of war.
The overall situation in the Balkans causes concern (Serbia, Montenegro, FYROM, Bosnia-Herzegovina etc), especially the situation in Kosovo where the issue of its independence, based on the imperialist plans, will lead to a further destabilization of the region.
B. Russia – China - India and Imperialist Mechanisms
Amongst the regions concerning the speed of developments are the former USSR and also South East Asia. In 2005 a wave of the so-called “coloured revolutions” had begun such as the “orange” one in Kiev, at the same time a “change of guard” took place in Kyrgyzstan, as well as the bloody and failed attempts at change in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Great importance is given to the region of Central Asia where massive natural wealth is concentrated, and also because this region is in a key position both for Russia and the other large states in the region, foremost China but also India.
In the previous year of 2005, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) which is active in the region, took on certain new characteristics. One of these was is enlargement through the participation of observer-states. So alongside the members of the SCO which are China, Russia, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, the following were proposed as observers: India, Iran and Pakistan. Byelorussia is seriously examining its entrance into the SCO with observer status.
It should be noted that at the summer summit in 2005 no invitation was sent to the USA in spite of the strong interest of the US to influence also this peripheral inter-state cooperation.
An important development related to the SCO is the ultimatum it sent to the US, for the first time, for the withdrawal of American bases from Central Asia. Based on this, Uzbekistan made a more decisive demand to the US to withdraw its base from the airport of Hanabad.
At the same time, it became clear that the SCO itself finds itself at crossroads. There are not a few voices who seek the merger into the united framework of the SCO of a series of regional forms of cooperation that have sprung up in the region in recent years.
It still is not clear how the relations between NATO and the SCO will be shaped, with some analysts already calling it the “Eastern NATO”.
The driving force of these developments appear to be the largest states in the region: Russia, India and China. A possible triumvirate of strategic cooperation of these states, with huge populations and territories would impact on the balance of forces not only in the region but globally.
Both China and India show massive interest in the acquisition of energy from Russia through friendly state-level, commercial and investment agreements. In addition Russia is interested in commercial and productive ventures with India and China in other sectors beyond the energy sector. For example, Russian in Recent years has made huge arms sales to these two states and developed joint initiatives in the fields of nuclear energy, the new technologies, space programmes as well as in other sectors. Only in the border regions China and Russia today cooperate in 1,500 joint commercial ventures.
Last year took place for the first time in history joint military manoeuvres between China and Russia and between Russia and India. Without overestimating this, it should not either be underestimated. More so because the joint Russo-Chinese exercises took place in a period of tense relations between China and the USA, after the incendiary comments of US officers about the “potential danger to the world” of the Chinese Army. New joint military exercises have been decided on a planned for 2007 in Russia.
It is worth underlining that the first time the idea of a Russia-India-China “triumvirate” was heard publicly from Russian lips in 1998, a little before the war in Yugoslavia provoking a cautious reaction from China and India. However, one year later in 1999, immediately after the intervention of NATO in Yugoslavia, the Russian proposal found greater effect in Beijing and Delhi. Today, since US interventions in Afghanistan, Central Asia and the occupation in Iraq have followed, the three states have tasted their weapons together in joint exercises.
The statements of the foreign ministers of these three states that they are not satisfied with a “unipolar” world, by a world with one “boss”, the USA, are telling. Their stance vis-à-vis Iran is a characteristic example of “managing” their opposition to the policy direction of the US. Of course, the USA as well as the other imperialist centres such as the EU, are not simply following these developments, but are active in blocking such an alliance. They intervene with announcements and invitations for Russia and China not to enter the “Great Game” of confrontation with the USA, and to cooperate with the USA in its war against the danger of the “Islamic terrorism”.
In this struggle nearly all of the imperialist forces and involved and work their strategy and tactics.
Recently a “new” interstate regional union wit the title “Community of Democratic Choice” was set up, with the countries of GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Moldova) as well as Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania, Slovenia and FYROM, with the alleged goal of promoting “Democracy” from the Baltic to the Black Sea. Such a union, which understands “Democracy” as defined by the Pentagon, has a clear anti-Russian character.
Certain analysts link the endorsement of the recent anti-communist motion by the Political Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe with an attempt to stigmatize Russia. The states which were incorporated into the EU in its latest enlargement would one day have been able to seek from Russia huge reparations with the excuse that in the past they had been dragged violently in the “Soviet Bloc” under the threat of the “Soviet Military Bear”. It is a deep-rooted manoeuvre; some speak of the long hand of the USA directing certain member-states of the EU, such as the Baltic ones, to block the further strengthening of relations between Russia and the EU, and especially with the Franco-German axis.
At the same time, the USA is especially attempting to use the “carrot” to persuade the three states (Russia – India – China) that they will have greater benefits if they follow a policy of cooperation with the US and not opposition. At the same time they deliberately demonstrate to Russia and India the dangers of closer cooperation with China. This line was expressed by the warning of Brzezinski towards Russia that “competition against the USA is futile, while union with China will mean the subjugation of Russia”.
Clearly the recent nuclear cooperation between the US and India is another piece of the puzzle of US intervention. According to certain analysis, the US has secured their interests with India for many years.
In the recent meeting in Shanghai of the foreign ministers of the member-states of the SCO 15 documents were approved which they will sign at Summit in June 2006 that concern economic-commercial agreements, and the presence of the SCO globally as election observers etc. it was announced that the SCO is interested in developing further cooperation with its observer states such as India, Pakistan and Mongolia.
Alertness is needed to the developments in the SCO. The member states of the SCO are already being called on to face new challenges in the international arena such as the possible intervention of the US in Iran, the developments in Latin America, Africa, in Caucasus, in Central Asia and elsewhere.
C. Africa
It may be that case that the US will remain dominant in Africa, without the appearance of rivals from the other imperialist blocs or some other power on the African continent, however that does not mean that there is an absence of inter-imperialist contradictions and conflicts especially between USA and France, as was apparent in the massacres in Rwanda in 1995, but also more recently on the Congo and West Africa. The fact that inter-imperialist rivalries in Africa does not appear with the same intensity compared with other continents, is possible due –with the exception of North Africa and the republic of South Africa- to the delay of capitalist developments in the continent and the fact that the movements are still quite weak.
Nevertheless the location and the intensification of the exploitation of hundreds of new oil sources and the operations of recent networks of oil sources in the western side of sub-Saharian Africa (towards Atlantic) as well as Central Africa (towards the Red Sea) contribute even more complex geopolitical developments in the wider region.
Given the intense international conflict for the control of new sources of oil and natural gas, the recent conflicts between the rebels and regular army in Chad, in combination with the destabilization of the western Sudanese province of Darfur, not only is linked together with, but makes up some of the most important parts of the geopolitical puzzle. The crisis in Darfur with the attempts of paramilitary Arab groups supported by the government of Sudan against the indigenous communities of the region did not start only 3 years ago. They had been ongoing many years before the USA “discovered” the “genocide” in 2003 after “generalised attack” against the indigenous population in Darfur. 3 years later, the determined efforts of the US and Britain for “international sanctions” against Sudanese officials and rebels continue with their first goal not being “a scaling down” of the violence but the lionshare of the huge resources of oil, copper and other minerals which are found in this Sudanese region.
The other goal of the US and Britain concerns the restrictions of the intense activity of Chinese oil companies in Sudan which took place during the period when the US had labelled Sudan as one of the countries which nurture terrorism and was a part of the “axis of evil”. The attempts of London and Washington for international sanctions and the more active presence of NATO, under the pretext of the increase of UN peacekeepers, combining or replacing the force of 7,000 soldiers of the African Union in Darfur, remain so far unfulfilled. This is because they run into the declared opposition of China and Russia who aim to protect their own energy interests and seek a satisfactory solution for themselves in the marathon negotiations of the African union in Abuja of Nigeria, which according to the latest resolution of the UN Security Council should be concluded by the end of April.
In other words, the Bush Government acts to solve the complications which the experiment of the oil translationals has caused in this region of central Africa, allegedly for the overcoming of the phenomena of corruption and for the rapid improvement of the living standard of the suffering people of a developing country. The goal of this experiment (with the completion of the 1,070 Km Chad- Cameroon oil pipeline in 2003 at the cost of 4,7 billion USD investment) was the exploitation of oil from the oil sources of Central Africa and the unhindered export from the ports of Cameroon to the West Atlantic.
In the middle of May the US Security Council decided unanimously to hasten the deployment of a peace-keeping force in Darfur which at the latest in December 2006 is expected to take up the command of an army of 7,500 troops of the African union which have been sent there.
D. Specifically concerning Iran
With the end of the 30 day deadline which the UN Security Council had given to the IAE to complete a report on Iran’s nuclear programme so that the UN Security Council could discuss and decide on various measures against the government of Iran, negotiations began between the permanent members of the security council and Germany. The US government has been pushing forward this process as it had included Iran in the “Axis of Evil” and at every opportunity expressed its hostility to its government. Bush recently threatened that he did not rule out the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, despite the fact that it has none. Clearly, there have been statements on the part of Iran, such as the one concerning Israel, the Jews and the denial of the holocaust etc which fan the flame.
The negotiations and pressures have intensified between the members of the Security Council. The US is pressing for the activation of chapter 7, to free their hands, to open the way for intervention. Up to this point, Great Britain is supporting the line of the US as well as France and Germany. Russia and China are opposed. The issue is still in development and demands attention. The EU at the summit of foreign ministers concerning Iran formed the position which in reality – despite its declarations about a “diplomatic solution” etc – works as a pressure on Iran and at the same time seeks to strengthen the EU’s role as mediator. One hand it proposed technological support for Iran in the production of nuclear energy for peaceful aims, on the other sanctions against Iran for breaking the international treaty of non proliferation.
For the USA, is of strategic importance the control, as mush ac possible of energy sources and routes in order to preserve its position. It is also logical that the other imperialist powers such as the EU (as a whole and the individual states), or Russia, will seek the safeguarding of their own interests and the strengthening of their position internationally. In reality the crisis with Iran has little or no relations with its nuclear programme. Other states such as Israel and Pakistan possess not only nuclear energy but also nuclear weapons and have never allowed the inspections of their installations. Iran is found in the firing line because of its great geostrategic importance and its energy sources. Its pivotal geographic position puts it at the centre of energy routes which ensure the quickest and cheaper transfer of energy materials from Russia and the Caspian to the countries to the east, eg China, India, Pakistan, Japan, but also to Europe. The USA is especially concerned at the heightened role of China, which has established connections with the energy sources of Iran because of its increasing needs that US seek to restrain. They seek the same in relation to Russia. The aim of the US is the full control of states which either possess energy sources eg Iraq, or constitute energy routes for the transfer of oil and natural gas to India, like Afghanistan.
On 19th of February of 2006, Rizospastis published in full an article of Navid Shomali, from the office of international relations of the Tudeh Party, explaining the position of Tudeh Party of Iran on the issue:
“The majority of Iranian people rightly consider that under international law our nation has the right to develop and utilise nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Technically Iran’s nuclear industry is currently compliant with NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) and IAEA requirements and there is no tangible evidence pointing to activities consistent with the production of nuclear weapons in Iran. This is apart from the suspect and questionable “secret documents”, “files on a stolen laptop computer” and “press briefings” provided mainly by discredited monarchist and other politically bankrupt pro-US groups intent on provoking a US military adventure as their best chance of assuming power in Tehran. The evidence upon which the US is building its case against Iran is as ‘reliable’ as that which supported the presence of WMD in Saddam’s Iraq. The US is artificially creating the conditions for the international isolation of Iran via the UN Security Council. This will provide the Bush administration with an array of options including further political pressure and diplomatic isolation, economic sanctions and the threat of using some form of overt or covert military action. We should add that in the current prevailing conditions in the region, military options are not yet plausible as far as the combined interests of the west are concerned. The key aim of the current game will of course be to shape the future in accordance with US strategic interests.
While the US exaggerates Iran’s nuclear threat, the regime in Tehran is playing a dangerous game of “chicken” and hence providing the Bush administration with the excuses it needs. The democratic opposition in Iran is convinced that the regime’s inflexible stand is not based on protecting Iran’s national interests but rather ensuring its own survival at any cost, allowing it to ignore the democratic demands of the Iranian people on the grounds of an external threat…”
The position of KKE
The international regional organizations which exist today reflect a specific balance of forces for the control of markets of energy, raw materials, sources and routes. They aim at the high control of a large number of states which either do not belong organically to their allied unions or show some resistance, for their own reasons. This is also the nature of the international agreements on nuclear weapons. After all, these agreements did not prevent the US from developing new nuclear weapons, especially in the last 15 years. And from this standpoint it is worth underlining the balancing role the socialist system and the USSR played in the previous decades.
No imperialist power, no international organization has the right to take decisions detrimental to the peoples, to intervene, to decide who is allowed to have and who is not allowed to possess nuclear energy. The preparation of the public opinion is reminiscent of the preparations for the attack on Iraq. The nuclear programme is a pretext, such as “chemical weapons” were the pretext for Iraq.
Every measure, military development, which will have tragic consequences for the peoples of the region and serious consequences for the Greek people must be deterred.
Irrespective of whatever “treaty or other obligations” which exist concerning Greece, in treaties and agreements which the governments of ND and PASOK have in turn signed, these must not be kept, since they contribute and lead to the creation of new wars and the involvement of Greece in then.
The arguments around the advancement of a “diplomatic solution” is a diversion, is imperialist propaganda. The experience of the peoples especially in the last 15 years, confirms that imperialist peace paves the way for imperialist war.
Imperialism in order to defuse its contradictions and check the resistance of the peoples may launch imperialist wars could even resort to the use of nuclear weapons. So the struggle against nuclear weapons, the struggle against war is linked with the struggle against the imperialist system overall.
Our immediate demands are:
What is needed is the development of mass anti-imperialist struggle in the direction of creating a strong socio-political alliance which will lead to the change in the balance of forces in favour of workers and popular forces, towards popular power, socialism. As long as imperialist exists there cannot be permanent and stable peace.
E. Concerning Cyprus and Turkey
We will not deal in this resolution with these questions in their entirety, but only with issues that come out of the visit of Condoleezza Rice to our region and the meetings with the Greek and Turkish governments.
The position of the USA regarding Turkey is clear: Greece and Cyprus must not block the entry of Turkey into the EU. The Cyprus question was discussed as well as the steps which could happen after the Anan – Papadopoulos meeting. However the US Secretary of State C. Rice made it clear that Greece and Cyprus must make gestures of “good faith”. Meanwhile Cyprus must help with its policies so as to “ease the isolation of Northern Cyprus”!
These interventions provoked the reaction of the Cypriot President Tassos Papadopoulos who in an interview with “Eleftheros Typos” on the 2nd of May 2006 (republished in Rizospastis the next day) stated that the views of the US were known, but the Republic of Cyprus was not inclined to sacrifice its national interests.
In Turkey the US Secretary of State discussed the role of Turkey in the region, taking into account the increase of anti-Americanism but also the decision of the Turkish parliament not to allow the passing of US troops through Turkish soil for the imperialist attack on Iraq in 2003. C. Rice gave assurances that the US would agitate for the smooth entry of Turkey into the EU and the managements of the Cypriot issue with the strengthening of “Northern Cyprus” putting pressure on the Greek and Cypriot governments. It also gave the green light for an attack on the PKK and Kurdish rebels, labelling it as a terrorist organization. It seems that there are many problems created by activity of the Turkish army against the PKK, which wants a free hand to operate in Northern Iraq, but also to attack the operational bases of the Kurds found in the Turkish-Iranian borders in cooperation with the military forces of Iran. This provoked the intense reaction of the current president of Iraq Talabani who is a Kurd and leader of the DKP, which while hostile to the PKK will not accept any military operations by a foreign army which violate the Iraqi borders (statement of Talabani, May 3rd 2006). On the other side, there is a contradiction: how the support of Turkey for US military intervention in Iran be squared with cooperation Turkey has with Iran against the Kurdish rebels.
On the 8th of May, Al Lantzani who is responsible for the national Security of Iran, visited Ankara and had a meeting with the General Secretary of the National Security Council of Turkey, with the Turkish prime minister Tayip Erdogan and foreign minister Abdullah Gul. The visit had been scheduled earlier, but was postponed due to the visit of Rice. It remains unclear what Turkey took and what the US gave, to ensure their cooperation, whether they secured the use of Turkish soil or met with a refusal again.
The US wants to use the Turkish soil for military ground operations against Iran, because the borders between the two countries are extended and would make their intervention easier. The US would find itself in advantageous position for a military ground operation against Iran. The operations could be coordinated from 3 directions: from Turkey, Iraq and Afghanistan. There are also the territories of the Arab countries in the Persian Gulf. The bases which exist in Greece, Cyprus and Turkey are important facts for the military effectiveness of US war machine in the air and sea. A block on the use of these bases would significantly affect the military operations.
The issue of the Iran crisis may well be a crucial question in Turkish political developments in the next period. The Central Committee is concerned with the latest manifestations of Turkey’s provocativeness on the occasion of the research operations of the oceanographic boat in the Aegean. The stance of Turkey shows that it continually repeats its positions concerning the Aegean Sea in an aggressive manner, considering that areas of the Aegean have “an unclear status” and for this demands a “shared management”. It is clear that the operation of a de facto partition of the Aegean is in full development, a process that began many years ago under the guidance of the US and NATO. Of course, all these issues are known which in themselves do not seem that they will lead to a further increase of tension or serious, crisis since the bourgeois classes of Greece and Turkey seek cooperation for the freeing-up of the markets. However, if we put the various provocative activities and episodes in the Aegean in a more general frame and in conjunction with the increasing contradictions, they implicate potential dangers that cause justified concern to the peoples. In addition, it cannot escape attention that, with every opportunity and means, questions of minorities are stirred up in the region.
The CC of KKE will intensify its vigilance and attention on these developments, in parallel with initiatives promoting joint action, solidarity and friendship between the people of Greece and Turkey and all the peoples of the region.
Z. Palestine The developments confirm the assessments and preoccupations of our Party concerning the advancement of the imperialist plan for the wider Middle East, presented as plan of “democratizing the Arab regimes”. They opened they way for new threats for the peoples and peace, and prelude new military interventions, inflammation of civil wars, provocations and exploitation of tensions and conflicts. It is about a divisive policy in order to facilitate the predominance of the hegemony of US and leading EU powers.
The elections result in Palestine reflect to an extend the unrest of the Palestinian people that the so-called peaceful solution of the Palestinian problem and the creation of a new Palestinian state would be very far from their expectations and rights. They have the experience of Oslo and of the “Road Map”. Hamas succeeded at this point to express the mood of the people for some substantial resistance. This does not mean at all that Hamas can take on real resistance to the imperialist pressures.
In addition, the role played by the increasing corruption over the years n the machine of the Palestinian authority (whose officers are overwhelmingly high-ranking officials of Fattah) and the clear weakness –especially in recent months- of the fragmented security forces (also led by Fattah) to secure order between the various armed groups, who no one can say accurately what character they have. These were generally speaking the basic criteria which the Palestinian voters took into consideration.
The vote on the 25th of January was more a protest vote against Fattah rather a vote of approval of the political positions of Hamas.
Hamas in its election campaign stressed mainly its charitable and social activity. Actually its activity, supported by the donations of Islamic institutions, has taken on the form of welfare policies, which in practice is a substitute for the non-existent welfare policy of the Palestinian Authority. In parallel, Hamas stressed its ability to control directly and totally its entire military forces so that law and order could be guaranteed in contrast with the chaos and lawlessness which it seemed Fattah was unable to combat.
One of the many evidences which show the clearest the dead-end of the Oslo agreement is the fact that the Palestinian Authority is a structure which exists as such only bases on the Oslo agreements. An agreement which left it up to the goodwill of the various Israeli governments any concession they would made, given that the clear and non-negotiable resolutions of the UN demanding the unconditional end of occupation were put aside.
Hamas, as well as certain other organizations, had rejected this agreements. Today however the Islamic organization is being called on to take up the governance under a form of an administration which results only from this agreement. Is should not be forgotten that despite whatever statements are made, there exists no really free piece of Palestinian land given the control that Israel maintains directly or indirectly (eg the case of the Gaza strip after the withdrawal). Hamas finds itself in a series of contradictions which it inherited from the impasses of Oslo and later on were repeated in the even worse form of the “road map” that negates even the most limited obligations on the Israeli side and puts only demands on the Palestinians.
If all these are taken into consideration, as well as the economic debt, in which the Palestinian territories are engulfed, it is likely that there will be very serious developments in the next months. It is not certain that the donors of Hamas will cover the huge operational costs of the Palestinian Authority, which today is covered by hundreds of millions of euros from the EU and tens of millions of dollars from the US. For this reason the US-EU (followed by Israel) are pressing this very vulnerable spot in order to bully out of Hamas the submission they desire.
Taking int account all these factors is becomes clear that the situation which was created in the Palestinian territories after the election of Hamas leads the whole region into a very turbulent and uncertain period, as no one can predict what stance Hamas will take in its new role. Already the deterioration of the situation and the outbreak of civil war between Hamas and Fattah made the developments more worrying. The essence of the Palestinian problem is being highlighted once more. It cannot be tracked except by unconditional application of the UN resolutions and the creation of an independent, viable Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.
The latest developments highlight once more that the need has risen for political forces which will lead a popular revolutionary movement promoting a comprehensive and real alternative both against the Israeli occupation and the imperialist intervention, as well as against capitalist exploitation to gain a foothold in the Palestinian political scene.
4. The Tasks of the KKE The Central Committee decided: 1. To publish its resolution
2. The Party organizations and the organizations of KNE must have a continuous programme of action with friends, supporters and other allies. To inform, to mobilize, to develop initiatives and organize an ideological front against the bourgeois parties and opportunism. To take measures for the strengthening of the anti-imperialist peace movement. The basic duty is the further strengthening of the Party and KNE, the projection of a mass popular answer against wars
3. To support in following period the activities of the popular mass movement, trade unions, of the anti-imperialist peace movement
4. A stream of articles and broadcasts based on the issued which the decision deals with. The strengthening of the ideological-political front against pro-imperialist propaganda which is reproduces in run-up to every war:
At the centre of the ideological struggle will be:
The calling of a session of the CC of the KKE and a statement on this specific issue was considered essential, in light of the international developments in the recent period, most notably the serious crisis in relation to Iran. These made the collective discussion and study of the situation by the whole Party necessary. Our basic assessments concerning these issues which are contained in the decisions of the 17th Congress have been confirmed as correct, meanwhile some aspects of them have come to the surface in a more obvious manner.
The factors which have come to prominence in this period in the international developments have their roots in the intensity of the struggle and contradictions between the leading imperialist powers for the division of spheres of influence, the control of energy sources and routes, as well as the control of the markets in the various regions of the world, most crucially the region known as Eurasia. As Brezwinski outlined; "the total domination in Eurasia would be equivalent with world pre-eminence". The geo-strategic competition is in full development and every imperialist power takes part according to its strength within the imperialist "pyramid", its position within the imperialist system, and also its geographic-strategic position.
The USA, mainly, but also the EU are concerned about the developments in the near future, as well as their interests in the long term. They see - in addition to the rivalry between them- rivals in China and Russia. They are thus taking precautions, and are concerned about the regional powers which are developing, such as India, Pakistan, and Iran etc. They are particularly worried about the developments and alliances forming in Latin America, and also between Latin American countries and the EU, China, Russia etc.
It is clear through the study of recent developments that both the USA and the EU due to their heightened rivalry seek to speed up the consolidation of their positions in Eurasia. The contradictions and problems there are intensifying and will be sharpened even more in the future. Undoubtedly they do not underestimate the fact that Russia and China constitute a potential threat to their interests.
1. The Basic Goals of The Imperialist Centres
The economic, political and military interests of the USA require a readjustment of their basic goals in this period which, if we can outline them somewhat schematically, seem to be moving in the following direction;
A) An attempt widening their alliance with the aim of there becoming more “willing” partners in every continent of the globe. “A new NATO” is the basic tool they want to use for this end, with the enlarged role which it now has. The proceedings of the summit of foreign ministers in Sofia, Bulgaria moved in this direction, and the others which will follow this template.
B) They have the ambition that the cooperation of China-Russia-India (the Shanghai Group) will not move forward and hopefully in the end breakup, as well as the approaches of the EU towards Russia, China etc.
C) The widening of alternative sources of petrol and Natural gas, in the framework of the so-called “energy security” of the USA and the “independence” of states from Russia, and also as a block to the “expansion” of China by means of energy links, to Russia, or towards Africa
D) They seek the defeat of the forces that resist, the revolutionary movement and communist parties with every method available. A political-ideological assault as well as with military methods, including assassination attempts, using the new dogma “Strategy for National Security” of the USA. This concerns all the regions of the world, but a special priority seems to be given to Latin America and Eurasia, along with the various “Death Squads” which are sent to their embassies in “unstable regions” to carry out murders, kidnappings of political figures and other attacks.
Naturally all of this comes as a “logical” consequence of the dogma of the “international threat of terrorism” a shadowy enemy which is everywhere and must be attacked “preemptively”. With this justification the USA and its allies reserve the right to intervene, blackmail and threaten countries and governments, who while friendly towards them, they consider are not entirely compliant with their desires they often seek to replace. There are many examples of this especially after 2001.
The USA is not the only power which uses military, political and economic threats which seeks to increase its hegemony over the peoples and other rival imperialist powers. Most capitalist states follow the so-called “anti-terrorist policy”, despite the contradictions and competition between the imperialist centers such as the USA, EU and Russia.
The unified character of the strategy of the international imperialist system against the peoples becomes apparent from the decisions of NATO. It is revealed in the simultaneous enlargement of the both the EU and NATO. Of course, their simultaneous enlargement does not negate inter-imperialist contradictions, but it reproduces and strengthens them, just as it intensifies the contradictions between the leading member-states of the imperialist centers.
At the same time with advance of the unified imperialist strategy, the relations between the two strongest imperialist centers, the USA and the EU, and other forces, become more antagonistic and complex. The contradictions within the ranks of the EU are sharpening concerning the nature of relations with the USA. Above the unified strategy of imperialism the contradictions and competition for hegemony are developing for the control of markets and spheres of influence in Asia, the Middle East and Africa and for the control of sources of wealth production. In the course of this competition, apart from the imperialist centers and major imperialist powers, some developing capitalist countries take part.
Developments are building up which may have the tendency to shake up the balance of forces in the international imperialist system. Without doubt their needs to be a more systematic study of the “groups” of contradictions which are present in the international scene, as well as a more systematic assessment of the internal situation, contradictions (above all socio-economic, the manifestation of capitalist economic crisis) which are present in each capitalist country, especially the USA and the stronger member-states of the EU.
Of course, on their own, these developments i.e. the intensification of inter-imperialist contradictions and of the capitalist system, do not lead to positive developments for the peoples. For there to be an overall change in the balance of forces the peoples must be found at the forefront of these developments.
Decisive here is the role of the peoples’ movements, and most importantly the Labor movement. Every day the assessment of the 17th Congress of the KKE is confirmed that in recent years a more clear opposition to the policies of the EU, NATO and other imperialist centers is apparent, and that slogans against this “one-way road” and demands for general social change are being put forward.
The decline of “anti-globalization movements”, of the “Social Forums” of Social-democrats and fringe “activists”, shows that a radical class orientated line of anti-imperialist struggle is gaining ground amongst the popular forces. These forces and the capabilities they have must not however be underestimated such as economic support from strong centers and international monopolies. The World Social Forum and its offshoots aim to trap and incorporate radical forces.
The slogan “another world is possible” goes hand in hand with a program of “self-restriction” with regards to the demands of the workers. We must continue our ideological-political opposition and at the same time put forward the position for a broad anti-imperialist and anti-monopoly alliance. This will happen through intensifying mobilizations and watchfulness of the people’s movement against the dangers which lurk in this region and more widely. Mass popular mobilization and action against imperialist war against the participation of Greece in whatever way in the aggressive military operations and imperialist wars, must today be one of our priorities of struggle.
As was assessed at the 17th Congress of the Party objectively the anti-imperialist anti-monopoly struggle is linked organically in the struggle for the overthrow of capitalism. It flows from the nature of such a break, which would undermine the foundations of capitalist domination. It would create the conditions for the winning of political power by the working class and its allies.
The basic precondition for the above however is the role of the communist parties. The overcoming of weaknesses and setbacks in countries where communist parties are active, and the re-establishment of the Communist movement in other countries, where the existing CPs have degenerated and have been corrupted by opportunistic and bourgeois forces and do not play a revolutionary role, is a basic duty of communists in every country and of the international communist movement. The ideological counterattack of the communist parties that believe in the necessity and possibility of the struggle for the overthrow of capitalism and for socialism today is of vital importance.
The internationalization of the struggle against imperialism cannot acquire a mass and stable character if it is not supported by a broad, strong anti-imperialist popular alliance with a discrete and strong communist presence which can act as a lever for the positive influence of the peoples on international developments. The steps we have taken in preceding period have been positive, but fall very short of what is needed today.
2. The Role of Greece
In the advancement of the above list of goals and plans there has been much activity in our region recently, which came to a peak with the lightning visit of the US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice to Athens, Ankara, Baghdad, and Sofia.
The visit of the US secretary of state to our country must not be underestimated in its importance which was not only symbolic but had concrete results.
Greece-despite its limited strength as state- finds itself in a very strategic position at the crossroads of 3 continents: Europe-Asia-Africa, in a region of massive interest for the geopolitical-military goals of the USA and other leading powers of the international imperialist system
At this present juncture when the USA is concerned with the Middle East, Iran, the Balkans, the countries of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, as well as in Africa, the strategic importance of Greece is clear.
Apart from anything else, Greece today is a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, a member of the EU and NATO, facts which increase Greece’s importance amongst the “coalition of the willing”. It is natural that the pressures on Greece are increasing for it to participate actively in imperialist wars, in the “fight against terrorism”, dating from the period of the PASOK governments. The use of the base at Suda bay, a base of massive importance in the Eastern Mediterranean for the interests of the USA, it explains the heightened role which they reserve for Greece in military operations and imperialist wars.
The responsibilities of the present New Democracy government are huge. So are those of the previous PASOK governments, for which the Greek people have the experience of their active participation in the EU and NATO, most blatantly with their active participation and help provided to their “allies”, during the wars against Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan. Although now in opposition PASOK has repeatedly declared its agreement with the strategy which is followed in the external policies of our country that it respects all the treaty obligations, and that it agrees with basic handling of these issues, criticizing occasionally some aspects of certain statements and unimportant maneuvering in the procedures for the advancement of the same policies.
The Policy of ND move in the same direction as the previous PASOK governments, adjusted today’s conditions.
The role of Synaspismos and the use of its political positions by ND-PASOK as an alibi for their decisions, especially its positions concerning the EU, for the strategy of the movement and also its dirty and provocative anticommunism which has been expressed recently in its political statements. Karatzeferis (of the LAOS party) should not be underestimated, because he covers his nationalism with a simplistic anti-Americanism, which in combination with his populism can find a resonance amongst petit-bourgeois forces and the more deprived sections of the working class as well as amongst young people.
3. Detailed Aspects of These Developments
1. The “New NATO”
At the Summit of Foreign Ministers which took place on the 27 and 28 of April in Sofia, concrete measures were agreed to for the organizational and political strengthening of NATO so that it can fulfil its new mission as world policeman.
In parallel with the time-tabling of these measures which will be set at the Summit of NATO in Riga in Lithuania, this coming November, the foreign ministers of the member-states of NATO took decisions for the strengthening of military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan. The continuing of the military presence in Kosovo was reaffirmed.
The basic goal is that NATO be used more-and not only or even mainly with US forces- in military interventions in the middle east and the Caspian, taking on a more energetic role in the plans for the control of oil fields and natural gas of strategic importance and their supply routes. According to the representative of the ministry of the exterior, G. Koumoutsakou, on the 26th of April of this year, it has not been ruled out that NATO will take on the “security of the supplies and sources of energy”.
The new role of NATO is strengthened by “strategic alliances” with far-off countries such as New Zealand, Australia, Japan, as a prototype the relations with the countries of central Europe, which led in the end to their assimilation to this once “Atlantic Alliance”. The ambassadors of the member states of NATO in Brussels have already agreed to the creation “of coalition on a global scale”. The spokesman of NATO stated recently that “we need as many new countries as possible which share the same values as us and have military forces capable of facing challenges such as those in Afghanistan”.
At the same time reforms are being put forward which make this machine of death more flexible and effective, such as the abolition of the veto so that NATO can intervene in less than 24 hours anywhere in the planet. In addition, at the Summit of foreign ministers of NATO countries C. Rice continued her campaign for the creation of a “coalition of the willing” for military intervention in Iran.
In Sofia, Issues of the military reform of NATO were discussed, the policy of “open gates”, and the relations of the alliance with Ukraine and Georgia. A military agreement between the USA and Bulgaria was signed which approved the installation of 3 US military bases and access to the pot of Bourgas for at least 10 years. This bilateral agreement came as an addition to the equivalent bilateral agreement between the USA and Romania which was signed on the 6th of December 2005 in Bucharest. The related agreements are bilateral-state level ones but of importance to the other NATO alliance partners.
The increase of NATO forces in Afghanistan from 9,000 which is today to 15,000 in 2006 with the possibility of it reaching 19,000 in 2007 was also decided. The participation of Australia and New Zealand in the operations of NATO was announced officially for the first time at this summit. The General Secretary of NATO claimed that “NATO is becoming an alliance with global partners –such as these two countries- as the threats and challenges are of a global nature”. On the 4th of May the foreign minister of Japan met with the North Atlantic Council in Brussels, and a similar meeting followed with South Korea.
Various reports have suggested that some Latin American States have the possibility of joining NATO either as members or “partners” such as Brazil and Colombia. The Colombian CP made a statement on this issue which was published in Rizospastis.
These are very serious developments in relation to the role of NATO globally and especially in our region.
In the Greek Parliament a vote on a collaboration protocol (protocol of “common understanding”) between Greece and NATO was put forward. It was placed before the permanent committee of the parliament on the 14th of February 2006. New Democracy voted in favour, the other parties against. However, PASOK when in government negotiated, took part in and pushed forward the preparation of this motion. Amongst the various provocative concessions to NATO, the protocol allows for:
- General licence for the movement of Aircraft, Helicopters, Ships during operation without the provision of flight plans etc.
- Gives the NATO military command the right to manage any disagreement in the duration of its operations
- The right even to expropriate private holdings if it serves the NATO operations
- Simplification of the procedures for massive economic support to NATO operations in Greece.
- Compulsory provision of the state machine (police, public services, hospitals) under the general command of the NATO commander.
In addition to this, on 3-4 of May the Balkan Summit was held in Thessalonica. The triumphalist statements which followed from the Greek Government and from the other governments of Balkan States can only cause anxiety for the working class and the peoples of the Balkans.
The achievement of a Unified Balkan Market (free market zone) with the essential infrastructure which will secure the unhindered activity of capital such as the process of the full incorporation of the states in the region into the structures of NATO and EU, means intense exploitation, a further corrosion of rights, new interventions and threat of war.
The overall situation in the Balkans causes concern (Serbia, Montenegro, FYROM, Bosnia-Herzegovina etc), especially the situation in Kosovo where the issue of its independence, based on the imperialist plans, will lead to a further destabilization of the region.
B. Russia – China - India and Imperialist Mechanisms
Amongst the regions concerning the speed of developments are the former USSR and also South East Asia. In 2005 a wave of the so-called “coloured revolutions” had begun such as the “orange” one in Kiev, at the same time a “change of guard” took place in Kyrgyzstan, as well as the bloody and failed attempts at change in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Great importance is given to the region of Central Asia where massive natural wealth is concentrated, and also because this region is in a key position both for Russia and the other large states in the region, foremost China but also India.
In the previous year of 2005, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) which is active in the region, took on certain new characteristics. One of these was is enlargement through the participation of observer-states. So alongside the members of the SCO which are China, Russia, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, the following were proposed as observers: India, Iran and Pakistan. Byelorussia is seriously examining its entrance into the SCO with observer status.
It should be noted that at the summer summit in 2005 no invitation was sent to the USA in spite of the strong interest of the US to influence also this peripheral inter-state cooperation.
An important development related to the SCO is the ultimatum it sent to the US, for the first time, for the withdrawal of American bases from Central Asia. Based on this, Uzbekistan made a more decisive demand to the US to withdraw its base from the airport of Hanabad.
At the same time, it became clear that the SCO itself finds itself at crossroads. There are not a few voices who seek the merger into the united framework of the SCO of a series of regional forms of cooperation that have sprung up in the region in recent years.
It still is not clear how the relations between NATO and the SCO will be shaped, with some analysts already calling it the “Eastern NATO”.
The driving force of these developments appear to be the largest states in the region: Russia, India and China. A possible triumvirate of strategic cooperation of these states, with huge populations and territories would impact on the balance of forces not only in the region but globally.
Both China and India show massive interest in the acquisition of energy from Russia through friendly state-level, commercial and investment agreements. In addition Russia is interested in commercial and productive ventures with India and China in other sectors beyond the energy sector. For example, Russian in Recent years has made huge arms sales to these two states and developed joint initiatives in the fields of nuclear energy, the new technologies, space programmes as well as in other sectors. Only in the border regions China and Russia today cooperate in 1,500 joint commercial ventures.
Last year took place for the first time in history joint military manoeuvres between China and Russia and between Russia and India. Without overestimating this, it should not either be underestimated. More so because the joint Russo-Chinese exercises took place in a period of tense relations between China and the USA, after the incendiary comments of US officers about the “potential danger to the world” of the Chinese Army. New joint military exercises have been decided on a planned for 2007 in Russia.
It is worth underlining that the first time the idea of a Russia-India-China “triumvirate” was heard publicly from Russian lips in 1998, a little before the war in Yugoslavia provoking a cautious reaction from China and India. However, one year later in 1999, immediately after the intervention of NATO in Yugoslavia, the Russian proposal found greater effect in Beijing and Delhi. Today, since US interventions in Afghanistan, Central Asia and the occupation in Iraq have followed, the three states have tasted their weapons together in joint exercises.
The statements of the foreign ministers of these three states that they are not satisfied with a “unipolar” world, by a world with one “boss”, the USA, are telling. Their stance vis-à-vis Iran is a characteristic example of “managing” their opposition to the policy direction of the US. Of course, the USA as well as the other imperialist centres such as the EU, are not simply following these developments, but are active in blocking such an alliance. They intervene with announcements and invitations for Russia and China not to enter the “Great Game” of confrontation with the USA, and to cooperate with the USA in its war against the danger of the “Islamic terrorism”.
In this struggle nearly all of the imperialist forces and involved and work their strategy and tactics.
Recently a “new” interstate regional union wit the title “Community of Democratic Choice” was set up, with the countries of GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Moldova) as well as Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania, Slovenia and FYROM, with the alleged goal of promoting “Democracy” from the Baltic to the Black Sea. Such a union, which understands “Democracy” as defined by the Pentagon, has a clear anti-Russian character.
Certain analysts link the endorsement of the recent anti-communist motion by the Political Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe with an attempt to stigmatize Russia. The states which were incorporated into the EU in its latest enlargement would one day have been able to seek from Russia huge reparations with the excuse that in the past they had been dragged violently in the “Soviet Bloc” under the threat of the “Soviet Military Bear”. It is a deep-rooted manoeuvre; some speak of the long hand of the USA directing certain member-states of the EU, such as the Baltic ones, to block the further strengthening of relations between Russia and the EU, and especially with the Franco-German axis.
At the same time, the USA is especially attempting to use the “carrot” to persuade the three states (Russia – India – China) that they will have greater benefits if they follow a policy of cooperation with the US and not opposition. At the same time they deliberately demonstrate to Russia and India the dangers of closer cooperation with China. This line was expressed by the warning of Brzezinski towards Russia that “competition against the USA is futile, while union with China will mean the subjugation of Russia”.
Clearly the recent nuclear cooperation between the US and India is another piece of the puzzle of US intervention. According to certain analysis, the US has secured their interests with India for many years.
In the recent meeting in Shanghai of the foreign ministers of the member-states of the SCO 15 documents were approved which they will sign at Summit in June 2006 that concern economic-commercial agreements, and the presence of the SCO globally as election observers etc. it was announced that the SCO is interested in developing further cooperation with its observer states such as India, Pakistan and Mongolia.
Alertness is needed to the developments in the SCO. The member states of the SCO are already being called on to face new challenges in the international arena such as the possible intervention of the US in Iran, the developments in Latin America, Africa, in Caucasus, in Central Asia and elsewhere.
C. Africa
It may be that case that the US will remain dominant in Africa, without the appearance of rivals from the other imperialist blocs or some other power on the African continent, however that does not mean that there is an absence of inter-imperialist contradictions and conflicts especially between USA and France, as was apparent in the massacres in Rwanda in 1995, but also more recently on the Congo and West Africa. The fact that inter-imperialist rivalries in Africa does not appear with the same intensity compared with other continents, is possible due –with the exception of North Africa and the republic of South Africa- to the delay of capitalist developments in the continent and the fact that the movements are still quite weak.
Nevertheless the location and the intensification of the exploitation of hundreds of new oil sources and the operations of recent networks of oil sources in the western side of sub-Saharian Africa (towards Atlantic) as well as Central Africa (towards the Red Sea) contribute even more complex geopolitical developments in the wider region.
Given the intense international conflict for the control of new sources of oil and natural gas, the recent conflicts between the rebels and regular army in Chad, in combination with the destabilization of the western Sudanese province of Darfur, not only is linked together with, but makes up some of the most important parts of the geopolitical puzzle. The crisis in Darfur with the attempts of paramilitary Arab groups supported by the government of Sudan against the indigenous communities of the region did not start only 3 years ago. They had been ongoing many years before the USA “discovered” the “genocide” in 2003 after “generalised attack” against the indigenous population in Darfur. 3 years later, the determined efforts of the US and Britain for “international sanctions” against Sudanese officials and rebels continue with their first goal not being “a scaling down” of the violence but the lionshare of the huge resources of oil, copper and other minerals which are found in this Sudanese region.
The other goal of the US and Britain concerns the restrictions of the intense activity of Chinese oil companies in Sudan which took place during the period when the US had labelled Sudan as one of the countries which nurture terrorism and was a part of the “axis of evil”. The attempts of London and Washington for international sanctions and the more active presence of NATO, under the pretext of the increase of UN peacekeepers, combining or replacing the force of 7,000 soldiers of the African Union in Darfur, remain so far unfulfilled. This is because they run into the declared opposition of China and Russia who aim to protect their own energy interests and seek a satisfactory solution for themselves in the marathon negotiations of the African union in Abuja of Nigeria, which according to the latest resolution of the UN Security Council should be concluded by the end of April.
In other words, the Bush Government acts to solve the complications which the experiment of the oil translationals has caused in this region of central Africa, allegedly for the overcoming of the phenomena of corruption and for the rapid improvement of the living standard of the suffering people of a developing country. The goal of this experiment (with the completion of the 1,070 Km Chad- Cameroon oil pipeline in 2003 at the cost of 4,7 billion USD investment) was the exploitation of oil from the oil sources of Central Africa and the unhindered export from the ports of Cameroon to the West Atlantic.
In the middle of May the US Security Council decided unanimously to hasten the deployment of a peace-keeping force in Darfur which at the latest in December 2006 is expected to take up the command of an army of 7,500 troops of the African union which have been sent there.
D. Specifically concerning Iran
With the end of the 30 day deadline which the UN Security Council had given to the IAE to complete a report on Iran’s nuclear programme so that the UN Security Council could discuss and decide on various measures against the government of Iran, negotiations began between the permanent members of the security council and Germany. The US government has been pushing forward this process as it had included Iran in the “Axis of Evil” and at every opportunity expressed its hostility to its government. Bush recently threatened that he did not rule out the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, despite the fact that it has none. Clearly, there have been statements on the part of Iran, such as the one concerning Israel, the Jews and the denial of the holocaust etc which fan the flame.
The negotiations and pressures have intensified between the members of the Security Council. The US is pressing for the activation of chapter 7, to free their hands, to open the way for intervention. Up to this point, Great Britain is supporting the line of the US as well as France and Germany. Russia and China are opposed. The issue is still in development and demands attention. The EU at the summit of foreign ministers concerning Iran formed the position which in reality – despite its declarations about a “diplomatic solution” etc – works as a pressure on Iran and at the same time seeks to strengthen the EU’s role as mediator. One hand it proposed technological support for Iran in the production of nuclear energy for peaceful aims, on the other sanctions against Iran for breaking the international treaty of non proliferation.
For the USA, is of strategic importance the control, as mush ac possible of energy sources and routes in order to preserve its position. It is also logical that the other imperialist powers such as the EU (as a whole and the individual states), or Russia, will seek the safeguarding of their own interests and the strengthening of their position internationally. In reality the crisis with Iran has little or no relations with its nuclear programme. Other states such as Israel and Pakistan possess not only nuclear energy but also nuclear weapons and have never allowed the inspections of their installations. Iran is found in the firing line because of its great geostrategic importance and its energy sources. Its pivotal geographic position puts it at the centre of energy routes which ensure the quickest and cheaper transfer of energy materials from Russia and the Caspian to the countries to the east, eg China, India, Pakistan, Japan, but also to Europe. The USA is especially concerned at the heightened role of China, which has established connections with the energy sources of Iran because of its increasing needs that US seek to restrain. They seek the same in relation to Russia. The aim of the US is the full control of states which either possess energy sources eg Iraq, or constitute energy routes for the transfer of oil and natural gas to India, like Afghanistan.
On 19th of February of 2006, Rizospastis published in full an article of Navid Shomali, from the office of international relations of the Tudeh Party, explaining the position of Tudeh Party of Iran on the issue:
“The majority of Iranian people rightly consider that under international law our nation has the right to develop and utilise nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Technically Iran’s nuclear industry is currently compliant with NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) and IAEA requirements and there is no tangible evidence pointing to activities consistent with the production of nuclear weapons in Iran. This is apart from the suspect and questionable “secret documents”, “files on a stolen laptop computer” and “press briefings” provided mainly by discredited monarchist and other politically bankrupt pro-US groups intent on provoking a US military adventure as their best chance of assuming power in Tehran. The evidence upon which the US is building its case against Iran is as ‘reliable’ as that which supported the presence of WMD in Saddam’s Iraq. The US is artificially creating the conditions for the international isolation of Iran via the UN Security Council. This will provide the Bush administration with an array of options including further political pressure and diplomatic isolation, economic sanctions and the threat of using some form of overt or covert military action. We should add that in the current prevailing conditions in the region, military options are not yet plausible as far as the combined interests of the west are concerned. The key aim of the current game will of course be to shape the future in accordance with US strategic interests.
While the US exaggerates Iran’s nuclear threat, the regime in Tehran is playing a dangerous game of “chicken” and hence providing the Bush administration with the excuses it needs. The democratic opposition in Iran is convinced that the regime’s inflexible stand is not based on protecting Iran’s national interests but rather ensuring its own survival at any cost, allowing it to ignore the democratic demands of the Iranian people on the grounds of an external threat…”
The position of KKE
The international regional organizations which exist today reflect a specific balance of forces for the control of markets of energy, raw materials, sources and routes. They aim at the high control of a large number of states which either do not belong organically to their allied unions or show some resistance, for their own reasons. This is also the nature of the international agreements on nuclear weapons. After all, these agreements did not prevent the US from developing new nuclear weapons, especially in the last 15 years. And from this standpoint it is worth underlining the balancing role the socialist system and the USSR played in the previous decades.
No imperialist power, no international organization has the right to take decisions detrimental to the peoples, to intervene, to decide who is allowed to have and who is not allowed to possess nuclear energy. The preparation of the public opinion is reminiscent of the preparations for the attack on Iraq. The nuclear programme is a pretext, such as “chemical weapons” were the pretext for Iraq.
Every measure, military development, which will have tragic consequences for the peoples of the region and serious consequences for the Greek people must be deterred.
Irrespective of whatever “treaty or other obligations” which exist concerning Greece, in treaties and agreements which the governments of ND and PASOK have in turn signed, these must not be kept, since they contribute and lead to the creation of new wars and the involvement of Greece in then.
The arguments around the advancement of a “diplomatic solution” is a diversion, is imperialist propaganda. The experience of the peoples especially in the last 15 years, confirms that imperialist peace paves the way for imperialist war.
Imperialism in order to defuse its contradictions and check the resistance of the peoples may launch imperialist wars could even resort to the use of nuclear weapons. So the struggle against nuclear weapons, the struggle against war is linked with the struggle against the imperialist system overall.
Our immediate demands are:
- No involvement of Greece in imperialist war against Iran or any other people. The Greek government not to endorse in the Security council any measure or form of pressure
- No to hold any “conventional obligations” which directly or indirectly implicate our country in imperialist adventurisms
- For the base at Suda bay no to be used. To be closed now.
- Return of all Greek troops stationed outside our borders
- Not one soldier to Afghanistan, Iraq, Balkans or elsewhere.
What is needed is the development of mass anti-imperialist struggle in the direction of creating a strong socio-political alliance which will lead to the change in the balance of forces in favour of workers and popular forces, towards popular power, socialism. As long as imperialist exists there cannot be permanent and stable peace.
E. Concerning Cyprus and Turkey
We will not deal in this resolution with these questions in their entirety, but only with issues that come out of the visit of Condoleezza Rice to our region and the meetings with the Greek and Turkish governments.
The position of the USA regarding Turkey is clear: Greece and Cyprus must not block the entry of Turkey into the EU. The Cyprus question was discussed as well as the steps which could happen after the Anan – Papadopoulos meeting. However the US Secretary of State C. Rice made it clear that Greece and Cyprus must make gestures of “good faith”. Meanwhile Cyprus must help with its policies so as to “ease the isolation of Northern Cyprus”!
These interventions provoked the reaction of the Cypriot President Tassos Papadopoulos who in an interview with “Eleftheros Typos” on the 2nd of May 2006 (republished in Rizospastis the next day) stated that the views of the US were known, but the Republic of Cyprus was not inclined to sacrifice its national interests.
In Turkey the US Secretary of State discussed the role of Turkey in the region, taking into account the increase of anti-Americanism but also the decision of the Turkish parliament not to allow the passing of US troops through Turkish soil for the imperialist attack on Iraq in 2003. C. Rice gave assurances that the US would agitate for the smooth entry of Turkey into the EU and the managements of the Cypriot issue with the strengthening of “Northern Cyprus” putting pressure on the Greek and Cypriot governments. It also gave the green light for an attack on the PKK and Kurdish rebels, labelling it as a terrorist organization. It seems that there are many problems created by activity of the Turkish army against the PKK, which wants a free hand to operate in Northern Iraq, but also to attack the operational bases of the Kurds found in the Turkish-Iranian borders in cooperation with the military forces of Iran. This provoked the intense reaction of the current president of Iraq Talabani who is a Kurd and leader of the DKP, which while hostile to the PKK will not accept any military operations by a foreign army which violate the Iraqi borders (statement of Talabani, May 3rd 2006). On the other side, there is a contradiction: how the support of Turkey for US military intervention in Iran be squared with cooperation Turkey has with Iran against the Kurdish rebels.
On the 8th of May, Al Lantzani who is responsible for the national Security of Iran, visited Ankara and had a meeting with the General Secretary of the National Security Council of Turkey, with the Turkish prime minister Tayip Erdogan and foreign minister Abdullah Gul. The visit had been scheduled earlier, but was postponed due to the visit of Rice. It remains unclear what Turkey took and what the US gave, to ensure their cooperation, whether they secured the use of Turkish soil or met with a refusal again.
The US wants to use the Turkish soil for military ground operations against Iran, because the borders between the two countries are extended and would make their intervention easier. The US would find itself in advantageous position for a military ground operation against Iran. The operations could be coordinated from 3 directions: from Turkey, Iraq and Afghanistan. There are also the territories of the Arab countries in the Persian Gulf. The bases which exist in Greece, Cyprus and Turkey are important facts for the military effectiveness of US war machine in the air and sea. A block on the use of these bases would significantly affect the military operations.
The issue of the Iran crisis may well be a crucial question in Turkish political developments in the next period. The Central Committee is concerned with the latest manifestations of Turkey’s provocativeness on the occasion of the research operations of the oceanographic boat in the Aegean. The stance of Turkey shows that it continually repeats its positions concerning the Aegean Sea in an aggressive manner, considering that areas of the Aegean have “an unclear status” and for this demands a “shared management”. It is clear that the operation of a de facto partition of the Aegean is in full development, a process that began many years ago under the guidance of the US and NATO. Of course, all these issues are known which in themselves do not seem that they will lead to a further increase of tension or serious, crisis since the bourgeois classes of Greece and Turkey seek cooperation for the freeing-up of the markets. However, if we put the various provocative activities and episodes in the Aegean in a more general frame and in conjunction with the increasing contradictions, they implicate potential dangers that cause justified concern to the peoples. In addition, it cannot escape attention that, with every opportunity and means, questions of minorities are stirred up in the region.
The CC of KKE will intensify its vigilance and attention on these developments, in parallel with initiatives promoting joint action, solidarity and friendship between the people of Greece and Turkey and all the peoples of the region.
Z. Palestine The developments confirm the assessments and preoccupations of our Party concerning the advancement of the imperialist plan for the wider Middle East, presented as plan of “democratizing the Arab regimes”. They opened they way for new threats for the peoples and peace, and prelude new military interventions, inflammation of civil wars, provocations and exploitation of tensions and conflicts. It is about a divisive policy in order to facilitate the predominance of the hegemony of US and leading EU powers.
The elections result in Palestine reflect to an extend the unrest of the Palestinian people that the so-called peaceful solution of the Palestinian problem and the creation of a new Palestinian state would be very far from their expectations and rights. They have the experience of Oslo and of the “Road Map”. Hamas succeeded at this point to express the mood of the people for some substantial resistance. This does not mean at all that Hamas can take on real resistance to the imperialist pressures.
In addition, the role played by the increasing corruption over the years n the machine of the Palestinian authority (whose officers are overwhelmingly high-ranking officials of Fattah) and the clear weakness –especially in recent months- of the fragmented security forces (also led by Fattah) to secure order between the various armed groups, who no one can say accurately what character they have. These were generally speaking the basic criteria which the Palestinian voters took into consideration.
The vote on the 25th of January was more a protest vote against Fattah rather a vote of approval of the political positions of Hamas.
Hamas in its election campaign stressed mainly its charitable and social activity. Actually its activity, supported by the donations of Islamic institutions, has taken on the form of welfare policies, which in practice is a substitute for the non-existent welfare policy of the Palestinian Authority. In parallel, Hamas stressed its ability to control directly and totally its entire military forces so that law and order could be guaranteed in contrast with the chaos and lawlessness which it seemed Fattah was unable to combat.
One of the many evidences which show the clearest the dead-end of the Oslo agreement is the fact that the Palestinian Authority is a structure which exists as such only bases on the Oslo agreements. An agreement which left it up to the goodwill of the various Israeli governments any concession they would made, given that the clear and non-negotiable resolutions of the UN demanding the unconditional end of occupation were put aside.
Hamas, as well as certain other organizations, had rejected this agreements. Today however the Islamic organization is being called on to take up the governance under a form of an administration which results only from this agreement. Is should not be forgotten that despite whatever statements are made, there exists no really free piece of Palestinian land given the control that Israel maintains directly or indirectly (eg the case of the Gaza strip after the withdrawal). Hamas finds itself in a series of contradictions which it inherited from the impasses of Oslo and later on were repeated in the even worse form of the “road map” that negates even the most limited obligations on the Israeli side and puts only demands on the Palestinians.
If all these are taken into consideration, as well as the economic debt, in which the Palestinian territories are engulfed, it is likely that there will be very serious developments in the next months. It is not certain that the donors of Hamas will cover the huge operational costs of the Palestinian Authority, which today is covered by hundreds of millions of euros from the EU and tens of millions of dollars from the US. For this reason the US-EU (followed by Israel) are pressing this very vulnerable spot in order to bully out of Hamas the submission they desire.
Taking int account all these factors is becomes clear that the situation which was created in the Palestinian territories after the election of Hamas leads the whole region into a very turbulent and uncertain period, as no one can predict what stance Hamas will take in its new role. Already the deterioration of the situation and the outbreak of civil war between Hamas and Fattah made the developments more worrying. The essence of the Palestinian problem is being highlighted once more. It cannot be tracked except by unconditional application of the UN resolutions and the creation of an independent, viable Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.
The latest developments highlight once more that the need has risen for political forces which will lead a popular revolutionary movement promoting a comprehensive and real alternative both against the Israeli occupation and the imperialist intervention, as well as against capitalist exploitation to gain a foothold in the Palestinian political scene.
4. The Tasks of the KKE The Central Committee decided: 1. To publish its resolution
2. The Party organizations and the organizations of KNE must have a continuous programme of action with friends, supporters and other allies. To inform, to mobilize, to develop initiatives and organize an ideological front against the bourgeois parties and opportunism. To take measures for the strengthening of the anti-imperialist peace movement. The basic duty is the further strengthening of the Party and KNE, the projection of a mass popular answer against wars
3. To support in following period the activities of the popular mass movement, trade unions, of the anti-imperialist peace movement
4. A stream of articles and broadcasts based on the issued which the decision deals with. The strengthening of the ideological-political front against pro-imperialist propaganda which is reproduces in run-up to every war:
- “Diplomatic solutions” or “peaceful resolution of differences” or “imperialist peace” as an antidote to imperialist war, the treating of victim and persecutor as “equals”.
- The criminalization of the right – duty of the peoples to resist using all forms of struggle available.
At the centre of the ideological struggle will be:
- The highlighting of the anti-imperialist struggle as a struggle single and inseparable to the class struggle
- The defence of the right of every people, every country to define itself the path of development it will follow
5. To advance the joint activities of the Communist Parties of the region, the Balkans, the Middle East, Europe and International. A positive example was the joint statement on the 28th of April by the 4 communist parties: KKE, CP of Turkey, Bulgarian CP “Georgi Dimitrov” and CP of Bulgaria concerning the Sofia NATO summit and the visit of Condoleezza Rice. The immediate activation of the Balkan Anti-NATO Center in Thessalonica, and other activities elaborated by the international department of the CC as well as by KNE
The Central Committee of KKEMay 19, 2006
e-mail:cpg@int.kke.gr