 |  |  |
| Return to: Left History: a digital archive | Return to: Say no to imperialist wars! | Return to: NATO-Yugoslav War Internet Resources |
| | |
| Return to: Left History: a digital archive | Return to: Say no to imperialist wars! | Return to: NATO-Yugoslav War Internet Resources |
The downtrend in the stock market accelerated in October and by mid-month was down 10 percent from its peak. In Autumn 1987, the drop reached 30 percent, but the overall economy then was little affected because the factors making for economic growth remained strong.
The current situation is different: the decline in personal savings to a net negative; over indebtedness of consumers and businesses; sharp increases in prices of basic commodities; and a threatening revival of inflation - e.g., the 1 percent hike in the producer price index in October.
The world financial crisis has worsened, setting a stage for potential revolutionary struggles in Indonesia while the Malaysian government, under mass pressure, defied the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank demands. It has provided the economic background for the military coup in Pakistan.
In Latin America, the economic crisis has worsened, critically, in Colombia - where the U.S. has annually doubled funding to defeat the ongoing revolution - and in Ecuador.
The most reactionary forces in Washington are determined to overcome all obstacles with higher military expenditures and activities, as obtained under Reagan in the 1980s. Perhaps they will succeed, but the negative features are much sharper now and the possible increase in military spending, generous as it is, is relatively weaker.
The House has approved a record $278 billion military spending bill - $17 billion more than in fiscal 1999. President Clinton recommends an increase of $12.5 billion, and if past experience is a guide, the settlement will be a compromise between the two figures. While the amount of the increase is not great relative to the gross national product, almost all of it will come out of already underfunded civilian programs - a classic case of "guns not butter" - so its countervailing effect may not be very great. The possibility of a crisis of overproduction, however, has significantly increased.
The intensity and direction of military development, aside from its economic aspects, is alarming to all who fear a nuclear Armageddon. Consider the featured article in the Oct. 15 Wall Street Journal by Carla Anne Robbins. She - and presumably other correspondents - was invited aboard the U.S.S. Wyoming, one of 18 Trident submarines, each with 192 nuclear warheads. This is the core of U.S. strategic war-threatening power.
The Wyoming is fearsome: 560 feet long, it is the length of one-and-a-half football fields and four stories tall. It can move silently and can cover the world's oceans, a range presumably better than that of Russian submarines, which in any case are kept close to home base by financial impoverishment of the country.
The WSJ asks, who is the target of the subs and other weapons in the U.S. arsenal? The response: "For the nation's nuclear planners, the primary threat remains Russia � According to Edward Warner, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Threat Reduction, 'Russia's future is quite uncertain. Russia itself maintains thousands of nuclear weapons.'"
According to the article, opposition to arms control in general and to Russia specifically were behind the right-wing decision to vote down the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Implied is a fear of a fresh revolution and the reconstitution of the Soviet Union.
The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty prohibits development of weapons systems to cut off incoming nuclear weapons. The U.S. has been trying for many years to develop such missiles.
Now Washington has offered a deal to Russians: if they will agree to two additional U.S. anti-ballistic missile radar sites those we already have, the U.S. will help them complete two Russian radar sites. But there is a clinker in that offer: all missiles on U.S. sites are aimed at Russia. The U.S. will aim the Russian missiles at China and North Korea - not at the United States.
How could the Russians accept such a deal? Given the weakness and corruption of the Yeltsin gang, it's conceivable. Let's review comments at the recent Oct. 14 Clinton press conference.
A correspondent asked Clinton: "Do you feel that we agree with the policy that we send armed soldiers to other [countries] when they are having an armed conflict someplace?"
Clinton's reply: "Yes, but the safer we make the world the less likely we are to send people there."
What an amazing affirmation of the U.S. imperialist aim of world domination!